Gods Love to Man and Mans Duty Towards God, Part 2 · Section 17 – Section 18

Gods Love to Man and Mans Duty Towards God · Part 2 · Section 17 – Section 18

p. 365Acts 2.39.

The Promiſe is unto you, and to your Children.

Sect. 17. PROP. XVII. Beſides thoſe perſonal Benefits and Advantages accruing to men in Covenant, there is this comfortable priviledge alſo concerning their Seed, that they are involved and taken into Covenant together with the Parents. As this is the Tenour of the Covenant, I will be thy God, and the God of thy Seed.

NOw to clear this, obſerve,

1. This hath been Gods Way and Manner all along, when he hath taken Parents into Covenant, to take in their ſeed with them. You ſhall not find, that ever heretofore God entred into Covenant with thoſe that were Parents, ſingly by themſelves, excluding their ſeed.

The Covenant of Works was made with Adam for himſelf and his Poſterity, I ſuppoſe that will be readily granted. And when the Covenant of works was broken on mans part, that there was no poſſibility of attaining Happineſs that way, God made another Covenant with our firſt Parents, promiſing Salvation by the Seed of the Woman, that is, p. 366Jeſus Chriſt, who was to be born of a Virgin, which was the firſt Edition of the Covenant of Grace, as I ſhewed before.

And here the ſeed of Adam were not excluded, but included; till ſuch time as any of them cut off themſelves from Gods Covenant by their own Act and Deed. Who are we to underſtand by the Sons of God, ſpoken of Gen. 6.2. but the ſeed of godly Parents, ſuch as were deſcended from Seth, Enoch, &c. who are called the Sons of God, not meerly as they were his Creatures? for ſo they ſhould not have been oppoſed to the Daughters of men, as there they are. Have not all one Father? Hath not one God created us? Mal. 2.10. Nor are they called the Sons of God, as being regenerated, and made new Creatures: For no ſuch thing appears in the Context, but rather the contrary. But they are called the Sons of God as the Iſraelites are called the children of the Lord their God, Deut. 14.1. being within the Church, and in Covenant-relation to God. Vid Aynſworth.As by the Daughters of men there, are underſtood ſuch as were of wicked Cains curſed poſterity, ſuch as were without the Church.

Again, when God took Abraham into Covenant, his Seed were taken in with him.

This is evident, Gen. 17.7. ſo God owneth the Children of the Jews for his Children, his Sons and Daughters, Deut. 32.19. with Ezek. 16.20. Yea, obſerve, the Church in Abrahams Family conſiſted moſt of ſtrangers, yet their children muſt all be circumciſed, even ſuch as (in the opinion of our Oppoſites) were to have no Lot or part in the Land of Canaan, Gen. 17.12, 13. So the children of Proſelytes, p. 367that joyned themſelves to the Church oſ…e Jews, were taken into Covenant with their Pa…ents.

Thus it was from the Beginning, that Children …ere taken into Covenant with their Parents. And why ſhould it ſeem ſtrange to any, that they ſhould be taken in now?

(1) I would know of any man, if Children …ere capable of being taken into the Covenant of …urks with Adam, what makes them uncapable of …eing taken into a Covenant of Grave with their Parents now? And if children are capable of deriving Original corruption from their Parents, together with thoſe manifold miſeries that attend it, why …re they uncapable of Covenant-priviledges, to be …onveyed from Parents, taken into a Covenant of Grace? May we think, God's Juſtice is more con…cuous in the Covenant of Works, than his Grace …s in the Covenant of Grace.

(2) If the Covenant made with Abraham, and …he Covenant made with the people of Iſraeel, was …he ſame for ſubſtance with the Goſpel-Covenant, …d the ſeed then was taken in with their Pa…nts, what ſhould exclude the ſeed of Believers …ow?

(3) Why ſhould it ſeem ſtrange, that God accept…th the Act of the Parent to enter his child into Covenant, for the Act of the child, ſo long as the …ild is at its Parents diſpoſe, and the Parent can…ot truly and heartily devote himſelf to God, and is ſervice, without being willing to devote all that … his to Gods ſervice? Why ſhould it ſeem ſtrange, …hat here God accepteth the will of the Parent for …he will of the child, till it comes by its own will p. 368to croſs and revoke what the Parent had done for it?

And here methinks, no Anabaptiſt, but if he be ſerious, inſtead of oppoſing our Doctrine of childrens Interest in the Covenant with Parents, ſo hotly and earneſtly as they are wont, ſhould ſo far encline to it, as to wiſh it true, and be willing to hear all that may be brought to prove it, and deſire to ſee it cleared, both for their own comfort, and their childrens benefit. What a ſtrange thing it were, if a godly man ſhould not deſire, and account it a great priviledge, to have his children in Covenant-relation to God? and that one who hath truely devoted himſelf to God, ſhould not deſire by all means poſſible to engage his to God too?

Now what is already ſaid, maketh it at leaſt probable, that children are taken into Covenant with their Parents ſtill; they were taken in of Old, and the Covenants are the ſame for ſubſtance, and childrens capacity the ſame, that except God bear leſs reſpect to his People and their ſeed now, than heretofore, they have the ſame priviledge of being in Covenant together with their Parents, as heretofore.

Indeed what was noted before of Proſelytes and their ſeed being taken within the Covenant, proves it was not any ſpecialty, peculiarly belonging to Abrahams Natural ſeed. Yea, was it not a figure of, or a Praeludium unto the calling of the Gentiles. A fore-runner of that which is foretold, Iſa. 49.22. I will lift mine hand to the Gentiles, and ſet up my ſtandard to the People, and they ſhall bring thy Sons in their Arms, and their Daughters ſhall be carryed upon their ſhoulders.

p. 3692. Whereas our Oppoſites cannot deny, but children were in Covenant together with their Parents under the former diſpenſation, they can never prove Children excluded from the Covenant now under the Goſpel. And as Dr. Stilling fleet well noteth, If it had been Chriſts intention to exclude Infants, Account of the Grounds of the Proteſtant Religion, p. 108.there had been far greater reaſon for an expreſs prohibition, than of an expreſs command, if his intention were to admit them; becauſe this was ſuitable to the general Grounds of Gods diſpenſation among them before. And ſo Mr. Baxter: In one of his Epiſtles to his Book for Infant Baptiſm.If Chriſt had revoked Infants, Churchmemberſhip, (and Intereſt in the Covenant together with their Parents) whether is it poſſible, that no word in Scripture ſhould once mention it? nor one Apoſtle either queſtion or diſcover it? or that the Jews, 1. Who were in preſent poſſeſſion of it, 2. And were ſo hainouſly offended at the Non-circumciſing of their Infants, Acts 21.21. would not once open their mouths to object againſt the total unchurching of them, which were … an hundred times more? that neither the believing Jews ſhould once ſcruple it, nor the unbelieving charge it on Chriſt, nor the Council, Act. 15. reveal it, even when thoſe that taught Circumciſion, did take it for granted, that Infants were Church-members, or elſe they could not have ſaid they muſt be circumciſed. Is there a poſſibility of all this, if the Scripture be perfect?

p. 370The Anabaptiſts uſe to demand of us expreſſe Scripture for the Right of Infants; but we have more reaſon to demand of them plain Scripture, excluding them from the Covenant, and denying their ancient priviledge of Church-memberſhip. And had Children been cut off from that their ancient priviledge, it muſt needs have been one of the grand Queſtions in the Apoſtles dayes, and ſo would have been as cleerly decided, as that Queſtion about Circumciſion, Acts 15. But obſerve this, when it is plain and undenyable, that Infants were taken into Covenant, and Church-members, if their Parents were in Covenant; they that would deny Infants this priviledge now, ought to bring as plain proof of Gods reſcinding and revoking this priviledge of theirs, as we can bring of his granting it: which they have never yet done. Before any dare to affirm, God hath reſcinded this ancient priviledge, they ought ſeriouſly to conſider, how they can prove it, that they be not found falſe witneſſes of God, as the Apoſtle ſpeaks in another caſe.

3. We are able ſufficiently to prove that the Goſpel ſtill ſuppoſeth Children to be in Covenant together with their Parents. What ſay you? will you be ſatisfied, if we can produce as clear Scripture-proof for Infants being ſtill in Covenant, as Chriſt himſelf produced for the Reſurrection Matth. 22.32. Then I doubt not but you ſhall b… ſatisfied.

(1.) That Text, Act. 2.39. if there were n… more, ſhould ſatisfie you, [For the Promiſe is unto you and to your Children, and to all that are afa… off, even as many as the Lord our God ſhall call. Theſe words are brought in by the Apoſtle, as p. 371…tive to perſwade his hearers to repent of their …reat ſin in crucifying Chriſt, to own him as the …romiſed Meſſiah, and to ſubmit to the Goſpel…y, ſhewing that neither they nor theirs ſhould … looſers by it. That whereas they had impreca…d Gods Curſe on themſelves and their children, Matth. 27.25. and were now in danger to be caſt …, yet coming in upon the Goſpel-call, they ſhould …ave the Promiſe ſtill continued to them and theirs. That is, as with reſpect to Chriſt, God had promi… to be the God of Abraham, and of his ſeed, …d that in Chriſt, who was to come of Abraham's …d, all the Families of the Earth ſhould be bleſſed, Acts 3.25.) this ancient and famous promiſe ſhould … hold good to them, as it was now alſo to be ex…ded to the Gentile Nations with them.

Some would have [The Promiſe to you and to … Children] to referre unto that, Gen. 17.7. …ere God promiſed to be a God unto Abraham, … to his ſeed. Others underſtand that Promiſe, … 12.3. & 22. v. 18. mentioned Act. 3.25. In … ſeed ſhall all the Kindreds, or Families of the …th be bleſſed. But indeed both theſe come to …. It was in that ſeed (in whom the Nations, Kin…ds and Families of the Earth were to be bleſſed) …t is, in Chriſt, and with reſpect unto Chriſt, that …d promiſed to be a God unto Abraham, and to ſeed. So the Covenant with Abraham (as the …poſtle ſaith, Gal. 3.17.) was confirmed of God in …riſt.

Again, the bleſſing of the Nations, Kindreds, and …milies of the Earth in Abrahams ſeed, that is, in …riſt, was taking them into Covenant, (that God …s their God, and the God of their ſeed) the p. 372ſame Covenant for ſubſtance with that made wit… Abraham. As the bleſſing of Abraham came upo… the Gentiles through Jeſus Chriſt, Gal. 3.14. Tha… God is our God, and the God of our ſeed, as h… before promiſed unto Abraham.

So that this is the plain meaning of the Apoſtle The Promiſe is to you and your Children, if you d… not cut off your ſelves by ſtanding out againſt Chriſ… and not to you Jews only, but to the Gentiles, t… all that are afar off, as many of them as the Lo… ſhall call, to them, and their Children. And taking th… words thus, you may ſee the harmony of the Scri… tures, and how the Families of the Earth are bleſſed … Chriſt; how Believers under the Goſpel are bleſſe… with Faithfull Abraham; how the bleſſing prom… ſed to Abraham, [I will be a God to thee and … thy ſeed,] is come upon the Gentiles; and ho… Abraham was made the Father of many Nation… He was the Father of many Nations, in that ſen… relating to the Covenant, wherein he was the F… ther of the Jewiſh Nation: That as all the Natu… ſeed of Abraham, his ſeed by propagation, till th… wilfully forſook and rejected the Covenant, w… included in it, they and their Children; ſo the … ritual ſeed of Abraham, his ſeed by proportion, … called Gentiles, were priviledged, as his natu… ſeed, being taken into the Covenant, they and th… Children.

Exception 1. It is not ſaid, The Promiſe is to y… and to your Infants, but to you, and to your C… dren, which might be of grown years.

Anſw. When God promiſed to Abraham, I be a God to thee and to thy ſeed, this took in Infa… though they were not named: So, The Promiſ… p. 373… you, and to your Children, muſt compriſe Infants. None will deny, but Infants are Children; though …ll Children be not Infants.

Exception 2. Some by the Promiſe here, under…and that, Joel 2.28. recited in this Chapter, Act. … 17. And to ſtrengthen this Interpretation, they …rge the foregoing words, v. 38. Repent and be …ptized— and ye ſhall receive the Holy Ghoſt. For … promiſe is to you, and to your children—

Anſw. 1. This Interpretation is quite overthrown …y the following words, [For the Promiſe is to …ou, and to your Children, and to all that are afar …, even to as many as the Lord our God ſhall …ll.] Now that Promiſe in Joel 2. is not made to that are called. Have all the Spirit of Prophecy? …ave all the gift of Tongues?

2. Neither hath Baptiſm reference to the confer…ng of extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghoſt, …ough theſe followed the Baptiſm of ſome in the …imitive times, for a ſpecial reaſon: but it hath …ation to the Covenant made with all that are called, … the Seal of it.

Except. 3. Some turn the words thus, The pro…ſe is to you, and to your Children, that is, ſuch of …em as the Lord ſhall call.

Anſw. 1. Then theſe words [and to your children] …e plainly ſuperfluous. Unleſs they grant Chil…ren to be called in their Parents call, there ſhould …no more promiſed to their children here, than to … the men that were, or ſhould be in the world.

2. We cannot think, the Apoſtle would ſpeak …llaciouſly, with a mind to delude his Hearers. How theſe his Hearers knew, that their Children …ver till now, at leaſt, were accounted Children of the p. 374Promiſes, and within the Covenant. And when the Apoſtle affirmeth the Promiſe to be made to them, and to their children, how ſhould they underſtand him otherwiſe, than as aſſerting their ancient priviledge in reference to their ſeed?

3. Taking the words otherwiſe, inſtead of being a motive, they would rather have been a diſſwaſive; a Diſcouragement, inſtead of being an Encouragement to their ſubmitting to the Goſpeldiſpenſation. It had been a better Argument to have kept them in the Synagogue, than to have called them to the Chriſtian Church, Of Baptiſm, p. 49.as Dr. Jer. Taylor. What could have been more likely to prejudice the Jews againſt the Goſpel, than to rank and put their Children into the ſtate with the Children of Heathens and Idolaters.

4. foreign, as many as the Lord our God ſhall call] cannot referre to Children, foreign. They are not of the ſame gender. This is ad homines, as they will not allow foreign them, to referre to the word foreign, Nations, Matth. 28.19. becauſe they differ in gender. Though indeed we can produce clear inſtances in Scripture of the ſame codſtruction. See Rev. 2.26, 27. & 19.15. & Act. 26.17.

(2) Childrens Intereſt in the Covenant and Church-memberſhip, may be proved by a ſeries of Texts, Rom. 11. v. 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24.

Methinks theſe things are very plain,

1. That the Apoſtle ſpeaks there of a breaking off from, and of being graffed into the viſible Church. For, 1. There is no breaking from the inviſible Church. If a member of the inviſible Church may p. 375be broken off, then a true Believer may fall away from Grace. 2. The breaking off here mentioned, was from that Church, of which the unbelieving Jews were natural branches, v. 24. Now they were natural branches of the Viſible, not of the Inviſible Church. 3. That Church into which the Community of the Gentile-profeſſors were graffed (in the the room of the Jews that were broken off,) was the Viſible Church; for many of them were not members of the Inviſible Church. They that were moſt apt to boaſt againſt the natural branches, and were in danger of being cut off, as well as the natural branches, v. 18, 21. were no better than Fornaliſts, and out-ſide Chriſtians, who had onelyonly a ſtanding in the Viſible Church.

2. Not all, but ſome of the Jews onelyonly were broken off, v. 17. And if but ſome of the Jews were broken off, then ſome of them remained branches of the Olive ſtill.

3. They that were broken off, were broken off, they and their ſeed, from the Church, and from the Covenant: They that were not broken off, continued, they and their ſeed, within the Church, within the Covenant. For,

4. None were broken off, but becauſe of Unbelief, v. 20. ſcil. their own, or their Parents. Therefore the Infants of the believing Jews were not broken off. They could not be broken off becauſe of their Parents unbelief, when their Parents were Believers; nor for their own unbelief, when they were not capable of rejecting Chriſt and the Goſpel, in their own perſons. How could thoſe Children which were within the Church, and Covenant, before their Parents embraced the Goſpel, be caſt p. 376out, and cut off before they came actually to reject Chriſt and the Goſpel. If the Children of the believing Jews were not continued in the Olivetree with their Parents, to partake of the root and fatneſs thereof, then it will follow, that they were in the ſame ſtate with thoſe broken off. Now how ſtrange is it, that they who were once in Covenant, and within the Church, received for their Fathers ſakes, ſhould be caſt out again, without any fault of their own, or their Parents? would God revoke ſuch a priviledge granted his people for their ſeed, unprovoked?

5. That Unbelief which brake off many of the Jews, was not barely the privation of true, ſaving, juſtifying Faith; but a poſitive, open, wilfull rejection of Chriſt and the Goſpel. Which is plain thus, viz. Becauſe divers who were not broken off were unbelievers in that firſt ſence.

6. VVhat State and Priviledges the unbelieving Jews were broken off from, unto that ſtate, and to thoſe Priviledges, the main body of that People were again to be reſtored, v. 23, 24, 25, 26. The Apoſtle teacheth, they were to be graffed again into their own Olive-tree. Now if their Children were not to be taken in with them, it would not be their own Olive, they were graffed in; but a Church of a quite different conſtitution, from what it was before the breaking off.

7. If the Children of the Jews that kept their place in the Church, and of them that were afterwards to be taken in, muſt be looked on, as in an oppoſite ſtate to that of the off-broken branches; we muſt ſay the ſame of the children of the Gentile proſeſſors. The believing Gentiles are graffed p. 377into that ſtate from whence the unbelieving Jews were broken, ver. 17.24. And there is now no Partition-wall; but Jew and Greek, are all one in Chriſt Jeſus, Gal. 3.28. The Jews have no priviledge now above the Gentiles. And beſides, this was not the ſole priviledge of the Jews before, but of any of the Gentiles as well, that became Proſelytes, if they were Proſelytes of the Covenant; their Children were taken into the Church, and into the Covenant.

Object. 1. If the believing Gentiles were graffed into the ſame Viſible Church with the Jews, then they were to be Circumciſed, as the Jews.

Anſw. It follows not. 1. As one ſayes, The Houſe may be the ſame it was, though there be a new Door, or Porch to it. We muſt diſtinguiſh betwixt the Eſſentials, and the Accidentals of the Church.

Abrahams Family was a Church before Circumciſion, and Circumciſion did not change the Species of it.

2. If there was any ſtrength in this Objection, …t would follow, that the Jews could not be graffed …nto their own Olive-tree again, but they muſt be Circumciſed. See here, who they are, that would …ring in Judaiſm.

Object. 2. The Gentiles are ſaid to be graffed in way contrary to Nature, into the Olive-tree, ver. …4. But your way would make them as the Na…ral branches.

Anſw. They were wild before their Ingraffing, …ot after; but being Engraffed, then they come to …ave the priviledge of the Natural branches. What …he Apoſtle ſaith, [If thou wert cut out of the Olive-tree, p. 378which is wilde by Nature; and wert graffed contrary to Nature, into a good Olive-tree.] Is to be underſtood of thoſe Gentiles, who were called out of Paganiſm, Heatheniſm, whoſe immediate Parents were without the Church, ſtrangers to the Covenant. But theſe being graffed into the good Olive-tree, their Children are buds, or Sprouts of the ſame Olive; as well as the Children of the Jews, the Natural branches, were. And yet we acknowledge it a great Favour of God towards ſuch Children, that they are deſcended of Parents, that are within Gods Covenant, and ſo comprehended in the Covenant with their Parents.

3. Another Text plain, and full for my preſent purpoſe, is that, 1 Cor. 7.14. Elſe were your children unclean; but now they are holy.. This is a third Scripture I produce for Childrens Intereſt in the Covenant with the Parents: In the mouth of two or three witneſſes, the truth of what I laſt laid down, ſhall be eſtabliſhed. Theſe words are brought to remove a Scruple, which it ſeems troubled the minds of ſome of the believing Corinthians, ſcil. whereas ſome of them had unbelieving Yoke-follows, the doubt was, whether living with ſuch were not a defiling of Conſcience, a thing unlawful; whether the Infidel Husband ſhould not be deſerted; and the wife remaining a Pagan, or Infidel, ſhould not be put away? Which the Apoſtle reſolveth in the Negative, that they ſhould not refuſe Cohabitation, and Society with their unbelieving Yoke-fellows, ver. 12, 13. For the unbelieving Husband is ſanctified by, in, or to the believing Wife: Elſe were your children unclean, but now they are holy, ver. 14. Here note, 1. That by the p. 379Wife, by, in, or to whom the unbelieving Husband is ſanctified, we are to underſtand the believing Wife; and by the Husband, by whom, or in, or to whom, the unbelieving wife is ſanctified; we are to underſtand the believing Huſband. For, 1. It is ſuch a Wife as is oppoſed to an unbelieving Huſband. And otherwiſe it had been enough to ſay, Only the Husband is ſanctified by, or in the wife, and the wife is ſanctified by, or in the Husband. And the Term, or Epithite [Ʋnbelieving] would be ſuperfluous in both places. But it is too great boldneſs for any to ſay, the Apoſtle adds this word Superfluouſly. 2. The ſame parties are called, a Brother, a Siſter, ver. 15. Again, 3. When the Apoſtle ſayes, ver. 16. What knoweſt thou, O wife, whether thou ſhalt ſave thy Huſband? Or how knoweſt thou, O man, whether thou ſhalt ſave thy wife? It is only the believing wife, or Husband, that he would put in ſome hopes of gaining their unbelieving Yoke-fellows. 4. The Apoſtle would not ſay, that the unbelieving Husband is ſanctified by, or to the believing wife, or by, or to the wife, though an unbeliever. He affirmeth the contrary, Tit. 1.15. To the unbelieving nothing is pure, or ſanctified. If nothing be ſanctified to them, then no Relation is ſanctified.

2. That when he ſpeaks of their Children being holy, he ſpeaks of Believers Children, as ſuch. To call the Children of Pagans, and Infidels, holy, is a ſtrange, uncouth ſpeech; and ſuch as the Scripture is not acquainted with. But that the Children of Gods People are an holy Seed, this the Scripture owneth, Ezr. 9.2.

3. Therefore when he calleth their Children holy, p. 380he muſt neceſſarily mean more than Legitimate.

For, 1. The Children of Infidels, if begotten in lawful wedlock were Legitimate, as well as theirs. But what the Apoſtle ſayes here, he ſaith only of a believers Children, not of the Children of Pagans, and Infidels. Here the Apoſtle ſuppoſeth, or granteth, that if one of the Parents had not been a believer, and ſo the other Parent ſanctified (by virtue of the Covenant) in, or to him, then the Children indeed had been unclean, not holy.

2. They that take [holy] for Legitimate, muſt take the word [ſanctified] for made lawful; in the foregoing clauſes. But they will never find the word [ſanctified] uſed only for that which is lawful. Beſides, ſo the Apoſtle ſhould argue weakly, that it is lawful for the believer to live with the unbelieving Yoke-fellow, becauſe it is lawful. Again, this of the unbelieving Husband being ſanctified by, or to the believing VVife; they that are not minded to wrangle, may ſee plainly is made an Effect, or conſequent of her being a believer; but that which was not lawful before, cannot be made lawful by ones believing: Or if it was lawful before, then it is not ones believing that made it ſo.

3. Taking [holy] for Legitimate, the Apoſtle ſhould go about to prove Ignotum per ignotius: To clear one thing doubted of, he ſhould bring in another; which might poſſibly be more doubted of: Which is going about indeed. Might not one of theſe believers have leſs doubt, whether ſuch an Infidel was his wife, than whether the Children were indeed his children? The Apoſtle argues here as from an acknowledged Principle, that they were well p. 381ſatisfied of; that their Children were not to be accounted unclean, but holy. Now would any man think the Apoſtle ſo weak, to go about to prove, that ſuch a Couple were lawful man and wife, becauſe their Children were Legitimate. Or that the Corinthians were ſo ſenſeleſs, as to doubt whether they lived not in Fornication, while they lived with their unbelieving Yoke-fellows; and yet to have no doubt, but that the Iſſue they had by them was Legitimate.

4. We ſhall never find the word [holy] uſed for Legitimate. Then is not that likely to be a private Interpretation, that takes it ſo here? And is it to be imagined, that when the Apoſtle is writing to ſatisfie ſcrupulous Conſciences, he would uſe a word in that ſence, they were none of them likely to underſtand; as being never uſed, and taken in ſuch a ſence before, and that without any thing to explain it?

5. Taking the word [Holy] for Legitimate, it would follow, that the Apoſtle is beſides the Queſtion, and does not ſpeak to the Corinthians ſcruple. Have not they a ſtrong fancy, who can conceit ſuch a thing, that diverſe of the Corinthians, becauſe their Yoke-fellows remained Infidels, were afraid, if they Lived with them ſtill, they ſhould be guilty of the ſin of Fornication, and defile their bodies? But we have no ground to think this troubled them, as if they feared, this were to be diſhoneſt: No, Marriage is honourable among all, Heb. 13.4. And yet though Marrirge be lawful in it ſelf, they might ſcruple notwithſtanding, whether to live in ſociety with ſuch as were Idolaters, and open Enemies to God, and Jeſus Chriſt; might not be Irreligious, and p. 382a defiling of their Conſciences. Now this being their ſcruple, not the other, What ſatisfaction could it be, to tell them, that their Marriage was lawful on a civil account, ſo that their Children were Legitimate, not Baſtards? Notwithſtanding that, they might fear Spiritual defilement in it.

Lay all theſe particulars together, and I hope, when the Apoſtle ſays of theſe believers Children, that they were holy, you will be ſatisfied; he muſt mean ſomething more, than that they were not Baſtards.

4. And therefore how can we underſtand it, but that they are holy in relation to God, holy as ſeparated to God. Holy, by virtue of his Covenant with the believer, I will be thy God, and the God of thy Seed. So if but one of the Parents be within the Covenant, it takes in the Seed with him: Till the oppoſite party can find out ſome other ſence, and make it out to be the ſence, this muſt ſtand.

All muſt grant, that the general uſe of the word [holy] is for a thing or perſon ſeperated to God. Which Mr. Baxter, Of Infant Bapt. p. 81.clearly and fully diſtinguiſheth thus: 1. A Thing or Perſon may be Holy, or ſeperated to God, either in ſtate and ſtanding Relation, or only for ſome particular Act, or Uſe. Infants, while Infants, are not capable of any ſuch work for God: Therefore it is an Holineſs of ſtate, which is aſcribed to them.

2. Thoſe that are holy thus in ſtate, are either Holy by meer Separation and Relation; or elſe they are alſo qualified with Endowments ſutable to the ſtate.

p. 3833. There is a Sanctifying, or Separating to God, either Directly and Immediately: So every believer, and ſo their Children are ſanctified. and there is a Separating, or Sanctifying to God remotely and ſecondarily. Thus the unbelieving Husband, or Wife, is ſanctified to the Believer; both as being ſeparated to one who is ſeparated to God, and as an Husband, or VVife, they make up that Conjugal ſtate which is more directly for God: And if they beget an holy ſeed, it is one of the Uſes, that they were ſanctified to.

4. Sometimes Perſons, or Things, are ſanctified Actively,—and ſometimes Paſſively.—

And as he notes, All theſe Diſtinctions are but from ſeveral ends and degrees of ſeperation. The common Nature of Holineſs, is one and the ſame in all; that is, a ſeparation to God.

Now the word [Holy] conſtantly denoting a Thing, or Perſon ſeparated to God, either in State, or to ſome perticular Act, or Uſe; and Children being called holy, who are not capable, while Infants, of the latter way of ſeparation to God, but were known to have been ſeparated to God the former way, to ſtand in the ſame Covenant-relation with their Parents, and called an holy Seed; as when the People of the Jews are oft called an holy People, (Deut. 14.2. and 26.19. Dan. 8.24.) We are to underſtand not only the Adult, but the Children; the Infants among them, were a part of that boly People: Theſe things conſidered, we have no ground to underſtand what the Apoſtle ſays here of a believers Children being holy, otherwiſe, than that they are in Covenant-relation to God, as the Seed of his People formerly were; holy in ſtate, p. 384ſeparated to God. I ſay, we have no ground to underſtand the Apoſtle here otherwiſe, nor were the Corinthians likely to underſtand him otherwiſe, unleſs he had otherwiſe explained himſelf; or ſome evident Reaſon could be brought, that the word [holy] cannot be ſo taken here.

Surely that ſence of the word which fully agrees with the Ʋſe of the word in other Scriptures, and beſt ſuites with the Scope of this place; that ought to be acknowledged the ſence here. But to take the word holy, as we do, fully agreeth with the uſe of the word in other Scriptures (as they, the Oppoſite party cannot but acknowledge) and beſt ſuites with the Scope of this place.

Now that it beſt ſuits with the ſcope of this place, appears thus; that here the Apoſtle would ſatisfie, and remove a ſcruple of ſome of the Corinthians, whether to live with their Yoke-fellows, who remained Infidels, were not Irreligious; and that that would defile their Conſciences? Now for the Apoſtle to tell them, that their Children were Legitimate (which is the ſence the Oppoſite party muſt ſtick to, and the beſt ſence they have, to bring in oppoſition to that we lay down) this would not come up to the Corinthians ſcruple, as I have ſhewed; but ours does, proving that it was not Irreligious for believers to continue with their Unbelieving Yoke-fellows, ſince they were ſanctified to, or by them, and their Children holy, or ſeparated to God.

Object. 1. VVould not this prove it lawful for a believer, ſuppoſing him guilty of Fornication, to Live with the Fornicatrix, if the Child ſo begotten be holy, and within the Covenant?

p. 385Anſw. This Objection is ſo commonly taken off by almoſt every one of ours that urge this Text, that I might paſs it by, without mentioning. Mr. Baxter, hath ſpoken to it fully, and deared this Text ſo, Of Infant Bapt.that (as Learned Rutherford, ſays,) The Diſpute now is at an end. Indeed, I ſhould be of his mind, if men were not Prejudiced, Conceited, or minded to Cavil. Though the Child of a Believer, as it is his Child, may be taken into Covenant (though it was gotten in Fornication;) Yet is not that a larger Meaſure of Charity, than the Word allows of, to ſuppoſe that one may live in Fornication, and be a Believer, or be ſo Reputed? We think ſuch an one ought to be caſt out of the Church; and conſequently, his Children, as ſuch, ſhould have no right to any Church-priviledges, nor be reputed holy. That if ſuch Children be admitted, it ſhould be upon the account of ſome other, who hath not For…eited his Covenant-right, and hath the Child at his diſpoſe.

But more directly, to the Objection: It is no …etter Reaſoning, than the Devil uſed, to perſwade our Saviour to caſt himſelf down from the Pinacle of the Temple; ſaying, [It is written, He ſhall give his Angels charge concerning thee.] Leaving …ut the condition, [To keep thee in all thy ways,] …ee Mat. 4.6. with Pſal. 91.11. The Apoſtle teacheth this indeed, that they that were lawful Man and Wife, might Live together as Man and VVife, though the one was a Believer, and the other an Infidel, without croſſing the Rules of Reli…ion; which he cleareth thus, Gods Law or Cove…ant, which availed to the putting of the Iſſue of p. 386ſuch Parents into an Holy, or Church-ſtate, as Children ſeparated to God; would as well avail to the ſanctifying of the unbelieving Yoke-fellow, to the believers uſe in a Conjugal-ſtate. And that if they held it a prophane thing, to Live ſtill with ſuch as were Infidels, they had as much reaſon to account the Children they had by ſuch, unclean; and in no better ſtate, than other Children; where both the Parents were Pagans and Idolaters. Now what the Apoſtle ſays here, to prove that a believer may without Impiety, Live ſtill with his Yoke-fellow, upon this account; that ſuch a Yoke-fellow is ſanctified to his lawful uſe in Marriage, cannot be ſtretched to the caſe of Fornicators, who are not ſanctified one to the others uſe; nor lawful Man and VVife, as the other are preſuppoſed to be. VVhat is not lawful, cannot be ſanctified. A ſtate of Inceſt, or Fornication, cannot be ſanctified, becauſe ſinful. Of Infant Bapt. p. 98.And as Mr. Baxter ſays, God ſanctifieth not ſin in, or to any (though he may bring good out of it.)

Object. 2. VVhat is ſaid of the Children here, the like is ſaid of the unbelieving Parent. As the Children are ſaid to be holy, ſo the unbelieving Parents are ſaid to be ſanctified?

Anſw. foreign, and foreign are not alike. Many things are ſanctified in, or to a believer, that are not therefore holy. Afflictions are ſanctified, Food is ſanctified, 1 Tim. 4.4, 5. yet not holy. VVhen the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the unbelieving Huſband being ſanctified, he is careful to limit it, and ſhews in what reſpect, to whoſe uſe he is ſanctified; that is, to the believer: But there is no ſuch Reſtriction, or Limitation, when he ſpeaks of the Children p. 387being holy; If they are holy, they are holy to God: If not Inherently, yet at leaſt Foederally, and Relatively. So the Children of a Proſelyte before, ſtood in Covenant-relation to God, as an holy ſeed, though it might ſo happen, that the other Parent would not come in, as a Proſelyte.

2. If ſanctified, and holy here are all one, and mean only a civil Holineſs, (as ſome would have it) or lawful to uſe, it was lawful to the unbelie…er to uſe his Child, as his Child, as well as to the believer; and yet to the unbelieving nothing is ſanctified.

3. Or if Children are called holy; In reſpect of …holy, ſanctified uſe to be made of them, it would …llow, that the Apoſtle had no Special reaſon to …ing in their Children here, but that they come in …omewhat oddly; when it had been as much to his …urpoſe to have named any thing elſe. And ſo he …ight as well have ſaid, your Acquaintance, Kin…ed, Neighbours, are holy; that is, you may …ake an holy uſe of them, your Callings are holy, …d what not?

4. If by ſanctified, and holy, in this place the poſtle only intends a Matrimonial, and civil Ho…ſs; oppoſed to Fornication, Uncleanneſs, and …tardy (as ſome tell us;) then they muſt hold, that … Apoſtle alloweth us to ſay, That all lawfully …rried perſons, keeping to their own Husbands, VVives, are ſanctified; and that he allows us to …all that are not Baſtards, or Illegitimate, Holy, Saints.

Here now I caſt mine eye upon what one of note, … much cried up among the oppoſite …y, hath lately written. H. D. p. 191.There p. 388is no ſuch holineſs in the New Teſtament, as a Foederal holineſs belonging to children.

(1) Becauſe it contradicts the Goſpel-diſpenſation, as before.

Anſw. By foederal holineſs of Children, we mean their ſtanding together with Parents in Covenant-relation to God. That this is agreeable to the Goſpel-diſpenſation, I have proved before. It is Abrahams Covenant, that the believing Gentiles are taken into. In which Covenant God promiſeth to be a God to his people, and to their ſeed, Act. 2.39. And if the Root be holy, ſo are the Branches.

(2) Becauſe ſuch Apprehenſions intail Grace… to Nature, Regeneration to Generation, in contradiction to that of our Saviour, Joh. 3. Tha… which is born of the fleſh is fleſh. And that we ar… all children of wrath by nature, Eph. 2.

Anſw. 1. How many Anabaptiſts, that plainly contradict theſe Scriptures, denying that Infant… have any ſin, who thence conclude, that they hav… no need of Baptiſme?

2. The Children of Believers under the Old T… ſtament were fleſh, conceived in ſin, and broug… forth in iniquity, children of wrath by Nature, y… were they in the Covenant.

3. Therefore, to be Children of wrath by Natu… conſidered as the corrupt Off-ſpring of fallen Ad… and to be children of the Covenant by priviled… and Grace, as they deſcend from believing Paren… to whom God hath promiſed, I will be your G… and the God of your ſeed; theſe two are not o… tradictory to one another.

(3) Becauſe it contradicts all the Exp… ence, both of former and later times, whe… p. 389godly men have had wicked children, &c.

Anſw. 1. Obſerve again, this Reaſon would overthrow the Covenant-holineſs of the children of the Jews under the former diſpenſation; wherein be contradicts himſelf, and the whole current of the Old Teſtament.

2. Here he groſſely miſtakes, and confounds …oederal, relative holineſs, with real, perſonal, inherent holineſs. Many of thoſe who are called the holy ſeed, Ezr. 9.2. in regard to Gods Covenant made with them, and their relations to God upon that account, were yet in another reſpect unholy.

(4) Becauſe it neceſſitates an owning the Doctrine of Falling from Grace.Ib. p. 192.

Anſw. 1. How many Anabaptiſts that are not afraid to own that Doctrine? I have ſometimes lived amongſt many of that way, where were more Arminian-Anabaptiſts, than Antinomian-Anabaptifts; and ſcarce one that I could hear of among them, a meer Anabaptiſt, that held that Errour alone.

2. As for the Children of Believers that growing up, do not ſtand to the Covenant, we cannot ſay they fell from Grace, which they never had. Though many do ſuppoſe the Infants of Believers that die in Infancy, renewed, and ſanctified, to fit them for glory; yet as for thoſe that live till they come to be of capacity, there is more required of them in the Covenant, as the Parents are bound by their Covenant to train them up for God, ſo the Children are bound to receive Inſtruction, and to comply with other Gods Means, in order to a ſanctifying, ſavi… work. As a learned Writer noteth, Infants … p. 390in Covenant with the holy Ghoſt conditionally as their Parents are, Chriſt. Directory. p. 821. ſect. 9.— The holy Ghoſt is promiſed in Baptiſm to give the Child Grace in his Parents and his own faithfull uſe of the appointed means.

3. The unbelieving Jews before their breaking off, were foederally holy. And if their breaking off will not neceſſitate an owning the Doctrine of Falling away from Grace, neither doth what we hold inferre it.

The ſame Author goes on to prove that The Text intends a Civil or Matrimonial Holineſs (as he calls it) in oppoſition to Fornication, Uncleanneſs, Baſtardy.

This he ſaith, is proved, 1. From the ſcope of the place. Implying, that the Queſtion propounded by the believing Corinthians, which the Apoſtle here reſolves, was, Whether they could continue Marriage-ſociety with their unbelieving Yoke-fellows, without being guilty of Fornication? Yet as he layes it down, no ſuch thing appears, but it is well, he had told us his meaning before. Now he would have the Apoſtle here to argue ab Abſurdo. P. 193.Inaſmuch as they had no queſtion of their childrens Legitimacy, neither had they any cauſe to ſcruple the other, that is, that they were lawfully married.

Anſw. This would make theſe Corinthians as abſurd men as were ever heard of, to doubt whether their Marriage was lawfull, in oppoſition to Fornication, and yet to have no doubt, but their Children were legitimate. For it is impoſſible to know the children are legitimate, without knowing firſt, that p. 391the Parents were lawfull Man and Wife. And they that doubt whether they are lawfull Man and Wife, cannot but doubt, whether their children are legitimate. And they that have no doubt of the Legitimacy of their Children, take it for granted, or neceſſarily ſuppoſe, they are lawfull Man and Wife.

He goes on, The Believer had leaſt ground to doubt hereof, becauſe to him all lawfull things are clean— which is all the Holineſs I conceive can be meant in the Text, agreeable to the Holineſs, 1 Theſſ. 4.3, 4. & Mal. 2.15. The Baſtard being among the unclean, Deut. 32.2.

Anſw. Then in his Opinion, to the Believer all lawfull things are only lawfull. When we read they are pure, and ſanctified to the Believer, is the meaning only this, they are lawfull? Are they not lawfull to others too? When the Apoſtle ſayes, To the unbelieving nothing is pure, can his meaning be, that nothing is lawfull? Then we muſt perſwade them never to marry, nor eat, nor drink, nor work, nor ſleep. For it is not lawfull for them to do any of theſe.

2. That Text, 1 Theſſ. 4.3, 4. This is the will of God, even your ſanctification,] is not to be reſtrained to a Civil, or Matrimonial Holineſs, in that Authors ſence, but intends all holy Converſation, and Purity of Life, to which Fornication, and Uncleanneſs is greatly oppoſite. But no ſound Expoſitor will ſay, that the Heathen, who lived chaſtly, came up to that, which the Apoſtle here exhorteth unto. Certainly, there is a great difference betwixt the Chaſtity of a moralized Heathen, and Chriſtian …urity, which is required here.

p. 3923. To that Text, Mal. 2.15. A godly ſeed, or ſeed of God. It is not the ſame with holy ſeed. Further, I ſee not, why it ſhould mean no more than legitimate. Did he only ſeek a legitimate ſeed? Rather, (as Grotius) Hoc unicè agebat, ut liberos haberet qui Deum colerent: vos autem eas praefertis matres quae filios ad idola deducant; He ſought to have Children, who might be true Worſhippers of God, whereas the perſons there reproved affected ſtrangers, and ſuch women as drew their children to Idolatry.

4. To Deut. 23.2. If Baſtards were held unclean, as being ſo legally, and typically, yet there is no reaſon to think, that the Apoſtle would call them unclean, when that Law was abrogated, which made them ſo.

His ſecond Argument is juſt the ſame with the ſecond Objection anſwered a little before.P. 194.

His third Argument that Children are not to be taken for Infants only, P. 195.is of as little force. As Dr. Lightfoot notes, when the Apoſtle ſaith thus of the Children of a believer, But now they are holy, he ſpeaketh in the common phraſe of his own Nation. As the ſeed of Proſelytes were ſaid to be born in Holineſs, that is, within the Religion, not in Heatheniſm. Yet it was poſſible that ſome of their Children, who were grown up, might not accept of Gods Covenant, and ſo not be proſelyted with their Parents: Now he may as well ſay, that I will be a God to thee and to thy ſeed, did not hold good to Proſelytes, becauſe ſome of their ſeed might ſtill remain Heathens.

p. 393His fourth Argument is a ſtrange one, it hath many feet, and halts on them all. This cannot be a New-Covenant Holineſs, P. 195.that muſt qualifie and intitle to Baptiſme; (1) Becauſe that cannot be known; for if the Parent profeſſing Faith be an Hypocrite, and not in Covenant himſelf, then may you baptize a wrong Subject as well as a right one.

Anſw. 1. When he views over this again, who knows, but he will be of the mind, that none are to be Baptized? becauſe that Holineſs, which Entitleth to Baptiſm, cannot be known.

2. An Hypocrite may be in Covenant Externally, as I have ſhewed before.

3. This maketh full as much againſt their Bapti…ing of grown perſons, unleſs they have ſuch a Spirit of Diſcerning as to Diſcover, and Reject any Hypocrite, that offers himſelf.

(2.) Such an abſurdity would follow, that no Unbelievers Child is in Covenant or Elect; which is notoriouſly falſe.

Anſw. 1. It is a groſs miſtake to hold, that none are in the baptiſmal Covenant, but the Elect. It ſeems they baptize none but the Elect. That if you would make your Election ſure, you muſt go over to them to be baptized.

2. He wandreth pitifully, when he Inſtanceth in Abijah, Ahaz, and Amon (who were Kings of Judah) as perſons out of Covenant. Doubtleſs, they were not out of Covenant, not as the Uncircumciſed; though it was their great ſin, that they for ſook the Lord God of their Fathers, did not keep Covenant, ſee 1 Kings 15.4. 2 Chron. 28.5.

3. The Conditional-Covenant, which was Sealed p. 394heretofore in Circumciſion, and is Sealed ſince in baptiſm, running to Gods People and their Seed; ſuch as are neither viſibly believers, nor the Seed of ſuch, cannot be adjudged by us to be within the Covenant. Though ſome of Gods Elect may be among the Heathen, and Idolaters, yet they are not within the Covenant, meerly becauſe they are within the decree of Election. They are not in Covenant, till renouncing their Paganiſm, they come to know, and worſhip the true God.

(3.) From the concurrent Teſtimony, and Confeſſion of many Learned Commentators, and Parties themſelves.

Anſw. We muſt grant a concurrence here among Popiſh Expoſitors, taking holy for legitimate, and we know it is to ſerve a turn. For taking the word holy here to import their Covenant-relation unto God, as they are the Children of Believers; it does not favour their Tenent of the abſolute Neceſſity of Baptiſm to ſalvation: and further gives a ſad ſhake to their Limbus Infantum. But he can never ſhew a concurrence of Proteſtant Writers in his ſence. It is true, he nameth two or three; and no doubt it were eaſie to adde many more, if he deal but with them as he doth with Beza, P. 201.whom he feigneth to ſay, what he plainly confuteth, as any one may ſee, that readeth his Notes upon the place.

Further I deſire you to weigh this Argument, to prove Children in Covenant together with their Parents: Either the children of Believers are taken into Covenant together with their Parents ſtill, or it is worſe with the Faithfull, in reſpect of their ſeed, now ſince the coming of Chriſt, than it was p. 395before. But it is no worſe now with the Faithfull in reſpect of their ſeed, than it was before. For that would make the Church a great loſer by Chriſts coming, whereas ſhe is a gainer. Then Chriſti adventu factum fuerit ut obſcurior & minus teſtata ſit nobis Dei gratia quàm antè Judaeis erat, (as Calv.) Num poſt Chriſtum, factam eſſe deteriorem parvulorum ſortem exiſtimemus? Whitaker. It is manifeſt, that thoſe Jews, who embraced the Faith of Chriſt, if they onelyonly had the Promiſe, that God would be their God, ſo that their children were left out, that God promiſed no longer to be the God of their Seed, then they could not but ſee themſelves in a worſe Condition, in reſpect of their children, than they were before. And how unreaſonable is it to think, that when the Scripture makes cutting off from the Covenant ſo ſad a Judgement, and the fruit of Unbelief, Rom. 11. that the children of the believing Jews, which were in Covenant once, ſhould be cut off upon their Parents believing (i. e.) cut off for no fault? And would not this be diſhonourable unto Chriſt, whoſe coming certainly was not to leſſen, but enlarge his peoples Priviledges? and according to this Doctrine, it ſhould have been a greater priviledge to be born under the Law, than to be born under the Goſpel. And how derogatory to the Grace of God, which he would have to ſhine forth more gloriouſly in the Goſpel-diſpenſation?

Whereas one ſayes, This is no more to be eſteemed the loſs of a priviledge, than our not enjoying literally a Holy Land, City, Temple, a ſucceſſion of an High-prieſt, and a Prieſthood by Generation, or Lineal deſcent.] We can tell p. 396them, we have greater mercies and priviledges in the room of theſe. But it is a wonderfull ſtrange thing, that any Chriſtian Parent ſhould account it no priviledge, for God to be the God of his ſeed. As heretofore he promiſed his people, to be the God of their ſeed. If the children of Gods people now are out of Covenant, I wonder what priviledge they can have, in lieu of that, which is denyed to them.

And whereas ſome tell us, The ſtate of the Chriſtian Church is more ſpiritual, than to admit of Infants; they may as well exclude all Infants out of Heaven. Doubtleſs, the ſtate of the Church Triumphant is as ſpiritual, as the ſtate of the Church Militant on Earth. If Infants may be Members of the Church Triumphant, what reaſon can be given, but Infants may be alſo members of the Church Militant on Earth? Indeed, if they are not of the Church, if they be not in Covenant, then are they in the ſame Eſtate with the Heathen, and the Jews that are broken off; that for the preſent we ſhould be without hope concerning them.

Again, methinks, there is ſomething of weight in this, to prove that our Children are in Covenant with God, as well as the children of the Jews were heretofore; becauſe it is as much our Duty to train them up for God, as ever it was the Duty of the Jews. What God required of the Jews, Deut, 6 7. Thou ſhalt teach them diligently unto thy children, &c. The like is required of us Chriſtians, Eph. 6.4. we muſt bring up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Now how ſtrange were it, if God ſhould require us to train up our children for him, and yet not own p. 397them for his? Then we ſhould not have ſo much Encouragement to our Duty here, as the people of the Jews had before. Then the Jews had more help, more to hearten them to their Duty, than we. Can this be ſo, and yet we be under a better, a more gracious diſpenſation of the Covenant, than they? Surely, in this reſpect, we ſhould come ſhort of them. It will not enter into my thoughts, that where the Duty is the ſame to us, and to the Jews of old, we ſhould not have equal Priviledge with them at leaſt, and equal Encouragement to what they had.

Laſtly, I would ask thoſe that would race our childrens Names out of the Covenant, What is become of all thoſe gracious Promiſes of Old made to the ſeed of Gods people? That Promiſe, I will circumciſe thy heart, and the heart of thy ſeed. May not Believers plead this Promiſe ſtill, as well as heretofore the People of God might have done? And yet how can they do it, if their ſeed now are left out of Covenant? Does God make that Promiſe to any out of Covenant? So the Lord promiſeth, Iſa. 44.3. I will pour out my Spirit upon thy ſeed, and my bleſſing upon thine off-ſpring. And Iſa. 59.21. As for me, this is my Covenant with them, ſaith the Lord, My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, ſhall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy ſeed, nor out of the mouth of thy ſeeds ſeed, ſaith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever. So we read, Pſal. 37.26. The ſeed of the Righteous is bleſſed. And Iſa. 61.9. They are the ſeed which the Lord hath bleſſed. And Iſa. 65.23. They are the ſeed of the Bleſſed of the Lord, and p. 398their Off-ſpring with them. What ſhall we ſay? That the people of God might have pleaded theſe Promiſes heretofore; but they do not concern us under the Goſpel? Then Believers now have no ground to plead them with God, or to hang their Off-ſpring and iſſue upon him, as his people had heretofore. And ſo there was more grace extended to the Jews under the former Diſpenſation of the Covenant. If ſuch Promiſes do as well concern us Chriſtians, as they did the Jews; if we may plead theſe Promiſes with God on the behalf of our children, certainly they are Covenant-Promiſes. And if theſe Promiſes belong to our ſeed, the Covenant muſt as well belong to them. Remember that, God promiſeth ſuch things to none that are out of Covenant. If it be objected, Theſe things are not made good to all the ſeed of the Jews: Yet I ſuppoſe it will not be denyed, but theſe were ſome of thoſe Promiſes which the Apoſtle reckoneth among the great Priviledges of the Jews, Rom. 9.4. And the Queſtion is, Whether ever God faileth of performing theſe Promiſes, but where there was ſome groſs failure on the Parents part, or on the Childes, or on both, their not doing their part towards the accompliſhment of them.

I hope enough hath been ſaid to evince it, that where the Parents are in Covenant, their children are in Covenant too.

Now by way of Corollary and Inference, Note the Warrantableneſs of Infant-baptiſme. The Infants of Chriſtians being in Covenant together with their Parents, and Baptiſm being the initiating Sign and Seal of the Covenant; they that are in Covenant, muſt needs have right to the initiating Seal p. 399of the Covenant. They that are known to be in Covenant, may be declared to be ſo by Baptiſm, (the Sign of entrance into Covenant,) that being an end of Baptiſm, to diſtinguiſh thoſe that are entred into Covenant with God, from thoſe who are not in Covenant. Certainly, to be in Covenant with God, is a greater matter than to have the outward Sign: And there can be no reaſon to deny the outward ſign of entrance into the Covenant, to thoſe that we can prove entered into the Covenant, as children are together with their Parents.

And there was no other ground imaginable (I think) upon which ſuch ſtrangers as dwelt not under the Jews, as their Servants, nor among them, as Sojourners, but in another Countrey, ſuch as the Eunuch, Act. 8.27. were circumciſed, and ſo admitted, and joyned to the Church of the Jews. There was no expreſs command for the circumciſing of ſuch Proſelytes as were neither Servants nor Sojourners among them, yet were they circumciſed upon that general ground of their entring into Covenant with the God of Iſrael, taking him for their God; as if they had not been circumciſed, they had been debarred from joyning in Temple-worſhip. (See Act. 21.28.) The Covenant, [I will be a God to thee, and to thy ſeed,] was the ground of the Command, Thou ſhalt keep my covenant, therefore thou and thy ſeed, particularly, every malechild among you ſhall be circumciſed, in token of the Covenant. See Gen. 17.7, 9, 10.

But againſt what I have laid down, that the Infants of Chriſtians being in Covenant, they muſt needs have right to the initiatory Seal of the Covant, it is objected:

p. 400Objection 1. That all the faithfull, from Adam to Abraham received no ſuch Seal.H.D.p. 205.

Anſw. Now what a pitifull Evaſion is this? Becauſe perſons in Covenant did not receive any initiatory Seal (that we know of) in that ſtate of the Church, when there was no ſuch ſeal (that we know of) appointed by God; therefore perſons within the Covenant, have no right to the initiatory Seal of the Covenant, when ſuch a Seal is inſtituted.

Objection 2. H.D. p. 206.Neither did any Believers out of Abrahams Family, as Lot, Melchiſedek, receive any ſuch Seal, that we read of.

Anſw. 1. A particular Exception or two will not overthrow a General Rule. If Lot, and Melchizedek were not circumciſed, there might be ſome thing extraordinary in their caſe: As Gods not intending to ſettle and continue a Church in their Families, as he did in Abrahams Family, therefore he might give and appoint Circumciſion to Abraham, and not to them. 2. It is falſe, that none out of Abrahams Family were to be circumciſed. The Proſelytes of the Covenant could not be ſo, without Circumciſion. And ſuch an one was the Eunuch, Act. 8. though not of Abrahams Family.

Object. 3. Some to whom the Covenant did not belong, received that, called the initiating Seal of Circumciſion. As Iſhmael, &c.

Anſw. Iſhmael was externally, viſibly in Covenant, at that time when he was circumciſed, though he was afterwards by Gods Sentence caſt out of the Church, and diſ-covenanted. The ſtrangers in Abraham's houſe, or bought with Money in Iſrael, that p. 401were Circumciſed, were no doubt, ſome of them Internally, and all of them Externally in Covenant, and of the Viſible Church.

As for that Circumciſion which ſome Gentile-Nations took up from the Jews, De repub. Heb. l. 3. c. 5.which Cunaeus, and others, take notice of; it was not the Ordinance, and Sacrament of Circumciſion uſed among them, but an Apiſh Immitation.

Object. 4. But ſome will go further and Object, That if all within the Covenant have thereupon a Right to the Seal of Admiſſion, then it will follow, that the whole body of the Jews ſhould have been Baptized, had a right to Babtiſm, being within the Covenant.

Anſw. I have told you before, that though the Covenant of Grace be one and the ſame for ſubſtance in all Ages; yet there have been various diſpenſations of it. And as the Diſpenſations have differed, God has appointed different ſeals of Admiſſion. And as God hath revealed himſelf more plainly and fully in the Letter, than he had done in the former Diſpenſation; ſo proportionably more hath been required to mens being taken into Covenant in this Diſpenſation. From Adam to Abraham, the Promiſe of Chriſt was more Dark and Indeterminate. To Abraham he was promiſed to come out of his Loins, and that in his Seed all Nations ſhould be bleſſed. And under his Diſpenſation, God required not only the belief of that general promiſe given to Adam, that the Seed of the woman ſhould break the Serpents head; but alſo that the promiſed Meſſiah was to be of Abraham Seed. After this gracious Revelation to Abraham, this new Article p. 402of Faith was to be received, owned, and profeſſed in the Church, into which Circumciſion was a ſign and Seal of Entrance, and admiſſion. And when afterwards God delivered his Law by Moſes to the people of the Jews, the Seed of Abraham, then they that would joyn themſelves to the Church, muſt not only profeſs to believe the promiſed Meſſiah, but that he was willing to be Governed by thoſe Laws. And a Proſelyte of the Gate, as he was called, that had liberty to Dwell, or Sojourn among the Jews, only obſerving the ſeven Precepts given to the Sons of Noah, (as they were called) was not owned as a Member of the Jewiſh Church, but diſtinguiſhed from the Proſelyte of the Covenant, that was Circumciſed, and received the Law of Moſes. Again, when Chriſt was come in the Fleſh, then was the cleareſt Diſpenſation of the Covenant of Grace. And then this became a new article of Faith to believe; that this was he. And when he appointed Baptiſm a Sign and Seal of Admiſſion into the Covenant, and Church under the Goſpel, the Faith of a Jew, to believe a Meſſias to come; was not enough, where the Faith of a Chriſtian was neceſſarily required, ſcil. To believe that this was he indeed, who was to come, and no other to be looked for. Now the Jews notwithſtanding they were in Covenant before, yet ſince this new Diſpenſation, if they will ſtick to the former Diſpenſation, and not admit of it in that further Declaration, God is pleaſed to make, they can have no right to the Initiating Seal: But plainly caſt themſelves out of Covenant. I hope this is plain, and ſatisfactory.

But to ſtrengthen what we laid down before, I p. 403ſhall prove by Scripture, that Children, Infants, being in Covenant together with their Parents, they have a right to Baptiſm, the Initiating Seal of the Covenant.

And, 1. So much is implied in the Commiſſion, Mat. 28.19. Go ye therefore, and Teach (or, as the word is foreign, Diſciple) all Nations, Baptizing them. foreign anſwereth to foreign, as the Learned Note, and both ſides commonly agree. Now ſuppoſe the Commiſſion had run thus [Go, Diſciple the Nation of the Jews, Baptizing them.] How could the Apoſtles once have thought, but they muſt have Baptized their Children with their Parents; as Children were a part of the Nation, and were conſtantly taken into the Church, and Covenant with their Parents before? Unleſs Children had been plainly Excepted in the Commiſſion here, as they are not, the Apoſtles muſt needs take their Commiſſion to reach unto Children with their Parents ſtill, that all the Children of Parents Diſcipled, were to be baptized, as well as their Parents. Or ſuppoſe Circumciſion had been continued, as the Initiating Seal, or Sacrament of …dmiſſion under the Goſpel, that the Commiſſion …ad run thus: Go, Proſelyte, or Diſciple all Nati…ns, Circumciſing them: Or ſuppoſe the like Com…iſſion had been granted to the Prophets of old. Go, Proſelyte all Nations, Circumciſing them; and …eaching them to obſerve the Law of Moſes, and …ll the Statutes, and Ordinances, which he com…anded you: Muſt not Children have been taken in …ere together with the Parents, except the contra…y had been declared by the ſame Authority?

And this is undeniable, that Children are a conſiderable p. 404part of any Nation: and if Children are not capable of being Diſcipled, and Baptized, then a Nation properly is not capable of being Diſcipled, and Baptized? And ſo Chriſt ſet his Apoſtles here upon a Task impoſſible to be performed.

And methinks, it is very conſiderable, that [all Nations] here: Examin. p. 130.As Mr. Tombes himſelf does not gain-ſay. Stand in Oppoſition to [one Nation.] under the former Diſpenſation, the Church, and Covenant was confined to that one Nation of the Jews: But as God had promiſed of Old, that all Nations ſhould be bleſſed in Abrahams ſeed; ſo in purſuance of that promiſe, Chriſt Commiſſioned his Apoſtles, and Miniſters that were to ſucceed them, To go, and Diſciple all Nations. All the Kingdoms of the world now under the Goſpel-diſpenſation, were ſooner or later to become the Kingdoms of the Lord, and of his Chriſt. And if Children are part of thoſe, that were to be bleſsed in Chriſt, there can be no reaſon, when Chriſt ſays, [Go, Diſciple all Nation:, Baptizing them.] to exclude them from being comprehended here.

And further, That the Apoſtles had reaſon to take in Children, to Baptize Infants with their Parents, (unleſs Chriſt had expreſly excepted) appears from hence alſo, that the Baptizing of Infants was a thing well known, and commonly practiſed in the Jewiſh Church before, when their Parents were Proſelyted. A Proſelyte was made with three things, Druſ. d. tribus Sect. l. 2. p. 89, 90.(as Learned Druſius, and others obſerve,) viz. With Circumciſion (a ſign of the Covenant p. 405unto which he was received;) with Baptiſm, (which was required for cleanſing all Gentiles, being held unclean;) and with offering Sacrifice (for Expiation of ſin, to make Attonement for him.) And this is out of Diſpute, that Children were Proſelyted with their Parents. Yea, Magmony goes further, ſaying, that When an Iſraelite takes a little Heathen child, and Baptized him for a Proſelyte, behold he is a Proſelyte. This Right of Baptizing Proſelytes, it ſeems, the Jews retain to this day. Hiſt. of the preſent Jews. part 5. c. 2. p. 223.Though Druſius queſtioneth it, yet Leo Mondena, (a Rabbie) expreſly affirmeth it.

And as yet, I ſee not any reaſon to be of Mr. George Galaſpy's mind, who would have this of Baptizing Proſelytes, a corrupt Invention, or Tradition of the later Jews. Methinks, it might very well be ſuppoſed, that the Heathen, who wanted the Rule to teach them to put a difference betwixt the Clean, and Unclean, (as Lev. 11.) were Legally unclean; in which caſe Waſhing was preſcribed by the Law. And without Cleanſing, they were not to come to the Temple, or to joyn in Gods Worſhip there. Before God gave the Law at Mount Sinai, The Lord ſaid to Moſes, Go unto the People, and ſanctifie them to Day, and to Morrow, and let them waſh their clothes, Exod 19.10. From this precept (ſays Ainſworth) the Hebrew Doctors gather their Doctrine and practice of baptizing all whom they admit to their Church and Covenant. But if they had reaſon to ſuppoſe the Heathen Legally unclean, as conſidering how many ways that might come about, and how they had Lived before while Heathen, without p. 406out any care to keep themſelves clean that way; it was an hundred to one, that any Proſelyte that came and offered himſelf, had ſome uncleanneſs on him: and conſidering that the unclean were unclean for ever (and in many caſes alſo defiled other things and perſons) till they were cleanſed; if there was one Law for them of the Congregation of Iſrael, and for any ſtranger, that ſhould joyn himſelf to them, (as Numb. 15.15.) there would ſeem to have been ſufficient Warrant for this practice of their Waſhing, of Baptizing Proſelytes. Not like the practice of the Phariſees, Mark 7.3. &c. who added unto Gods Command for waſhing in caſe of Uncleanneſs, and placed Religion in their oft Waſhing, though they had no Legal uncleanneſs on them. But what I have offered here concerning the warrantableneſs of baptizing Proſelytes at their Admiſſion, as ſuppoſing them to have been ſome way Legally unclean, I ſubmit to the cenſure of better Judgments.

Indeed, I juſt now find in Doctor Hammond [of the baptizing of Infants, pag. 473. this paſſage: And that this Cuſtome of waſhing new born Children, and not any other ſort of Purification, was it; that this Baptiſm of Native Jews and Proſelytes referred to, may appear by that which in the Gemara, is ſaid of the baptized Proſelyte, that he was made [as an Infant new born.] Which if it pleaſe our Oppoſites better, I ſhall not be diſpleaſed with it.

But that the thing was in uſe before, Ainſworth on Gen. See the like in Godwin.17.12. doth not at all queſtion, who ſays: Hereupon, Baptiſm was nothing ſtrange unto the Jews, when p. 407John the Baptiſt began his Miniſtery, Mat. 2.5, 6.Matt 2:5Matt 2:6They made queſtion of his perſon (or his Authority) that did it, Moſes and Aaron. l. 1. c. 3. towards the end.but not of the thing it ſelf, John 1.25.

Obſerve now, as the outward Elements in that other Sacrament of the Lords Supper, were taken from the Jewiſh Paſſeover. (Bread and VVine being conſtant appendants to it, and one Cup uſed at the Paſcal Supper, called, The Cup of bleſſing; which Expreſſion the Apoſtle uſeth, 1 Cor. 10.16.) So concerning the Initiatory Sacrament of Baptiſm, what was a Jewiſh Rite before, Chriſt ſetteth his Royal ſtamp upon, and advanceth to a Goſpel-Ordinance: That by his Inſtitution, it becomes the Sacrament of admiſſion into the Goſpel-covenant, & into the Chriſtian Church.

And hence there was no ſuch need for the expreſs mentioning of Infants, ſuppoſing Chriſt would have them baptized, as for the expreſs excepting of Infants, ſuppoſing Chriſt would not have them baptized; becauſe as Doctor Lightfoot hath well noted: Harm. of New Teſt. ſect. 9. p. 10.The baptizing of Infants had been a thing ordinarily practiſed in the Church of the Jews before. It was enough to mention, that Chriſt eſtabliſhed baptiſm, as an Ordinance under the Goſpel; and then, who ſhould be baptized, was well enough known by the uſe of it before. He further addeth, our Saviour would have given ſome ſpecial Prohibition, if he intended that they ſhould have been excluded.

Others I know there are, that would have Baptiſm refer to that waſhing of New-born Infants intimated, Ezek. 16.4. Or to that baptizing of the p. 408Iſraelites under the Cloud, and in the Sea, ſpoken of 1 Cor. 10.1, 2. Yet in neither of theſe reſpects are Infants to be excluded from Baptiſm, unleſs Chriſt had excepted them. Queſtionleſs there were Infants among the Iſraelites, baptized in the Cloud, and in the Sea.

2. Another Text plainly proving what I laſt laid down, as Acts 2.38, 39. Be baptized every one of you. For the promiſe is to you, and to your Children. I made uſe of this Text before, to prove that Children are within the Covenant ſtill. And now I make uſe of it, to prove that being within the Covenant, they have a right to Baptiſm, the Initiating Seal of the Covenant. Thoſe to whom the Promiſe here ſpoken of belongeth, to them Baptiſm belongeth: But the Promiſe belongeth to Children, therefore Baptiſm belongeth to Children. What the Apoſtle ſaith here, is as much as if he had ſaid, Be baptized you, and your Children: For the Promiſe is to you, and to your Children. If there be any force in this reaſon for the baptizing of the Parents, it argueth as ſtrongly for the baptizing of their Children. And if any of this great company had Children with them, we have no reaſon to doubt, but they were baptized with them: Becauſe he ſays, Be baptized every one of you; for the Promiſe is to you, and to your Children. If becauſe the Promiſe was to the Parents, they were to be baptized for the ſame reaſon the Children are to be baptized, the Promiſe being alſo to them. Are not they ſadly blinded with prejudice, that cannot ſee here, that ſuch as have a right to the Promiſe, have a right to the Initiatory Seal of the Promiſe? And they that have right to the Promiſe, are not adult perſons only, but Fathers, and Children.

p. 4093. I may add Ex abundanti, that there wanteth …ot probable proof, and Teſtimony in Scripture, …hat Infants, or young Children were baptized: When we read of ſo many whole Houſholds baptized, it is improbable that there ſhould not be any …ung Child in any of them. And was it not likely … prove of dangerous conſequence, to relate the …aptizing of whole Families, (which does ſo clearly point at the former practice of Proſelyting …he whole Family, when the Head and Governour …f the Family came to be Proſelyted,) if any part …f the Family (as young Children ordinarily are a part) be uncapable of Baptiſm now. It is ſtrange …hat we ſhould be told of Houſholds baptized again …nd again; which according to the ordinary phraſe …nd practice among the Jews, uſed to ſignifie the Heads of the Family, and all under them, even …ttle ones. (As is ſhewed before.) It is very ſtrange ſay, if it be an Error now to baptize Infants, that …he Scripture ſhould tell us oft of Families baptized, …nd not give one Inſtance of an Houſhold baptized, …ll but their little ones. When it was promiſed of …ld, that all the Families of the Earth ſhould be …eſſed in Chriſt; and when Paul and Silas tell the …aylor: Believe on the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and thou …halt be ſaved, and thy Houſe, (Acts 16.31.) With which may be compared that ſpeech of our …avour to Zacheus, Luke 19.9. This day is Salvation come to this Houſe; foraſmuch as he alſo is the …on of Abraham. And when further we find, that upon a perſons receiving the Faith, having the Charge and Government of a Family; that perſon, …nd his, or her Family, were baptized together: What Impartial, Unprejudiced mind would not p. 410hence conclude, that the Covenant, and Initiating Seal, extended to Parents and Children ſtill under the Goſpel, as before. You read of Lydia's houſhold baptized, Acts 16.15. and ver. 33. That the Jaylor was baptized, and all his, foreign, filii ejus, (as ſome) his Children. Or if foreign ſhould not be reſtrained to Children only, yet it muſt neceſſarily comprehend Children (if he had Children.) And 1 Cor. 1.16. The Houſhold of Stephanas was baptized. And Acts 18.8. When we read that Criſpus, the chief Ruler of the Synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his Houſe: And many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized. Though I know ſome would alledge this Text for the baptizing of ſuch only as are actual believers; yet being narrowly looked into, it may be found to reach further. As when we read only that Criſpus believed with all his Houſe, in the former part of the verſe; yet we are to underſtand that Criſpus, with all his Houſhold, were baptized. We are to ſupply the word [Baptized] uſed in the end of the verſe. And when it is only ſaid in the later part of the verſe, that many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized; yet we may very well think the word [Houſhold] is to be ſupplied here from the former part of the verſe. We have no reaſon to think, that the Houſhold of Criſpus, was the only Houſhold baptized among theſe believing Corinthians. The full ſence of this place. therefore ſeemeth to be this, that Criſpus believed with all his Houſhold, and were baptized, with all his Houſhold: and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized with their Houſholds; ſo taking in their Children, even p. 411little ones: As it is no way probable, that there ſhould be no little ones in any of their Families Herewith compare what the Apoſtle ſaith, 1 Cor. 7.14. Elſe were your Children unclean, but now they are Holy.

Now methinks there is ſomething in it, that the Scripture mentioneth divers houſholds being baptized, without excepting the little ones in any one houſhold baptized, and it is very ſtrange, if none of thoſe houſholds had little ones in it.

Though ſome will argue from Act. 16.32. They ſpake unto him the Word of the Lord, and to all that were in his houſe. It may mean no more, than that they preached to all in the houſe, that were capable of hearing the Word taught. So when Jacob ſaid to his Houſhold, and to all that were with him, Put away the ſtrange Gods that are among you, and be clean, Gen. 35.2. This will not prove, that there were no little ones of his houſhold with him. And yet further, they might be ſaid to ſpeak to all that were in the houſe in a ſence, to which the Scripture is not a ſtranger, the Jailour being bound to …each thoſe things to the leaſt in his houſe, as ſoon as they ſhould be of capacity to underſtand. Surely, there is as ſtrange an expreſſion, Hoſ. 12.4. He found him in Bethel, and there he [ſpake with us.] And ſee Deut. 29.1, 2, 10, 11. & Deut. 31.1, 12. Again, it is further objected, that v. 34. it is ſaid, the Jailour rejoyced, believing in God with all his houſe. As the like is ſaid of thoſe Corinthians, Act. 18.8. Many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized.

p. 412But methinks, Harm. of N. Teſt. p. 81.what Dr. Lightfoot hath on another Text, may ſerve to take off this Objection. Act. 2.44. All that believed were together, and had all things common. The children of thoſe that believed, muſt come in under the Title of Believers too, or they muſt famiſh (or be caſt upon others.) If the community of goods reach't them as well as their Parents, the title [Believers,] muſt reach them too.

Further as touching the Jailour, it is thus in the Original, foreign, which may as well be read, And he believing in God rejoyced in all his houſe, or he exulted, expreſſed his great joy in all his houſe, after that he had believed in God. And note, that when it is ſaid of Criſpus, Act. 18.8. that he believed on the Lord with all his houſe, it is not foreign, as here, but foreign.

Thus I hope ſufficient Scripture warrant hath been produced for Infant-baptiſm. Many things I have praetermitted, becauſe I would cut this Diſcourſe as ſhort, as I well may. Yet before I paſs from this point, I ſhall take notice of the chief Objections made againſt it, becauſe it may tend to your further ſatisfaction.

Object. 1. We have neither expreſs Precept nor Example in Scripture for the baptizing of Infants.

Anſw. 1. A virtual Command there is in the Goſpel for Baptizing of Infants. The Infants of diſcipled Nations ought to be baptized, as appears from what hath been ſaid. It is implyed in the Commiſſion, Matth. 28.19. Now a virtual Command p. 413is equivalent to an expreſs command.

And when Mr. Tombs (the moſt learned Advocate the Anabaptiſts have) grants Baptiſm in uſe, even before John Baptiſts time, in the admiſſion of Proſelytes, the New Teſtament mentioning whole houſholds that were baptized (never excepting Infants, or little ones) we have reaſon to think, that as the Children of the Proſelytes were baptized before, ſo the children of the Chriſtians were baptized too.

2. What expreſs Precept or Example can the Objectors ſhew for Chriſtian Magiſtrates in the New Teſtament? And muſt all Chriſtian Magiſtrates therefore be diſcarded? Again, what expreſs Precept for the Chriſtian Sabbath? Whereupon ſome Anabaptiſts have returned to the Jewiſh Saturday-Sabbath. Again, what expreſs Precept for Womens receiving the Lords Supper? In 1 Cor. 11.28. it is, Let a Man examine himſelf? Where though the word foreign be of the common Gender, and uſed both for Man and Woman, yet foreign, the Word that follows, is of the Maſculine gender, it is himſelf, not her ſelf.

Again, to ſpeak ad hominem, let one that objects againſt us the want of expreſs Precept and Example for Infant-Baptiſm, ſhew us, where he finds any ſuch Precept or Example for the ſe-Baptiſts, that perſons unbaptized ſhould baptize themſelves, as they do in the firſt ſetting up of their way.

Again, where do they find either Precept, or Example in all the New Teſtament for Chriſtians deferring their childrens Baptiſm, till they come to an adult age? Thus the Objection falleth ſoul upon themſelves.

p. 414Certainly, there is a total ſilence in Scripture concerning the Children of thoſe that were Chriſtians, not one tittle there of any Chriſtians child having his Baptiſm delayed, till it came alſo to make a perſonal profeſſion. No doubt but many of thoſe who were converted to the Chriſtian Faith by the Apoſtles, had little ones, who either were baptized upon their Parents embracing the Faith, or it cannot be known at what age any of them were baptized, and conſequently we cannot tell at what age the Children of Believers now are to be baptized.

Now certainly, this is a weighty Caſe, and I wiſh that they who ſeem ſo deſirous to keep cloſe to Scripture-Rule, would ſeriouſly conſider it. They that are only for the baptizing of adult perſons cannot give a Scripture-Inſtance of one child born of believing Parents, whoſe baptiſm was deferred till it came to be adult. And beſides, this would croſs another Rule, that all who are diſcipled, as ſoon as they are diſcipled, are to be baptized. It is true, that they and we differ concerning the Subject, who are diſcipled; we holding that the Infants of Chriſtians are diſcipled, (belonging to the Church, the School of Chriſt, and the Parents being bound by the Covenant to train them up in the knowledge of Chriſt, and they bound to receive Inſtruction, as they come to be of any capacity;) but our Oppoſites holding none to be diſcipled, till they are inſtructed in the Principles of Chriſtianity, and make a perſonal Profeſſion. Now ſuppoſe that they were in the right here, that none were Diſcipled, and to be baptized but upon a perſonal Profeſſion; yet ſince it is evident, both from Chriſts commiſſion, p. 415Matth. 28. and from all thoſe Examples of Perſons baptized, upon Record in the New Teſtament, that as ſoon as any are diſcipled, they are preſently to be baptized. I would fain know how they either do, or can follow Scripture-Rule in baptizing the Children of Chriſtian Parents, many years (it may be) after they were Diſciples in their own ſence; that is, made a perſonal profeſſion. We could give many Inſtances of little Children, who have been Religiouſly Educated, Children of Five or Six years age, See Mr. Whites little Book for little Children.that have not only made a profeſſion, but given great Signs and Evidences of Grace. And ſhould not ſuch be owned as Diſciples? And then why not other Children of that age that can give as good an account, as may be expected from thoſe Years? And did not Chriſt, and his Apoſtles admit all to Baptiſm, who made but the leaſt viſible profeſſion? Where do we find any rejected? If now they will not admit perſons upon making the leaſt viſible profeſſion, but Demur them, till they have arrived a Degree higher; why may they not defer their baptiſm, till they are got one degree higher than that, and ſo in Infinitum? And how will they obſerve Scripture-rule, which is clearly for the baptizing of perſons, as ſoon as they become Diſciples? If I was of their Opinion, that the baptizing of the Infants of profeſſed Chriſtians, was againſt Rule, and a Nullity; I muſt ſeriouſly proſeſs, I ſhould be altogether at a loſs, and not know when to baptize the Children of ſuch. If they muſt be baptized ſo ſoon as they make a viſible profeſſion, I would fain be informed from Scripture, at what age they may make ſuch a viſible profeſſion, p. 416which ought to be taken for their admiſſion to baptiſm.

And this further, whereas thoſe whom they Rebaptize, were many of them Religiouſly Educated, and ſeemed to have a love to Religion from their Childhood, and were acquainting themſelves with the principles of Religion; I would fain know, whether they will ſay they only began to make a profeſſion, when they firſt owned Anabaptiſm? Or if they were profeſſors of Chriſtianity before, and ſo ought to have ſubmitted to the Sign, and Sacrament of their Entrance, and admiſſion amongſt Chriſtians, whether it was not a great ſin againſt the Goſpel-rule, that they did not ſubmit to their baptiſm before? And then I ask, From what time, for how long they are to charge this ſinful Omiſſion upon themſelves?

Now compare their way, and ours, and Judge Impartially, which is moſt agreeable to Scripture-Rule. VVe are not for the baptizing of Heathens, or any without the Church, without their having the Goſpel firſt Preached to them, and their profeſſing to believe it. Now when they receive the Goſpel, they receive it not only for themſelves, but for their Children; and were bound to Inſtruct, and Educate their Children according to it. And ſo ſuch Families were Diſcipled, and to be Baptized; and what Children they might have afterwards to be baptized, as all of them belonging to the Church, and School of Chriſt, to be Trained up in the Knowledge of Chriſt. And ſo all along God had put a Diſtinction betwixt the Seed of his profeſſing People, and the Children of ſuch as were without the Church: Not only the Natural ſeed p. 417of Abraham, but the Seed of the Proſelytes, that joyned themſelves to the Lord, had the Sign of the Covenant. Thus the way is clear to us, whom, and when to baptize.

Our Oppoſites are not for the baptizing of the Children of Chriſtians, but upon their own perſonal profeſſion. Now that baptiſm is not unneceſſary to be deferred, after one comes to make profeſſion, they muſt grant. But how ſoon, or how long before a Childs profeſſion, is to be accounted ſuch, as entitleth him to baptiſm; they cannot ſhew from any Command, or Example in the VVord. Here they have no Rule, as much as they ſeem to be for keeping cloſe to Scripture-Rule.

Now think of it ſeriouſly, whether it be at all Credible, that if God would not have the Children of Chriſtians baptized, but upon their firſt making a viſible profeſſion, there ſhould yet be no Rule, or Direction, when that might be. VVe can eaſily diſcern, when ſuch as were Heathens come firſt to a profeſſion of Chriſtianity: but when a Child of Chriſtian Parents that hath been Learning the Principles of Chriſtianity from his very Infancy, I ſay, when ſuch a Child ſhall be taken firſt to make a perſonal profeſſion, is no eaſie matter to determine. Now when the moſt that they baptize, are ſuch, as they cannot ſay, when they firſt came to make a perſonal profeſſion, let any that are Impartial judge, how well they follow Scripture-Rule. Beſides, ſince they muſt hold, that to baptize a Child before its making a perſonal profeſſion, would make ſuch baptiſm a Nullity; and to defer to baptize it, after it has come to make a perſonal profeſſion, is a ſinful neglect, and plain breach of Goſpel-Rule, p. 418and Order; and one man may take that for a perſonal proſeſſion, which another would not admit to be ſo: Hereupon it muſt needs follow, that their way layeth a certain ground of Claſhing and Confuſion in the Church, and tends to lead both Miniſters and Chriſtians into endleſs perplexities, touching the firſt admiſſion of our Children.

Thus you ſee in this firſt grand Objection, that we have neither expreſs Precept, nor Example for Infant-baptiſm; they are like a man that rolleth a ſtone, which returneth upon him that rolleth it. The Objection returns, and falls heavily on themſelves. There is no need of an expreſs Precept, or Example for the baptizing of Infants born within the Covenant, this being ſuitable to the Scripture-way before, (as from the time that God had appointed an Initiating Seal of the Covenant, the Infants of Parents within the Covenant, were ever before admitted to the Initiating Seal with their Parents.) But there is need of expreſs Direction, Rule, or Example, if ſuch Children are not to be admitted now, but upon their perſonal profeſſion, to ſhew, when ſuch profeſſion hath been, or may be taken.

Object. 2. But further they will Object, that they can ſhew both Precept and Examples againſt Infant-baptiſm.

1. Precept, Mat. 28.19. Go teach all Nations, baptizing them. They muſt be Taught before they are to be baptized: To which agrees, Mar. 16.16, He that believeth, and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved. A Rule for believers baptiſm. Infants are not capable of being Taught, are not Actual believers.

Anſw. 1. As Learning, and believing (according to that Diſpenſation) was required of adult p. 419perſons at the firſt Inſtitution of Circumciſion. Abrahams ſervants that were to be Circumciſed, as well as he, were ſuch as he had Taught the way of the Lord, ſee Gen. 18.19. And afterwards none could be Proſelytes of the Covenant, and taken into the Jewiſh Church, none that were of years, but they muſt firſt know, and acknowledge the God of Iſrael. Yet all this hindred not the Circumciſing of their Infants. So in conſtituting the Goſpel-Church, they that were of Years, muſt firſt know, and profeſs the Name of Chriſt, before they could be admitted as Members of the Church, or accounted Chriſtians. But this hinders not, but that the Parents being Diſcipled, their Children were to be acknowledged, as belonging to the Church with their Parents. At the firſt Inſtitution of Baptiſm, and firſt Conſtituting of the Goſpel-Church; it was neceſſary indeed that the firſt Members of the Church, and firſt Subjects of Baptiſm, were taught and brought to profeſs the Faith, before they were baptized, (the Gentiles being generally ſtrangers to the Covenant, and the Jews ſtrangers to this new Diſpenſation of it, and none have right to Baptiſm, the Initiating Seal of the Goſpel-Covenant, till they come within the Goſpel-Covenant.) And therefore Infants could not be the firſt Subjects of Baptiſm, becauſe it was neceſſary their Parents ſhould be in Covenant, to bring them within the Covenant; ſo the Parents ſhould be firſt Baptized, as their right to Baptiſm in order of Nature, preceded the right of the Children. But becauſe the Parents were not admitted to Baptiſm, but upon their being Taught, and making a perſonal profeſſion, (which was neceſſary to p. 420bring them within the Covenant) it will not follow that their Children muſt be firſt Taught, and make a perſonal profeſſion before they may be baptized. Theſe being now in Covenant together with their Parents, have alſo a right to the Initiating Seal of the Covenant, as well as their Parents. Thus the Baptiſm of ſuch adult perſons, and of their Infants is but one, and the Ground or Reaſon of baptizing both, is one and the ſame; to wit, their being taken into Covenant. Only the way of adult perſons being taken into Covenant, is diverſe from that of their Infants. When perſons come to make a profeſſion of Faith in Chriſt, they are taken (at leaſt, Externally) into Covenant, though they were not born of believing Parents; and ſuch as are the Children of believing Parents are (at leaſt Externally) in the Covenant, though they are not at preſent, capable of being Taught, or of making a perſonal profeſſion. Theſi Salm. par. 3. p. 48. Sect. 9.Nec ab adultis exigitur naſcendi conditio, modo credant: Nec ab Infantibus exigitur ut credant, modò nati ſint ex iis qui ſeſe credere profitentur.

2, From Mat. 28.19. [Go, Diſciple all Nations, baptiſing them.] It will follow, that all who are Diſciples, are to be baptized. As ſoon as any are Diſciples, (though Incompleat) Miniſters, have Authority from Chriſt to baptize them. And our Oppoſites will not deny, but all Diſciples are to be baptized. So that if it appear, that the Infants of Diſciples are Diſciples too; it will follow, that they are to be baptized.

And as yet, I could never meet with a clear anſwer p. 421to that Argument Mr. Of Infant-baptiſm. p. 15. &c.Baxter urgeth from Acts 15.10. They upon whoſe Necks the falſe Teachers would have put the Yoke of Circumciſion, are there called Diſciples. But the falſe Teachers would have put this Yoke, not only upon Chriſtian Parents, but upon their Children and Infants. It plainly appears from ver. 1, 5, 24. that Circumciſion was the Yoke there ſpoken of. And it is out of queſtion, that there were more young Children than adult perſons, upon whom thoſe falſe Teachers would have brought this Yoke. And ſince this Scripture only declares againſt their laying that Yoke upon the Neck of the Diſciples, it follows, that either the Children, and Infants of Diſciples are included in this term [Diſciples] or that the Circumciſing of ſuch was not forbidden here; but only the Impoſing of Circumciſion upon adult perſons.

Neither ſhould it ſeem ſtrange, that Children, Infants, are called Diſciples, being admitted into the School of Chriſt, and to be Trained up in the Knowledge of Chriſt. Sometimes we ſend our Children to School, before they can Learn of a book, and ſuch are numbered among the Scholars, being deſigned for Learning, as ſoon as they are capable. And it is not ſo ſtrange, that ſuch as are intended for Learning, and entred into a School, ſhould be called Scholars, before they have Learnt any thing; as that none ſhould be accounted Chriſts Scholars, or Diſciples, till they have made ſo great proficiency (as ſome would have it) that they can give an account of their Converſion, of the Work of Grace being wrought in them; of the time when, and p. 422manner how it was wrought: Scholars are entred into a School, not becauſe they are already Taught, but that they may be Taught. And Timothy was Learning the Holy Scriptures foreign from his Childhood, 2 Tim. 3.15. That it is certain from Child-little, he was a Diſciple of Chriſt. This which is Recorded of Timothy, ſhould Teach all Chriſtians, that have Children, to begin with them betimes, to teach them to know God, and his Will. The things of God cannot be Learnt too ſoon, neither are little Children uncapable Subjects of Divine Illumination, and Grace. But that Chriſtian Parents are bound to Inſtruct their Children in the Doctrine of Chriſtianity, and to Teach them their Duty, as ſoon as ever they are capable of receiving ſuch Inſtruction, and that Children ought to attend to ſuch Inſtruction; Would not this imply that they are Diſciples? But indeed they that are againſt Infants Diſcipleſhip and baptiſm, have been generally againſt the Inſtructing and Catechizing of Little ones. If ſome of them of late go not ſo far in their Oppoſition, I am glad of it.

Yet further, Is it not as ſtrange, that little Children, and Infants, ſhould be called Servants, as that they ſhould be called Diſciples? Yet ſuch are called Servants, Lev. 25.41, 42. The Children of the poor Iſraelite (of what age ſoever) are there called Gods Servants. So David profeſſeth, Pſal. 116.16. O Lord, truly I am thy Servant, I am thy Servant, the Son of thy Hand-maid. (i.e.) born thy Servant in thy Houſe, as Ainſworth ſays. So Pſal. 86.16. David was born a Servant of God.

3. Suppoſe we could not prove, Infants included p. 423in the Commiſſion, Mat. 28.19. (as hath been proved already) yet that they are not expreſly mentioned here as Subjects of baptiſm, is not enough to exclude them, unleſs there were no other Scripture-Rule but this, to direct us about it, who are to be baptized. As becauſe this Commiſſion was expreſly directed to the Apoſtles only, to the Eleven, ver. 16. It will not follow that they only were authorized to baptize.

Now I come to conſider that other Text, Mark 16.16. which ſome I know build moſt upon. [He that believeth, and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved.] The Scope whereof is to ſhew, who alone partake of the ſaving benefit of baptiſm, (and other Goſpel-Ordinances) being adult. Whiſton of Infant Baptiſm. p. 295.Or (as one ſays) Here Chriſt informs them what the Iſſue of the Execution of their Commiſſion ſhould be.— Thoſe that ſhould believe, and be baptized, ſhould be ſaved; but thoſe that believed not, (however they might be baptized, yet) they ſhould be damned. But that there is no colour for making this Text the Rule of baptizing; or for any to ſuppoſe, that it determineth who are the only lawful Subjects of baptiſm; is evident (I think) from theſe following particulars.

1, That it is not ſaid, [He that believeth only, ſhall be baptized.] But, [He that believeth, and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved.] He that believeth, and is baptized, is the Subject in this Propoſition, of whom this is predicated, that [He ſhall be ſaved.] Hence it is manifeſt, that theſe words hold forth the ſubject of Salvation, not the ſubject of baptiſm. Yet we muſt not ſay, they determine the only ſubject p. 424of Salvation, unleſs we will hold baptiſm of abſolute neceſſity to Salvation, and hold that no Infant (that does not actually believe) can be ſaved.

2. That in the Oppoſite Member, it is not ſaid, [He that believeth not, ſhall not be baptized.] but, [He that believeth not, ſhall be damned.]

3. If this Text ſhould be taken to determine the only lawful Subjects of baptiſm, then it would follow, that the Apoſtles, and their aſſiſtants, were guilty of Male-adminiſtration, and Erred in baptizing many, (ſuch as Annanias, Saphira, Simon Magus, &c.) who were not believers, in the ſence of this Text: Either ſuch had a right to the outward Ordinance, or not. If they had no right to it, then it was amiſs for any (were they Apoſtles themſelves) to admit them to baptiſm, who had no right to it. If they had a right to the outward Ordinance, then [He that believeth, and is baptized, &c.] Doth not determine the only lawful Subject of baptiſm; diverſe having been rightfully baptized, who were not true believers, ſuch as this Text ſpeaks of.

4. If believers baptiſm, be the only lawful baptiſm (in the ſence that believing is here uſed) then how is it poſſible for any Miniſter to diſpoſe this Ordinance in Faith? He cannot baptize others but doubtingly, of whoſe unfeigned Faith, he is not aſſured. And he cannot be aſſured, that anothers Faith is true and ſaving, without Special Revelation. And thus without Special Revelation he ſhould not know who may lawfully be baptized.

5. If this Text concludes againſt Infants baptiſm, it concludes as well againſt the Salvation of Infants. p. 425If you ſay, They believe not, and therefore are not to be baptized; it followeth more directly from the next words, They believe not, therefore they ſhall be Damned. If now to avoid ſo horrid a conſquence, as that all Infants are Damned, you will have the Text Reſtrained to the adult, as needs it muſt be; you take away the force of the Argument hence againſt the Baptizing of Infants. As more is required of adult perſons, than of Infants, in order to Salvation; So that may be required in order to the baptizing of the adult, which is not required of Infants. And yet I muſt mind you, that this Scripture does not determine, who only of the adult ought to be baptized; but who only of the adult enjoy the ſaving benefit of that, as of other Goſpel-Ordinances. Other things I paſs by for brevity-ſake.

(2.) They bring diverſe Examples as they conceive, againſt Infant-baptiſm. As the Example of the Three Thouſands, Acts 2.38, 41. And of the Samaritans Act. 8.12. And of the Eunuch there, ver. 36, 37, 38. And of Cornelius, and thoſe that were with him, Act. 10.47, 48.

Anſw. 1. Note here, that the Socinians, who would have baptiſm a Temporary Rite, do in like manner argue from theſe Inſtances, that we only Read of the baptizing of ſuch as were Converted to the Chriſtian Faith; not of ſuch as were born in it, and had all along profeſſed it.

2. Our reading, that ſuch and ſuch were baptized upon the profeſſion of Faith and Repentance, and the like, will not prove, that ſuch only were baptized.

The profeſſion of Faith and Repentance might p. 426well be required of adult perſons in order to baptiſm, and yet the Children of ſuch as made a profeſſion, be baptized without it. As God required Abraham to walk before him in ſincerity, [Walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my Covenant between me and thee,] Gen. 17.1, 2. Yet this did not hinder the Covenant being made with his Seed, when they could not ſo walk before God,

3. If thoſe words, Act. 2.38. [Repent, and be baptized.— For the Remiſſion of ſins.] Muſt be ſo taken, as excluding Infants from Baptiſm, they muſt then be underſtood alſo to deny to Infants the Remiſſion of ſin.

4. If we may argue from Act. 8.37. Excluſively, that none but ſuch as believe with the heart, are to be baptized; this Text would make againſt our Oppoſites as well: thoſe that Object it againſt us. will they ſay, they baptize none, but ſuch as believe with all their heart?

5. So if Act. 10.47. muſt be ſo taken, as if none were to be baptized, but ſuch as had received the Holy Ghoſt, as thoſe had done; they themſelves ſhould be Excluded from Baptiſm, till it appears, that the Gift of the Holy Ghoſt is poured on them, that they ſpeak with Tongues, as theſe did, ver. 45, 46. Indeed as the Gift of the Holy Ghoſt was an Evidence of their being taken within the Goſpel-Covenant, (ſee Mark 16.17.) and ſo a ground for the baptizing of them: It will follow, that whoſoever can be proved to be within the Covenant, have a right to baptiſm. And this will alſo plead for the admiſſion of the Children of believers to baptiſm, we having ſeen it proved, that they are within the Covenant.

p. 4276. Sometimes we find, upon the Perſonal profeſſion of the Head of a Family, the whole Houſhold …o have been ſtraightway baptized. And therefore …hey that tell you, the Apoſtles baptized none but …uch as made a Perſonal profeſſion of Faith, and Repentance, ſpeak quite beſide the Book, ſay more than they can prove. Turn to Act. 16, 14, 15. There you will find Lydia, and her Houſhold baptized; where no mention is made of any one in the family being wrought upon, but only Lydia her ſelf, Methinks it is obſervable what one hath No…ed: Whiſton of Infant Bapt. p. 281, 282.How the Holy Ghoſt doth vary his manner of Expreſſion here, when he ſpeaks of the baptiſm of Houſholds; he tells us, the Houſholds were baptized together with their Parents; not giving the leaſt Intimation of the Faith of any beſides, in, or of thoſe Houſes, as the ground of their Baptiſm, but when he ſpeaks of more General Aſſemblies, or Concourſes of People; he ſpeaks more Diſtinguiſhingly: [As many as gladly received the Word, were baptized, Acts 2.41.] And why the Holy Ghoſt ſhould ſpeak ſo diſtinguiſhingly in one place, and not in the other, is hard to ſay; unleſs it ſhould be, becauſe in reſpect of ſuch more General Aſſemblies, and Concourſes of People, conſiſting of Grown Perſons; the perſonal Faith of each was neceſſary to their Baptiſm, but not ſo in reſpect of the Houſes of believing Parents.

Further, Some urge the Example of Chriſt, who was not Baptized till he was Thirty Years Old.

Anſw. 1. What? Would they have had him p. 428baptized, before John was ſent, or had authority to baptize?

2. How well do they follow Chriſts Example, who are for baptizing perſons at half Thirty Years Age?

3. And the reaſon of Chriſts not being Baptized till he was about Thirty Years old, could not be to Teach that none are to be admitted to baptiſm, till they can make a perſonal profeſſion. Certainly, Chriſt had for a long time before, made a Perſonal profeſſion. He being a Child was filled with Wiſdom, and the Grace of God was upon him, Luke 2.40. And when he was but Twelve Years Old, he was able to Diſpute with the moſt Learned Doctors, to the aſtoniſhing of all that heard him, ver. 42, 46, 47.

4. This Example, that Chriſt went to John to be Baptized of him, rather makes againſt their Sebaptiſts. And the firſt of their way, baptize themſelves. Surely, they cannot plead Chriſts Example for this Practice.

So, ſome urge the Example of the Romans, Rom. 6.3. Of the Galatians, Gal. 3.27. Of the Coloſſians, Col. 2.12.

Anſw. It is certain, all the baptized Romans, Galatians, Coloſſians, had not Savingly and Really put on Chriſt, neither were Really buried with Chriſt; but only Sacramentally many of them. And thus in infant-baptiſm there is a putting on Chriſt, and a being buried with Chriſt; ſome being really Ingrafted into him, and really partaking of the Fruits of his Death; and all being under an Obligation, as they ſhall grow up, to put on Chriſt, and to Conform themſelves to the Death, and Burial of Chriſt.

p. 429Object. 3. Another great Objection againſt Infant-baptiſm, is that it Fruſtrates the ends of Baptiſm, is Unprofitable and Vain; Infants being Uncapable of Underſtanding, or Improving it.

Anſw. 1. Here that is a ſure Rule, Inſtit. l. 4. c. 16. ſect. 20.which Calvin lays down: Quaecunque ad qualifaciendam Circumciſionem argumenta inclinant, vim nullam habent in oppugnando Baptiſmo. Thoſe arguments which would overthrow Infant-Circumciſion, (which was an undoubted Ordinance of God) cannot be Valid againſt Infant-baptiſm. There were Spiritual, and Holy ends of Circumciſion, and adult perſons were to make that uſe of their Circumciſion, which an Infant could not make of it. Now ſhall any hereupon deny, that the Circumciſion of Infants was an Ordinance of God, or deny the Wiſdom of God in appointing it? Since it is Obvious, that what is Objected here againſt Infant-baptiſm, may as well be turned againſt Infant-Circumciſion: May we not ſay, to any ſuch Objector, as the Apoſtle (in another ſence) Nay but, O man, who art thou that diſputeſt againſt God?

2. Of all thoſe Seven ends of Baptiſm, which H. D. lays down: I would fain know which, or how many of them agreed unto Chriſts own baptiſm. Was his baptiſm to witneſs his Repentance, who had no ſin to repent of? Or was it to evidence his preſent Regeneration, who was Gods holy One from the birth, and from the Conception? &c.

3. Did all thoſe Ends agree to the baptiſm of Simon Magus, &c. Did the baptiſm of Simon Magus witneſs his Repentance, and Evidence his preſent Regeneratian? Or declare his being buried with Chriſt? &c.

p. 4304. Since baptiſm is acknowledged a Sign of Gods Covenant, and of entrance into the Church, and the Infant-Children of believers are within the Covenant, and of the Church (as hath been ſufficiently proved) in theſe reſpects baptiſm doth belong to ſuch Infants, as well as it would to others adult, upon their embracing the Chriſtian Faith, and making a profeſſion. Where the ſame thing hath ſeveral reſpects, it may agree to one in one reſpect, and to others in other reſpects.

5. Regeneration, and Remiſſion of ſin (which is the Inward Baptiſm) are things that Infants are not uncapable of, if they be not uncapable of Salvation: Why then ſhould they be thought uncapable of the Outward baptiſm, the Sign thereof?

6. The Fruit, and benefit of this Ordinance of baptiſm, is not reſtrained to the very Time of the Adminiſtration of it; but may come in afterwards. Yea, that baptiſm received in Infancy, is of uſe through ones whole courſe.

7. Yea, in ſome reſpects it hath its ſpecial uſes and advantages, even above that in adult Eſtate. To name a few particulars here.

1. As the Child baptized is a declared Member of the Viſible Church of Chriſt, and ſo eſpecially Intereſted **I mean, above others who are yet without the Church.in the Churches Prayers, even before it can pray for it ſelf. Certainly, to have a ſhare in the Prayers of all Gods People, is no mean Priviledge. When Abraham prayed for Iſhmael, though he was not the Son of the Promiſe; yet, As for Iſhmael, I have heard thee, (ſays God, Gen. 17.20.) Behold, I have bleſſed him, and will make him Fruitful. That he p. 431fared ſome way better for Abrahams prayer. Though the Church of God out of common Charity, prays for all men; yet more eſpecially for her Members, for whom ſhe can plead Gods Covenant. And thus Infants by their baptiſm being declared Members of the Church, and within the Covenant, are in a greater probability of reaping benefit by the Prayers of Gods People, than if they are ſuppoſed to be without the Covenant.

So likewiſe upon our Principles, Chriſtian Parents have ſtronger Pleas to urge with God in Prayer, on the behalf of their Children, than they of contrary Principles can have. They can pray for their Children, only as they may pray for Heathens, while they ſuppoſe them out of the Covenant. Now ſee the difference of theſe two States, Iſa. 63.19. We are thine,— they are not called by thy Name. So we can pray for our Children upon better grounds, Lord, bleſs them, own them, they are thine. When our Oppoſites deny themſelves this Plea, and inſtead of it muſt pray God to pity them, though they are not called by his Name.

2. Infant-baptiſm lays a ſtronger Obligation upon Parents to bring up their Children in the Knowledge, Nurture, and Admonition of the Lord. And how many have cauſe to bleſs God for the Priviledge of good Education? And how ſtrong a Motive is this, to Excite and Quicken Godly Parents to their Duty, in the Religious Education of their Children, to conſider Gods ſpecial Intereſt in them, their ſolemn devoting of them to his Service, and ſolemn promiſe to Train them up for him?

Yea, many from the meer workings of Natural Conſcience, hereupon have ſhewn ſome Care, that p. 432their Children might be Inſtructed in the Principles of Religion, whereby the Knowledge of Chriſt and Chriſtianity, is further ſpread.

3. Infant-baptiſm alſo lays a ſpecial Obligation upon Children, to acquaint themſelves with the Terms, and Tenour of that Covenant, their Parents have engaged them in. And ſo it is a ſpecial means to continue the Covenant-Relation betwixt God, and his Peoples Seed. Parents being hereby obliged to Catechiſe, Inſtruct Children, and Teach them their Duty, and to bring them to the Means, the Word and Ordinances of Chriſt; and Children being obliged to receive ſuch Inſtructions, and to attend upon the Word, and Ordinances, and apply themſelves to the Service of Chriſt, whereunto they have been Devoted. And herein Gods preventing Love and Mercy towards our Children is ſeen, that he would not have them left to their own choice, whom they would ſerve, any more than the Seed of his People of Old; and that as they could never have choſen better for themſelves, ſo the ſence of their baptiſmal Covenant might prevail with them, as ſoon as they come to any underſtanding, and will of their own, to ſerve the God of their Fathers; to ſet forward in the good and right Way, wherein they ſhould go, betimes before they are ſinfully Habituated in any other Courſe.

4. Infant-baptiſm carrieth in it the cleareſt Evidence of our miſerable, ſinful, and corrupt Eſtate by Nature, and of the need there is (in reſpect of Original corruption) both of the Blood of Chriſt, to take off the Guilt, and of the Spirit of Grace, to free our ſouls from the power of Corruption. And thus it hath a direct tendency towards a deep p. 433Humiliation, and ſound Converſion, as ſoon as Children are of Capacity to reflect upon it. If baptiſm was only Adminiſtred to perſons of adult age, though it denotes thus much, that they are ſinful, unclean Creatures (conſidered in themſelves) ſuch as have need of waſhing; yet it would not point at Original Corruption, as Infant-baptiſm doth; for they might be accounted ſinners by practice, without being acknowledged ſinful by Nature. As we know, many who have been againſt Infant-baptiſm, have denied Original ſin.

5. Infant-baptiſm is a more viſible Character, and Expreſſion of Gods Free-grace, the ſubject being purely paſſive. It may ſeem ſtrange, that God ſhould this way hold forth his Free-Grace under the Old Teſtament, providing an Ordinance of which Infants were capable, and make no ſuch proviſion under the Goſpel.

6. Infant-baptiſm engageth us againſt ſin, as a vowed Enemy for ever.

As Iſrael was to have War with Amalek for ever: So are we ever to reſolve, and ſtrive againſt ſin, and ſeek the utter Extirpation of it. That we were falſe to Chriſt, and lived in the Violation of our Baptiſmal Covenant, all that while we ſerved ſin: The remembrance and conſideration thereof, is a means to further the Humiliation of many gracious hearts for ſins paſt, as a means to quicken them to greater watchfulneſs and reſolvedneſs againſt ſin for the time to come.

Here methinks it is worth noticing, what one ſays, Ep. Ded. to Mr. Fords practical uſe of Infant-Baptiſm. p. 5.Though it may in ſome caſes be granted, that an Ordinance adminiſtred p. 434with ſome conſiderable circumſtantial Irregularities, may ſanctifie; yet that thoſe Irregularities themſelves ſhould be the Channels of Sanctifying Grace, it is not eaſily imaginable. Now this is the caſe of Infant-baptiſm. Many holy men of many Ages, have found their hearts Warmed, and Quickned in the Exerciſe of Faith, Repentance, Love, Thankfulneſs, reſtrained from ſin, excited to duty, by the conſideration (not only of Baptiſm, and the Perſonal Covenant therein Sealed, but alſo) of Infant-Baptiſm under that Circumſtance, and the Covenant of Anceſtors, the Foundation of that Adminiſtration.

7. Infant-baptiſm affords much Comfort and Encouragement to believing Parents, in reference to their ſeed. It may well rejoyce the heart of a Chriſtian Parent, to ſee his Childes baptiſm a token of Gods good Will towards it, Sealing his Covenant with it. And take away the grounds of Infant-baptiſm, and what ground hath a Believer to hope of the ſalvation of his Child dying in Infancy, more than to hope of the ſalvation of the Child of any Heathen or Infidel? Infants are not ſaved upon account of Native Innocency, (though they are innocent in reſpect of Actual Tranſgreſſion, yet are they Guilty in reſpect of Natural inherent Corruption) but Infants that are ſaved, are ſaved upon the account of Chriſt: And if ſaved by Chriſt, then Intereſted in him: And if Intereſted in him, by what Covenant? I know no other but that, where God promiſeth to be the God of a Believer, and of his ſeed, that can give us hopes of the ſalvation of our Children, dying in Infancy. No other Covenant, that I can find in Scripture, to make over Chriſt and his ſaving Benefits to Infants.

p. 435But now God promiſing to be a God to the ſeed of believers, and ſealing this in their Baptiſm, ſuch of them as die Infants, and ſo no ways revoke or violate the Covenant by any Act or Deed of theirs, we have good ground to conclude that they are ſaved: as Chriſt ſaid, Of ſuch is the Kingdom of Heaven. Theſe being in Covenant, and not breaking Covenant with God, it is not to be thought, that God will break Covenant with them.

Again, hence godly Parents may be encouraged, in reference to their living Iſſue. Since God hath taken them into Covenant, there is more hope, that God may have ſpecial Covenant-bleſſings in ſtore for them, than there is of ſuch as are out of Covenant. And if Parents and Children were Diligent, and Faithful in doing their part, we might ſee then, it ſhould not ſtick at Him, the Lord would not fail to do His part. See Gen. 18.19.

8. Infant-baptiſm (engaging the ſeed of profeſſed Chriſtians to the embracing and profeſſing of Chriſtianity) hath been one great means to enlarge the Viſible Church, and Kingdom of Chriſt. A means to preſerve the Chriſtian Religion, and propagate it to many, that otherwiſe were likely never to have come ſo far, as to an outward owning and profeſſion of it. It is not ſo eaſie to draw perſons to a renouncing of Chriſt and Chriſtianity, who have been engaged to a Profeſſion of it from their very Infancy; as it would have been to have kept many ſuch from owning it at all, had they been left to themſelves, till they were grown up, then to chuſe for themſelves. I hope, there are none of us, ſo ſenceleſs, as not to acknowledge it a priviledge, to live in a Land, where Chriſt is generally owned by an p. 436open, outward profeſſion; rather than to Live among Jews, Turks, or Pagans, that are Enemies to the very Name of Chriſt.

You may ſee more of this Nature in Mr. Fords, practical Uſe of Infant-baptiſm.

Object. 4. They Object, that Infant-baptiſm is followed with Miſchiefs, attended with very evil Conſequences; bringing in falſe Matter into the Church, and Deforming her with ſo many Rotten Members, Ignorant, and Scandalous Perſons, as many of thoſe prove, who were Baptized in Infancy.

Anſw. 1. They might with as good Reaſon bring in the like Charge againſt Infant-Circumciſion. Now would not that be to charge God fooliſhly? And ſhall a man be more pure than his Maker?

2. Were there no Rotten Members among all thoſe whom John Baptized? Mat. 3. No Rotten Members among them of Samaria, Baptized by Phillip? Acts 8. No Rotten Members in the Church of Corinth, Galatia, and other Churches, we read of planted by the Apoſtles themſelves?

3. Are there no Rotten Members that they take in? No Hypocrites? None of corrupt Principles?

4. Infant-Baptiſm is neither a cauſe of Ignorance, nor of Profaneneſs, but an Engagement upon all that have been partakers of it, to Learn the Doctrine of Chriſt, and live according to his Laws. And however Infants may prove afterwards, yet when they are admitted to Baptiſm, they are free from all culpable Ignorance, not guilty of Hypocriſie, nor to be charged with any Actual ſin.

5. The true cauſe of theſe Miſchiefs is Parents neglect of their Duty, of Inſtructing and Training up Children as they ought; or want of the due p. 437Exerciſe of Church-Diſcipline, and Cenſures. And ſo they might be prevented, or removed by other wayes and means, than denying Infant-baptiſm.

And if any that are Parents think they have done enough, in having brought their Children to be Baptized; or any Perſon thinks, he is a good Chriſtian, becauſe he is baptized, they have not Learnt ſo of us.

More I would have ſaid to this, becauſe it is taking with ſome well-meaning Souls; but I had rather refer you to what Mr. Baxter hath written of Infant-baptiſm, pag. 117. &c.

Object. 5. They Object, that Baptiſm being Adminiſtred to one in Infancy, he hath no way to be certain, that he was Baptized, but muſt take it upon truſt from others. And in this reſpect there is more to be ſaid for Infant-Circumciſion, becauſe that left a Mark and Character, whereby it might be known, ſuch were Circumciſed.

Anſw. 1. Circumciſion was uſed amongſt others, beſides the Jews; ſome that were Idolaters, and Heathens, took up this Rite; though to them it was not the Ordinance of Circumciſion, or a Sign of Gods Covenant. And it was poſſible for the Jews to be ſometimes taken Captive by theſe, and their Children to be Circumciſed with their Mock-Circumciſion. Now look how the Jews might be ſatisfied, that they had the true Circumciſion, and …n the like way our Children may be certified of their Baptiſm.

2. How was Paul certified, that he was Circumciſed the eighth day, Phil. 3.5. Surely, he could …ot remember it? Only it was ſo teſtified by others, p. 438And the ſame way may our Children be certified of their Baptiſm in Infancy.

3. What aſſurance can they that are Rebaptized have, that their later baptiſm was right? I ſuppoſe the words [I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt,] are pronounced as they are Plunging into the Water; at which time it is not poſſible they ſhould hear, and attend to them. How do they know in whoſe Name they were baptized? Muſt not they alſo take it upon truſt, that they were Baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt; which the By-ſtanders ſometimes could not hear diſtinctly.

4. Why may we not as well be certified of our Baptiſm in Infancy by a Regiſter, as of our Birth? They that will queſtion what is ſo Recorded, may as well queſtion their Chriſtian Names, and ſo feat to claim any Earthly Inheritances, Portions, or Legacies under thoſe Names.

Further, ſome of them will plead Antiquity: but how vainly and groundleſsly, ſome of ours have ſhewn.

I cannot but wonder H. D. ſhould make ſuch a Flouriſh with the Citations he meets with in The plain and well grounded Treatiſe concerning Baptiſm, (falſly ſo called) without taking any notice of Mr. Colbet's anſwer thereunto.

The Pelagians (though bold enough, yet) had not ſo great a ſtock of Confidence, De peccat. Mer. & Remiſſ. l. 1. c. 26.(as Auguſtine obſerves) who never durſt deny the baptiſm of Infants, becauſe they ſaw, they muſt too openly have Claſhed with the whole Church. Certainly, p. 439if thoſe antient Hereticks could have found any fair pretence from Antiquity to have oppoſed Infant-baptiſm, ſince it would have made ſo much for their purpoſe, they would have thought their Labour here well beſtowed.

Object. Laſt, One Objection more, that muſt not be paſſed by, is, That we have changed the antient Rite and Ceremony of Dipping. This ſome make ſo Eſſential and Neceſſary to true Baptiſm, that they hold our Baptiſm no more Baptiſm, than it would have been Circumciſion; if inſtead of Cutting off the Foreskin, they had only pared their Nails.

Now, 1. They argue for the Neceſſity of Dipping, from the Notation of the words, foreign, and foreign, which they will have only to ſignifie Dipping, or Plunging into Water.

Anſw. But if it could be proved that the word [Baptize] primarily ſignifieth to Dip, Plunge, or Cover all over; yet the Scripture-uſe of the word is againſt them. This is plain from Many Texts which are ordinarily produced, Mark 7.4. Except they waſh foreign, They Eat not. I hope they do not Imagine, that the Phariſees Dipt themſelves every time they went to Meat. So the word is uſed to ſignifie any way of Waſhing, and not only that of Dipping. And whereas they uſe to oppoſe [Baptizing] to Rantizing, or Sprinkling; yet the Scripture uſeth them promiſcuouſly: In the Language of the Holy Ghoſt, Sprinkling is ſometimes called Baptiſm, Heb. 9.10. We read of diverſe Waſhings, in the Greek it is Baptiſmes. Where ſome of thoſe Waſhings ſpoken of, were by way of Sprinkling, ver. 13, 19, 21. Numb. 8.7. p. 440and 19.17, 18. And whether is more proper to the place, diverſe kinds of Dipping, or diverſe kinds of Waſhing and Purifying?

So we read of the Iſraelites being Baptized in the Cloud, and in the Sea, 1 Cor. 10.2. Were they Dipped in the Cloud? No, but Be-dewed, or lightly Waſhed, as men are in a ſhower of Rain. Were they Dipped in the Sea? No certainly, not the Iſraelites, but the Egyptians were Dipped, Plunged in the Sea, Exod. 15.10. foreign: Demerſi fuerunt ceu plumbum in aquâ, So foreign, Vid. Bez. in Mat. 3.11.Matt 3:11differt à verbo, foreign. it is of a milder ſignification, that there is no reaſon they ſhould put ſo great an Emphaſis in it.

Again, Rev. 19.13. We read of Chriſt that he was Cloathed in a Veſture foreign Dipt in blood, ſays our Tranſlation. But it hath reference to Iſa. 63.1, 2, 3. where it is [Garments ſprinkled with blood.] As that muſt be the meaning. As the Expreſſion is taken from great Warriours, returning from the Slaughter of their Enemies, who do not uſe to Dip their Garments in the blood of the Slain; though they have oft their Garments beſprinkled with blood.

By this time I hope you may ſee, their Dipping is grounded on ſuch a Criticiſm, as will not hold water.

2. They argue from Primitive practice, the manner of baptizing uſed, when the Ordinance of baptiſm was firſt ſet up.

Anſw. 1. But firſt the Texts of Scripture they bring to prove it, if well looked into, are no cogent Proofs of it. The phraſe of baptizing p. 441foreign, Mark 3.11. will not neceſſarily infer Dipping. The prepoſition foreign, ſignifying [with] as well as [in,] Mat. 5.13. foreign With what ſhall it be ſalted. So we have foreign, Mat. 3.11. Whether is more conſonant to Scripture-phraſe, to ſay, he ſhall Dip you in the Spirit; or to ſay, he ſhall Pour the Spirit on you? So that phraſe ſeemeth to be more againſt Dipping, than for it. Another Text they urge, is Mat. 13.16. Jeſus when he was baptized, went up ſtraightway out of the water: but in the Greek it is only foreign, he went up [from] not [out of] the water. Another Text which they think very conſiderable for their purpoſe, is John 3.23. John baptized in Aenon, foreign, becauſe many waters were there. The Text proves not the waters of ſuch depth, as was convenient for Dipping; though here was a conveniency, when great Multitudes came to John's baptiſm, that he and his Diſciples might be employed together. The word Aenon ſignifies no more than Fonticulus, a little Spring, or Rivulet. And they tell us, it was a ſmall Brook indeed, which one might almoſt ſtride over; though of no ſmall account in that hot Countrey, where water was ſo ſcarce. Another Text they ſtand much upon, is Acts 8.38. which if it will prove, that Phillip Dipped the Eunuch, it will prove alſo that he Dipped himſelf: For it is ſaid, foreign; they both went down unto the water. The propoſition foreign and foreign there, may as well be rendred [to] and [from] as by [into] and [out of:] No wonder, Philip is ſaid to go down to, and come up from the water, (ver. 39.) The water Running in the Valleys, and that p. 442being a Land of Hills and Valleys, Deut. 11.11.

2. They have little to ſay, to thoſe Inſtances, which ſome of ours produce of Perſons baptized, and no probability of their being Dipt. As we read of Three Thouſand baptized in a day, Acts 2.41. Yea, in part of a day. (Compare ver. 15. with 41.) VVhen ſo few hands were to be employed, it would ſeem paſſing ſtrange, that they ſhould Dip ſo many as Three Thouſand, taking them one by one, in part of a day, (as one part of the day was ſpent before the Company met, and a further part of it was ſpent in Peters Sermon, by which they were Converted.) Now had they been baptized in their way, it would ſcarce have been the work of a day or two. Again, if they were Dipt, they were either Dipt Naked, or in their Cloaths. If Naked, then they might all have ſeemed full of new Wine indeed. If Davids ſervants were aſhamed, when Hanun cut off their Garments to the Middle, (2 Sam. 10.4.) What matter of ſhame had it been, if all theſe had been ſtript Naked? And what reproach would this have brought upon the way of Chriſtianity? If in their Cloaths, ſuch Dipping would have been a Waſhing of their Cloaths, rather than of themſelves. So the Cloaths had been baptized immediately, and primarily, and the Body only conſequently, and ſecondarily. Thus indeed their Bodies might be wet, but not properly waſhed. So likewiſe ſome parts of the body might have been untouched, And then how would ſuch Dipping hold forth a being Sanctified throughout.

Again, when Paul was weak after three dayes Faſting, Ananias comes to him in the Houſe of p. 443Judas, and baptized him. And afterwards receiving Meat he was ſtrengthened, Acts 9.9, 18, 19. What Evidence or Probability can they ſhew, that Paul in that weak condition he was in, was taken out to a River, or Plunged into cold water, which might in an ordinary way have deſtroyed him? The old Rule [I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice,] approved by Chriſt himſelf, Mat. 12.7. may ſatisfie us, that either it was not Pauls duty (pro hic & nunc) to be baptized, or that Plunging the body into water was not then held indiſpenſibly neceſsary, and eſſential to Baptiſm.

Again, we read, the Jailor and his Houſhold were baptized in the Night. Had the Jailor a Pond, or River in his Houſe? Or if he was ſo well ſtored with water laid in, as might ſuffice to Dip or Plung them into; yet would it be pure enough for thoſe that came laſt, when others had been waſhed in it before? We know ſometimes they Argue from that Expreſſion of [Bodies waſhed with pure water,] Heb. 10.22.

(3.) Had it been never ſo clear and manifeſt, that in thoſe Hotter Countreys, Baptiſm was Adminiſtred in the way of Dipping; there is more to be pleaded for it, than for this Practice in ſuch a cold Climate as ours, where it would be to croſs other Scripture-Rules. As Mr. Baxter conceives, that The Practice ſprung up in the Hotter Countreys, where Cuſtome had Taught them to go almoſt half Naked, in compariſon of us, and therefore it was there more Civil, or leſs Immodeſt, and leſs Dangerous to their Lives. But what he hath written of this Practice in our Circumſtances, pag. 134. to 138. deſerves to be well weighed. So far p. 444as I am able to judge, he there clearly proves, that our Dippers break the Commandment of God, to follow their Tradition.

3. They argue from the Nature of Baptiſm, and the Analogy and Reſemblance betwixt Dipping, and Chriſts Burial, or our burial with Chriſt, held forth in baptiſm, Rom. 6.4. And on this, the wiſeſt of them lay the greateſt ſtreſs: To overthrow this, is to overthrow their greateſt ſtrength.

Anſw. 1. Whereas one of them makes Dipping the very Form of Baptiſm: If it were ſo, then (for as much as Forma dat eſſe rei) whenſoever perſons are Dipt, (as ſome are for Puniſhment) or Dip and Douſe themſelves, (as ſome do for Pleaſure) this ſhould be the Ordinance of Baptiſm, here being the true Form of baptiſm.

2. It is not the Meaſure and Quantity, but the Quality, or Ʋſe of water, that is Repreſentative, and Significative (by Chriſts Inſtitution) in Baptiſm.

For my part, I ſhould not dare to make the Action of Dipping, or Sprinkling, or (which we generally uſe) Pouring on of water a Sacramental, without clearer Evidence of Scripture, than I could ever yet ſee produced. As in the Lords Supper, Chriſt hath appointed Bread and VVine, without determining how much of theſe each Communicant ſhould take: So in Baptiſm, he hath appointed water to be uſed (to ſignifie the Cleanſing virtue and Efficacy of his Blood and Spirit) without determining the quantity of water, or the manner how it ſhould be applied, whether by Immerſion, Aſperſion, or Superfuſion.

3. If becauſe Dipping beſt Repreſenteth the Burial p. 445of Chriſt, &c. therefore we muſt be for Dipping upon any Terms, and account that no Baptiſm, which is not this way Adminiſtred; I doubt this way of Arguing hath a Reach, quite beyond the Intention of them that uſe, and urge it.

They that are ſo Zealous for Dipping, to hold forth their being Buried with Chriſt, by a parity of Reaſon ſhould as well be for Croſſing, to hold forth their being Crucified with Chriſt. VVhereas they Inſiſt ſo much on Rom. 6.4. We are buried with him by Baptiſm: In the two next verſes, the Apoſtle ſpeaks of being Planted together in the likeneſs of his Death; and of the Old Man being Crucified with him, (ver. 5, 6.) Now might they not from hence Argue as well for Croſſing all that were Baptized, as holding forth the likeneſs of Chriſts Death more clearly, than Dipping only doth? Only they ſhould be for Croſſing firſt. and Dipping after that; as the Crucifixion and Death of Chriſt preceded his Burial, and as men uſe not to be buried before they are dead. So might not others plead as well for the White Garment, as holding forth that Purity and Holineſs Chriſtians are called, and obliged unto? So might they not in like manner Argue for the Miniſters Breaking and Giving to every Communicant a whole Loaf, more clearly to hold forth ſuch an ones duty to take whole Chriſt, and the Priviledge of very worthy Receiver, that he is Intereſted in whole Chriſt? And might they not as well contend for every ones taking their full of Bread and Wine, in the Lords Supper, to hold forth in a plain and Lively manner, that plentiful Proviſion which is made for Souls in Chriſt; and that one Chriſt is enough to fill us all: According to the Invitation, p. 446Eat, O Friends, Drink, yea, Drink abundantly, O Beloved. By this way of Arguing, might not men ſoon bring into that part of Gods ſolemn Worſhip, as great Diſorders as ever were in the Church of Corinth?

So likewiſe ſhould they not as well plead for the uſe of Muſical Inſtruments in ſinging of Pſalmes, as from the proper ſignification of the word foreign: So from the Nature of the thing, it fitly ſetting forth the Melody we ſhould make in our hearts to the Lord, (Epheſ. 5.19)

But further, may not others as well Argue for Sprinkling, becauſe Baptiſm is to ſignifie the Souls being cleanſed by the Blood of Chriſt, which is called the Blood of Sprinkling, Heb. 12.24. 1 Pet. 1.2. And the Inward Waſhing, which the Outward Baptiſm repreſenteth, is ſet forth under the Term of Sprinkling, or (as they call it) Rantizing, Heb. 10.22. As the ſame thing was ſhadowed out under the Law by Sprinkling.

Or may one not ſay (as Mr. Cotton) that Sprinkling, or Pouring on water, where water is applied to the Body, ſets forth in a more lively manner, the Grace of Chriſt in waſhing away our ſins, than Dipping, where the Body is applied to the water? That being done rather by applying Chriſts Blood to Us, than by applying our ſelves to Chriſts Blood.

And may we not as well Argue for Baptizing, by Pouring on water (which we generally Practiſe) as beſt ſetting forth the Communication of the Spirit, promiſed to be Poured on us, Joel 2.28, 29. Certainly they are all one, to be Baptized with the Holy Ghoſt, and to have the Spirit poured on us.

p. 447Thus it is plain, that their Arguing for Dipping from Alluſion and Analogy, hath no ſtrength, or Cogency at all. The ſame Argument may be urged againſt them. As they decry Baptizing by Sprinkling (which I think few or none amongſt us uſe) or Pouring on water, as not holding forth the Burial of Chriſt, &c. Others have the like Plea againſt Dipping, as not holding forth the Sprinkling of the Blood of Chriſt, and Pouring forth of his Spirit, which Baptiſm is as well to ſignifie. Let them anſwer here for themſelves, and they will anſwer for us too.

Here I ſhall only add this Note, That whatſoever Rite be uſed in Baptiſm, whether theirs, or that which we hold beſt and ſafeſt in our Circumſtances, being Baptized unto Chriſt; it muſt needs follow, that we are Baptized unto his Death, and obliged to Conformity to him; and to improve Chriſt, to our dying more and more unto ſin, and riſing again to Newneſs of Life. And thus we are buried with Chriſt by Baptiſm, Baptiſm ſerving for this Uſe and End, to hold forth our Duty and Priviledge (if Faithful in our Baptiſmal Covenant) of being made Conformable to his Death.

As for the Objections againſt Dipping, as they hold it neceſſary for all Times, and Places, they are not ſo weak as H. D. would make them: Who ſays thus, Treatiſe of Baptiſm. p. 252.As for the Cavils of Unſeemlineſs, and hazzarding of Health to the weak, they are the Fruits of Carnal Wiſdom, Unbelief, and Shunning of the Croſs, &c.

p. 448But, Pag. 133. in Margen.1. To Baptize Naked, he grants to be Abominable, and conſequently is it not unſeemly, to Baptize perſons in ſo light and looſe an Habit, as is next to Nakedneſs.

They are for Waſhing all and every part, as the whole man is unclean. Pag. 250.Now muſt it not be a very looſe Attire, wherein the whole body, and every part may be waſhed with one ſudden Plunge, at firſt Daſh? If there be no Unſeemlineſs in their way, VVhy do they ordinarily chuſe the Night for it? Baptiſm being ſolemnly to declare ones Admiſſion into the Viſible Church, the more publickly and openly it is Adminiſtred, (Caeteris paribus) it is the more ſolemn.

2. It cannot be denied, but ſome are ſo tender, that they can ſcarce look into the Cold Air without Hazzard and Prejudice: And can it be thought, that there is no Danger in caſting ſuch into the Water? Of Infant Baptiſm. p. 136.As Mr. Baxter hath Noted: God hath not appointed Ordinances in his Church which will deſtroy them, except they be preſerved by a Miracle; for then it were a Tying himſelf to a conſtant working of Miracles, which he hath not done, except the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation be true.

3. Add this, as Dipping is Hazzardous in cold Countreys, ſo it is ſcarce Practicable in ſome Hot Countreys. How many Miles may one Travel in ſome places, ere they come to a River of ſufficient Depth for this purpoſe? VVhereas the poſitive Inſtitutions of the Goſpel are uſually Commended. and Prefered to the Legal Services, for their Eaſineſs; their way would make Circumciſion leſs p. 449Painful, Troubleſome, and Dangerous than Baptiſm.

Some may think, I have Expatiated too far here: But is there not a cauſe? How many that Unchurch us in their raſh Cenſures, and will have no Communion with us in other the undoubted Ordinances of Jeſus Chriſt, becauſe we maintain our Childrens Intereſt in the Covenant, and Right to Baptiſm, the Initiating Sign and Seal of it? What a ſad Snare is the way of Anabaptiſm to many well-meaning, but miſtaken Souls? If ſo deep Cenſuring of their Brethren, and Separating from all the Churches of Chriſt, that are not of their way, as the ſtricteſt, and the moſt of them do, be the way of Chriſt; Then Chriſt would ſeem to be againſt Himſelf, and then how ſhould his Kingdom ſtand? Whether their way be not Injurious to the Churches Peace, to the Comfort of Chriſtian Parents, and Prejudicial to Chriſts Intereſt in the World; let the Soberminded judge. Whether the Engaging of a Chriſtians Children from their Infancy, to the Entertainment and Profeſſion of Chriſtianity, and engaging Chriſtian Parents to Train up their Children in ſuch a way; or leaving both Parent and Child Free, and Uningaged here, which of theſe ways hath the more direct Tendancy to bring in Ignorance, and Irreligion; Let any, but ſuch as are ſtrangely prepoſſeſſed, and prejudiced judge.

Now you that are ſatisfied in the point of Infant-baptiſm, account it not enough to own it, or that you may be able to Plead for it; but ſee that your Practice be ſuch as may bring Credit and Commendation to it. It is a woful Soleciſm, yet too Common, for men to be Zealous for Infant-baptiſin, p. 459and to Glory in it, that they were thus Devoted to Chriſt and his Service, in their Infancy; and yet really to Diſown it again, and Diſgrace it in their Lives. How ſhould we fear laying ſuch an Ordinance of Chriſts under Reproach and Contempt? Shall we ſcarce have patience to hear others Deny, or Queſtion Infant-baptiſm, and yet by our unworthy and unſuitable walking, make it ſtink among prejudiced Minds? Not to give up your ſelves to the Service of God, to whom ye were Devoted in Baptiſm, is a kind of Sacriledge. As Calvin ſays, Nec ſpecie Sacriligii carere, In Rom. 12.1.Rom 12:1ſi ad immunditiem relabimur: Quoniam id nihil aliud eſt quàm rem Sanctificatam profanare.

Again, Have we given up our Children to God, and Chriſt in Baptiſm? Let us Train them up for him. VVe ſhould be often minding them of what we have done for them; and that as they come to have a Will of their own, God expects they Confirm what we have done. VVe ſhould Inſtruct, and warn them, Charge and Command them to keep the Way of the Lord; go before them in an holy Example, and do all we can to help them forward, that ſo God may eſtabliſh his Covenant with us, and ours.

p. 451Rom. 3.28, 29.

He is not a Jew, which is one (only) outwardly. But he is a Jew which is one (alſo) inwardly, &c.

Sect. 18. PROP. XVIII. They who are alſo Internally in Covenant, are Priviledged far above thoſe, who are only Externally in Covenant.

THey that are Internally in Covenant, have an Actual right to the greateſt Benefits and Bleſſings of the Covenant, whereas the other have a Right only Conditionally, viz. If they perform what on their part they are Engaged unto.

Surely there is a great difference, between a Pardon offered, and a Pardon accepted, and obtained; betwixt Salvation offered upon Condition, and an Actual right in Salvation, as having the Condition, to which it is promiſed. To all that are Outwardly in Covenanr, Remiſſion and Salvation are promiſed Conditionally; that is, if they Believe, if they Repent. But where the Condition is not performed, the Promiſe cannot be pleaded. but now ſuch as are Internally in Covenant, having the Condition, have an Immediate actual Right to the Bleſſings promiſed.

p. 452What thoſe Covenant-bleſſings are, you heard ſomething before under the Thirteenth Propoſition.