Goodwill Towards Men, Part 2 · Section 17 – Section 18

Goodwill Towards Men · 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 of the Jews, were taken into Covenant with their Parents.

Thus it was from the Beginning, that Children were 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 were capable of being taken into the Covenant of works with Adam, what makes them uncapable of being taken into a Covenant of Grace 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 are they uncapable of Covenant-priviledges, to be conveyed from Parents, taken into a Covenant of Grace? May we think, God's Justice is more conspicuous in the Covenant of Works, than his Grace is in the Covenant of Grace.

(2) If the Covenant made with Abraham, and the Covenant made with the people of Israel, was the same for substance with the Gospel-Covenant, and the seed then was taken in with their Parents, what should exclude the seed of Believers now?

(3) Why should it seem strange, that God accepteth the Act of the Parent to enter his child into Covenant, for the Act of the child, so long as the child is at its Parents dispose, and the Parent cannot truly and heartily devote himself to God, and his service, without being willing to devote all that is his to Gods service? Why should it seem strange, that here God accepteth the will of the Parent for the 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. Stillingfleet 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 be satisfied.

(1.) That Text, Act. 2.39. if there were no more, should satisfie you, [For the Promise is unto you and to your Children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.] These words are brought in by the Apostle, as a p. 371motive to perswade his hearers to repent of their great sin in crucifying Christ, to own him as the promised Messiah, and to submit to the Gospelway, shewing that neither they nor theirs should be loosers by it. That whereas they had imprecated Gods Curse on themselves and their children, Matth. 27.25. and were now in danger to be cast off, yet coming in upon the Gospel-call, they should have the Promise still continued to them and theirs. That is, as with respect to Christ, God had promised to be the God of Abraham, and of his seed, and that in Christ, who was to come of Abraham's seed, all the Families of the Earth should be blessed, (Acts 3.25.) this ancient and famous promise should yet hold good to them, as it was now also to be extended to the Gentile Nations with them.

Some would have [The Promise to you and to your Children] to referre unto that, Gen. 17.7. where God promised to be a God unto Abraham, and to his seed. Others understand that Promise, Gen. 12.3. & 22. v. 18. mentioned Act. 3.25. In thy seed shall all the Kindreds, or Families of the Earth be blessed. But indeed both these come to one. It was in that seed (in whom the Nations, Kindreds and Families of the Earth were to be blessed) that is, in Christ, and with respect unto Christ, that God promised to be a God unto Abraham, and to his seed. So the Covenant with Abraham 9as the Apostle saith, Gal. 3.17.) was confirmed of God in Christ.

Again, the blessing of the Nations, Kindreds, and Families of the Earth in Abrahams seed, that is, in Christ, was taking them into Covenant, (that God was their God, and the God of their seed) the p. 372same Covenant for substance with that made with Abraham. As the blessing of Abraham came upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, Gal. 3.14. That God is our God, and the God of our seed, as he before promised unto Abraham.

So that this is the plain meaning of the Apostle, The Promise is to you and your Children, if you do not cut off your selves by standing out against Christ, and not to you Jews only, but to the Gentiles, to all that are afar off, as many of them as the Lord shall call, to them, and their Children. And taking the words thus, you may see the harmony of the Scriptures, and how the Families of the Earth are blessed in Christ; how Believers under the Gospel are blessed with Faithfull Abraham; how the blessing promised to Abraham, [I will be a God to thee and to thy seed,] is come upon the Gentiles; and how Abraham was made the Father of many Nations. He was the Father of many Nations, in that sence relating to the Covenant, wherein he was the Father of the Jewish Nation: That as all the Natural seed of Abraham, his seed by propagation, till they wilfully forsook and rejected the Covenant, were included in it, they and their Children; so the spiritual seed of Abraham, his seed by proportion, the called Gentiles, were priviledged, as his natural seed, being taken into the Covenant, they and their Children.

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

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

Exception 2. Some by the Promise here, understand that, Joel 2.28. recited in this Chapter, Act. 2.17. And to strengthen this Interpretation, they urge the foregoing words, v. 38. Repent and be baptized— and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children—

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

2. Neither hath Baptism reference to the conferring of extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost, though these followed the Baptism of some in the Primitive times, for a special reason: but it hath relation to the Covenant made with all that are called, as the Seal of it.

Except. 3. Some turn the words thus, The promise is to you, and to your Children, that is, such of them as the Lord shall call.

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

2. We cannot think, the Apostle would speak, fallaciously, with a mind to delude his Hearers. Now these his Hearers knew, that their Children ever 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 construction. 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 Formalists, 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-professors. 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, it would follow, that the Jews could not be graffed into their own Olive-tree again, but they must be Circumcised. See here, who they are, that would bring in Judaism.

Object. 2. The Gentiles are said to be graffed in a way contrary to Nature, into the Olive-tree, ver. 24. But your way would make them as the Natural branches.

Answ. They were wild before their Ingraffing, not after; but being Engraffed, then they come to have the priviledge of the Natural branches. What the 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 wise 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 possbly 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 separated 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 separation. 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 particular 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 holy 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, Of Infant Bapt.and cleared this Text so, 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 Forfeited his Covenant-right, and hath the Child at his dispose.

But more directly, to the Objection: It is no better 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 out the condition, [To keep thee in all thy ways,] see 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 Religion; which he cleareth thus, Gods Law or Covenant, 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 unbeliever 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 an holy, sanctified use to be made of them, it would follow, that the Apostle had no Special reason to bring in their Children here, but that they come in somewhat oddly; when it had been as much to his purpose to have named any thing else. And so he might as well have said, your Acquaintance, Kindred, Neighbours, are holy; that is, you may make an holy use of them, your Callings are holy, And what not?

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

Here now I cast mine eye upon what one of note, and much cried up among the opposite party, 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. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. And that we are all children of wrath by nature, Eph. 2.

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

2. The Children of Believers under the Old Testament were flesh, conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity, children of wrath by Nature, yet were they in the Covenant.

3. Therefore, to be Children of wrath by Nature, considered as the corrupt Off-spring of fallen Adam, and to be children of the Covenant by priviledge, and Grace, as they descend from believing Parents, to whom God hath promised, I will be your God, and the God of your seed; these two are not contradictory to one another.

(3) Because it contradicts all the Experience, both of former and later times, wherein 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 he contradicts himself, and the whole current of the Old Testament.

2. Here he grossely mistakes, and confounds Foederal, relative holiness, with real, personal, inherent holiness. Many of those who are called the holy seed, Ezr. 9.2. in regard of 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-Anabaptists; 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, saving work. As a learned Writer noteth, Infants are 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, P. 192.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 purity, 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 Baptizing 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 …n 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 …orsook 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. Neither did any Believers out of Abrahams Family, H.D. p. 206.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 something 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 Admission under the Gospel, that the Commission had run thus: Go, Proselyte, or Disciple all Nations, Circumcising them: Or suppose the like Commission had been granted to the Prophets of old. Go, Proselyte all Nations, Circumcising them; and Teaching them to observe the Law of Moses, and all the Statutes, and Ordinances, which he commanded you: Must not Children have been taken in here together with the Parents, except the contrary 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 Difcipled, 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 fign 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 Rabble) 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. 406any 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, or 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 reserred 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. 17.12. See the like in Godwin.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. They 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 not probable proof, and Testimony in Scripture, that Infants, or young Children were baptized: When we read of so many whole Housholds baptized, it is improbable that there should not be any young Child in any of them. And was it not likely to prove of dangerous consequence, to relate the baptizing of whole Families, (which does so clearly point at the former practice of Proselyting the whole Family, when the Head and Governour of the Family came to be Proselyted,) if any part of the Family (as young Children ordinarily are a part) be uncapable of Baptism now. It is strange that we should be told of Housholds baptized again and again; which according to the ordinary phrase and practice among the Jews, used to signifie the Heads of the Family, and all under them, even little ones. (As is shewed before.) It is very strange I say, if it be an Error now to baptize Infants, that the Scripture should tell us oft of Families baptized, and not give one Instance of an Houshold baptized, all but their little ones. When it was promised of old, that all the Families of the Earth should be blessed in Christ; and when Paul and Silas tell the Jaylor: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy House, (Acts 16.31.) With which may be compared that speech of our Savour to Zacheus, Luke 19.9. This day is Salvation come to this House; forasmuch as he also is the Son of Abraham. And when further we find, that upon a persons receiving the Faith, having the Charge and Government of a Family; that person, and 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 teach 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 foul 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 profess, 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 surther, 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 profession, 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, modó 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 Desciple 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 consequence, 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 to have been straightway baptized. And therefore they that tell you, the Apostles baptized none but such 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 Noted: 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 Regeneration? Or declare his being bur… 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 in 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 not remember it? Only it was so te tified 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-baptism, p. 450and 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 Covenant, 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.