SEeing some Men of ill Principles, and Separatists from our excellent Church, have, with an evil design, set up a Meeting in this Parish, as we may reasonably conjecture, without breach of Charity; I think it my most indispensible Duty to confirm and settle you in those ne­cessary and fundamental Truths our Church holds by the clear Testimony of Holy Scrip­ture, and the evident Dictates of Reason, that you may not be seduced into dange­rous Errors by weak or cunning Men, that lie in wait to deceive. I have formerly made appear, I hope, to the satisfaction of unprejudiced, because dis-interested Persons, that the Place of Holy Scripture, the Ene­mies of Infant-Baptism so much insist up­on, and boast of; viz. St. Matth. xxviij. 19. Go teach all Nations, baptizing them, is no more against the Comfortable and Christian Doctrine of Infant-Baptism, than Gen. 1.1. In the beginning God created the Heaven, and the Earth. And now I will endeavour to [Page 2]prove, That that Place of Holy Scripture, if rightly understood, is not only not against us, but for us, and against them: And this I will attempt to evince and make appear by the Evidence of Reason, and the Testi­mony of Divine Revelation.

THE Argument I offer, in short, is plainly this, which I will reduce into the form of a plain and proper Syllogism; That Principle which hinders the Propaga­tion of Christian Religion, can be no Chri­stian Doctrine: But the denying Baptism to Infants, hinders the Progress of the Chri­stian Religion; Therefore such a Principle can be no Christian Doctrine. The Major, all Christians, even our Adversaries, allow, but the making out the Minor is the Diffi­culty; for which I offer this Proof. That Principle which makes the Covenant of Grace less beneficial and extensive, than the Covenant of Works, hinders the Propaga­tion of Christian Religion: But the former Principle does so; Therefore such a Princi­ple hinders the Progress of Christianity. The Major is undoubtedly so, and I will [Page 3]endeavour to make the Minor to be such by this One Argument: That Principle which allows not as great Immunities, Benefits and Privileges to the Covenant of Grace, as to the Covenant of Works, makes the Cove­nant of Grace less Beneficial and Extensive than the Covenant of Works: But the Prin­ciple that denies Baptism to Infants does so; Therefore it makes the Covenant of Grace less Beneficial and Extensive than the Cove­nant of Works. Siquidem evidentis­simum est, quod semel cum Abra­hamo Do­minus foe­dus percus­sit, non mi­nus hodie Christiano constare, quam olim Judaico populo: a­deoque verbum istud non minus Christianos respicere, quam Judaeos tum respiciebat. Nist forte arbitramur, Christum suo adventu Patris gratiam imminuisse aut decurtasse, quod sine execrabili blasphemianon vacat. Calv. Institut. lib. 4. cap. 16. Par. 6. And the Judicious Mr. Cal­vin, in his Institutes, seems to speak the same sence with this last Argument; for after he had said, ‘It is most clear, that God entred once into Covenant with Abraham, he tells us, That that Covenant had a respect and regard to Christian, as well as Jewish Peo­ple; unless peradventure we should sup­pose, that Christ by his Advent, or Coming, had diminish'd, or curtail'd the Grace of his Father, which would be execrable Blas­phemy to imagine.’

AND now I will endeavour to confirm these Arguments by the Authority of Holy Scripture; and prove, in particular, That that Text of St. Matth. xxviij. 19. must have such a sence, as to evidence, That the Covenant of Grace (or else it would not be such a Covenant, and so forfeit its Title) is full as (or rather more) beneficial and extensive than the Covenant of Works; and consequently, that the Baptizing Infants is a Christian, as well as a Comfortable Do­ctrine, which is the Truth to be proved; and then it will plainly appear, this Text, our Adversaries so much Glory in, and Vaunt of, is on our side. For if there had been as General a Commission given by Moses to Twelve Elders of Israel, as the Blessed Jesus gave to his Disciples, and it had been said to them, Go teach all Nations, circumcising them, this had been no Prohibi­tion to the Circumcising the Jewish Chil­dren, because there was a Positive Com­mand [Page 5]given them by Divine Revelation, and no After-Commission could discharge from Obedience to such a Command; And where the same Reason holds for the same Observation, under a different Dispensation, there is no necessity for the Publication of a New Command to enjoyn its Observance. Now there never was, since the Creation of the World, but two Instituted Religions that had Truth on their side, the Jewish, and the Christian. And the Blessings that were conferred by either of these Religions, and the Duties and Services required to ensure and consign the Blessings from the Party that was to bestow them, to the Par­ties that were to enjoy them, were trans­acted, transmitted and conveyed in a Cove­nanting way. Now the Evangelic Dis­pensation being in a Covenanting way as well as the Legal one; those that had a right to the Covenant under the Holy Go­spel, had a right to the Sign, Seal, or Sacra­ment of the Covenant, as well as those un­der the Law. Hereupon that Children under the Holy Gospel had a right to the Covenant, is not very difficult to prove from St. Mark x. 14. Suffer little Children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God; i. e. the Kingdom of Grace: For in that sence is that Phrase of the Kingdom of God, in several places of Holy Writ, to be understood; and it plainly sig­nifies, that his Holy Gospel-Dispensation (by [Page 6]which the Kingdom of God is meant) was as extensive and mercifull as the Legal Dis­pensation, and of which they were capa­ble of being Members; and having the Be­nefits and Blessings therein communicated, consigned to them; which is true not only in respect of their Innocency and Meek­ness; (for by reason of their Infantile State, they were not capable of actual and volun­tary Sins, and so might, in some sence, be fit for his Kingdom of Glory;) but because also they were to be allowed an admission into his Covenant, by virtue of an Imputa­tion of their Parents Faith, as the Jewish Children were upon that account capable of being Members of the Covenant, and of receiving the Sign thereof, Circumcision. So that by this Argument, which I doubt not is sufficiently founded upon this place of Holy Scripture, whereby Christian Children have as true a right to Baptism under the Holy Gospel, as the Jewish Children had to Circumcision under the Law; It may appear there is no necessity for an express Place of Holy Scripture, (in so many words) for the Baptizing Children, when the reason of the thing is founded in Circumcision, for which there was a Po­sitive Command. Now our Blessed Sa­viour substituted Baptism in the room of Circumcision, for these two Reasons, as may probably be conjectured.

(1.) Because he was the Author of a more Mercifull Dispensation; and that That might not be said of the Christian Pa­rents, which Zipporah said to Moses, Exod. iv. 25. Surely a bloody Husband art thou to me.

(2.) Because he was the Author of a more extensive Dispensation; and therefore he appointed a Sacrament, or Seal of his Covenant, that Females, as well as Males, might undergo: Whereas under the Legal Dispensation, Females were not capable of the Sign of the Covenant; and because it was a more narrow Dispensation, and like­wise, for St. Paul's reason, the Man being the Head of the Woman, 1 Cor. xj. 3. she was included in, or comprehended under the Man, which there was no need she should be under the Evangelic Dispensation, that admitting a Sign, or Seal of the Covenant, she was as capable of as the Man Thus, as our Blessed Saviour took his Holy Sup­per from the Postcoenium, or After-supper, after the Passover, (which as I have found in some Authors was only a Sallad of En­dive, Lettuce, and Succory,) so he took Baptism as the Sacrament of Initiating, or Entring Disciples into his Evangelick Dis­pensation, (being well known among the Jews, because it was the Ceremony for ad­mitting Proselytes into their Church;) That by taking both Sacraments from known usages among the Jews, he might [Page 8]the more easily and powerfully reduce, and bring over his own beloved Country-men, the Jews, to his Holy Gospel; and this be­ing a more gentle way of Entrance into his Church, might have a better Influence, and be more probably successfull to the gaining the Gentile World to his New Dis­pensation, and to be professors of his Sacred Institutions, and obedient Subjects to his excellent Laws. And this did more suitably answer his Advent, or Coming into the World, who came to be an Universal Savi­our for all Mankind. For Moses was but a Legislator to the Israelites, and Joshua a Sa­viour to the Jews only; and yet on that account called Jesus, because he delivered that People from their Enemies, and entred them into Canaan: But he that was to be an Universal Redeemer, and so the true Je­sus in the most extensive signification of the word, thought fit to appoint such a Sacra­ment of Admission into his Kingdom, as might work upon, and prevail with the whole World, even all Mankind

Now from what hath been said (and from a custom among the Jews concerning Proselytes of Justice, which all learned Men know to be so, and Men of Sense among the Antipaedobaptists acknowledge, that after such a Proselyte was Baptiz'd and Circumcis'd, and had thereby a Right to eat of the Passover, his Child born after such an Admission into the Covenant, had a Right to Circumcision [Page 9]at Eight days old, as well as a natural-born Jew,) it may appear, that denying Bap­tism to Infants now, is an Hindrance to the Propagation of the Holy Gospel both as to Jews and Pagans. As to the Jew, because he might say to an Antipaedobaptist, offering Arguments to perswade him to become a Christian, He would not be of his Religion; because, after he was in Covenant, and had received the Sign of the Covenant, his Child was not in Covenant, and so had no Right to the Sign, which he had in his Way by virtue of his Faith, and so consequently the Benefit and Privilege less in ours, than in his Way. And so the Pagan might say to an Antipaedobaptist, perswading him to embrace Christianity; I will rather be a Jew, than a Christian, because as soon as I own and profess their Faith, my Child, af­ter such a Declaration, is in Covenant as well as my self, and hath a Right to the Sign. So that, by this account, it plainly appears, that the denying Infants Baptism, is an Hin­drance to the Progress of the Holy Gospel from Evidence of Reason. From whence it may seem rationally to follow, That he who holds any Principle that derogates from, and diminishes the Honour of Chri­stianity, and impedes the Propagation of the Religion of our dear Redeemer, hath no true and proper Right to the Honourable Name and Title of a Christian, which is the natural and pernicious consequence of [Page 10] Antipaedobaptistic Tenets. So that how General soever the Commission the Holy Jesus gave to his Blessed Disciples for con­verting the Heathen Nations, was, the sence must be plainly this; (which, if I can secure by two other Texts of Holy Scripture, con­firm by Allusion to Jewish Customs, and by the Coherence, establish by the Authority of the Ancient, Primitive Fathers, and an­swer the strongest Objections of our Adver­saries, I shall say all that can be thought necessary by Men of Reason in defence of Infant-Baptism,) Go teach all Nations, Bap­tizing them; i.e. When you have suffici­ently instructed the Pagan World in, and convinced them of the Excellency of my Holy Gospel, and thereby perswaded them to embrace my Divine Religion, my Spiri­tual Worship; and then, after a publick Profession, they have declared themselves my Disciples and Followers, ascertain them, that they are admitted into my Covenant of Grace, and receive them into, and give them a possession of my Covenant by the Sign and Seal of Baptism; and then assure them, that their Children shall have the same Right to my Covenant that the natu­ral-born Children of Jews have, and the Children of the Proselytes of Righteousness or Justice had after their Parents were con­verted to the Jewish Religion. The Natu­ralists have learn'd, by diligent enquiry, That if a Pearl have a foulness, and hap­pen [Page 11]to fall into the Womb of a Dove, 1 Pet. ij. 2. Albertus lib. de Gemmis. Vid. Mr. Carpen­ter's Ana­baptist washt, and washt, and shrunk in the wash­ing, p. 15, 16. and continue some time there, the Dove will return it fair and clear: So Doctrines should be proved in the Womb of the Holy Spirit, the true Holy Scripture-Dove, which Womb is the sincere Word of Truth, (the [...];) and if the Doctrine be true Pearl, the Holy Spirit will speedily deliver it for such, and cleanse it from any Foulness or Impurity it hath contracted in this naughty World. This Interpretation is suitable to the Nature of Baptism, because it was ap­pointed for all that need it; and all should have Baptism, that stand in need of Bap­tismal-Grace; and all stand in need of Bap­tismal-Grace, that would be cleansed from Original Pollution; and all stand in need of being cleansed from Original Defilement, that are Polluted therewith. Aequè cer­ta sunt, ac evidentia quae ex sa­cris literis evidenter, ac certe deducun­tur, atque ea quae in illis ex­pressè, & [...], i.e. ad verbum & in ter­minis ha­bentur. Ex veronil nisi verum. Principia fides, vel quae ex iis deducun­tur, sunt in Scriptura. Omnis di­vina Reve­latio est in Scriptura vel directe, vel per ne­cessariam, & inevi­tabilem consequen­tiam. It is a true Maxim, That Matters are alike sure, and clear, which are assuredly and evidently drawn from Holy Writ, as the Matters which are read there in their own proper terms and phrases. Or the same Observa­tion may be thus worded: Consequences are as true as the Principles they are drawn from, if truly and properly deduced: The ground of this is as certain as Truth it self. From Truth proceeds nothing, but what is so, if drawn by a right Consequence. And another Ground may be, because the Consequence so drawn is, in a manner, as true as the Principle; and Truth so drawn, [Page 12]is the same with that from whence the De­duction springs and rises. Upon this account we observe, That the Doctrines of Faith, and what is deducible therefrom, is contain­ed in Holy Writ. And again, Every Do­ctrine that is the Discovery and Birth of Heaven, is either expresly, or by a needfull and unavoidable Conclusion, in Holy Writ: And on this account we declare, That he who believes a Truth, believes all the De­ductions that can properly be drawn there­from.

IF Christian Children, from the Sence I have delivered of this Text, be not as capable of Baptism, as the Jewish Children of Circumcision; Upon what account ari­ses the Distinction? Not from the Nature of Abraham's Covenant, for that, as to the material part, was the same with ours made over to us by the Holy Jesus; Nor from the manner of Conveyance, for Circumci­sion did signifie the same thing under the former Dispensation, as Baptism under the latter: And hereupon, seeing the two Co­venants [Page 13]were, for the Nature of them, alike, and only a distinction in the manner of Conveyance, why should any barr lie a­gainst the Admission of Children now, more than formerly? Is Baptism an higher spiri­tualized Rite, than Circumcision? That is not possible, because Circumcision is an Evangelic Institution; I mean an Institution of that Doctrine which was to Abraham delivered of old. And if the Spirituality of outward Ordinances is to be drawn from the design of their Appointment, then Cir­cumcision was as much spiritualized as Bap­tism, because it truly seals the same Cove­nant, and assures the same Grace, and was a Rite of Admission for the same spiritual stock of the Father of the Faithfull, as Bap­tism is among us. Hereupon, if Circumcision as a Sacrament was the same formerly that Baptism is now, it must be consequent, That Infants now are as capable of the One (provided there is no Precept [de novo] (or a new) to exclude them) as formerly they were of the Other. If it were not absurd that Children then were allowed to be Members of the Church, why should it be so under the Holy Gospel? If the Al­mighty allowed them under the former Dis­pensation to be imbodied into the Church, (without a Precept to forbid them,) there is reason they should be allowed the same favour now: Nay, if Children were made Members of the Church when the Admis­sion [Page 14]was more harsh, how irrational is it not to allow them an Entrance now, when the way of Admission is more suitable to the Tenderness of an Infant? Surely, if Jewish Children were Circumcised by blood made with hands, Christian Children (with­out a Prohibition of Holy Scripture) should be allowed the Spiritual Circumcision, which is Baptism. Whom the Lord hath admit­ted an Heir to the Glory above, and given an Interest in his Church below, no Man should dare to hinder his Title that seals the Inheritance, and offers the Privilege. But yet so impertinent and censorious have some Antipaedobaptists been, Vid. Case of Infant-Baptism, p. 30. as to say, Chil­dren are as unfit for Baptism as the Off­spring of Brutes; and that it is as nugacious and triffing to Invocate our Heavenly Fa­ther for the Descent of his Divine Spirit, as to beseech him to enlighten a Stock, or a Stone. So that upon this Hypothesis, or Supposition, That Children are not fit to be Baptized, the Antipaedobaptists generally af­firm, That admitting Children to it is a reproach to the Sacrament, a very Nothing, an uncommanded Duty, and thereupon, in contempt, term it Baby-Baptism, as I have heard some of them phrase it; (though, in truth, the strongest Arguments I have heard from them, or met with in their Books, may more properly be called, a Baby, than a Manly Defence of their mistaken Princi­ples;) Not remembring at the same time, [Page 15]that Circumcising Children was no Re­proach to the Sacrament of Admission into the Jewish Church, but had a proper sence and signification; so that the Antipaedo­baptists might as well say there was Baby-Circumcision, and Baby-Baptism, under the Mosaic Dispensation, both being used to Children among that People.

Obj. The main Argument they offer a­gainst it is drawn from Childrens unfitness for some Purposes of that Ordinance, which can be performed by none, but such as are Adult, who have the use of Reason to know the terms of the Covenant they are admit­ted to, and to exercise the Graces proper for that Ordinance, and to confirm those Graces by such an Exercise; but Children cannot undertake these things, and there­fore should not be allowed the use of that Ordinance, whose design is so much disap­pointed in the Application thereof.

Answ. But this Argument, or Objection, how pleasing soever at first sight, is not good.

(1.) Because it is deceitfull in its Conse­quence, and therefore the Conclusion will not hold.

(2.) Because it is a reflection upon some of the former Dispensations of the Wiseft Being.

(1.) Because it is deceitfull in its Conse­quence, and therefore the Conclusion will not hold; and that for a Reason I find ur­ged [Page 16]by a Learned Man in his Excellent Tract, called The Case of Infant-Baptism; which is so strong, that if well understood, would fully answer, if not for ever silence this Objection. His Reason is this: Because this way of arguing takes away the diffe­rence between a strict Institution, which is appointed to answer one or more Purposes, and particularly for persons of one kind; and an Institution of Latitude, which is ap­pointed for several Purposes, and for diffe­rent kinds of Persons differently qualified for those several Purposes. Of the first kind was the Institution of Fringes, which could only be worn properly by those that were Adult, because they alone were fit to per­form the design of their appointment, viz. To look upon them, and remember the Commandments of the Lord: And these you may suppose were those Phylacteries the Pharisees did wear; and because they were Ostentatious Men, affected to make them broader than others; which Hypo­crisie and Dissimulation our Blessed Saviour, the Holy Jesus, did severely reprove in them, and tartly upbraid them for and with. And of the other kind is the Sacred Insti­tution of Matrimony, which was Instituted by Heaven for several Purposes, and for those that are differently qualified and fit­ted for those several Purposes, inasmuch as Persons that are not fit for some Purposes, may yet lawfully enter into that State of [Page 17]Life, because they are fitted for other ends thereof. All the Purposes for which it was Instituted, cannot be performed, but by such as are past the Age allowed by all for the begetting Infants; yet such as have out-grown those years, are not wholly un­fit for that State; Nor is their Matrimony of no force, or an Impeachment of the Sa­cred Institution of Matrimony, because they are only fitted for one Purpose, for which Matrimony was Instituted; and that is the last End for which our Excellent Church tells us Marriage was Ordained, viz. the mutual society, help and comfort the one ought to have of the other in prosperity and adversity. This one Instance declares how deceitfull our Adversaries Argument is a­gainst the admitting Children to Baptism, because of their unfitness for some Purposes for which it was Instituted, they should first offer a Proof for what they would have al­lowed; but have no reason to expect, viz. That it was a Sacred Appointment of the former kind, which I term a strict Institu­tion, and then their way of arguing would hold: But this I am well satisfied they can never do, because that Ordinance came in the place of Circumcision, which was a Sa­cred Appointment of the second kind; and because the Blessed Jesus underwent Bap­tism, in whom there was more unfitness than there could be in Children. The Bap­tist, in truth, used the Baptism of Repen­tance, [Page 18]and thereupon assured the World of the Pardon of Sins; and on that ac­count, knowing our dear Saviour stood in no necessity thereof, was not willing to admit him to it. St. Matth. iij. 14. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? But our Blessed Saviour returned such an Answer as satisfied him, in the next Verse; Suffer it to be so now: Mat. iii. 15.for thus it becometh us to fulfill all Righteousness: i.e. It is just and equitable that I (who being now Thirty years old, and so qualified by Moses's Law to Preach, should enter upon my Public Ministerial Office, and being I intend Bap­tism as the Sacrament to admit Members to my Church) should undergo that Ordi­nance my self, being the Head of my Church, which may be a good Reason why our mercifull Redeemer would not be Baptized before, and may satisfie such of the Antipaedobaptists (for some of them have urged it to me) as would from thence draw an Argument against Infant-Baptism; and besides, [it is like the Logicians Argumentum ad hominem,] it is against themselves; for it is well known, that sometimes they Baptize persons before that Age. And this Account plainly signifies, That the Ordinance of Ad­mission into the Christian Church, is a Sa­cred Appointment of Latitude; and that in such Appointments, the unfitness of the Par­ty, as to some Purposes, doth not unfit him [Page 19]for the Ordinance, when he is qualified for others.

(2.) Because it is a reflection upon some of the former Dispensations of the Wisest Being: For it was the Appointment of Hea­ven that Infants should undergo Circum­cision, though all the Purposes of that Or­dinance could not be performed but by such as were grown to years of discretion, who were only fit to know the Meaning of the Appointment, and the Obligation of the Covenant they were admitted unto. So that this Argument is as much against Cir­cumcising, as Baptizing Children; because Circumcising them was appointed for the same Purposes, as that used in our Church: And hereupon, when Men were by that Sacrament received into the Church, they were to believe in God, and repent of any breach of his Laws, and openly to disown any Idolatrous Belief, or Practice, and even to forsake their Idolatrous Relatives and Acquaintance; and yet, on the Request of those Proselytes, their Children were Bap­tized and Circumcised, and thereby admit­ted into their Church, though they were wholly ignorant of those duties their Parents undertook the performance of. Hereupon such who oppose Baptizing Children, be­cause it agrees not to all the Uses of that Or­dinance, vilifie the Wisdom of God, and undervalue the Wisdom of the Ecclesiastic Governors among the Jews; not weighing [Page 20]with themselves, that Circumcising Chil­dren then, and Baptizing them now, is an Appointment of great Latitude, intended by Heaven for Infants, in whom there is a a fitness for some; nay, the principal uses of that Ordinance, as well as for grown Persons, to whom all are fit. Rem praecipuam in Baptis­mo non attendunt, viz. testi­ficationem divinae benevolen­tiae in foedus, & tutelam suam suscipientis, & gratiam con­ferentis, &c. Nam in Baptismo praecipua res est divina Gra­tia, quae consistit in remissione peccatorum, regeneratione, ad­optione, haereditate vitae ae­ternae, cujus sane gratiae in­fantes & indigentes, & ca­paces sunt. Cassand. de Bapt. Infant. They neither regard, nor consider the chief thing in Baptism, viz. the Testi­fication, or Witness, of the Divine Benevolence, taking them into his Covenant, Protection and Patronage, and conferring and bestow­ing Grace upon them: For in Baptism, the chief thing is the Divine Grace, which consists and stands in the Remission, Pardon, and For­giveness of Sins; in Regeneration, or the New-birth; in Adoption, or Son-ship; and in a Right and Title to the Inheritance of Eternal Life; of which Grace Infants stand in need, and are as capable as the Adult, and full-grown Persons, as the Judicious Cassander observes in his Excellent Treatise of the Baptizing of Infants. Children are fitted for all the Purposes of Baptism, as it is appointed by Heaven for a Sign to us to convey unto us the Advantages of the New Covenant. For their Infancy is no barr, but they may be accounted Parts of the [Page 21]Church, as well as Members of any different Company, or Society, of congregated Per­sons; Nor does it any more hinder them from being the adopted Sons and Daughters of Heaven, than it denies them a Right to any Earthly Possession; nor of being the Inheritors of Everlasting Happiness by force of such Adoption, than by force of any o­ther Civil Adoption, the Inheritors of an Earthly Estate. For Infants are fitted for all Testimonies of Honour and Favour from God and Men, and of having a Title to the Benefits of any Company, though they are not able to discharge the Services thereof, nor know the least matter of them. Since therefore Infants are as fit to receive, and do as greatly want almost all the Advanta­ges of the New Covenant, and the Immu­nities of Church-society as grown persons; Is it not as reasonable that the Seal, which confirms those Advantages and Immunities, should be given to one, as well as the other? If a Monarch adopts the meanest Man's In­fant, and Embody him into his own Fami­ly, and make over to him some of his Re­venue and Empire; and to establish and strengthen to him this, should, in allusion to Circumcision, take away a piece of his flesh; or in resemblance to Baptism, should order him by Water to be purified and cleansed; who would reckon this a Ceremony of no signification, or declare the Infant not fit for the Sign, when he was fit for the Prin­cipal [Page 22]matters, of which the Rite was a sig­nification? Or to give you another Simili­rude, that may more properly suit our pre­sent Case: Imagine a King should order an Attainted. Traytor's Infant to be brought before him, and before many people ga­thered for that intent, should thus deliver himself: You understand the Blood of this In­fant is Attainted by his Parent's Crime; the Ti­tle to his Father's Honour and Possessions is con­fiscated by Law, and he is wholly ruined, though he understand not his miserable Estate. My Pity for him is great, and here I give him a Title to his Blood and forfeited Estate; and for the fu­ture he shall have as proper a Right as if his Ancestor had not been Attainted: I heartily pardon him, and hereby publish, that I take him into my Favour; and that no stain may be im­puted to him, I do in the presence of you, called together, sprinkle him with clean Water, to shew that he is purged from all Guilt upon his own, or his Father's account. Now imagine this transacted for an attainted Infant; Will any declare, that what is done signifieth nothing, and is of no force, because the Infant un­derstands it not? or that he was not fit for the Sign, when he was fit to be cleansed from the Guilt transmitted to him by his Parent, and had his Estate re-convey'd to him, which was the Principal matter there­by signified? What I have now offered, ought to be seriously weighed by those that are Adversaries to the Baptizing of Children, [Page 23]to whom I might propose the Precedents of Circumcision and Baptism used among the Jews, both which (as I shall shew here­after) were used for Children, as well as for the full-grown under Moses's Law: And hereupon, though the Father of the Faith­full did believe, and openly own that his Belief before Circumcision; yet I presume the Antipaedobaptists will not acknowledge, That the Wisest Being did imprudently in laying Circumcision upon Isaac, before he knew the Intent of the Ordinance, or could Actuate Faith, or make declaration of it. He was by Sacrament admitted to the Co­venant, before he knew the terms thereof; yet I hope the Antipaedobaptists will not de­clare his Circumcision to no purpose, though he was as unfit to understand why he was Circumcised then, as Children are, in our days, why they are Baptized now.

Obj. If any of the Adversaries to this Principle shall say, All that I have offered doth not amount to a Command for Bapti­zing Children, or in express words. In totidem verbis.

Answ. To which I will give a short (yet I hope full) Answer: There is no need (af­ter what hath been already said to prove it) there should be a Command, or Example, to approve the Usage of admitting Children to Church-membership in the New Testa­ment; but it is enough to make it practica­ble under the New Dispensation, that it is not any-where in Holy Scripture prohibited. [Page 24]Nay, as I may possibly take occasion to shew hereafter, there is greater ground to believe, that Christians ought to have had a direct Precept to let alone the Custom of admit­ting Children into the Church; Because it was expresly enjoyned by God in the Cir­cumcising Children, and had his Approba­tion in the Baptizing Children (which the Jews super-added unto their Circumcising Children) under Moses's Law: Precepts are ordinarily delivered, when a New Cu­stom is introduced, which was not formerly used to be done; But to vindicate the con­tinuance of a formerly-appointed, or practi­sed Custom, it is enough, That the Autho­rity which did appoint and allow it, doth not prohibit or revoke his former Injuncti­ons. And this being the Original Case of allowing Children a Right to the Covenant, and by a Sacramental Rite admitting them to the Possession of the Benefits of that Co­venant, the Admission of Children into the Church under the New Dispensation by Baptizing them, must by a necessary Conse­quence be enjoyned, or approved of. And if the Case be thus, as undoubtedly it is, then Fathers, Guardians, and Undertakers for Children, are obliged by indispensible Duty to offer them to be Baptized in sub­mission to the Church's Authority. For the Church is a Company of persons in Covenant with Heaven; and in this Com­pany, as in Humane Societies, there are [Page 25]such as give forth Rules, and such as practise those Rules; such as enjoyn, and such as submit: And hereupon, if the Universal Church, or any part thereof, enjoyneth her Members, the practice of any Doctrine, not forbidden by an higher Power, which must be the God of Heaven, they are obliged by the known Rules of all well-governed Societies, and by the Commands of the New Dispensation (which hath a respect unto Church-Government) to submit to, and practise her Precepts, as the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews asserts, Chap. xiij. 17. Obey them that have the Rule over you, and submit your selves, for they do watch for your Souls. And for this end it was that we find the Holy Apostle of the Gentiles, when he travelled the Grecian Countries, giving un­to the Christians the Orders which the Holy Apostles had decreed at Jerusalem to be ob­served. But there is no necessity of speaking further to Evidence this Truth, which all Separatists from our Excellent Church do allow: For though they disagree amongst themselves, as well as diffent from us, as to the subject of true Ecclesiastic Jurisdiction; yet they all own there is such an Authority; and that all Precepts enjoyned thereby, if not contrary to the Laws of Heaven, should be submitted unto; which will force our Adversaries (from their own acknowledged Concessions) to allow the Lawfulness of Infant-Baptism, or recede from, and re­nounce [Page 26]one of their owned Principles; nei­ther of which, I fear, they will be willing to do, though, in Reason, they ought to do one of them.

AND now I will offer some further Ac­count to strengthen the Sence I have given of the Holy Jesus's Commission to his Blessed Disciples in St. Matth. xxviij. 19. From the Exposition I have delivered, it is not a proper Question for the Antipaedobap­tists to ask, Whether the Holy Jesus hath appointed Children to be admitted unto Baptism; but, Whether they are by him for­bidden, or denied it: Because upon a con­sideration, that the Mosaic Dispensation al­lowed Children to be not only Circumcised, but Baptized, it will necessarily follow, That a Precept delivered by the Blessed Jesus to admit Disciples from all Parts of the World, to his Holy Institution, will, without a Pro­hibition, be interpreted to include Children, as well as the Adult. As for instance: Imagine our dear Redeemer had not altered the Sign, but in the room of Baptism had de­clared [Page 27]to his Followers, Go, teach all Nations, Circumcising them. Now I make appeal to the Conscience of any considering Person, whether by such terms it can be supposed the Children of such as were Proselyted from Heathenism, could be denied Circum­cision; and then what ground is there from such Expressions, that our mercifull Saviour designed the Children of such as were con­verted from Paganism, the being Baptized? This is so reasonable, that it was necessary the Commission should be so expressed: For who can suppose, but that they who were Enemies to the Institution of the Holy Je­sus, were to be first instructed, and made Disciples before they were admitted to Bap­tism? For imagine a Commission should be given to certain Men, among whom Bap­tism is customary, Go, and teach the Indians, baptizing them. Can any one believe the design of it was to barr the Children of those Indians from being Baptized, when Bapti­zing Children was an usual Custom among those to whom the Commission was deliver­ed? So that this being the clear sence of the Commission, the Blessed Jesus could not well express it in words more plain, and easie to be understood by his own People, to whom he spake; for they must necessa­rily apprehend those capable of Church-fellowship under the New Covenant, that were allowed it under their own Dispensa­tion. Common sence would oblige them [Page 28]to interpret the words according to their known Custom. Moreover, with what sence can any person suppose, that he who drew several Appointments from the Jews, should leave out this, and in this alone vary from what the Jews practised, when there was Reason for the Continuance: Children are as capable of the Seal of Divine Grace, and of the Advantages thereof now, as they were under the former Dispensation; There is as much Reason for the Baptizing them now, as for the Circumcising and Baptizing them formerly; Their Admission under the Law, and Holy Gospel, have something a­like Reason in it; and though the Seal be changed, the Covenant continues. In short, there was no engagement on our mercifull Redeemer to disuse the Custom of Baptizing Children, as being disagreeable to the In­genuous, Catholic and Generous Notion of his Divine Institution. And surely these things, being duly weighed, there is much greater ground to inferr our Blessed Savi­our would have forbidden Children being Baptized, had it been his Design not to have had them admitted thereunto; than that he would have enjoyned that Holy Ordi­nance, if it had been his Design (as un­doubtedly it was) the Custom thereof should be used, and allowed under his New Dispensation; For there was no necessity to enjoyn his Disciples to observe what with­out a Command they would practise, unless [Page 29]he had forbad them; and that he did not forbid them the use of this Holy Ordinance, is plain, in that he did not forbid Children being Baptized: For if he forbad Children that Holy Ordinance, he either did it by a direct Injunction, or by Consequence, by confining the use of that Holy Ordinance only to Adult persons; That he never did debarr them by a direct Injunction, all Antipaedobaptists of sence allow, because we read it not in his Sacred Gospel.

Obj. But they say it was his Purpose, that those alone that were Adult were to be ad­mitted thereunto, because antecedent to Baptism Men were to be instructed to be­lieve, and to repent; which they seem to prove from this Text of St. Matth. xxviij. 19. and St. Mark xvj. 15. and Acts ij. 38. Now they alledge these are only suited to those that are Adult; and therefore they only should be admitted to Baptism. These are the Texts by which the Antipaedobaptists would evidence that Christ did so far con­fine that Holy Ordinance as to debarr Chil­dren its use.

Answ. But I Answer, They herein no­toriously err, for these Places do no more evince or prove, that only those that are Adults should be Baptized, than what St. Paul saith, 2 Thess. iij. 10. will inferr that the Adult only should eat: For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any man would not work, neither should [Page 30]he eat. On which account, in a fallacious manner, this Argument might be drawn; because St. Paul saith, Those that eat must work, but now the Adult only can work; therefore they only must eat, whereby we should starve Children, and infirm People, that cannot work, and Aged persons that are past it. I have given this Example to signifie how impertinent the Arguments a­gainst Baptizing Children are; and that it can never be evinced, or made out, from any place of Holy Scripture, that That Ordinance is limited only to the Adult, because such only can be instructed, can believe, and can repent. The falseness of this way of arguing will appear from an easie Similitude, (that, as I remember I have read in the Learned Cassander's Excel­lent Tract of Insant-Baptism,) which the weakest Man may apprehend. ‘Imagine there was a mortal and infectious Distem­per in a populous City, and Heaven should appoint a sett number of persons to acquaint them with an Infallible Re­medy that should cure this Distemper, and it should be declared to them; Travel to such a City, and assemble the Inhabitants, and acquaint them with the good this Remedy will do; and ascertain them, That whosoever hath Faith to receive it from you, for that purpose shall recover; but he that doubts the truth of what you say, shall perish.’ Upon this allowance, [Page 31]which is reasonable to allow) I ask any Antipaedobaptist if the terms of such an Or­der were enough for those that had it; or any else to inferr, That it was the Design of Heaven that they ought to communicate this Remedy only to the Adult, because only such could be assembled to know its Worth, have Faith in its Efficacy, or doubt of its Power? Surely such a conclusion would not be allowed, because Infants would be as fit to receive the Remedy as the Adult, though they did not at all know the Advantages thereof. Now then, because Infants were fit to receive the Advantage of that Holy Ordinance, and the Disciples to whom the Order was imparted so under­stood it, and were not unacquainted with its Usage under the Old Law; how was it possible to suppose, but that it was the Holy Jesus's design, that Children should be ad­mitted to Baptism as well as those that were Adult. That which was really true, is this: Their Order was an Instruction how they should Disciple the Enemies to the Blessed Jesus, Jews and Pagans to his Holy Insti­tution, according to the manner of Publish­ing a New Dispensation in Foreign Parts. Hereupon they were Commissionated to Proselyte grown Persons by Preaching to, and Baptizing such as should thereupon be­lieve and repent; but notwithstanding that according to Order they should do so, as the Jews used to do with those that they [Page 32]Proselyted to their Religion; and this was no barr to their admitting the Children of such Proselytes according to their known Custom.

Obj. The Antipaedobaptists lay great weight in one Phrase, relating to the Com­mission, as it is expressed by another Evan­gelist, St. Mark, Chap. xvj. 16. He that be­lieveth, and is baptized, shall be saved.

Answ. To which I answer. Now if they did but seriously ponder what follows, they might thereby understand that Children are not thence to be denied the Right of being Baptized, because it is afterwards de­clared in the same Verse; But he that be­lieveth not, shall be damned. So that what takes away the Right of being baptized, takes away the Right of being saved; and therefore not to be applied to Children, except they will declare with the Petrobru­sians, Vid. Cas­sand. Prae­fat. adv. Anabapt. the Foundation of the Antipaedobap­tistic Sect; That the same want of Faith that unfits for being baptized, unfits for being saved. So that it is clear from that place, That the having, or wanting Faith, is to be applied to those that are able to understand, and by Faith embrace the glad-tidings of Sal­vation. Thus much I have said to make appear how impertinent and unconcluding the Arguments of our Adversaries from Ho­ly Scripture are, to deny Children a right of being Baptized; because all the places I have mentioned, or they insist upon, do sig­nifie [Page 33]the Duties, Vertues and Graces of those that are Adult, before they are admitted to Baptism. Having said thus much for the Necessity of Baptizing Infants, I need not say any thing as to the Benefits there­of, to make appear how usefull it is: For if it be necessary, it will absolutely, and by unavoidable consequence follow, that it is usefull. However, they that desire to re­ceive an Account thereof, may be fully and excellently satisfied from the Learned Au­thor of the Case of Infant-Baptism, who ac­quaints us with five or six Benefits; and from the Reverend Bishop Taylor, Bp. Taylor [...]s Life of the Holy Jesus. who reckons up eight Effects or Blessings of Bap­tism in his Grand Exemplar; and likewise from the Judicious Mr. Walker, Mr. Wal­ker's Mo­dest Plea for Infant-Baptism. who gives an account of ten Advantages thereof; to whom I referr my Readers. And now ha­ving given you the true sence of this Text, and a large Exposition to confirm it, let me make this one Observation: Our dear Sa­viour, in the Translation of his Church from the Law to the Holy Gospel, did not annul or revoke the old Custom of Bapti­zing Children, but he designed the Admi­nistration of it as large as under the Law, otherwise he would not have been so mer­cifull and extensive a Saviour, as Moses was a Legislator; and so consequently had not been so faithfull in his House as Moses was, which he certainly was, as the Author to the Hebrews plainly insinuates, Chap. iij. 5, 6. If therefore it be so, (as undoubtedly it is,) [Page 34]then it will follow, There is as great an engagement upon Fathers and Tutors (se­parated from the Church's Authority) to bring their Infants to be Baptized, as for those that are Adult, and full-grown, to re­quest for it. Now seeing Christ did not revoke the Old former Custom, it is an evident Declaration to the World, That it was his Will it should remain as it was, and had been formerly used; and that, be­ing Children were admitted into Covenant, under the Law, by a Sacramental Sign, they should be admitted unto Covenant under the Holy Gospel by a Sacramental Rite like­wise. It was the Custom of the Jews before our Blessed Saviour's Advent, or Coming; and the Custom of his Followers within a while after his Illustrious Ascension unto the Mansions of Glory. And there being an agreeable Harmony between the former and the latter Custom, we may reasonably believe, that what was Antecedent to, and Consequent upon, his Advent, or Coming, was used in the Interval; I mean in the Holy Apostolic Age, as his supposed design and desire, who never declared or acted any matter (that can with tolerable Reason be urged) against the Old Usage of recei­ving Members into Ecclesiastic Society. So that his and the Holy Gospel's not saying any thing whether Children were Baptized or no, is so far from being a cogent Proof against it, that weighing the former Custom, it is the strongest Motive to believe it, as the [Page 35]most Excellent Dr. Nam cum Paedobap­tismus in Ecclesia Judaica in admis­sione Pro­selytorum ita fuit notus, usi­tatus & frequens, ut nihil fere notius, usitatius, & frequentius: (1.) Non opus erat ut alique praecepto roboraretur [cum Baptismus jam in Sacramentum evaderet Evangelicum] nam Christus Bap­tismum in manus suas atque in usum Evangelicum suscepit, qua­lem invenit, hoc solum addito, quod ad digniorem finem atque lar­giorem usum promoveret. Novit satis gens universa parvulos soli­tos baptizari. Illud praecepto opus non habuit, quod communi usu semper invaluerat. Si prodiret jam edictum regale in haec verba, Recipiat se unusquisque die Dominico ad publicum conventum in Ecclesia, insaniret c [...]rte ille, quicunque olim hinc argueret, non cele­brandas esse die Dominico in publicis conventibus preces, conciones, psalmodias, eo quod nulla in Edicto de in mentio. Nam canit E­dictum de celebratione d [...]ei Dominicae in publicis conventibus in genere, de particularibus autem Divini cultûs speciebus ibidem ce­lebrandis non opus erat, ut esset mentio, cum istae ante datum e­dictum, & cum daretur, semper, & ubique notae essent, & in usu assiduo. Ipsissimo hoc modo res se habuit cum Baptismo; Christus eum instituit in Sacramentum Evangelicum quo in professionem Evangelii omnes ad [...]itterentur ut olim in Proselytismum ad Re­ligionem Judaicam. Particularia eo spanciantia, modus scilicet baptizandi, aetas baptizandorum, sexus baptizandus, &c. Regula & Definitione opus non habuerant, eo quod haec vel lippis, & tonso­ribus satis nota erant ex communi usu. (2) Econtra ergo plana & aperta prohibitione opus erat us inflantes, & parvuli non bapti­zarentur, si eos baptizandos nollet Servater. Num qum per omnia saecula praecedentia usitatissimum esset, ut baptizarentur parvuli, si aboleri istam consuetudinem vellet Christus, ap [...]rte prohibuisset. Silentium ergo ejus, & Scripturae hac in re Paedobaptismum firmar, & propagat i [...] omnia saecula. Dr. Lightfoot Horae Hebraicae in Ma [...]thaeum, Cap. iij. ver. 6. Lightfoot doth irre [...]aga­bly make appear in his Commentaries on St. Matthew, Chap. iij. 6. called Horae He­braicae in Matthaeum; which, because it is in Latin, and the Account large, I will give you the plain sence of it in English ‘For when Infant-Baptism, in the Jewish Church, in admitting Proselytes, was [Page 36]known, usual and frequent, so that no­thing was more known, usual and fre­quent, there was no need of a particular Precept to strengthen it; For Christ took and translated it into his Holy Gospel, as he found it, only with this addition, That he employed it to a larger use, and ex­alted it to a more noble End; For the whole Nation of the Jews knew very well that little ones were wont to be Baptized, so that there was no need of a Precept to establish that which was grown into use by common Custom. If a Royal Edict should be published in these words, Let every one repair on the Lord's Day to the Public Assemblies in the Church: Certainly that Man would be distracted that should argue, Prayers were not to be offered in the Public Assemblies on the Lord's Day, nor Sermons preach­ed, nor Psalms sung, because there was no mention of them in the Edict, when antecedent to the publishing the Edict these things were known to be in com­mon use and custom. It is the very same thing with Baptism, when Christ made it an Evangelic Sacrament, whereby all should be admitted to the Profession and Privileges of his Holy Gospel, as formerly Proselytes were to the Jewish Religion. There was no need of Rule, or defining the particular manner of Baptizing, as what Age should be Baptized, or what [Page 37]Sex, &c. because these things were by common usage known to the weakest un­derstanding: So that there was a necessi­ty for an express and open Prohibition that Infants and little ones should not be Baptized, if our Blessed Saviour would not have them so to be admitted into his Covenant. If then Christ would have had that Custom abolished, he should have openly prohibited it; His and the Holy Scripture's silence therefore doth for ever confirm and maintain the Bap­tizing of Infants.’ So that if Baptizing Children be not only needfull, because the Church hath instituted it; but the Church hath instituted it, because it is needfull, and by all means to be continued; then this preceding Needfulness is the greater Mo­tive to Fathers and Guardians to bring them thereunto, as correspondent to the Custom of the first Planters of the Blessed Gospel, and the design and desire of our mercifull Redeemer; because it may rea­sonably be believed it had their Allowance, or Command, being it was used in the times immediately succeeding to the Holy Apo­stles; and also, if it had been disagreeable to the Mind of Christ, it is very probable he would have forbid it, or some way or other declared his Aversion, or Dislike. In short, to conclude the Exposition of the Sence I have delivered of this Text: No­thing can more disparage the Wisdom of [Page 38]Heaven, and the long-approved Custom of the Jews, than to affirm Children unfit by Sacramental Seal to be admitted to Cove­nant under the Holy Gospel, that were admitted under the Law, and which Hea­ven and the Jews allowed them; For Heaven enjoyned Circumcision for Infants, and the Church of the Jews enjoyned them Baptism as well as full-grown Prose­lytes; and under the Law they were al­lowed both. It is highly unreasonable then, that under the Holy Gospel they should be denied one, or any other Token of Ad­mission into the Covenant, as they must necessarily be by Antipaedobaptistic Princi­ples.

AND now that I may engage you to believe the Sence I have offered, I will prove it by the Connexion of the Words. Whereas the Antipaedobaptists say, Children are to be Instructed before Bapti­zed, I will endeavour to evince, That the Coherence of this Text seems to be of our side, and that Children are to be baptized before taught.

Obj. I know the Antipaedobaptists, by the placing of the Words in the Commission, would insinuate, that Infants must be In­structed before Baptized.

Answ. To which I return, That if the placing of the Words be a sufficient Obje­ction against our Practice, we have the same Argument, by way of Retortion, to urge against their Custom of Teaching first; and if they do not like our Argument in that Case, we have the same Reason not to like theirs: For we find in St. Mark i.4. John did baptize in the Wilderness, and preach the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins. Where we may observe Baptism pre­cedes, and Preaching is subsequent there­upon: The same we may find in our Text, with respect to the Verse before; and that which follows, ver. 18. And Jesus came, and spake to them, saying, All Power is given to me in Heaven, and in Earth▪ i.e Now I am exalted to the right hand of God, I am the great King of all the World, the Su­preme Pastor and Head of my People, the High-Priest of my Church; Go you there­fore, and teach all Nations; or, as St. Mark expresses the Commission, Chap. xvj 15. And he said unto them, Go you into all the World; i. e. Travel into all the World, and from every Nation gather me Sheep into my Fold, make Subjects to my Kingdom, and then by Baptism receive them as Members of my Church: And this is your Office of [Page 40]Discipling all Nations; and then the In­structive part follows, ver. 20. Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you.

IN truth the Term it self, if seriously con­sidered, will not conclude what they would have it do; for the Word in the Greek hath a peculiar signification, and is not properly translated, [ [...] is the Word, i. e.] make Disciples, or receive into Discipleship all Nations, baptizing them: And let this Form of Baptizing be the Rite for their Admission into my Church; you may find the Word so rendred in another place of the Holy Gospel, not unlike hereto, St. John iv. 1. When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more Disciples than John; where to Baptize, and make Disciples, is the same thing [with [...],] where the Baptizing being immediately annexed to the making, or receiving Disciples; and the making Disciples not granting any fore­going Teaching, but looking to it as a con­sequent [Page 41]Duty, (in like sort as in the next Verse, ver. 20. [...], [Teaching] subse­quent to [...], Baptizing, which must signifie different from what he used for Dis­cipling, else why should he not continue the same word?) must needs inferr the no necessity of Teaching before Baptizing; so that all that are thus admitted [ad Discipu­latum, or] to Discipleship to be taught and improved in the Religion of the Holy Jesus, and such that shall and will be instructed for the future, may certainly, by being Baptized, be admitted into the Church, the Rite appointed and instituted, whereby Disciples may have a Reception and Enter­tainment in his Family the Church.

Obj. And now give me leave to offer something further to an Objection of the Antipaedobaptists, in reference to the Com­mission. Their Objection (as I have already hinted) is from the Order of Words, be­cause Teaching is set before Baptizing; Therefore none but the full grown can be admitted to Baptism.

Answ. Now all that I shall say, or need to say, in return to the placing of the Words, is this: Teaching, according to the sence we have given, may go before Bapti­zing, as in the Adult; and Baptizing be­fore Teaching, as in Infants: So that with­out altering the Order of the Words, there is nothing in the true sence of the Commis­sion that condemns the Baptizing of Chil­dren; [Page 42]and I may say of Teaching and Bap­tizing, or Baptizing and Teaching, as it may be said of Faith and Repentance: Di­vines do generally say, Repentance is the fruit of Faith; and yet in the Holy Gospel it is said, Repent ye, and believe the Gospel, St. Mark i. 15. And now what I have said of the Order of Teaching and Baptizing, the same may be said of Faith and Repentance; There may be a Faith that may go before Repentance, and a Faith that may follow it; That which precedes, may be said to be that Faith that fills the Head, and informs the Judgment; That Faith which may be said to be subsequent, is the Faith that in­fluences the Heart, and saves the Soul; The one may be called a sound Faith, the other a saving Faith. My meaning, in short, is this: I must first believe the great Love of Christ, which is a sound Faith, or else I cannot so truly grieve for those Sins that pierced the Holy Jesus's side, and put him to death; and so Faith precedes Re­pentance: But then I cannot exercise the other sort or kind of Faith, untill I really detest, and hate, and fully purpose to relin­quish and forsake those Sins that put my dear Lord and Master to so much shame and pain; and then I may safely and com­fortably make an Application of Christ's Merits to my self for my Salvation: And this is that which is properly called a sa­ving Faith; and this is that which may be [Page 43]said to be consequent upon, and follow true Repentance. And this I do think may sufficiently satisfie us, that the ordering or placing the words destroys not, nor eva­cuates the sence I have given of the Com­mission. And now seeing the Antipaedóbap­tists are so peremptory, positive and stiff for an express Command out of Holy Scripture for the Baptizing of Infants, (though there can be no Reason given for such a request or demand; for what need of direct words, when we have plain sence against them,) Why may not we with equal Reason, and with the same Importunity, return upon them by way of Retortion, and ask where they find any Command for the Baptizing Elder persons? If they shall reply, that is included in the Commission, St. Matthew xxviij. 19. Go, teach all Nations, baptizing them, we may with equal strength of Ar­gument return upon them again, Children are included as well as the Adult, they be­ing by all Men of Sence acknowledged and owned to be a part of the Nations, to whom the Commission is directed; and whatso­ever they are upon the account of the smallness of their Number, or weakness of their Understanding, they are a considera­ble part of a Nation.

Obj. But if the Antipaedobaptists shall ob­ject, that Children are in the Commission, as soon as capable of Teaching.

Answ. I Answer: The Commission in­tends those should be taught that are capa­ble, but excludes not those from the Seal of the Covenant, that have a right to the Covenant, as Children have: Besides, if the placing of the Words be for them in St. Matthew, the Order of Words is for us in St. Mark, where we read the Baptist did Baptize before he Preached. So that the Methodizing the words is neither for, nor against them or us. So then, seeing Chil­dren are not by any necessary and rational Consequence shut out of the Commission, let the most Learned Antipaedobaptist of the whole Christian World shew the least pas­sage of Holy Scripture that excludes them; and if they cannot produce any such place of Holy Writ, they are bound by the Ob­ligations and Principles of Conscience (un­less they will renounce Reason and Truth too) to confess the Children of Christian Parents, having a right to the Covenant, have as undeniable and unquestionable a right of being admitted to the Holy Sacra­ment of Baptism as the Adult and Full-grown.

Obj. But if the Antipaedobaptists shall urge, That we have Instances and Exam­ples in Holy Scripture of Elder persons Bap­tized.

Answ. To that I Answer, That an Ex­ample, or Instance of Holy Scripture, is not as of the same Force, so not of equal [Page 45]Authority with a Positive Command: And further, I observe in answer to this Ob­jection, That there was no need of a Pre­cept, or Example, for the Baptizing of Chil­dren; and my Reason is this, Because there was an Institution of the Abrahamic Cove­nant, and also of the Sign or Token for admitting Members thereunto, and a Con­veyance of the Privileges thereunto be­longing. Surely the sence of those Texts in the Holy Gospel, that enjoyn a Decla­ration of Faith, and an Exercise of Repen­tance, before the Adult were baptized, was known to the Primitive Doctors of the Church, they unquestionably had seriously weighed, and fully understood the Usage of Baptism in the Apostolic Acts related by St. Luke; but yet they never inferred this unreasonable Conclusion from them, That because Faith and Repentance were to pre­cede the Baptismal Sacrament (which is an Institution of Latitude) in full-grown Peo­ple, that therefore Baptizing was not to precede Faith and Repentance in Infants, and little ones, as Circumcision and Bap­tism did under the Jewish Dispensation: They understood a Distinction between Actual and Potential Believers; and like­wise understood it was very absurd to draw Conclusions from the Graces and Vertues of those to the excluding these. Besides all this, to be somewhat more particular:

[Page 46](1.) There are different ways of In­struction, as well as different methods of Faith or Believing; and the Holy Jesus doth not declare, instruct each Party perso­nally, and that presently on the place, (which may be almost Morally impossible, for it is not probable that though there were Three thousand Souls converted by St. Peter's first Sermon, and immediately baptized, that he could personally instruct so many in so short a time, as we may sup­pose between his Preaching and their Bap­tizing;) it is enough if they be instructed, though in their Fathers, as Levi paid Tythe in Abraham's Loins, as the Author to the Hebrews acquaints us, Hebr. vij. 9. So Chil­dren are by the Blessed Jesus directly term­ed Believers, St. Matth. xviij. 6. (which, by the Coherence, cannot be understood of the Adult, as the word sometimes is, parti­cularly St. John xxj. 5.) But whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me. Infants are supposed to believe by their Fa­ther's Faith; so that as they fell from the Divine Life in their Forefather's the Proto­plast's or first Adam's Loins, so they may be instructed by their natural or legitimate Fa­thers to be Disciples to the Holy Jesus.

Obj. Ch. Blackwood's storm­ing of Antichrist in his two strong Holde, Com­pulsion of Conscience and Infant-Baptism. But I have read an Objection to the Sence I have offer'd, started by a seeming­ly Ingenious Antipaedobaptist, who would make these little [Page 47]ones to signifie such as are little in their own Apprehensions.

Answ. But to this I Answer: It is im­possible that this can be the meaning; for it plainly is meant not of such as are little in Understanding, but of such as are little in Age and Stature: For in St. Mark, Chap. ix. 36. the Blessed Jesus, who best under­stood the Divine Writings, expounds it of such an one as he took up in his Arms. Now it is not usual to take up Youths that are arrived at years of Discretion (which is about the Age of Sixteen years) in our Arms.

(2.) They were to teach them all things, whatsoever their Lord and Master had com­manded them. Now our Blessed Saviour con­tinued in the World after his miraculous Re­surrection, sometime above a month, speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, as St. Luke acquaints us, Acts i. 3. And how know we but this Doctrine of Baptizing Children he then instructed them in, if he had not done it in the time of his public Ministration upon Earth, before his Passion and Sufferings, because the nature of the Doctrine may seem to imply and re­quire it; and in all likelihood some, if not all the Holy Apostles did use it: For it is probable that it begun in their Age, seeing in the Times immediately succeeding them, we are by Ecclesiastic History assured of its Practice.

AND now that this Exposition may be the more firmly believed, and readily embraced, I will confirm and strengthen it by the consequential Sence of two places of Holy Scripture; The one from St. Peter, the Holy Apostle of the Circumcision, or the Jewish Church; and the other from St. Paul, the Holy Apostle of the Uncircum­cision, or the Gentile World. I come now to the Exposition of the first place, that of St. Peter, the Holy Apostle of the Circum­cision, or the Jewish Church, for the con­firming the Sence I have given of the Holy Jesus's Commission, to his Blessed Disciples, for the bringing whole Nations over unto Christianity. And that I may speak fully hereto, I will give, (1.) A General; and, (2.) A Particular Account. First then in General; The Text is Acts ij. 39. For the promise is to you, and to your Children, and to all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call. An Obj. That is true, saith the An­tipaedobaptist, As many as the Lord our God [Page 49]shall call by the public Ministry of his holy Word; so that they would insinuate, that Children are not to be admitted into Co­venant, or the Sign thereof, till convert­ed. But hereto I answer, answ. This is plainly false, because the word [Many] cannot refer to Children, seeing it should have been [...], not [...], because the Greek word for Children is in the Neuter Gen­der [...]. So that the sense is plainly this, The Promise is to you and to your Children, i. e. after you have forsaken the beggerly Elements of Moses, and em­braced my holy Religion, my more excel­lent Dispensation, your Children (while Children) shall (after such a public Pro­fession of your Faith in me, and my hea­venly Doctrin) be made capable of being Members of my Covenant of Grace; and by the Sign and Seal of my Covenant, Baptism be admitted and received into the same, and to all that are afar off (a usual Phrase in holy Scripture, to express and signify the Heathen Nations by) as many as the Lord our God shall call, i. e. as ma­ny of the Gentile World as shall be con­verted by the public Ministry of the holy Word, shall have the same Priviledges which the Proselites of Righteousness or Justice had, in your Church; i. e. after such a Conversion and public Profession of the Christian Faith, your Children like­wise shall be received into my Covenant of [Page 50]Grace, and by the baptismal Seal have a Right and Title thereunto; and now that any other Interpretation must distort the Words from their proper meaning, and that this I have now given, must be the true Sense of them, will clearly appear from the Original. For what the Antipe­dobaptists would make the meaning of this Text is true in one sense, tho' not to their purpose; i. e. That Children cannot be called or converted to the Christian Faith (because of their natural Incapaci­ty) by the public Preaching of the holy Gospel; and therefore it could not be [...], but must be [...]. So that the ho­ly Apostle, St. Peter makes this comfor­table Promise to those of years of discre­tion in the Pagan World, that should em­brace the Christian Faith, upon the Con­viction they received in their minds from the public Ministry of the holy Apostles. And St. Peter uses a word of the Masculine Gender, because that agrees with a Greek word of the same Gender, that signifies Men (I mean [...]) and that being the more noble Sex, includes the Feminine, and so takes in the Female; and that when Persons of Discretion were brought over into the Christian Religion, their Child­ren should have the same Priviledge with natural born Jews, or the Children of the Proselytes of Righteousness (who had publicly owned and been converted to the [Page 51]Religion of Moses) may appear plainly and evidently from the Literal and Gram­matic sense of another Phrase in the Text, where there is a Dative Case appli­ed to the Pagan World in the same sense that he applies two words to the Jewish Nation, that have the same Case in the Original [which are [...], which do answer unto [...], i. e.] the Promise is to all that are a far off, must have the same sense with the words preceeding in that Verse, The Pro­mise is to you and to your Children; which no Antipedobaptist that hath sense, but must own that they refer to the Jewish Na­tion, otherwise the words could have no force upon those to whom St. Peter spoke them: So that when St. Peter saith, The Promise is to you and to your Children, the meaning must necessarily be this, if you will have him speak consistently and with any tolerable good sense. If you of the Jewish Nation will embrace the Christian Religion, and own and submit to the Faith of the Holy Jesus, the Benefits, Immuni­ties and Priviledges of the New Covenant of Grace, are by us Apostles promised to, and shall by the power of the holy Ghost (the Gift of which for the use of the Church is communicated to us) be convey­ed and made over, conferred and bestow­ed upon you and your Children; and the same Promise St. Peter makes to the Jew­ish [Page 52]Nation; and their Children he also makes to the Heathen World, and their Offspring, which enlarges the sense I have given: And that this must be the sense, may appear from the Original Word used for Promise [ [...]] which is of a like sound, and of the same derivation, and of a near signification with [...], which is the Greek word for the holy Gospel; which is as it were the counterpart of the new Covenant, or the Covenant of Grace, that contains all the Parts and Articles thereof. So that by virtue of your Faith, the Title and Blessings of the Covenant shall be imputed to your Children, that thereby they may be made as capable of Baptism (the Sign of Admission into the Christian Church) under the holy Gospel, as your Children are now by vertue of your Jewish Faith capable of Circumcision (the Seal that gave a Title to the old Co­venant under the Law) and if you will not allow the words this sense, what St. Pe­ter spake must rather confirm and harden the Jews in their own way, and their Mo­saic observations then persuade, and bring them over to Christianity; and upon this undeniable sense of the former part of the Text, the latter must be allowed the same Exposition; because any other Sense and Interpretation will be an impediment, bar and hindrance to the Progress of christi­an Religion. So that if we have any love [Page 53]for the blessed Jesus, and desire exactly to observe his divine Institutions, this Phrase [And to all that are afar off] must be ex­pounded and interpreted from unquesti­onable parity of Reason; according to the sense we have already given of the former part of the Text [The Promise is to you and to your Children] which answers the true meaning of our blessed Saviour's Commission to the holy Apostles, according to the Ac­count we have offered, and may be called a Logical Demonstration; as convictive to Reason, as a Mathematic Demonstration is to the Senses of Mankind.

BUT Secondly, I will give you a more particular Account, that I may offer all that is necessary to be said upon this Text: And here that I may deal fairly with our Adversaries, I will give them two Concessions, which I think is all they can reasonably ask. 1(1.) We will allow that St. Peter designed to support their Spi­rits, as to their Infants, upon their outcry (when the Roman President declared him­self [Page 54]innocent of the Blood of that just Per­son, St. Matth. xxvij. 25. upon which they exclaimed) His Blood be upon us, and upon our Children. (2.) 2 We will allow, that it is not impos­sible, but that by Children, here, may be understood adult Persons, yet in the words are several particulars so clear as will be strong enough to defend our Orthodox Principle. 1(1.) That the Promise here offered to them and their Children, was the New Dispensation the Holy Jesus was Author of, and the same Dispensation, which (tho' in obscurer terms and times) had been declared to the Father of the Faithful, which Dispensation also included Father and Son. 2(2.) That except St. Peter did in this Promise include their Children, they had not been strongly supported under the Curse they wished for themselves and their Offspring, upon supposition they should depart this World before actual Repentance. (3.) 3 They had no reason to believe their Infants included in the Promise, except they had been qualified for the Sign and Sacrament under the New Dispensation, as they were of the Sign of the Old Co­venant; for all visible Confirmation is by Seal, and by this account we may under­stand the full sense of what is said, Ver. 41. And the same day were added to them about three thousand Souls, viz. Masters of Fami­lies, becoming Christians, Infants, and all in their House, according to the Terms of [Page 55]the Covenant and Usage of the Jews, were admitted and received to Baptism, other­wise how should three thousand Souls be particularly taught; for it is not proba­ble, that St. Peter's Sermon did reach the ears of all that were there present; and moreover, (as our Adversaries would per­swade us) they must every one be treated with, and spoken to, which was morally impossible for so few Apostles, as may pro­bably be conjectured to be there, and in so short a time, as we may reasonably suppose they stayed where they were. But to all this our Adversaries gainsay, because the Text tells us not, An Obj. they and their Children were receiv'd to Baptism, but they only, that gladly receiv'd his Word. Answ. To which I make this return: 1(1.) This Text doth not so evidently conclude the thing done, that Children were then receiv'd to Bap­tism (tho' it may properly enough infer it from what hath been offered in the ge­neral Account) as their Title to it by force of their being adopted into Covenant by virtue of their Parents Faith. 2(2.) That the Infants were receiv'd to Baptism, is not specified, becauset here was no necessi­ty for doing that which might be reasonably supposed. (3.) Because the Covenant, 3 for substance, was the same with that deli­vered to Abraham of old time, the Ad­ministration made the sole distinction. (4.) 4 There being three thousand Souls ad­ded [Page 56]to the Church, they could not be ad­mitted Members thereof without Bap­tism; and this being all done in one day, it is not in the least probable they could all be adult Men; or if they were, it is as highly improbable, so few as the Holy A­postles then were, could have time (which our Adversaries think necessary) to treat with, 5 and discourse every person. (5.) Be­cause all is not expressed in Holy Writ that was tranfacted; and when an Historical Ac­count is rehearsed, some Particulars are inserted not named in the prior, or former Declaration. As for instance, In the Sto­ry of the Holy Apostle of the Gentiles, his miraculous Call is taken notice of three times, and his being baptized more than once; and yet in the second Relation, con­cerning his Baptism, there is something ad­ded to the first Account, Acts xxij. 16. Arise, and be baptized, and wash away they sins, calling on the Name of the Lord, declaring the Scope and Design of Baptism, as well as how necessary it was; and it is proba­ble had there been reason to rehearse this Account related Acts ij. as there was of St. Paul's other matters, possibly this of admitting Infants to Baptism had been in­serted. 6(6.) By way of Retortion, to return their own Argument upon them, be­cause Women are not named neither in the Commission, St. Matth. xxviij. 19. nor Acts ij. 41. to be baptized, both being [Page 57]rendred by the Greek in the Masculine Gender; I may therefore, according to their way of arguing, urge, because it is not declared in the Sacred Text, that they who gladly received the Word with their Wives were baptized, I might there­fore, according to their manner of dispu­ting, say, no Women had as yet received Baptism; for it was after this time, that we read in Samaria, Women were bapti­zed by St. Philip. Acts viij. 12. So that tho' the Design of the Covenant be known, yet not al­ways declared in Holy Writ, and the bap­tizing of Infants may verily be believed to be of this kind.

THE second place is that of St. Paul, the Holy Apostle of the Uncircum­cision or the Gentile World, 1 Corinth. vij. 14. For the unbelieving husband is san­ctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, else were your children unclean, but now are they holy. This place of St. Paul is a strong confirmation [Page 58]of the Sense, and a clear conviction of the truth of the Interpretation I have gi­ven of the first Text of the last quoted place of St. Peter. St. Paul was a Phari­see, (the most learned and strictest Sect a­mong the Jews) and was so well instruct­ed in the Christian Religion, that he him­self saith, he was not a whit behind any (the best, and most knowing) of the Ho­ly Apostles, and for the encouragement of the Pagan World to embrace Christianity, he publickly declares, and assures them, that the believing Paganish Husband, or Wise, should have a Power and Priviledge to transmit and convey their Faith to their Seed; so that their Children, after such a conversion of the Parent, should be ca­pable of a Federal, or Covenant-Holi­ness, which should be of such efficacy and vertue, as to impute and make over to them a Right to the Covenant, and then, by the Seal of Baptism, to be receiv'd into the Church, admitted to the favour of God, and made Heirs of Heaven by virtue of their Membership in the Covenant of Grace. Thus we plainly see, by the Testi­mony of Holy Scripture, and by the Evi­dence of Reason, (a Reason so infallible and unerring, that it is conducted by the Light of Divine Revelation) what is the plain, natural, and proper sense of the Holy Jesus's Commission to his Blessed Disciples, St. Matth. xxviij. 9. Go teach [Page 59]all Nations, baptizing them. So that he who shall from a mistaken sense of that place of Holy Scripture, deny Bap­tism unto Infants, hinders the Propaga­tion and Progress of Christian Religion, makes the Covenant of Grace less benefi­cial and extensive than the Covenant of Works; and so consequently doth not al­low as great Benefits, Priviledges and Im­munities to the Covenant of Grace which he doth to the Covenant of Works, all which are the dangerous Consequences of Antipedobaptism, as I hope I have suffi­ciently proved, and convincingly made out; and in the evincing, or proving this Argument, I have plainly shewed, that we have the proper meaning of three Texts of Holy Scripture, which I think to any Man of sense is as clear a Proof, and as powerful an Evidence to engage our belief to the truth of any Doctrin pro­pounded to us, as if we had brought the positive and express Words of Holy Scrip­ture, which is as strong a conviction as any Man can with the least shew of reason de­sire. So that if the true sense of the Holy Jesus's Commission to his Blessed Disciples be duly considered, and that no other mean­ing can tolerably be put upon them, being backt with the Authority of two other places of Holy Scripture, (and a threefold Cord is not easily broken) no Antipedo­baptist, that is a Man of sense, will here­after [Page 60]press for a positive and direct place of Holy Writ, because he hath no reason to expect a Tautology in Sacred Scripture, to please an Humour, or serve an Interest, and because he will thereby weaken his Cause, and then have great reason to be a­shamed of, if not repent for the Injury he doth his Principles, and he will see the vanity of demanding express words for a confutation, when he hath plain sense a­gainst him; for the Holy Scriptures are to be expounded and interpreted by their Sense, and not by their Sound; by their Spiritual Meaning, and not by the bare Words, Syllables, and Letters; for they are best understood by their proper Design and Purport, or a true Relation to their Coherence and Connexion with what pre­ceeds, and follows after. And now give me leave to offer one thing that will confirm the sense of the Texts I have delivered, and will also further shew how unreason­able, and absurd, weak, and trifling, the Antipedobaptists are, for being so pe­remptory and positive in demanding an ex­press place of Holy Scripture for the bap­tizing of Infants, and this I will endeavour to evince from Customs among the Jews, well known to all learned Men. Three things were required by the Jews to make a Male Proselyte of Righteousness, Cir­cumcision, a kind of Purfication by Wa­ter (which was an Allusion to Baptism) [Page 61]and Oblation, which was commonly two Tur­tles, or Pidgeons; To a Female Purification by Water, and Oblation. Now because the Jews, since their Dispersion, have neither Altar nor Sacrifice, they say, For the Male, Circumcision, and Purification by Water, are sufficient: For the Female, Only Puri­fication by Water. In David's time, they tell us many Thousands were added to the Church without Circumcision, by Purifica­tion only. Hence we may observe, that a kind of Admission by Water into the Church, was long in use among the Jews, tho' it were not Sacramental till the Bles­sed Jesus's Institution, therefore it may seem to be used by them, because they looked for it as a Sacrament at the co­ming of the Messiah, as is evident by their coming to St. John the Baptist, not so much scrupling his Baptism, as his Autho­rity, by what Power he baptized: St. John i. 25. And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, nor that Prophet? By which three different words they meant the Messiah, because he was well known to the Jews by those Terms or Phrases to be foresignified; so that had he owned himself for such, they would not have doubted his Commission; but Christ being plainly pro­ved the Messiah, he was Lord of the Sa­crament, as well as of the Sabbath, and so had a sufficient Power to institute a New [Page 62]Sacrament, and so substituted Baptism in the room of Circumcision, which whoso­ever believes not to be as extensive as the other, is so irrational as to make the holy Jesus not so merciful a Legislator as Moses; which shews the unreasonableness and ab­surdity of demanding an express Text of holy Scripture for Infant Baptism, which was the Truth to be cleared; and I hope is sufficiently made apparent and mani­fest.

LET me now offer some general Ob­servations upon the Sense and Expo­sitions of those Texts I have brought for the Proof hereof; and I will begin with the Observation of Chemnitius, in his Plea he makes against the Antipedobaptists of Germany: Ego sane qui simpli­citatem amo etiamsi nec intelligam nec explicare possim quomodo Infantes, qui Baptizantur credant; judico tamen suffitire firmissima illa testimonia explicata. In­fantes esse Abaptizandos, neque enim ab illis propterea discedendum, et­si non possim vel intelligere, velexplicare quomedo credant Infames. Chemnit. Exam. Conc. Trid. part 2. Tit. de Baptismo ad Canon. 13. I do so truly love Simplicity and Truth, that altho' I cannot tell how [Page 63]Children who are baptized believe, yet I judge the Testimonies from Holy Scripture above-named, most strong Evidences, and a sufficient Proof for this Christian Pra­ctice; neither ought Christians to depart from this Truth, tho' I cannot understand or explain how Children believe. In some things we should take St. Paul's Advice, And become Fools that we may be wise, 1 Cor. iij. 18. Obedience being more acceptable than burnt Offerings, 1 Sam. xv. 22. And we should offer up our Understandings to di­vine Revelation, where there is clear Rea­son to submit to it. Faith is the wisest, and most well-pleasing Service we can offer to God [Nescire ea quae docere non vult Ma­gister maximus erudita est inscitia] not to know those things our great Master would have us ignorant of, is (if I may so speak without a Solecism) a learned Ignorance. But prais'd be Heaven, I have yet met with no Arguments of the Adversaries so strong, as to need such an Apology or Plea. We find not any Accusation laid to the Charge of Christianity, by the Jewish or Pagan World upon this Account, which certainly would have been done by some of the Enemies of our holy Religion, if the Jewish Believer had not enjoyed the same Immunities, when Christian, that he did before: Or if the first Planters of Christi­anity had preached the same Doctrin the Antipedobaptists do now, how would the [Page 64]Enemies of our holy Religion have declam­ed against us, and declared the Doctrin they preached, was not the same Covenant God offered to the Father of the Faithful, and the People of Israel, because that in­cluded Father and Son, as to the Covenant and the Sign that conveyed the Benefits of the Covenant. An Obj. Now because the Anti­pedobaptists call upon us for an Example of any baptized in a gathered Church with­out Faith, and that herein the holy Scri­pture is silent: Answ. To which I will give a full Answer; and for which, I shall in great part, Vid. Mr. El­lis's Treat. called Pa­stor and Clerk: Or a Debate [real] con­cerning Inant Bap­tism, p. 182, — 195. be obliged to the Judicious Mr. Ellis. (1.) I am not obliged to make any return. (2.) This is a perillous Method of arguing to Religion. (3.) That it doth not fur­ther their Cause. (1.) I am not obliged to make any return: For we may well con­tinue the Custom, seeing we have so strong Reasons from holy Writ for it; and see­ing we have so long enjoyed and used it, by so many Instances from the Primitive times (as may be proved;) so that we have Prescription to plead, and that Law­yers tells us, in some Cases, is a good Bar against all other Titles. It is upon these Accounts your duty, that contradict it, to declare any one Instance or Proof, that these Reasons, and this continued Custom of all times since the holy Apostolick Age, should not be continued; which I am satis­fied they will not be able to perform, if [Page 65]they should be so couragious as to under­take it, and therefore it will be in vain to make any attempt that way. (2.) 2 This method of demanding positive Words from Holy Writ for all that Men are to be­lieve, or do, is extream hazardous to Re­ligion, where there is sufficient reason with­out such an Authority to engage our Faith. (1.) As to Doctrin, 1 it would censure the Method of arguing used by our Blessed Sa­viour and his Holy Disciples, and so make way for a falling from the Truth, and gi­ving entrance to the most pernicious Here­sies; and therefore he that believes such a Doctrin can be no good Christian: and possibly for this Reason several have gone from one Sect to another, till they came to be of no Religion at all, and looking for what is not to be had in Holy Writ, nor should be expected from any sort of arguing, they have thereupon cast off all. (2.) As to customary Practices, 2 what a door of entrance would there be for strange Doctrins, and stranger Practices? there is no Command for, or Instance of a Woman partaking in the Holy Communion; we read not of the baptizing of the Holy Disciples; no Command or Instance of one that is not a Clergyman may not have more Wives than one, whereupon I have read of one in Essex, that married more than one at a time, and as it was supposed for that Reason. (3.) It doth not further their Cause, 3 because where there is a good Reason for us to be­lieve [Page 66]or do, we are not to stop or stay our belief, or defer acting, till we have an Instance from Holy Scripture: What Com­mand or foreknown Instance had the Holy Apostle of the Circumcision to admit the Centurion of the Italian Band and his Fa­mily to Baptism, seeing they were not cir­cumcised, only that he collected it, that because he had a Title to the Covenant, (by the miraculous Gift of the Holy Ghost) he had right to the Sign that con­veyed the Priviledge of the Covenant. The Commission the Holy Jesus gave to his Blessed Disciples at his leaving the World, in relation to the persons, is in the Mascu­line Gender, and the Account of St. Pe­ter's baptizing his first Converts was in the same Gender; Why then did St. Philip ad­mit to baptism, Women as well as Men, Acts viij. 12? And why do the Antipedo­baptists, as well as we, admit Women to the Communion, when there is neither Command nor Rule to enjoyn it? To con­clude all, I shall need to say by way of Ex­position upon these three Texts, As the Obligatory Power of the Ceremonies and Rites among the Jews was abolished, be­cause they did not agree with the ingenu­ous temper of the Christian Institution; so more principally was it taken away, as being disagreeable to the Notion of its being an Universal Society, for it would have impeded the Propagation of the Re­ligion of the B. Jesus, had it been burden­ed [Page 67]with the Ceremonies and Rites of the Jews, which were grown hateful, as well as nauseous to the Heathenish part of Man­kind; and, to name no other Instance, he was upon this account engaged to alter the Sacrament for Admission into his Church, or the Sign of the Old Covenant Circum­cision, I mean, whereby the People of Is­rael (excepting some few Nations, as the ancient Egyptians, Ethiopians, Ishmaclites, and Colchians) were differenced from the rest of Mankind: They were, I say, Vid. Case of Infant-Baptism, pag. 20. grown nauseous and hateful to the World for the use thereof; as it is insinuated by several of the Poets, as Martial, Horace, Petroni­us, and Juvenal. Is any man called, being cir­cumcised, let him not become uncircumcised; i. e. 1 Cor. vij. 18. Let him not use means to attract the [Praeputium, or] Foreskin, which the Jewish People were frequently wont to do, to shun reproach, and to deliver themselves from Persecution in Paganish Kingdoms. And upn this account it would have been a great hindrance to the propagation of the New Dispensation, should the Heathen World have been admitted to the New Co­venant by that way; no Sacred Ceremo­ny could be more unacceptable to Mankind in general; and hereupon the Wisdom of our. Merciful Redeemer, as well as New Legislator, is to be commended in alter­ing the old antiquated Sign into a more gentle, pleasant way of admission by Wa­ter, which was as of a more universal use, [Page 68]so of a more general signification, because the Heathen World, as well as the People of Israel used it, (For Heathenism was lit­tle else but the Jewish Religion abused by the Prince of Darkness, and Father of Lies, as Christianity was little more than pure Natural Reason exalted, and improved by the King of Light and Purity.)

AND now, that I may engage you to the belief of the sense I have gi­ven of these three Texts of Holy Scrip­ture, I declare the Account I have offered is according to Jewish Custom, and the sense of things well known among them; which is the only true and proper way of coming to their right meaning, and with­out such an Exposition or Allusion, it is impossible to understand several Phrases and Places in the New Testament. Dr. Ham­mond's Case of Infant-Baptism in his Re­solution of six Queries. And this may appear from an excellent Account given by the Reverend Dr. Hammond, in eight. Particulars, which I will only men­tion, but not enlarge upon, referring you to the Account he gives, and then add one memorable Instance to confirm this way [Page 69]of expounding H. Scripture. (1.) 1 In the calling and receiving Disciples. (2.) 2 In the Donation of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. (3.) 3 In the Blessed Sacrament of the Lord's H. Supper. (4.) 4 In Imposition of Hands. (5.) In the Title of Apostles. 5(6.) In the Name and Office of Bishops. 6(7.) In the Title of Deacons. (8.) 7 8 In the word [ [...], or] Church, in both No­tions of it, for the People, and the Rulers thereof, (or Church-Representative) and when he complied in so many Customs, why should we believe he varied in this only? But I will give one remarkable Example, and so conclude this way of confirming the Sense and Expositions I have given and the Sense of what I shall say, (for his words I cannot give you, it being so long since I read him) I shall borrow from the Reve­rend Dr. Lightfoot, a Man of the greatest knowledge in understanding the Custom of the Jews and Rabbinic Learning; The Text is St. Matth. xvij. 20. If you have faith, as a grain of mustard-seed, you shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place, and it shall remove, and nothing shall be impossible unto you. Now this is naturally impossible in a literal sense, but to such as are acquainted with a customary Saying a­mong the Jews, this seemingly difficult place hath an easie and intelligible mean­ing; for it was an usual Saying among them, of a learned Rabbi, (that had a skilful Fa­culty in the expounding hard places of Ho­ly [Page 70]Scripture) That he was a Man of such Learning, he could remove Mountains. Now this Phrase the H. Jesus applies to a true, sound, saving Faith, (of which it is pro­perly meant, and not of the Faith of Mi­racles, as some perchance may believe) and his sense is plainly this, (as may appear by the last words of the Text, And nothing shall be impossible to you.) A right, orthodox, strong Faith in the Almighty God, will be of such power and efficacy, as to support and bear you up under the sorest Pressures of Human Life; and when your Faith and Patience are sufficiently tried and exerci­sed, your Belief in the same God shall work a deliverance, and no difficulty or distress shall be insuperable to, or conquerable by such a Faith, because so great a Faith shall (like Jacob, when he wrestled with God Al­mighty, prevailed with, if not overcome Omnipotence it self) obtain what it de­sires, Gen. xxxij. 28. as the Canaanitish Woman's importu­nate Faith did with the B. Jesus, when he said unto her, Mat. 15.28. O woman, great is thy faith; be it unto thee as thou wilt. And, to encou­rage to the exercise of such a Noble Act of Faith, St. Paul speaks the same sense with that Exposition I have given of that place of St. Matthem, 1 Cor. x. [...]. when he saith, There hath no temptation taken you, but such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not suf­fer you to be tempted above that you are able, but will with the temptation make a way to escape, that you may he able to bear it. And [Page 71]that I may the better engage your belief to the sense I have given of these three Texts, I have interpreted them according to Jewish Customs and Phrases. As to the first, St. Matth. xxviij. 19. I have explained it according to the sense it must have, if Moses their Legisla­tor had given such a Commission to twelve Elders of Israel, as the H. Jesus gave to his B. Disciples. As to the second place, Acts ij. 39. we have so expounded it likewise; for it is well known, [By those that are afar off] the Jews constantly meant the Heathen Nations, or the Gentile World. Lastly, For the third place, 1 Cor. vij. 14. we have interpreted the word Holy, accord­ing to the Jewish custom and manner, who always understood the word Holy so, and applied that Phrase to any Thing or Per­son that was dedicated and peculiarly set apart to the Service of God; and there­fore, neither according to the coherence of the place, nor the Jewish way of inter­preting H. Scripture, can that word be un­derstood of a Matrimonial Legitimacy, that should render the Children clean after such a Marriage, and free them from the odi­ous Character of Bastardy, as we shall make more fully and clearly appear, when I come to answer a seemingly strong Objection of the Antipedobaptists against the sense of that Text, which we have given as its pro­per meaning.

AND now, that I may engage you to believe the Sense I have given of these three places of H. Scripture, I will confirm it by the best Authority, the Te­stimony of three of the most ancient Pri­mitive Fathers, who lived near the Age of the H. Apostles, and therefore may be rea­sonably supposed best acquainted with their mind. The first shall be the Authority of Justin Martyr; [...]. Resp. ad Or­thod, or whosoever was Author of that Pri­mitiv Book. Children are allowed to en­joy the good things that come by Baptism, by the Faith of them that bring them to Baptism. Punctually correspondent to the sense (and so fit to establish the meaning) we have given of 1 Cor. viij. 14. where upon the Account of the believing Hus­band's living with the unbelieving Wife, and the reason allowed, that one may build up the other in the Christian Doctrin, and accordingly, christianly educate their Chil­dren, the Children are Holy, i. e. vouch­safed the Priviledge of Baptism, and the Benefits thereupon consequent. Next we find Irenaeus speaking to the same sense, who flourished in the first Century after such as had an occular view of the H. Jesus, who declares the Messiah to be an Universal Sa­viour; and mentioning Infants, [& Par­vulos] [Page 73]small Children, as well as [Pueros, Ju­venes, and Seniores, Boys, Youths, and Elder Persons] saith further, all, Omnes in­quam qui per cum re­nascuntur in Deum. Iren. l. 2. adv. haeres. c. 39. who by him are reborn to a Divine Life, where Children be­ing renewed, or reborn, must needs be ex­pounded according to the H. Scripture-phrase of [...], being renewed or reborn by the Laver of Regeneration, and all that are acquainted with the Primitive Fathers, know they thereby mean Baptism, (Dominica & Apostolica phrasi, according to the sense of H. Scripture, as delivered by the B. Jesus, and his dear Followers) and as he concludes there, Sanctificat Infantes he renders, Children holy, according to the Interpretation we have given of that place of St. Paul, 1 Cor. vij. 14. Lastly, Tertullian, who flourished much about the same time, gives a much like ac­count; for speaking of the [Fidelium filii] (the Sons of the Faithful) he affirms, Sanctitatis Candidati, hinc enim Apostolus ex Sanctificato alterutro sexn Sanctos procreari ait Sanctitam ex seminis Praerogati­va, quam ex Institutionis disciplina, Tertull. L. 1. de Ani­ma, C. 39. They are Candidates of Holiness, and Holy, as up­on different regards, so from the preroga­tive of their Birth, punctually adequate to the sense we have given of the Text to the Corinthians, and according to our Exposition thereof; and as it is a Testimony, it was so used by the Christians then, so it's an Evi­dence of the Custom of the H. Apostles in that Age, to allow the Infants of Christian Parents to be baptized. And now to conclude the Authorities, I will add two more, with the Canon of a Provincial Council; and the first of the two I will bring, shall be that of the famous Bishop of Carthage, St. Cyprian, [Page 74]who lived at the end of Origen's time, who flourished about fifteen Years after Tertullian; what he writes is in that which he sends to his Friend Fidus, and in it there is so clear a proof for baptizing Children, that it is suf­ficient to satisfie any person in whom pre­possession and Interest do not Rule; Fidus had sent to him to acquaint him, that he did not think fit that Infants should be admitted unto Baptism before the eighth day, as the Jews were under Moses's Dispensation; whereupon he sent this Return; Quantum ad causam Infan­tium pertinet, quos dixisti in­tra secundum vel tertium di­em quo nati sunt conllitutos Baptizari non oportere, & considerandam esse legem Cir­cumcisionis antiquae, ut infra octavum diem eum qu [...] natus est Baptizandum & Sanctifican­dum non putares, longe aliud in Concilio nostro visum est; In hoc enim, quod to putabas faciendum esse, nemo consen­sit, sed universi potius judica­mus nulli hominum nato mi­sericordiam Dei, & gratiam denegandam, St Cyprian, Ep. 58. ad Fid. That he and the Councel, wherein were 66 Bishops, were of a different Judgment, having declared, that as the Lord had no respect of Persons, so no re­gard for Age, but that Children might be admitted to Baptism presently after their Birth, to cleanse them from their Origi­nal Guilt. The second shall be from St. Augustin, the Reverend Bishop of Hippo, which I will the rather do, because the Pelagians have been mistakenly supposed by a Conse­quence from their Doctrin, to deny the baptizing of Infants for the Remission of Sins, (which they that did, have been cen­sured by the Church for Hereticks in all A­ges) as may appear both by St. Ambrose Hine eva­cuatio Bap­tisinatis par­v [...]orum q [...] sola a­co [...]tione do­nar [...], nullo [...]rem rea [...] [...]cerentur ab [...]o [...]vi, S. Ambr. Ep. lib. 4. De­m [...]tradi Virg.. From Pelagius's Doctrin follows the evacua­ting or making void the baptizing of In­fants, who would by his Opinion be said to [Page 75]be adopted, but not absolved from any guilt. And in like manner; by the definition of the Councel of Milevis, where, speaking of the H. Catholic Church's understanding, Origi­nal Sin, we have these words; ‖ Propter hanc regu­lam fidei, & Parvul qui nihil peccaforum in seme­tipsis com­mittere po­ [...]erunt, deo in peccato­rum remis­sionem vera­citer Bap­tiza [...]ur, ut in eis regene­ratione m [...]ndetur, quod gene­ratione tra­rerunt, Conc. Milev. Can 2. Upon this Ruse of Faith (the sense of the H. Catholic Church [ubi (que) semper] every-where, always) it is that Infants are baptized for the remis­sion of sins, that what they have contracted by Generation may be purged by Regeneration. Now the words of Caelestius, as quoted by S. Au­gustin, are these; Infantes Baptizari remissionem peccatorum secundum regulam uni­versalis Ec­clesiae, & Evangelii sententiam, S. Aug l. 2. cont. Pel. & Cael. c. 5. That Infants are baptized for Remission of Sins, according to the Rule of the Universal Church, and the appoint­ment of the H. Gospel, whereby it is pro­bable, that he meant this Text of H. Go­spel, according to the sense we have given of it, because none can be admitted into Cove­nant with the guilt of their sins upon them, and to signifie, that he must make absolute and sincere renunciation of them; which may be one reason why the H. Church appoints Sponsors and Undertakers to make such Pro­mises in the behalf of the Child. I will now finish my Proofs from the Testimony of the Ancients by the Authority of a Councel: the Provincial Councel of Milevis. The Church of Afric was one of the most famous Churches of the Primitive Times, for Piety and Learning, and the determination of the Council, (which, Case of In­fant Bap­tism, p. 152. as St. Augustin observ'd an 100 Years after, was not a New Decree, [Novum Decretum] seems to allow baptizing Children in that Church, to be a long and un­interrupted [Page 76]Custom. This Council was held about the middle of the third Century, about 150 Years after the decease of St. John. This Councel, in its second Canon, thus declares, It is decreed by the Council, i. e. [Placuii Spi­ritui Sancto, & nobis] it is decreed by the H. Ghost, and by us; [...]em placu­it ut quicun­que parv [...] ­los receates ab uteris matram baptizandos negat; aut dicit in re­missionem quidem pec­catorum baptizari, sed nihil ex Adam tra­here origi­nalis peccati quod rege­nerationis lavacro ex­pi [...]r; undo fit Conse­quens ut in eis form a baptizmatis in remissi­onem pecca­torum non vera, sed fal­sa intelliga­tur Anathe­ma sit. Syn­od. Milevi­tana. Can. 2. apud Cara­zam. That whosoever will not allow Children to be baptized presently after they come out of their Mothers Womb, or saith they are baptized for remission of Sins in­deed, but draw nothing of Original Sin from Adam, which is to be explated by the Laver of Regeneration (whence it doth follow, that that form of Baptism for the remission of Sins in and to you, is understood not to be true, but false) let him be declared Accursed; and this I think Proof enough from Antiquity, however they that desire more may be excel­lently satisfied from the learned Mr. Walker's Modest Plea for Infant Baptism, where he not only asserts, but proves its usage for about fifteen Centuries of years.

AND now what Reason can be offered why those Christians that were con­verted from Judaism, who were scandalized at the omission of Circumcision, should not have been more highly scandalized, if the first Planters of Christianity had denied an admis­sion [Page 77]of Infants unto Covenant under the H. Gospel Dispensation, when they had been ever allowed it under the Mosaic Oeconomy? Is it not rational to imagine, that they who made so great Complaints, only because the H. Disciples instructed the Jewish People that dwelt in Heathen Countries, that they were not bound to use Circumcision, would not have made greater Complaints if they had not admitted them and their Children unto Baptism, but wholly shut them out, like the Children of Infidels, and not allowed them to be Members of Christ's Mystical Body? It certainly, in all likelihood, would have been a sore Grief to them, to observe their Infants used as bad as the Infants of Pagans and Fo­reigners, and to have no clear distinction be­tween such Children, whose Parents received the H. Gospel, and such as with stood Chri­stianity. For they ever esteem'd Heathen In­fants as unclean and common; but the Infants of Believers they reckoned Holy and Conse­crate, according to the Exposition we have given of 1 Cor. vij. 14. But now had the H. Disciples publicly preached that the Infants of such as were admitted into Covenant with God, had no other Title to an admission into the Church by Baptism, than the Infants of Pagans, who were not in Covenant; they had preached a Doctrin, which would assuredly have been a higher Scandal than whatever they had preached against the necessity of cir­cumcising Males, and the observation of Mo­ses's Law of Ceremonies: Whereupon since [Page 78]we do not find among their grievous Accusa­tions on the change of the Jewish Usages, that they murmured or repined that their Infants were not baptized, and so made capable of the Benefits of the new Covenant of Grace; It is a much more probable Reason to believe, that the first Planters of Christianity and their Associates, admitted Infants to Baptism, than the not shewing a plain Example or di­rect Precept for it under the H. Gospel Dis­pensation, is that they were not at all baptiz­ed. And now having given such Reasons and Authorities for this laudable and christian Usage, before I come to answer the Objecti­ons, which is the last part of my Undertak­ing, give me leave to make one Observation. Menno, who was one of the greatest Scholars of the Adverse Party, who lived about 100 years since, Vid. Cas­sand. adv. Anabapt. Case of Infants Bapt. p. 47, 48. was so close put to it by this sort of Argument from Authority, that he owned the Ordinance of baptizing Children as anci­ent as the H. Apostolic Age, but then declar­ed it came from counter felt Pastors of that Age; but if so, how happens it, we find not any thing recorded of it in the sacred Epistles, nor in the Books of any of that Age; such as S. Clement, S. Ignatius and S. Polycarp? How happens it that S. John, who lived the longest of all the H. Apostles, mentions it not? Or how happens it that the Inditer of the Apo­calypse, that censured several Errors of that Age, should take no notice hereof? It is very wonderful that none of the inspired Writers, such as assisted them [...] should [Page 79]not mention so reproachful a practice, that would stock the Church with counterfeit Professors, and in a short time Unchurch it. In the same sort if it hapned by er­roneous Guides in the times immediately after the H. Apostles, how came it to pass that none of the Illustri­stious Confessors that lived in that Age contradicted it, as a Doctrin that might endanger the overthrow of Christianity, nor told us any thing in the least of it? They published Books against the Errors of Simon Ma­gus, Menander, Saturninus, Cerinthus, Ebion, Valentinus, Basilides, Marcion, &c. but we read not any thing in their Writings against baptizing Children, tho' we are as­sured from Iraenus and Tertullian, that it was used in their times, as we have made it appear.

THe Antipedobaptists do object, An Obj. that the Command for baptizing all Nations doth not help the cause of Infant-baptism, because there are some places of H. Writ of a like sound, are not to be interpreted as if they took in all indefinitely, but only such as have a capacity to act the Duty, as worship God, and sing to him all you Nations. To which I return (1.) answ. 1 Supposing (da [...] sed non concesso, as the Logicians speak) that the sext, S. Mat. xxviij. 19. doth not conclude (tho it do not forbid) that Children should be brought to Baptism, I say this Allowance being given, the Antipedobaptist can never prove his Principle from it. (2.) 2 This Text being no more than a Command, can be no Evidence in matter of fact, nor have I urged this Text as matter of Fact, but necessity of Duty. (3.) 3 The Example that is brought to overthrow the force drawn from the Sense we have given of the Text, is mighty weak; For tho' in the Pre­cept, Worship God, and sing to him all you Nations, they that are not able to do either cannot be believed to be obliged (For nemo tenetur ad Impossibile, none is bound to Impossibilities, as the Civil Lawers speak) yet in a [Page 80]Precept in acting that for others, of which all are alike able to whom the Precept is delivered (as certainly there was no more difficulty for the commissionated Teachers to administer Baptism to Children than to adult Persons) there is no ground to limit or confine it: And that this is the truth may appear, because the Pre­cept is not delivered to all Nations, to fit and qualify themselves for Baptism, but to the H. Disciples to disci­ple them, and administer Baptism to them; and of being brought to the Church, and admission into the number of the Members of Christ's Mystical Body. And of cleansing by the Baptismal Waters, the Infant is capa­ble, tho' not of worshipping God, or Singing (at least Musically and Harmonically.) An Obj. Again another Objection they fetch from the Original [ [...]] baptizing them into the Name; because the baptized should not only catch for themselves the Pro­fession and Name, but also be deeply immersed in the thing named and professed. answ. To which I return: The Spon­sors promise for the Children, out of a regard to the Profession, but the name and thing themselves take: They are sanctified and washed in the Name of Christ, and are thereupon termed Christians, outward Commu­nication being needful to a Member of the visible Church, but not Profession personal, and outward in this matter, the Party being not fit for it, and the profession of others equivalent for those Parties. An Obj. But still they object against [ [...]] them, and perceiving it to be of another Gender, and not the same with [...], they find out a word to lay it on, which them­selves have obosen, and that is [ [...]]. Disciples, and thus, they would have [ [...]] them, not applied to Nations, Rev. xx. 8. but to the Disciples of the Nations. To which I return, we have the same Conjunction in H. Writ, I mean of [ [...]] Nations and them, and they are both mentioned in one verse, with relation to one another: And why may not we more naturally draw a Companion from the common Custom of Speech, and rather substitute [...], a word appliable to all Ages Men, Women and Children, and bind up all in the end of the Con­struction with [ [...]] out of all Nations. [Page 81]Neither is the Conjunction of [...] and [...], Nations and Them, improper, be­cause [...] is most expressive in the Original Tongue, and so fit to make the Construction perfect; Nations being made up and composed of Men, Women, and Children: And seeing now we are criti­cizing upon the Text, let me offer some­thing should have been brought in at the Coherence, Go teach all Nations, baptizing them. If we correct our Translation by the Original, it will run thus, [ [...]] Disciple you all Nations, not [ [...]] Teach you them: The meaning of the Term is, Separate such and such Persons from the rest of Mankind, and by initiation admit them to be my Disciples, or dedicate them to the Service of Heaven, and then by Baptism set a Mark upon them, that they may be known to be my Disci­ples, and let them be afterwards instruct­ed, who in respect of their present unfit­ness cannot immediately become Disciples by personal Instruction; and the ground of this Interpretation is strongly laid, be­cause an Active Verb of Injunction should be allowed such a meaning; for being made to People, and Nations, it must have such a sense as must extend it self to all, to whom it is made; and assuredly little ones on account of their Number are a larger Por­tion of People, and Nations, than they are upon account of their Stature; and [Page 82]that Infants may by this way be made Dis­ciples, 1 is out of doubt; Because, (1.) They are by their Fathers, or the Church, pre­sented to Heaven, who consecrate them to God, and are thereby enrolled in the Re­gister of the Holy Jesus. 2(2.) The Spon­sors, or Undertakers, promise upon their account, that correspondent to their En­gagement expressed in the Form of Bap­tism, (which is declared in the following Charge) they are to be instructed in the true Service of God: Hereupon they be­come Disciples in Fieri. 3(3.) They have the Regal Seal stampt upon their Spirits, whereby they are set apart for the Service of Heaven, and become Christians and Dis­ciples in Facto esse, not as being personally instructed, but as being placed so as to be reckoned the Servants and Scholars of the blessed Jesus, and so really looked up­on, and accounted his Disciples: We put little ones to places of Instruction not so much for their growth in Knowledge, as to be secured from Mischief. And after this manner Infants are kindly admitted into the Institution of our great Master from the hazard of their departing out of the World without the Seal of the Covenant, and for fear, because they have not the Divine Mark, either they or our selves may undergo punishment. To all this I may add, (which is sufficient to stop the mouth of Gainsayers) That the placing Instru­ction [Page 83]before Baptism) doth not any more infer, that Instruction should go first, and should have the preference, than that Re­pentance, as being enjoyned before Faith by St. Mark, Repent you, St. Mark 1.15.and believe the Go­spel, ought to challenge the precedence, which is the proper product of Faith. Faith in this place being consequent upon Re­pentance by an elegant [...]. Such Transpositions in Holy Writ have caused this Observation to be made; Non datur prius aut posterius in Scriptura. There is not a former or a latter allowed in Holy Scripture. And now I pity mine Enemy, being so be­set that he cannot stir out of the Circle; which calls to mind the Observation of one of the ancient Fathers, Quid est mi­serius mise­ro non mise­rante seip­sum. S. Aug. Confess. What is more mise­rable, than for a miserable Man not to com­miserate himself. But still the Antipedo­baptists object and say, The altering the placing of the words, An Obj. inverts and discom­poses the Method of the Holy Jesus's Com­mission, because that principally relates to the adult, and such as have entertained Christianity. answ. To which I make this Re­turn, It shutteth not out little ones, as we have (I hope) abundantly proved. Let them produce any one single Instance in the whole Bible of the Infant of one that had received the Faith, either Jew or Chri­stian, that was denied being baptized and tircumcised, and I think I may venture to give our Adversaries the Cause, tho' we find mention of such as had Mothers and 2 Tim. 1.15. [Page 84]Grandmothers. If we were to Preach un­to perfect Infidels the same that Christ commissionated his holy Disciples to go un­to, those that were adult before they em­braced Christianity, we must first instruct them, and then Disciple them; which word in the Original the Antipedobaptists are very fond of; and yet I suppose, with due submission, I have made clear proof, that the true sense of it doth not in the least as­sist or strengthen their Principle: The phrase Discipling is the principal word in the Commission, and Baptizing and Instru­ction the formal modification of the Com­mission; tho if the words were otherwise placed, and Instruction in express words had preceeded Baptism, their turn would not have been served thereby; for the Commission naming no Sex or Quality, nei­ther for Age, nor on any other account, must necessarily take in whatsoever parti­culars can be comprehended under that Phrase; and the Antipedobaptists cannot possibly make a difference from the words themselves. Hereupon it is clearly evident, that if the blessed Jesus intended all Capa­cities, when he used the Phrase, all Na­tions, then it is all one as if he had declared all Capacities of Reasonable Beings, both as to Sex and Age, should be admitted unto Baptism, the sign of admission into his ho­ly Gospel Covenant. Now that this Ge­neral Commission takes in each several Ca­pacity [Page 85]of Reasonable Beings, we will evi­dence from three things, (even the seve­ral Circumstances necessary to any Human Action) the Place where, the Time when, and the Parties concerned in the Action. (1.) The Place where: 1 This Commission was not delivered out in any Foreign Coun­try, but in the Land of Judea, where it is acknowledged by all Parties, that the U­sage of admitting all sorts of Gentiles, that embraced the Jewish Religion unto Baptism was constantly practised. (2.) 2 This Commission was delivered when the Peo­ple of Israel were most strict and exact in the observation of their ancient Rites and Usages. (3.) 3 This Commission was given out by our Messiah, born in Judea, to his immediate Followers and Attendants, his dear Friends, that were Natives of the same Country, and thereupon it is not in the least improbable, but that they well knew the constant and general Usages then transacted by the Jews. Now upon these Accounts it is evident, that Christ's Com­mission for Discipling all Nations was as genuine and clear, as if he had descended unto Particulars. For he that gave the Commission, and they unto whom it was granted, fully understood what Persons were capable of the Ordinance of Admis­sion into his Holy Church; and hereupon an Universal Usage and an Universal Com­mission were most proportionable and [Page 86]correspondent to the Wisdom, Goodness, and Power of our Great Legislator. It was a constant and uninterrupted Usage with the Jewish People to admit unto Bap­tism whole Housholds (wherein we may reasonably suppose Men, Women, and Chil­dren contained) of Gentile Proselites; so that it being the usage to leave none un­baptized, there was no necessity for a par­ticular Order, or mentioning who should be baptized; so that if there were need of exempting any, we may well imagine the Holy Jesus would have excluded them; but we read of no such Exception in Holy Scripture: So that the Question ought to be thus stated, Whether Infants are pro­hibited Baptism, and in what Place, or at what Time? We appeal to all the Chri­stian World, if this be the sense, as is most probable, whether the Commission is in the least obscure, or more obscurely pub­lished for Infants, than for those that are adult, can be no Exception, because no particulars are named. Three Thousand Converts are baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 2.38, 41. Then Peter said unto them, Re­pent, and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Which no whit disagrees from the Com­mand, St. Matth. 28.19. Go you therefore, and teach all Na­tions, baptizing them in the Name of the Fa­ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [Page 87]For the Form of Baptism in those first days of the Holy Gospel (of which the New Testament giveth the Story) may be considered under a threefold Condition. (1.) St. 1 John the Baptist baptized in the Name of Messiah, or Christ, that was then ready to come, but that Jesus of Nazareth was he, he himself knew not until he had run a great part of his Course; And I knew him not, St. Joh. 1.31.but that he should be made manifest unto Israel, therefore am I come, baptizing with water. (2.) 2 The Holy Disciples bap­tized the Jews, baptizing in the Name of Jesus for this reason, because the great Point of Controversie then in the Nation about the Messiah was, Whether Jesus of Nazareth were he, or no? All the Nati­ons acknowledged a Messiah, but most of them abominated that Jesus of Nazareth should be thought to be he; therefore those that by the preaching of the Holy Gospel came to acknowledge him to be the Messiah were baptized in his Name, as the Critical Badge, (the [...]) or Chara­cteristick Mark of their embracing the true Messiah. (3.) Among the Gentiles, 3 where that Question was not on foot, they bapti­zed in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; so that the baptizing in the Name of Jesus was but for a season, for the setling of the Evidence of his being the Messiah. And when that was throughly established, then those Gifts cea­sed [Page 88]for ever. It is said, Acts 2.44. All that believed were together, and had all things common. The Children of those that be­lieved must come under the Title of Belie­vers too, or they must famish, (which af­fords no weak Argument, that the Parents Faith is imputed to the Child; and if for the use of the Body, why not for the ser­vice of the Soul, by an Argument [a mi­nori ad majus] from the lesser to the grea­ter?) For this Community of Goods being for the relief of the Poor, the Children, Babes and Infants of believing Parents must be taken in under this Expression, [All that believe] or else how did they for sup­port? If the Community of Goods reach­ed them as well as their Parents, the Title must reach them too. The Community of Goods may be considered under these two Animadversions, (which, because it may be useful, I hope will not be thought too impertinent a Digression). 1(1.) That altho' Persecution as yet for the Holy Go­spel had brought none to poverty for the Holy Gospel's sake, for if they were poor before they received the Holy Gospel, then the Synagogue (of which they were) pro­vided for them, but now they were desti­tute of that provision, they having forsa­ken the Synagogue, or at least the Syna­gogue them, because of their forsaking their Judaism; for the Evangelick Church, that was now beginning to provide for [Page 89]her Poor, it had not only the Synagogue for an Example, but would have had it for a Reproach, if they had neglected so needful a Duty, which that took care for so con­constantly and tenderly. (2.) 2 This ha­ving of all things common, therefore was not an Extinction of Propriety, [and of Meum & Tuum] as if one rich Man should have as good interest in another rich Man's Estate as himself, but it was intended main­ly for the relief of the Poor, not to bring any that had Estates, to voluntary Poverty, nor to level Estates, (as some Fanatick People among us, the Fifth-monarchy-men, (whose Principle is Dominium fundatur in Gra­tia, Power is founded in Grace, and so the Saints must have the Riches, and Rule the People of the World) would perswade the World unto) but to relieve those which stood in need; for it is said, Acts 2.45. that they sold their Possessions and Goods, and parted them to all Men, as every Man had need; and again we are told, they laid them down at the Holy Apostles Feet, Acts 4.35. and distribution was made unto every Man, according as he had need. Distribution then, I say, was made to them that preached the Holy Word for their maintenance, and to the Poor for their relief. When a Master of a Family was baptized, his Children, were they ne­ver so young, were baptized with him; and hence the mention of the baptizing whole Housholds, Acts. 16.15. And when she was bapti­zed, [Page 90]and her houshold, she besought us, saying, If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And, again, Acts 16.33. he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized straitway, he, and all his. They that, plead­ing against Infant-Baptism, An Obj. do cavil, That it may be there were no Infants in those Families that are mentioned, bewray that they little understand the manner of admi­nistring Baptism in its first use; and there­fore to give satisfaction to such of the An­tipedobaptists as start this Objection, I answer; answ. The stress of the business lieth not in this, Whether it can be proved, that there were Infants in those Families where it is recorded, whole Housholds were baptized; but the truth of the Case is this, That in all Families whatsoever (were there never so many Infants) they were all baptized when their Parents were bapti­zed. This was the constant Custom among the Jews for admitting of Proselites; and the New Testament giveth so little evi­dence of the altering this Custom at those first Baptizings under the Holy Gospel, that it plainly on the contrary shews the continuance of it, when it speaks of the Holy Apostles baptizing whole Housholds.

NOW that the Sense I have given of Acts 2.39. may be the better secu­red and confirmed, I will endeavour to answer an Objection made against it, A. R. in his Tract, call­ed, The 2d. Part of the Vanity and Childishness of Infant-Baptism. which may be of some seeming strength, until duly weighed and considered, and then I hope it will appear to be of no great force; and this I find to be started by an Ingenious Antipedobaptist, a Man of some Learning: And therefore that I may do the Party justice, An Obj. I will state the Objecti­on in his own words, that our Adversa­ries may see I deal fairly with them. He argues from the Coherence and Sense of the 15, 16, 17, and 33. Verses of Acts 2. and recites Vers. 38. And that by you and your Children, are meant the same which are mentioned, Vers. 17. under the term of Sons and Daughters. answ. To all which I answer, This cannot be the Sense so as to exclude Infants from Baptism, if they have a Right unto the Covenant (which [Page 92]the Holy Scripture seems plainly to assert, and hath been sufficiently, convincingly and undeniably proved by Learned Men, which may supersede any Attempt of mine to evince it, or make it plain and evident) because it was Repentance and Baptism, gave a Title to the Promise; and till they did Repent and Believe, i. e. Embrace the Holy Gospel, they had no Right to the Promise; for it is said, Repent, and be Bap­tized, and you shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost. But they were to be in Cove­nant by Repentance or Faith, before they enjoyed the Priviledges of the Holy Gos­pel, and until then were in the same Case with them afar off, who were not in Co­venant; and so had no right unto the Pro­mise, until they did Repent or Believe. But here it may be further objected by the Antipedobaptists, An Obj. that the gentile Con­verts of Cornelius's Family, had this Gift of the Holy Ghost antecedent unto Bap­tism, so that that was not necessary unto the Gift: Act. 10.44. For it is said, While Peter spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell upon all them which heard the word, i. e. that believed; and upon their hearing, St. Peter was con­vinced of the Truth of his Blessed Doctrin, and thereupon embraced the Faith of the Holy Jesus, and became Christians. So that the same Qualification that fitted them for the reception of the Holy Ghost, ca­pacitated them for Baptism, as appears [Page 93]three Verses after, Act. 10.47. Can any forbid Water that these should not be Baptized that have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? answ. To which I answer, Supposing the Promise to relate to the Gift of the Holy Ghost, it neither excludes the necessity of Baptism, nor Children from coming, or being brought to receive the benefit of that Holy Ordinance, Vid. ch. 8, 9. pag. 43. 51. according to the rational and true Exposition we have already given of that Text, in this Book, to which I refer my Readers. But here, An Obj. like the mon­strous Hydra, another Objection springs up and arises. It's true, saith the Antipe­dobaptist, tho' we own by the Promise the Gift of the Holy Ghost, yet we do not believe that Gift excludes from Baptism, but we deny Baptism unto those that are not qualified, as those first Converts were, i. e. endued with the Gifts and Graces of Repentance and Faith. answ. This I acknow­ledge true in those Subjects that are capa­ble of acting those Graces, but not neces­sary in those that have a natural, as well as moral incapacity to act those Graces, as the Case with Children is, because they are in Covenant, as hath been already declared and proved. And being Baptism is not the Covenant, but the Seal of the Covenant, he that is in Covenant hath a right to the Seal that ensures the Benefits and Priviledges of the Covenant, by the same Rule and Reason as he that is the true [Page 94]Heir unto an Estate, hath a Right and Ti­tle unto the Instruments that convey that Estate. Moreover add to this, Children have one of these Graces, tho' not the other; and if one be sufficient, the other is not necessary; I mean Faith, which in some, and a true Sense, they may be said to have (otherwise the Blessed Jesus would not have cautioned Persons against offend­ing little Ones that believe in him, Mat. 18. by whom he meant small Children, as I hope we have made sufficiently to appear. Vid. ch. 7. p. 42, 43. And that this was a true Faith, we may be assu­red not only because it was spoke by Truth it self, who would not therefore impose upon Mankind, but also because Christ is the proper Object of Faith, and him the Text expresly tells us, they believed in;) and for Repentance it is not indispensably neces­sary, which I shall thus endeavour to prove: I may say of Hatred as is usually said of Love [Ignoti nulla Cupido] for that which is unknown we have no Desire or Affection. So of Hatred the odiousness and deformity of that I am wholly igno­rant of, I cannot properly be said to hate: Now before Hatred, there usually preceeds Grief and Sorrow; and I cannot be said truly to lament or mourn for a Thing, if I understand not any loss or damage I thereby sustain. Now to apply this to our present Case, there may be a Sin pardoned in some Cases, and in some [Page 95]Persons without Repentance, as that word imports Grief and Sorrow, Detestation and Hatred, Dereliction and Forsaking; by all this I mean Original Sin of which Infants are guilty as well as the Adult Per­son, by the imputation and transmission of the Protoplast's or first Adam's Guilt. Now Children by reason of their Infantile capacity are not allowed the ability of ex­ercising these Passions, and cannot be said to be afflicted and grieved, to detest and hate, to abandon and forsake that which was not their own proper and voluntary Act. So that upon this Account, Repentance is not necessary for their state and condition, because of their Incapacity to act the pro­per parts of Repentance; and because they lye not under such a Personal Guilt, as may be said in a more especial manner to be proper and peculiar to the exercise of some parts of Repentance. But for Faith, so far as it is necessary, that Children in some sense may be said to have it, as they have the Benefits of their Parents Faith derived to them. But that Faith and Re­pentance are not always, and in all Cases indispensably necessary unto Baptism, may appear plainly from the Instance of the Holy Jesus [who was Nullius Poenitentiae Debitor] in him was no Guilt, and so con­sequently no necessity of Repenting; there was was no necessity of Faith in him; For of Faith he was the Author and Finisher; [Page 96]as the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews acquaints us, Heb. 12.2. and yet he submitted to St. John's Baptism, which was in order to Repentance, and therefore called the Bap­tism of Repentance; and hereupon it is that Faith and Repentance are not always absolutely and indispensably needful to the being baptized. And this may sufficiently solve an Objection lately made to me a­gainst Infant Baptism, An Obj. by an Antipedobap­tist, from our excellent Church Catechism, (who promised me, upon conviction, to re­turn to our Church, which Promise he is obliged in Conscience to perform, if he give not a Rational Answer to what I have said, and shall offer, for the so­lution of this seeming Difficulty.) What is required of Persons to be baptized? Re­pentance, whereby they forsake Sin; and Faith, whereby they stedfastly believe the Promises of God made unto them in that Sacrament. answ. That is, (for answer hereun­to) Those that are baptized, when adult, are indispensably obliged thereunto; and Infants when they come to years of discre­tion, and thus our Church Catechism ex­pounds her sense, which Promise (or Gra­ces) Children, when they come unto Age, are bound to perform. It is a good Rule in the Civil Law, [Nemo tenetur ad Impossi­bile,] No Man is obliged unto the perfor­mance of that which is impossible to be done by any human power. And then we can­not [Page 97]believe, that he who is the God of Reason, as well as Truth, will oblige his Creature to a Duty, which he is not able to perform by any Powers he hath created him with; and suppose God should infuse into a Child an extraordinary and miracu­lous measure of Grace as well as Reason, as he did into our blessed Saviour and St. John the Baptist, who were sanctified from, or in the Womb; yet we read not (tho' they had so great a proportion of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit) that during the state of their infancy they magnified God, and spake with Tongues, (antecedent to the use of Speech) the manifestation of which Miraculous Power, and the disco­very of which Divine Gift, the Jews at the Feast of Pentecost, Acts 2.4, 8, 11. — 10.46. and the first Gentile Converts shewed. But to return, Tho' these Graces are not needful to all in all circumstances, for where there is not a capacity to act them, there can be no ob­ligation to their exercise; yet that the Children of Believers have a right to the Covenant as soon as born, and so have a right to the Seal that conveys the Title, and are obliged to its Use, if they will en­joy the Priviledges of the Covenant, I hope, hath been made appear beyond con­tradiction, yet they are needful for some that are admitted unto that Holy Ordi­nance; and this Distinction ought to be well understood and weighed. If Baptism [Page 98]be allowed to those, who have not the pro­per Qualifications, then those Qualifica­tions are not absolutely needful unto the Undertakers of that Holy Ordinance; Faith is sometimes needful, when Repen­tance is not so; sometimes Faith and Re­pentance conjoyned, and otherwise some­times. Acts 8.37. When St. Philip admitted the E­thiopian Eunuch to Baptism, he only en­joyned Faith, — 2.41, 38. not Repentance; St. Peter, when he made three thousand Converts at his first Sermon, enjoyned Repentance only. In short, It is as the condition is, or the needs of the Party require. In In­fants, the matter is plain as to Repentance, the non-performance whereof cannot hin­der their being baptized; because they (having committed no sin) are not obli­ged unto the Duty; and yet this is as needful for being baptized as Faith: So that this evidences they are not absolutely needful, not to all, not to Children, but only accidentally so; and if they may be baptized, if they want one, why not if they want the other, is a Mystery that will not (nay, I am inclined to believe, can­not) be discovered by those that (because they think the contrary) are engaged to make the Revelation. Besides, I add, A­ctual Faith is needful not to the underta­king, but to the subsequent Products of that Holy Ordinance; because the first Planters of Christianity admitted some [Page 99](tho' adult) to Baptism, who had no Faith, but were only formal Professors, and of this sort were Simon Magus, A­lexander the Coppersmith, Demas, and Diotrephes, and Judas, (if baptized) and also the Gnostic Hereticks: For the Effect is from the Searcher of Hearts, who knows our secret thoughts, but the External Or­dinance may be performed and undertaken by those who know not such Secrets. And this is a clear Proof, that that Faith which is needful to the product of the Holy Or­dinance, is not needful to its undertaking; and if formal Professors may be partakers of it, much more Children; if to such as actually impede or hinder the product, much rather to them that do not so. If it be objected by the Antipedobaptists, An Obj. The Church cannot tell but that those that say they have Faith may have it, but she cer­tainly knows Children have not. I an­swer, answ. The Church cannot tell but Hypo­crites stop the Product, and oppose the Grace of Baptism, but she can tell Chil­dren do not, nor can make hindrance or opposition; there is a possibility one may partake of the Grace, but the second can­not stop its effects. Moreover, Children have Faith, because they believe in the Holy Jesus, St. Matth. 18.6. St. Mark 9.42. as we are told in Sacred Scri­pture, in express words, recorded by two Evangelists, if one be not enough, (And that this is a satisfactory and sufficient [Page 100]Proof, the Holy Scriptures do assure us, when they tell us, St. Joh. 8.17. that the Testimony of two Men is true;) and this witness and evi­dence (it appears) we have for the truth of this Doctrin, that Children have Faith; and that this their Faith was true, sound, and such as God will accept, we may with good reason believe, because he that is truth, and will not therefore deceive us, doth seem so to assure us, Vid. pag. 89. (as we have alrea­dy made appear in this Chapter) Whoso­ever shall offend one of these little ones that be­lieve in me; and therefore fit for his Bles­sing, which is Divine. The exercise of our understanding is no more necessary to make us fit for Grace than for Reason; but we have seeds of Reason congenite and innate, antecedent to the exercise of our under­standings, otherwise there would be no di­stinction between a Rational Creature and a Brute, when first produced into being and brought to light. Sparks and Seeds then of Reason there may be, to use the words of the great African Father, Per Infan­tis animan non ubi ra­tio nulla e­rat. sed ubi adhuc sopi­ta erat. St. Aug. Ep 23. ad Bonifac. The Soul of an Infant hath Reason, but as yet not capable of use, like Fire raked together in the Embers. So likewise there is a possibility of Grace being infused by the Divine Spi­rit, as is clear in the fore-quoted Instance of the blessed Jesus, and his [Praecursor, or] Fore-runner, St. John the Baptist, who were sanctified in or from the Womb. Or else they may be said to believe by the [Page 101]Faith of those that present them unto the Holy Ordinance in the Sacred Place; Fide ge­stantium. Idem ibi­dem. For to this I may add, the Child hath the Faith of the Parent imputed to it, and that the Faith of the Parent is imputable to the Child, and available for great purposes, is apparent, because we read in the Holy Go­spel, That the Blessed Jesus makes the Faith of the Parent necessary unto the Healing of the Child. From whence I argue thus, That if the Faith of the Parent may be imputed for the recovering of the Bodily Diseases, why may not the same be impu­ted for the curing the Distempers of the Soul, I mean Sin? And is it not as reason­able, that seeing the Guilt of another's Sin is imputed to us to make us miserable, the Faith of another should be conveyed and made over to us, to qualifie and fit us for a participation in such an Ordinance as should procure our Pardon, and deliver us from our Guilt, and thereby make us Hap­py, which is done by being washed in the Laver of Baptism, which is called by St. Paul, Titus 3.5. [ [...]] the Washing or Laver of Regeneration. And this is a pro­per Term, it being rational, that we, who have the imputation of our Fore-fathers guilt, should have an imputation of our Fathers faith, to bathe us in that Fonn­tain, that was set open to wash away the defilement of such an imputed Guilt and Uncleanness. And that there is reason for such an Imputation, may appear from [Page 102]the relation Children have to their Father, which is that of Members with the Head, and of Parts with the Whole, the Father and Son, both in Holy Writ and Customa­ry Usage, (upon some Accounts) being ta­ken for one. Hereupon the Covenant made with the Proto-plast, or first Man, was trans­mitted unto his Posterity, and the Deluge, or Noah's Flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the perishing of the Rebels in the gainsaying of Core, St. Jude 11. included Infants, as well as the adult and full-grown. Now Reason as well as Religion in this matter, requireth help for Children; for if the Son be reckoned one with his Father, and so obnoxious to punishment, without any acting by the consent of his own will, sole­ly by the transmission of his Father's guilt, certainly then, when the Father is one of the Faithful, they ought so far to be reckon­ed one with him, as upon that account to receive some advantage, and so to be al­lowed an Imputation of the Father's Faith, which may render them fit for a reception of the Benefits of the Covenant, and the Seal that ensures them. Hereupon the Co­venant given to Abraham is the same with that transacted with Adam; Gen 17.7.I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting Covenant, to be a God unto thee, and unto thy seed after thee. But here the Antipedobaptists object, An Obj. That this Cove­nant [Page 103]is not the Holy Gospel-Covenant, but the Jewish Covenant made with Abra­ham; because it is said, a Covenant between me and thy Seed, and this Covenant to continue to him and his Seed after him, and that in their Generations, i.e. in the Generations begotten by his Seed. I have thus strongly stated the Objection, that the Antipedobaptists may see I deal fairly with them, and give their Argument all the strength it can have, and possibly more than some of them would or could afford it. Answ. But (for Answer here­unto) if you will allow St. Paul to under­stand this Text, (which I believe he did as well and better than any Antipedobaptist in England) he in express terms makes this Covenant with Abraham to be the Holy Go­spel it self, and then it must needs be the Holy Gospel-Covenant; Gal. 3.8. and the Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Hea­then through Faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, Gen. 12. [...]. in thee shall all Nations be blessed; which is a Quotation from the Book of Genesis, which must needs be more extensive than the Covenant to Abraham and his carnal Seed, the Posteri­ty of the Jews, which was so small a part, that it could not include all the Families of the Earth, and comprehend all Nations. And therefore Abraham's Covenant must certainly be the same with the Holy Go­spel-Covenant, because it was that which was to be published to all the World, and [Page 104]take in all Mankind. But if any Antipedo­baptist shall object and say, An Obj. The Covenant made with Abraham when Circumcision was instituted, is not the same with the Gospel St. Paul mentions in his forecited Epistle, because that is a Quotation from Gen. xij. 3. To which I answer, anſw. It is the same Cove­nant, because God saith, I will establish my Covenant between me and thee; so that it plainly signifies, it was the Confirmation of a former Covenant, not the Institution of a new one; and that this is true, may appear by the Coherence, for it is said but three Verses before, As for me, behold my Covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a Fa­ther of many Nations; or, as the Original, and the Margin of the Bible hath it, Gen. xvij. 4. Thou shalt be Father of a multitude of Nations; which Abraham could not be as a Father of the Jewish People, Jewry being so small a Continent of the Earth, and so little a Part of the World, that it could not comprehend a multitude of Nations. So that by vir­tue of this Covenant, Abraham was to be considered, as the Father of all Christians, as well as Jews, being the Holy Jesus, that was to be an Universal Saviour, for the whole World proceeded, and came forth from his Loins. Hereupon we may strong­ly press home St. Rom. v. 12. Paul's Argument, and say, Because the Blessed Jesus and his Holy Dispensation convey a greater measure of Divine Assistance, and promise higher Re­wards [Page 105]than the Protoplast's, or first Adam's Fall did Evil and Punishment; If the Pa­rents Guilt be transmitted unto Father and Son for Death and Condemnation, both shall have interest in the favour of the Ho­ly Jesus, the first unto Justification and Life, the second so far as to take him into the Covenant, and consequently by the sign thereof to give him a right and title unto the Benefits and Advantages of the Cove­nant. So that we may declare the Holy Apostle's words and say, Acts x. 47. Can any forbid Water, that these should not be baptized? Which St. Peter spoke not only because the Gift of the Holy Ghost was fallen upon them, but because that Gift was a Proof of their Title to the Covenant; and if by any different method a Man can prove his Title to the Covenant, he hath a Right to the Sign that ensures the Benefits thereof. And therefore being the Holy Gospel-Co­venant now preached is the same with that made unto Abraham, is there not a true consequential Implication, that the same Priviledge is now to be enjoyed that was under the former old Oeconomy or Di­spensation, viz. That upon the account of the Faith of the Principal of the House, each of that House that did not contradict or gainsay was included, and by Sign ad­mitted in Covenant? And if this be not allowed, Christian Doctrin will be very hard, and there may seem a sort of Im­peachment [Page 106]to lye against the Divine Ju­stice; for by the Protoplast's, or first Man's Fall, Sin imputed was enough to damn the Child; and shall not the Father's Faith in the Blessed Jesus and his New Di­spensation be available so far as to put him into a state of salvation? Now that the Promise is imputed to the Children, may appear, 1 Because, (1.) The first thing in every sort is the Rule for the rest, that are consequent upon it; but to Abraham, as the prime Guardian, the Holy Gospel-Co­venant was given, and the Sign of it ap­plied to Infants; hereupon the same must be to all that believe, and their Off-spring. For all that believe shall inherit the Pro­mise, and be Heirs as well as the Father of the faithful. This St. Paul speaketh clear­ly in express words; Gal. iij. 29. And if you be Christ's, then are you Abraham's seed, and heirs accord­ing to the promise. 2(2.) That which was granted to Abraham was not a particular Priviledge to him alone, or to his People, the Jews, but it was the Holy Gospel-Co­venant, that all Nations were to be in­terested in, and concerned with; what it was to Abraham, it was to be unto the whole Race of Mankind, and therefore cal­led a Covenant of Grace, as may appear by the forequoted place of the Holy Apo­stle St. — 8. Paul; and from St. Matthew we are assured, St. Matth. viij. 2. that the Heathen World shall sit down in the Kingdom of Heaven, as equal [Page 107]unto Abraham, Eph. ij. 19. because they are fellow Citizens with the Saints, and of the Hous­hold of God. Now the Covenant made with Abraham, included Father and Son, as I have (I hope) proved, and upon this ac­count, possibly, it might be the Holy Jesus called the Chief of the Publicans a Son of Abraham, St. Luke xix. 9. and so consequently a Son of God; for it was usual to call the People that worshipped any God, the Children of that God, whether the God they worship­ped were true or false. Mal. ij. 2. Now that there is a necessity of Baptism, this Consideration may prove it, That Children as soon as born (by reason of Adam's transgression) are under the Sentence of Death and Dam­nation, except secured from it, even while Children; if they dye without (according to any outward means yet revealed) they cannot ordinarily be happy; and except this be cleared, the Fathers can have little comfort in them. Now there is no other Method appointed by Heaven for the Par­doning and Purging of Guilt, but the Blood of Jesus, and the Covenant that Blood gives a Title unto; and there is no other external [Medium, or] Means disco­vered to us by God to make this Blood so efficacious as to procure us pardon and peace, but only the being baptized. St. Paul tells us, that those that are bapti­zed into Jesus Christ, are baptized into his Death. Rom. vj 3. So that if we are not cleansed by [Page 108]this external Baptism, supposing the neg­lect to be with our own consent, (which cannot be the condition of Children) we have no interest in his Merits. When we thus declare, we intend only the external, common, appointed Means of Salvation. The Holy Ordinance of Baptism is the In­strument that sues out and purchases, through Christ's Blood, a Pardon to our selves and our Infants. How far Heaven extends its Mercy to those that are with­out Means and cannot use them, is a My­stery hid from us and known only unto God. But now to return to a more par­ticular defence of Acts ij. 39. Besides, this particular and express Gift of the Holy Ghost was only in the infancy of the Church, and then that Gift was indispen­sably necessary to enable the Blessed Apo­stles to perform the Holy Jesus's Commis­sion, which he gave to them presently af­ter his Miraculous Resurrection, and not long before his Illustrious Ascension unto the Mansions of Glory, which was to teach and publish his Holy Gospel to all Nations, which they could not do without this Gift of Tongues; because they knowing no more than their own Native Language, had been Barbarians to a great part of the Gentile World, and therefore could not have spo­ken so intelligibly as to be understood; and this appears by the effusion of the Holy Ghost on the first Jewish Converts in [Page 109]this Chapter, and upon those of the Gen­tile World, as appears eight Chapters af­ter this, Acts x. 46. they heard them speak with Tongues, and magnifie God, which Chil­dren were incapable of, not being arrived to the use of Reason or Speech, which might be for the greater encouragement of the Gentiles, because the Holy Gospel­state assures a more plentiful effusion of the Holy Spirit than the weaker Oeconomy or Dispensation of the Law. Besides, seeing the Antipedobaptists object and say, In­fants are excluded from Baptism by this Text, An Obj. because this Gift refers to Sons and Daughters, mentioned Verse 17. To which I do answer, Answ. I may say Children are not excluded for a like reason; because Sons and Daughters may in reason be supposed to mean more adult and full-grown per­sons, and because this Promise referring to the Gift of Tongues, could not belong un­to Children capable of Baptism; for they had not the use of Speech. Infused Ha­bits must suppose the Subject capable of them, or by the Infusion render them so; as in this Instance of the Gift of Tongues, when it is supernaturally infused, it must either suppose the Subject predisposed with understanding, or must make him so by that Infusion. Now we read no where, that this Gift of Tongues was bestowed, but it found the Subject predisposed with understanding; for upon all, on whom this [Page 110]Gift was conferred, it is said they spake with Tongues, Acts ij. 4, 6, 8, 11. — x. 46. i. e. in different Langua­ges, which we never yet read, or heard any Infant-Children did, which evidences beyond denial, to you and to your Children, must be meant of Sons and Daughters, that were adult and of full-grown Years. Lastly, I may urge this descent of the Holy Ghost, was the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, and of Fire, prophecied of and foresignified by S. John the Baptist, St. Matth. iij. 2. St. Luke iij. 16. and that he who was [Prae­cursor Christi,] the Fore-runner of the Mes­siah, should be the Minister of, and dispense and deal forth to the World; and this may appear true, because when St. Luke describes this Advent, or Coming of the Holy Ghost, he tells us he descended in cloven Tongues, like as of Fire, i. e. ha­ving a resemblance like unto Fire; Acts ij. 3. St. Mark 1.8. and this St. Mark calls expresly the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. And this doth not vacate or make void the other Baptism of Water, because St. Peter makes it the assurance of the Messiah's Baptism, Acts ij. 38. Repent and be bapti­zed every one of you, in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the Remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. An Obj. And tho' it is objected and said by the Antipedo­baptists, answ. that the Gentiles had this Gift before Baptism; Yet in answer hereunto, they had the Grace of Faith, that qualified them for Baptism; because the Holy Ghost fell upon all them that heard the Word, [Page 111] i. e. by Faith embraced and received it, and yet this doth not exclude Infants from Baptism, as appears from the reason al­ready offered. To all this, let me add in short, what is meant by the Promise as re­corded by Joel, and cited by the Text; 1 and it is double, (1.) 2 The Pardon of Ini­quity, (2.) The Gift of the Divine Spi­rit, whereby was not always intended a miraculous Gift, but the comfort and sup­port of the Divine Spirit in their Souls, by his Holy Inspirations and Breathings, 1 Cor. xij. 29, 30. his powerful Aid and Assistance; for it is clear by St. Paul, the Gift of Miracles was not imparted to some, and the Kingdom of God, or Grace, that good Christians enjoy in this World, Rom. xiv. [...].6. consists in Righteous­ness, and Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost; and that these very persons had this Com­munication of the Holy Spirit, appears at the latter end of this Chapter, for this reason, Acts ij. 46. Because they did eat their Meat with gladness and singleness of Heart. And further, Another Communication of the Holy Spirit they had, in that they were willing to leave their Possessions, and de­liver them to be disposed of as the Holy Apostles thought most useful for the good and benefit of the Church; —iv. 34. which were clear and great Testimonies, that the Di­vine Spirit resided and dwelt in their Souls. I know a great and learned Man saith he will not defend the Arguments [Page 112]from this Text, because he thinks it incon­cludent, for this reason, because he be­lieves the word Children, there used, is really the Posterity of the Jews, and not their Infant-Children. And I believe so too: And yet, with deference to my Su­periors, and with submission unto better Judgments, I take the Argument to be con­cluding upon this account, because it would be a great Incentive to incourage the pro­pagating Christianity, and a Motive to both Jews and Gentiles, to embrace and come in and own themselves Professors of the Holy Gospel, and Disciples of the Blessed Jesus. And it is very probable, in his first Sermon, St. Peter would use the most prevailing Argument with the Jews, that he might remove the Prejudice that lay upon their Hearts, to hinder them from believing in a crucified Saviour; and it is not improbable his numerous Auditors un­derstood him in this sense, because we read in the latter part of this Chapter, the same day were added to the Church about three thou­sand Souls: Acts ij. 41. So that when St. Peter saith, the Promise is to you, and unto your Children, it is as much as if he had said these words, O you Jews, that now hear me, if you will repent, and be baptized, you, and your Posterity, and the Children of you, and your Posterity, if you will repent, i. e. own your Guilt, in crucifying the Lord of Life and Glory, and embrace his Holy Go­spel, [Page 113]and live according to the Rules there­of, and be baptized, i. e. receive the Sign of Admission into the New Covenant of Grace, you and your Children shall have the same Priviledge you had in your own Dispensation under the Law, i. e. your Children shall be in Covenant, as well as your selves, and equally with you be ad­mitted to the Sign of the Covenant, Bap­tism, as your Children are now admitted to Circumcision, the Sign of the antiqua­ted Covenant in your way; and this might be a great Argument to the Gentiles to become Christians, because they should not only enjoy the same Priviledge as the Jew, if one of their Proselytes, but much grea­ter by being a Disciple of the Blessed Je­sus; as much greater as the Holy Gospel did exceed the Law, as appears by St. Paul's Argument. But if the Ministration of Death, or the Law written and engraven in Stones was glorious, so that the Chil­dren of Israel could not stedfastly behold the Face of Moses, for the Glory of his Countenace, which Glory was to be done away, how shall not the Ministration of the Spirit or Gospel be rather glorious? For if the Ministration of Condemnation, or the Law, be Glory, much more doth the Ministration of Righteousness or the Gospel exceed in Glory; for even that which was made glorious, or the Law, had no Glory in this respect, by reason of [Page 114]the Glory or Gospel that excelleth; for if that which was done away, or the Law was glorious, much more that which remain­eth, 2 Cor. iij. 7.—12. or the Gospel is glorious. Thus, I hope, I may say, without assuming or ta­king too much to my self, I have rescued this Text from the Antipedobaptists Ob­jections, and drawn a concluding Argu­ment from it for Infant-Baptism; but be­cause the Reverend Dr. Hammond thinks he hath founded the Practice upon a bet­ter Basis, give me leave to mention it, be­cause it will corroborate and confirm what I have said, and when I shall have answered the Objections brought against the other place of Holy Scripture, I hope I shall for ever silence the Objections of any Antipe­dobaptist from Holy Writ, from having any influence or prevalency on unpreju­diced minds, that love Truth better than Interest, and had rather comply with the Sacred institutions of the Holy Jesus, than carry on and promote any Faction against him and his Holy Religion. The Argu­ment is this, Baptism, or Washing, was a known Rite, solemnly used among the Jews (as it is now among Christians) for the initiating or entring Jews and Proselytes into the Covenant of the Lord, and so into the Congregation of the Jews, as among us it is into the New Covenant, and into the Church of Christ. Many Branches of that Custom there were, I shall briefly gather [Page 115]them together, and farther testifie the truth of those Affirmations, which any way seem questionable to any. (1.) 1 Baptism, or Washing the whole Body, was a Jewish Solemnity, by which the Native Jews were entred into the Covenant of God made with them by Moses. This that learned Doctor makes appear by several Quotations from their great Rabbins, and tells us, nothing can be more clearly affirmed by them. (2.) 2 As the Native Jews were thus entred into Covenant by Baptism, so the Prose­lytes of the Jews that were taken in as Pro­felytes of Justice or Righteousness, as pro­fessing or undertaking all their Law, (and not only as Proselytes of the Gate to live among them) were received into their Church by Baptism likewise. This also the same excellent Doctor proves by seve­ral Authorities and Testimonies of their learned Men in all Ages, whensoever any Gentile was willing to enter into Cove­nant, and to be gathered under the Wings of the [Schecinah, or] Divine Majesty, and to undertake the Yoke of the Law, he was bound to have Baptism, Circumcision, and a Peace-Offering; and if it were a Wo­man, Baptism and Sacrifice. And again, the stranger that is circumcised, and not baptized; or baptized, and not circumci­sed, Arrianus in Epictet. l. 2. c. 9. is not a true Proselyte until he be both. A clear Testimony we have of this in Arrianus, the Stoic Philosopher, where [Page 116]the Jewish Proselyte is by him called [ [...]] Dipped; and he that is so only in shew, not indeed, is termed [ [...]] a counterfeit baptized Person. So that it is observable, that the Baptism of the Native Jews, was the Pattern by which the Baptism of the Proselytes was regula­ted, and wherein it was founded. By all this it appears how little needful it will be to defend the Baptism of Christians from the Law of circumcising Infants a­mong the Jews, the Foundation being far more fitly laid in that other of Jewish Bap­tism, a Ceremony of Initiation or Entrance for all, (especially for Proselytes, who were by Water to be cleansed from the Pollu­tions and Defilements of Heatherism, be­fore they were to be admitted into Cove­nant, by the Token, thereof, Circumcision) as well as that of Circumcision; and where­as that of Circumcision belonged only to one, the other was common to both Sexes; and yet from that Example of Circumcision, among them, thus much must needs be gain'd to our present Design, that the Child's not being able to understand the Vow of Baptism, doth no way prejudice the baptizing of such, for if it did, it must necessarily be an Objection against circum­cising the Jewish Child at eight days old, who could then no more understand the Covenant, of which that was made the Sign, nor the Wickedness that the Eu­trance [Page 117]into the Covenant obliged to abstain from, than the Christian-Infant now can, and yet (under pain of Excision, or cut­ting off) was commanded to be circumci­sed, which being so far vindicated from being unreasonable and incongruous, Vid. Dr. Hammond's Resolution of Six Queries, (whereof Infant-Baptismis one), p. 179, — 181, & p. 189, 190. by the Example of Circumcision, (which is al­allowed by all Dissenters) there will be little ground to fear the Objections from Reason, or upon that score, to doubt of the Practice of that which is so reasonable, when it hath, besides this, the Example of Baptism among the Jews, (from which it is immediately deduced) so adequately pro­portionable, and directly parallel unto it. And here I shall found Christian-Baptism, rather than in Circumcision; but if any shall overthrow the Argument commonly taken from Circumcision, my Return is, That it may be made use of by the Rule of Proportion, and tho' it may not directly prove, yet it clearly illustrates the truth; for, Argumenta symbolica sunt magis illustrantia, quam pro­bativa. according to the excellent Lord Ba­con's observation, such Arguments do ra­ther illustrate than prove. Yet it may be reasonably inferred from the Judgment of Heaven, (in a Case exactly like) that such may be admitted in a Sacramental way, to be partakers of a Covenant, who do not, at their admission into it, clearly apprehend the terms of it, as is evident in the circumcising of the Infant. Now a­gainst this Account of Circumcision, the [Page 118]Antipedobaptists Argument or Objection infers, An Obj. and proves nothing, As that Types infer nothing, unless a Precept attend them, answ. or the signification of something that hath such a tendency. To which I re­turn, I do not say, Circumcision is a Type of Baptism, nor do I infer any thing from it; Baptism was substituted instead of Circumcision, not as the Antitype comes in the room of the Type, but as one esta­blished Appointment comes in after a for­mer, that is disused and laid aside; and this is needful Men should be acquainted with, because the Antipedobaptists would weaken the strength of some Reasons, which, without the allowance of this Hy­pothesis, or Supposition, are not easily an­swered by objecting and affirming, An Obj. that the Circumcision used in Abraham's and Mo­ses's days, was a Type of the Sacrament used in Holy Gospel-times. Now, to evi­dence, that the Jewish Sacrament of Ad­mission, was not a Tipe of the Holy Go­spel one, we must (by way of Answer) ob­serve (if we will speak pertinently) there was a like distinction between the thing typifying, answ. and what was typified, as be­tween a living person, and his resemblance drawn with a Penci [...] that what was sub­stantial in the Antytipe, and of a true force, virtue, and value, was usually, by way of representation in the Type, and did prefigure somewhat which did in an [Page 119]higher and more exalted Sense apper­tain to the Antitype, than to it self. Accordingly the Mosaic Offerings that had a tendency to cleanse the outward Man, were but weak Representings of the more powerful force, and greater value of the Blood of the Holy Jesus, the Sacrifice of whose Blood was of such great Efficacy, (as the Author to the Hebrews tells us) that it was able to purge the Conscience from dead Works to serve the living God. Heb. ix. 14. But it is not thus with the Old and New Sacra­ment, because the former had not such a Resemblance unto the latter, nor any thing the same with it, which doth not as truly appertain to it, as to Baptism. Is Baptism an Ordinance of Admission into the New Covenant of Grace in our times? So was Circumcision in the days of Abraham and Moses. Rom. iv. ij. Is not Baptism what St. Paul calls Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith? So that what Baptism doth now, Circumcision did then; Circumcision was then a Sacrament, as well as Baptism is now; the one did as truly admit Mem­bers into the Covenant, as the other did. Moreover if we look back unto the first rise of baptizing, as a Mosaic appoint­ment, we shall be satisfied Circumcision could not be a Type thereof: Because a Type in its genuine Notion is a repre­sentation, or a prefiguring of somewhat that is to come. A Type, so far as that [Page 120]word hath a Theological Sense or Divine Acceptation, Typas qua­tenus vox ista sensum habet Theo­logicum ita definiri pos­se videtur, ut sit futuri a [...]icujus symbolum, aut exem­plum ita a Deo compa­ratum, ut ip­sius plane institutio futurum il­lud praefigu­ret, quod au­tem ita prae­figuraturil­lud Antity­pus dici so­let. Outra­mus de Sa­crificijs, l. 1. v. 18. may seem thus to be defined, That it is a certain representation of some­thing future, or a resemblance ordained by God, that by his institution and ap­pointment should plainly prefigure some­thing future, or to come: What is so pre­figured, is that which is wont to be called the Antitype. But baptizing was an insti­tution or appointment under Moses's Dis­pensation, and therefore Circumcision could not be a Type and Representation of it; because it was for some Ages admini­stred at the same time therewith: I allow Circumcision to be a Divine Institution, a Rite of entring Jews and their Infants into Abraham's Covenant: And I allow Baptism in this to be the like, by a correspondency therewith of entring us into the Holy Gos­pel-Covenant; that it is a Rite of Entrance for the Proselytes of Christians and their Infants into the Covenant of Grace, not after the way of Circumcision, but the Jew­ish Baptisms. For the making out of which Principle, if I had only the proof of the Circumcision of the Infants of the Jews, and the concurrent usage of the first Planters of Christianity and their Succes­sors, in the early times of the Church that followed their Example, I should not infer it from the Jews circumcising Children; because tho' by the instance of circumcising Children under the old Law, it hath been [Page 121]defended from several Objections brought to disprove it; Yet I understand there is not a proper and infallible Consequence, that whatsoever is not Irrational must in­stantly be; that a thing is therefore true, because a possibility it may be so, accord­ing to the old Logical Maxim [Ab esse ad posse non valet Consequentia; or,] that what is allowed must therefore have an Institu­tion. An Obj. But when the Antipedobaptists ob­ject and alledge, That tho' there be a correspondency of Analogy between Cir­cumcision and Baptism, yet is there no cor­respondency of Identity. Tho' (by way of Answer) I own with the Learned Dr. Hammond, Answ. I know not the Sense of this latter Term, and therefore under­stand not why they use it; yet I own the agreeableness doth not suit with all Cir­cumstances, especially in one particular; because I find Females were not, nor could be circumcised (there being no Foreskin, of which there could be an abscission) which is no more an Objection against Christian Baptism, than the Jewish one. I think it fitter to fix the agreeableness, where there is greater reason for it; and seeing, as the Author to the Hebrews saith, He tasted death for every Man, Heb. ij. 9. it was fit that he, who upon that account was an universal Saviour for all Mankind, should make choice of such a Sacrament of admis­sion into his Church, as should be corre­spondent [Page 122]with, and agreeable unto both the Sexes. An Obj. But under this Head I meet with another Objection of the Antipedo­baptists, which I am very willing to re­move. They seem to offer an Argument why circumcising should be more proper for Infants than baptizing them; because Cir­cumcision left a Character in the Flesh, which being impressed on Children did its work, when they were Adult, and baptiz­ing left no remanent Character. But (in Answer hereto) this hath no force, Answ. if we lay the Foundation of the Christian Sacra­ment in that which was used to Jewish Pro­selytes, which had no outward Mark on the Body (for Water being fluid, though it hath a Dew, leaves no Impression or Sign, but what is immediately transient) and not in Circumcision which hath; yet I will not wholly neglect it, but if it be of any seeming strength, own it to be allowed in some measure against our Principles; but in truth I believe it hath not; for though there be a small distinction in reference to Circumcision and Baptism, the first Maims, the second Cleanses; the first Hurts, the second Washes only; yet that Objection is of no great strength in this concern; for upon different Accounts (but solely in respect of the Infants) in regard of God and the Assembly, there is nothing that differs; for in regard of both, both are alike Signs of the Covenant. And [Page 123]whereas it differs in regard of the Infant, sure it is that at the season of Administra­tion it signifies not at all; because then the Child hath not the power or faculty of understanding the Character; and that he knows when he becomes Adult, arises from Teaching and Discipline: For the Chara­cter imprinted, when he is circumcised hath no signification by Nature, but only by the will of him that appoints it, or because it is instituted; else Ishmael was in Confederation and Covenant with God, as well as Isaac, and consequently the Infant can never know it by the force of natural Principles, but as he is taught when he is at Age, how he was used in his Infancy, and the reason of it; and therefore the Law that enjoyned Circumcision, enjoyned Instruction; and of that the Christian that hath Baptism, when a Child, is as ca­pable as a Jewish Child that hath Circum­cision in its Infancy; and the diligence of the Church may be as exact in our days, as the care was great in the Synagogue for­merly. An Obj. As for the Objection the Antipe­dobaptists make, That Christ baptized none: I Answer thereunto, Answ. That will hold against baptizing at all; for the Text is clear, Christ baptized not, but his Disciples. St. John iv. 2. (1.) The negative Argument holds on our side, 1 that his Holy Disciples (so far as we can know) never denyed the baptizing any. (Nor is it like they would, when [Page 124]they were once reproved for doing some­thing of such a Nature, as you may read in the Holy Gospel) as it can be reasona­bly supposed they did not Baptize any, St. Mark x. 14. but indeed neither is conclusive. How­ever (2.) 2 That in the Holy Apostolic Age, Infants did receive Baptism is more than probable by the Sense we have given of 1 Cor. vij. 14. and then there will be no imaginable ground left, but that the Holy Apostles did administer Baptism unto such, or at least (which is much the same) did well like it; and by such their approbation did strengthen the same: And that we may confirm the Sense we have given of that Text of Holy Scri­pture, and prove, and make appear, that what we offered is its true and proper meaning, we come with our endeavours to give a satisfactory Answer unto the strong­est Objection that ever was started by the most Learned of the Antipedobaptists, or any of the Adverse Party.

THE same Ingenious Antipedobaptist makes this Objection to the Sense we have given of 1 Cor. vij. 14. An Obj. That the word Holy, there used, is only such an Holiness as is opposite to some kind of Un­cleanness, which (saith he) I take to be this, as if when they are said to be Holy, it is no more than to say they are not Un­clean, viz. no Bastards. To which I an­swer, If 1 Cor. vij. 14. Answ. may seem ratio­nally to be interpreted of Matrimonial Le­gitimacy, and thereby a Priviledg of free­ing from Bastardy, then [a fortiorl] with more strength it may signifie a federal Ho­liness, that gives them a Title unto the Sign of the Covenant, and thereby makes them the Legimate Sons of Heaven by A­doption, which is a greater Priviledg than a Matrimonial Legitimacy; and this might be a greater Motive unto the Gen­tile World to be proselyted to Christiani­ty, as much as the Spiritual Legitimacy is [Page 126]to be preferred before the Matrimonial one, and the Holy Scripture is to be taken in the more favourable and exalted sense, rather than in an inferior or subordinate one; and besides this is agreeable to the Jew­ish Custom, where when any married to an Heathen, the Male-Children after such a Marriage were circumcised, (whether the Children were born before or after such a Marriage) which caused the Holy Apostle, in allusion thereto, to use that Phrase of Bap­tizing whole Housholds (which makes the Argument concluding, whether there were any Children in those Families mentioned or no) by virtue of one of the Parents Faith. And without the allowance of this sense, it is impossible to (come to the right interpre­tation of this and many other places of Holy Scripture in the New Testament. Add to all this, that tho' this Hypothesis, or seemingly fair Principle of the Matri­monial Legitimacy, may seem plausible to the inconsiderate Many, yet it cannot be a true Interpretation, as will appear unto any judicious considering person, for this reason, because it offereth no greater en­couragement to the Gentile to become Christian, than what he enjoyed in his Heathen state. For I doubt not but it may be proved from several Testimonies taken from the Authorities of good Classic Au­thors among the Greek and Roman Writers, that where a Man or Woman were law­fully [Page 127]married, according unto the Rites and Customs of their several Countries, their Children were legitimate, and if that should be the sense, they might be Holy in their Heathen state, which may seem to be [contradictio in adjecto] (to use the Lo­gicians Phrase) the highest absurdity being a contradiction in terms; whereas our In­terpretation offereth a considerable Privi­ledge, so far that it cannot be interpreted of a Matrimonial Legitimacy, as is evident by Ver. 16. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband; or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? Which shews, that the preceed­ing Coherence cannot contradict the sub­sequent Connexion; and the Holy Apostle, doubtless, would not have said this, if his meaning in the 14th Verse, had carried on­ly the sense of a Matrimonial Legitimacy, to free the married Couple from the great and crying guilt of Adultery And this may be a sufficient Answer to the two Objections started against Acts ij. 39. and 1 Cor. vij. 14. by A. R. in his Tract, called, The Second Part of the Vanity and Childish­ness of Infant-Baptism, Printed May 3. 1642..

And truly I was the better satisfied with the account my thoughts suggested of this Text, when I found it supported by the concurrent Judgment of the very reverend and most learned Dr. Hammond, who I think, beyond exception, hath evinced, that the Antipedobaptic sense of a Ma­trimonial [Page 128]Legitimacy, cannot be the true and proper meaning of this place; and be­cause I cannot better express it, I will give it you in his own words, as I find them in one of his excellent Books, Vid. Dr. Hammond's six Que­ries Re­solved, whereof Infant-Baptism is one, P. 203.— 202. A Remain, or Footstep of the Holy Apostles Practice, is the Reasoning of St. Paul, 1 Cor. vij. Which supposes it then received, and known in the Church, (at the writing of that Epi­stle) that Christian Children were recei­ved unto Baptism; the sum of which will be best discerned by the setting down a few Verses, and a brief Paraphrase upon them, (whereby the preceeding Connexion appears to be as little for them, as I have made the subsequent Conherence to be.)

i. e. Verse. 12. If any Brother hath a Wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. If any Chri­stian-Husband hath an Heathen-Wife, and she be desirous to continue with him, he ought not to put her away, Unbelief being no sufficient cause of Divorce by the Law of Christ.

i. e. Vers. 13. And the Woman which hath an Husband that belie­veth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. And so in like manner for the Christian-Wife that is married to an In­fidel, if he be de­sirous to live with [Page 129]her, let her by no means separate from him.

i. e. Vers. 14. For the unbelieving Husband [ [...]] hath been sanctified by the Wife, and the unbelieving Wife hath been san­ctified by the Husband, else were your Chil­dren unclean, but now are they Holy. For (beside the Command of Christ, St. Matth. v. 32. who obliges to this) other ad­vantages there are to the believer's li­ving with the unbe­liever worth consi­dering, for by this means it has oft come to pass, that the unbelieving party has been brought to the Faith by the Company and Conversation of the believer.

And considering the efficacy of good Ex­ample, and seasonable Exhortation, 1 St. Pet. iij. 1. and Instruction, on presumption of the great Zeal, (and consequent Endeavours and Di­ligence) that by the Laws of Christiani­ty the Husband will have to the eternal good of any so near him as a Wife, there is great reason to hope, that it will be so, that their living together may produce this effect in the unbeliever, and the intui­tion and prospect of that (more than pos­sible, because highly probable) effect may move the Christian Party not to forsake the other voluntarily; and this one pro­bability, that the conversation of the be­liever [Page 130]should gain, that is, bring the un­believer to the Faith, and the reasonable presumption, that it will be so, is the rea­son why the young Children of Christians which cannot as yet be deemed actual be­lievers, are yet admitted to Baptism; be­cause by their living in the Family with Christian Parents, they probably, and by the Obligation lying upon the Parent, ought to be brought up in the Faith, and kept from Heathenish Pollutions, (and the Church requiring and receiving Promise from the Parents) it may be reasonably presumed they will; and upon this ground it is, that tho' the Children of Christians are, the Children of Heathens are not ad­mitted unto Baptism: That this is the true importance of the Holy Apostle's words, and force of his arguing, doth for the former part of it appear evident, 1(1. By the word [ [...]] hath been sanctified, which must needs refer to some past known Example and Experience of this kind, or else there could be no reasonable account given of the Holy Apostle's setting it in the Preterperfect- Tense. 2(2.) By the Phrase [ [...]] by or through the Wife. This the Greek Preposition [ [...]] so ordinarily signifies, that it cannot need to be further testified, (and in this Notion it is that we here take it) whereas the Notion which by the Opposers (the Anti­pedobaptists I mean) is here affixed to it, [Page 131]that it should signifie to (that to which is the sign of the Dative Case) [sanctified to the Wife (as Meat to the Believer) made lawful to live with] is never once found to belong to it in the New Testa­ment, nor can with any tolerable congrui­ty or Grammatic Analogy be affixed to it; (whereby the Antipedobaptists Argument for Matrimonial Legitimacy is totally o­verthrown) And that the Greek Preposi­tion is thus to be accepted, the learned Dr. Hammond proves from the Original, in no less than five particular places of the New Testament, and so still the rendring it [to the Wife] will be without any one Example, and the turning it into quite another phrase, as if it were [...], with­out [...], which to do, without any necessity or reason, (save only [ [...]] to serve the opposers turn upon the place, and support his false Opinion) must needs seem to be very unreasonable. (3.) This appears most irrefragably by the express words added on this Argument, Verse 16. where [the unbeliever having been sancti­fied by the believer] used as an Argument (why they should live together) is farther explained by these words, of an undoubted perspicuous sense, For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save thy wife? Where the word [ [...]] [save] which ordinarily signifies, [Page 132]to reduce (or as it is 1 St. Pet. iij. 1. [ [...]] to gain) to Repentance from Hea­thenism or wicked Life, is set parallel to [ [...]] sanctifying, and maketh it clear what was meant by it, which being once yielded to be the true meaning of the first part, there will then be little reason to doubt but that this of the Admission of Christian Children to Baptism on this score, is the improvement of the latter part, that and no other being it, which exactly accords with the former reasoning, and it being not imaginable that this should be here added in that argumentative style, [ [...], whereas, (or for) elsewhere, &c.] if it were not an enforcing of the fore­going Position, thus proved by him. For the confirming of this sense it may be re­membred, 1(1.) What [ [...]] Holy is known to signifie in the Sacred Dialect; not only an inherent, but a relative Holiness, being separate, or set apart to God, dis­criminated from common ordinary things or persons; and as that belongs to higher degrees of separation, the Office of a Prophet, or the like, so the lowest degree of it is that of being received to be Mem­bers of the Church, into which all are initiated, or entred by Baptism, and ac­cordingly all visible Professors, and not only those that are sincerely such are in Ezra ix. 2. the Holy Seed, and in the Epi­stles of the Blessed Apostle called [ [...]] [Page 133]Holy, and reasonable it is Children should have an imputed or relative Holiness; be­cause they have the [Prohibens, or] Ob­stacles, which kept the Holy Jesus from them, or them from the Blessed Jesus, (I mean Original Guilt) taken away with this reserve, when they shall be able to perform the Terms of the Covenant they are admitted to, as [the [...], Vid. Dr. Hammond's Query of Infant-Baptism. as Arrianus calls it] the Promise of every reasonable Creature, when he hath first leave to become such, [the [...]] the Oath consubstantiate with us, the Engagement that our Creation ties every Son of Man to, is actually required of those only that are of age to practise it, but may in the mean time be presumed even in the Womb of the Parent, to be undertaken by us; this by our being in tended for the use of Reason, as Holi­ness from our being made Proselytes unto the Christian Religion. And (2.) 2 That the word [ [...]] unclean, Acts x. 14. is used by St. Pe­ter for those that must not (as he concei­veth) be received into the Church, as [God's having cleansed] is God's repu­ting them fit to be partakers of that Privi­ledge, whereby it appears how fitly recei­ving, and not receiving them unto Bap­tism, may be expressed by those Phrases. (3.) 3 It is known of the Jewish legal Un­cleannesses contrary to their Sanctificati­ons, [Page 134]that they were the cause of remov­ing from the Congregation, they that were so [ [...]] Unclean might not partake of the priviledge of the Temple, till they were washed and sanctified; and that is proportionable to the Notion here given of it, That the Christian Children are Holy, i. e. not inherently (they are not capable of that) but in the Account of God and Man, capable of separation for the service of God, of being entred into the Church, into Covenant, which denominates Men Holy (as the Gentiles, as long as they were out of it were Un­clean and Unholy, Acts x.) Now are they Holy, i. e. it is the present practice of the Church, that Holy Apostolic Church of St. Paul's time, to admit to Baptism such Infant Children of Parents, of whom one is Christian, though not of others; and the ancient Fathers who cer­tainly knew the Sacred Dialect called, Baptism, Sanctification. So St. Cyprian, Eum qui natus est baptizan­dum & san­ctificandum S. Cypr. Ep. 59. He that is Born, must be baptized and sanctified: So St. Gregory Nazienzen, [...], St. Greg. Naz. orat. 40. It is better to be sanctified without sense of it, i. e. baptized in Infancy, when they are not sensible of it, than to depart or dye without the Seal of Baptism: And again, [...], pag. 648. Let him be baptized from the Infancy, i. e. baptized then; and many the like. This Passage being thus inter­preted, [Page 135]is a clear proof of the point in hand. Were not this the Import of it, there were no Priviledge imaginable, no Sanctity could be attributed unto Chri­stians, which would not belong to the Infants of Heathens also, which yet is here directly affirmed of the one, and de­nied to the other by the Holy Apostle; and as this evidently concludeth such a Cu­stom known and acknowledged among Christians at that time, so it is directly the thing that the Jewish practice (in which Christ founded his Institution) hath laid the foundation of in baptizing Prose­lytes and their Children, and to which the primitive Church conformed: And so though that Judaic practice taken alone were not deemed any demonstrative evi­dence, that Christ thus instituted his Baptism for the Gentile World; yet be­ing taken in conjunction with this Holy Apostolic practice, and the primitive us­age, it brings all the weight with it that a divine Testimony, interpreted by pra­ctice, can afford, which is as great as any such matter can be capable of. And thus I have sufficiently, I hope, answered the Objection that would overthrow the true Sense I had before given of this place of St. Paul, and offered Reasons so strong and so plain, as may satisfie any unpre­judiced reasonable Man. For Reasons [Page 136]must be plainer than the Matters they are brought to give a Proof of; because when we go about to prove a Matter that is questionable, we must do it by such (Mediums and) Methods that are appa­rent as well as cogent. And now from this Text of St. Paul, I have made it evi­dently appear, That Children have a right unto the Covenant, under the new Dispensation, as our Adversaries own and acknowledge they had under the old one; and then let the most learned of our Adver­saries make appear at what time, or when they were excluded and shut out, and we will acknowledge and own our selves in a Mistake: And if they cannot do that, they ought to confess and declare, we have Truth on our side, and that they are in an error; which though Men (out of love to their Reputation or a mistaken Inte­rest) they are unwilling to come to, yet I am certain it is their Duty to do it.

AND now the business may be deter­mined in this one Enquiry, Whe­ther the baptizing of Infants do appear to be a divine Institution and holy Apo­stolic usage? And if it do, we have all we can desire in the Case; but if it do not, we are obliged and bound to disown the Method we have taken for the asserting our Principle, or drawing from it what we would conclude thereupon; and be­cause the best Method for the solving of this doubt is the urging home what we have said, laying the foundation upon a divine Institution, and the usage of the holy Apostles: Therefore give me leave to press it close upon the Consciences of such Men as love the Truth, and value their Souls above all Worldly Considera­tions, in six Particulars. (1.) 1 Whether by the holy Jesus's laying the Institution of this blessed Sacrament in the Jews usage of baptizing Proselytes, which hath been evidenced to appertain unto the In­fant [Page 138]Children of such Proselytes, 2(2.) By his being so far from rejecting the Age of Children, as an impediment of coming unto him (i. e. unto their Proselytism) that he affirms them to be the Pattern of those of whom his Kingdom consists; and though he be not affirmed in the holy Go­spel to baptize such (when indeed the blessed Jesus baptized not at all, St. John iv. 2. St. Mark x. 16. but his holy Disciples) yet he took them in his Arms, and laid his Hands upon them, and blessed them (which being the Rite customa­ry in the holy Church, for those that were qualified for Baptism, and directly pre­parative to it) they that were by the Christ allowed, that cannot be esteemed by him less fit for Baptism than for that. (3.) 3 By the express words of the holy Apostle, that their Children are holy ex­pounded by the coherence and connexion of the Text (as we have already made evident and apparent, by giving its pro­per sense, and answering the strongest Objection against what we have offered as its true meaning) so as to conclude from the reason of the holy Apostle's Dis­course, that it was the usage of the days Apostolic to admit the Infants of Christi­an Parents unto Baptism, and so expound­ed by the Christian Authors of the earli­est Centuries. 4(4.) By the Authorities of the ancient primitive Fathers that treated [Page 139]of this Doctrin, without the least pre­tence of theirs (who were best acquaint­ed with their Customs) that this was not an holy Apostolic usage, and therefore continued in all the times of the ancient Church successively. 5(5.) By the Testi­mony of Councils, when the obstinacy of false Teachers contradicted, resisted and gain said it. (6.) 6 At last enjoyned by the holy Church, whence I believe with the other Accounts already given, the need­fulness of its usage and continuance ari­seth, and not from any other Grounds. Now all I urge, with due submission of my Self and the Cause unto the Opinion of unbyassed Persons (any Man of Candor and Ingenuity, that is freed from Passion, Prejudice and Interest) is this, Whether these six Particulars being duly and seri­ously considered (the Truth of all which is well known unto any learned Man) it be not clear enough, that admitting Infants to Baptism, is a divine Institution and an holy Apostolic usage? If it be not, I would willingly understand, what is more needful for satisfaction in a business of this Concern? And whether by any other (or more properly) convincing Argu­ments, the contrary can be proved to be an holy Apostolic custom, or that they de­nied the Infants of Proselytes the holy Sacrament of Baptism?

AND now I have one Consideration to offer by way of Appeal, unto all disinterested and unbyassed Persons, to engage their Belief unto such a comforta­ble and christian Doctrin, as well as so necessary and useful a Practice: That whatsoever appointment or precept hath God the Father for its Author (whether discovered by the Revelation of the holy Prophets, or by the service of those ( [...]) Ministring Spirits above, that are sent forth into all the Parts of the World to Minister for them, who shall be the Heirs of Salvati­on (as the Author of the Epistle unto the Hebrews acquaints us) or the Holy Jesus for its Institutor (whether dire­ctly from himself, Heb. 1.14. or mediately by his Successors the holy Apostles, and those that succeeded them, holy Apostolic Men) is not of Infallible Obligation un­to [Page 141]all to whom it was given (and so each Institution of Christ unto all Chri­stians) and that the peculiar way of its Derivation unto us, whether by the Inspired Discoveries of the Law or Holy Gospel, or any different Me­thod, is but of an extrinsic Consideration to any such Divine Appointment or Command; I say, upon this Considera­tion, I have, I hope, in the Judgment of all sober and rational Men (for the full clearing of this Doubt, and satisfy­ing this Case of Conscience, concerning Infant Baptism) by proper, and the most highly probable Arguments mani­fested, That by appointing Baptism as a blessed Sacrament to be used amongst Christians, the blessed Jesus and his im­mediate Followers, did not deny Child­ren the use of that comfortable and ho­ly Ordinance, but freely and willingly admitted them thereunto.

AND now I have one Proposal to make, (by way of Importunate Re­quest) which I hope is reasonable for me to desire, That none of the Antipedo­baptists will look upon, or account me as their Adversary, because, according unto the Duty of my Place, and the Obliga­tions of my Conscience, I declare unto them what I verily believe to be true, and have no different purpose or intention in the management of this Controversie, but to bring Men to a Great Regard, and Reve­rend Esteem for, and an humble and dutiful Submission to the Holy Jesus's Ordination and Appointment. Upon the whole Matter then, and an impartial and serious Con­sideration of what hath been offered, I cannot imagine what Plea (except such as is conducted by Interest, Humour, or Covetousness) any understanding Man can with the least probability use to throw off the concording Agreement of so ma­ny Testimonies and great Authorities for so necessary a Practice, as well as com­fortable [Page 143]a Doctrin: And I shall with all Hearty Affection and Brotherly Love con­clude, and presume no farther than these Arguments and Testimonies will allow me to do, (surely not be so Censorious as the Antipedobaptists, and Anabaptists are, when they declare hainous Matters of us, and affirm, that we, by Baptizing Infants, Pollute the Blood of the Ever­lasting Covenant) God forbid, that we who heartily Pray in our Public Liturgy, (which all Clergymen are obliged and en­gaged unto the daily use of) That it would please thee, good Lord, to bring into the way of Truth, all such as have erred, and are deceived. The sense of which is, That all Separatists from the Holy Catholic (or any Orthodox National) Church, that is a true Part, or sound Member thereof, may return home unto Christ's Fold, and be received into the Bosom of the Holy Church, and cannot be thought, without breach of Charity, to have the prospect of any other pur­pose, but the Everlasting Happiness and Welfare of Mens Immortal Souls; I say, that we should ever entertain a thought of persecuting, killing, or damning those that differ from us, while they profess the Holy Name of the Blessed Jesus: Our Mind is the same with St. Ignatius [...]. St. Ignat., that Holy Martyr, to soften the sharp [Page 144]Humour, by tender and skilful Applica­tions of the Gentle Word, (like pour­ing Oyl into the Samaritan's Wounds) I mean to heal by Embrocation, or the most tender Methods, and not by Scari­fications, and Caustics, (to use the Chi­rurgion's Term of Art) and I do esteem it my Obligation, to deprecate that de­ceitful Prosperity, that should be strong enough to breath into the Spirits of per­sons any higher measure of sharpness in the Fathers, Vid. Dr. Hammond's Query of Infant-Baptism, Pag. 312. or Sons of the Holy Church, than what I now believe to be a power­ful Engagement to bring Men to the Church.