A treatise on the nature and subjects of Christian baptism. Extracted from a late author. Hemmenway, Moses, 1735-1811. Approx. 159 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 73 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI : 2011-05. N17716 N17716 Evans 22944 APY1305 22944 99028373

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Early American Imprints, 1639-1800 ; no. 22944. (Evans-TCP ; no. N17716) Transcribed from: (Readex Archive of Americana ; Early American Imprints, series I ; image set 22944) Images scanned from Readex microprint and microform: (Early American imprints. First series ; no. 22944) A treatise on the nature and subjects of Christian baptism. Extracted from a late author. Hemmenway, Moses, 1735-1811. Hemmenway, Moses, 1735-1811. Discourse on the nature and subjects of Christian baptism. Selections. [4], 71, [1] p. ; 18 cm. (12mo) Printed by Joseph Crukshank. Sold by John Dickins, no. 43, Fourth-Street, near the corner of Race-Street., Philadelphia: : MDCCXC. [1790] Extracted from: Hemmenway, Moses. A discourse on the nature and subjects of Christian baptism.

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

eng Baptism. Infant baptism. 2009-02 Assigned for keying and markup 2009-03 Keyed and coded from Readex/Newsbank page images 2010-03 Sampled and proofread 2010-03 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2010-04 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

A TREATISE ON THE NATURE AND SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. EXTRACTED FROM A LATE AUTHOR.

PHILADELPHIA: PRINTED BY JOSEPH CRUKSHANK. SOLD BY JOHN DICKINS, NO. 43, FOURTH-STREET, NEAR THE CORNER OF RACE-STREET. MDCCXC.

AN EXTRACT ON THE NATURE AND SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. MATTHEW xxviii. 19, 20.

Go ye therefore and teach (or diſciple) all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt: Teaching them to obſerve all things whatſoever I have commanded you: And, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

THE FIRST PART. On the NATURE of CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.

THE ſubject of our preſent inquiry, may be reduced to theſe two points, viz. What is Chriſtian Baptiſm? And, Who are the proper ſubjects of it? Theſe I ſhall endeavour to reſolve by the light of divine revelation.—And, as I claim no dominion over the faith of any, ſo I would ſpeak as unto wiſe men: judge ye what I ſay.

The firſt thing to be conſidered, is, "What is Chriſtian Baptiſm?"

In our text, Chriſt commiſſions his miniſters to baptize the nations. We borrow the word Baptiſm from the Greeks; among whom it was commonly uſed to ſignify a wetting or waſhing in ſome mode, as I ſhall ſhew more particularly in the ſequel. Among chriſtians, baptiſm is that Religious and Sacramental waſhing with Water, which Chriſt has appointed as the token and ſign of our admiſſion into the viſible church, and of our having an intereſt in the privileges, and coming under the obligations of the goſpel covenant.

But there are ſome, who are not content to enjoy all the liberty in our churches that they can reaſonably deſire for themſelves. With them there is no true baptiſm without dipping: nor will they have chriſtian communion with any but thoſe who have gone into the water. According to them, there are no goſpel churches in the world, except of thoſe who have been dipped. None are regularly called or ſent of God to preach the word, and adminiſter goſpel ordinances, till they have been dipped. None may preſume to come, or be admitted to the table of the Lord, till they have been dipped. And thus, as much as in them lies, they unchurch all the churches in the world, except thoſe who agree with them in the mode of baptizing.—They deny the call and miſſion of their miniſters; invalidate and nullify their ordinances, and excommunicate thouſands, whom they cannot deny to be eminent for faith and holineſs; and, in a word, make the door of the viſible church ſo much narrower than Chriſt has made the gate of Heaven, that they reject far the greater part of thoſe whom Chriſt receives.

Now, however willing we are to have Chriſtian communion with all who, in a judgment of charity, are diſciples of Chriſt; yet if we cannot have it, unleſs we will diſcard the greater part of our chriſtian brethren; deny the miſſions and call of thoſe, whoſe miniſtry has been the means of our own converſion and edification, deny the validity of thoſe ordinances, which have ſo often been breaſts of nouriſhment and conſolation to us, and renounce our baptiſm, which we are conſcientiouſly perſuaded is both valid and regular; this we cannot conſent to.—And if any make this a ground of ſeparation from us, let all who have imbibed the ſpirit of chriſtianity judge, whether it be our fault; and whether ſuch rigidneſs in a matter ſo circumſtantial, is agreeable to the meek and charitable ſpirit of the Goſpel, or whether it does not rather look too much like Phariſaical ſuperſtition, to ſay no worſe.

Methinks they have more reaſon to queſtion the validity of their own adminiſtration, than to deny ours, upon the account of ſuch irregularities as they charge upon us. For they cannot deny that the baptiſm which is adminiſtered in their communions was received at firſt by their predeceſſors, from the hands of ſuch as, according to their principles, were unbaptized, and conſequently could not be regularly authorized to adminiſter the ordinance. If they think ſprinkling to be no true baptiſm, much more have they reaſon to doubt the validity of immerſion, when performed by an unbaptized and unauthorized adminiſtrator. And, if the firſt baptiſms of that ſect, when they firſt ſprung up, were invalid, how can thoſe adminiſtrations be thought valid and regular, which depend upon them.

We muſt therefore conclude, that dipping cannot be eſſential to baptiſm and chriſtian communion. The conſequences are not to be endured.—The difficulties this principle will lead to, are inextricable.—We never can be ſatisfied that there is any true church, or valid baptiſm and ordinances in the world, upon theſe narrow principles.

Theſe conſiderations are certainly of ſo much weight, that the neceſſity of dipping ought not to be inſiſted on, unleſs there be clear and cogent reaſons for it. The ſubſtance of what is pleaded in favour of this mode, is reducible to theſe four heads:

"That the proper meaning of the word Baptize, always implies dipping.

"That the ſcriptural examples of baptiſm were adminiſtered in this way.

"That this mode of adminiſtration is plainly pointed out, when the Apoſtle ſays, We are buried with Chriſt in baptiſm.

"That dipping only anſwers to, and fitly repreſents the thing ſignified in baptiſm."

On the contrary, we think, that the neceſſity of dipping cannot be argued from any of theſe topics; but that they will furniſh us with a good warrant in favour of the mode of affuſion or ſprinkling. Let us examine the matter diſtinctly.

And our firſt inquiry is, what is the true and proper meaning of the word Baptize, and whether it always implies dipping? We grant that the inſtitution of Chriſt requires whatever is eſſential to a true Baptiſm; but more than this cannot be held neceſſary. Now, we have no ſort of evidence, that the word Baptize always implies dipping; but it plainly appears to be of a larger and more general ſignification. It properly imports a wetting, waſhing, bathing, in any mode, either by dipping or ſprinkling, or bleeding, or weeping, or otherwiſe. In proof of this we appeal,

In the firſt place, to thoſe who are acknowledged to have been beſt ſkilled in the Greek language. All the Lexicons and critics, ſo far as I have found, agree, that the word ſignifies to wet, or waſh, as well as to dip.

But, perhaps, it may be ſaid, That critics are not infallible, and it may be ſuſpected that they are wrong, in ſaying, That waſhing or wetting in general, in whatever mode, is expreſſed and meant by the word Baptiſm.

I anſwer; in queſtions concerning the true meaning of words, the judgment of the learned, though not infallible, is doubtleſs of very conſiderable weight; and eſpecially when we find a general conſent among them. And that there certainly is upon this point, that waſhing or wetting, without reſpect to the mode, is Baptiſm, according to the uſage of the word by Greek writers. But if any are yet unſatisfied, we muſt examine the matter further; whether it can certainly be made to appear that the word bears the ſenſe which has been ſaid.

They who have been at the pains to examine the Greek claſſics (Dr. Wall in particular) have proved by clear and manifold examples, that thoſe ancient writers were wont to uſe the word Baptize to expreſs a waſhing or wetting, even where there was no dipping at all, but only a ſprinkling. But I think it will be needleſs to inquire, how the word was commonly underſtood by heathen writers: it is the ſcriptural ſenſe alone that we are ſearching after. If this can be aſcertained, we need no more.

The word baptize is uſed in ſcripture to expreſs ſuch waſhings as did not require, and were not effected by dipping. In Luke xi. 38, we read, that a Phariſee who had invited Jeſus to dine with him, "marvelled that he had not firſt Waſhed." The Greek word is Baptized. Here obſerve, that Jeſus omitted to waſh before dinner according to the Jewiſh cuſtom, which was the reaſon why the Phariſee wondered; and that this Waſhing was properly called a Baptiſm. But how were the Jews wont ordinarily to waſh before their meals? Did they dip themſelves under water? If not, here is a plain proof and example of a waſhing that is called a baptiſm, without ſuch a dipping. Now, if we turn to Mark vii. we ſhall ſee what that waſhing was that was cuſtomary among the Jews before eating. When the Phariſees and ſome of the Scribes ſaw ſome of his diſciples eat bread with defiled (that is to ſay, with unwaſhen) hands, they found fault. For the Phariſees, and all the Jews, except they waſh their hands oft, eat not. And when they come from the market, except they waſh (the Greek is, except they are baptized) they eat not. This ſhews, that in the language of the New Teſtament a perſon is ſaid to be baptized, when a ſmall part of his body is waſhed.

Again, in Heb. ix. 10, the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the Jewiſh ritual as ſtanding in divers Waſhings; the Greek is, different Baptiſms. And it appears that purifications by ſprinkling are eſpecially intended. For he adds, with a plain reference to, and as an illuſtration of, what he had juſt ſaid: If the blood of bulls and goats, and the aſhes of an heifer, ſprinkling the unclean, ſanctifieth to the purifying of the fleſh, how much more ſhall the blood of Chriſt, &c. which ſhews that theſe purifications by ſprinkling are inſtances of thoſe waſhings or baptiſms he had mentioned, and indeed ſome of the chief inſtances: otherwiſe it would not have been pertinent to his purpoſe to have noticed them on this occaſion. A plain proof that ſprinkling is a true baptiſm.

Further, the Apoſtle ſays of the Iſraelites who came out of Egypt, that they were baptized unto Moſes in the cloud, and in the ſea, 1 Cor. x. 2. How were they baptized? Certainly they were not dipped. For they went on dry ground through the ſea, which ſtood as a wall on each hand. It was the Egyptians only that were baptized by immerſion. According to the account Moſes gives, the Iſraelites could no otherwiſe be baptized in the cloud and ſea, than by being ſprinkled with rain from the one, and a ſpray from the other, as they paſſed along: to which Pſal. lxviii. 7, 8, 9, is thought to refer. Here is then another inſtance of baptiſm by ſprinkling; which was a token of the ſeparation or ſanctification of the people to God. This gives a natural and eaſy account of the matter. But how unnatural and ſtrained is our opponents' way of explaining it: That the people having the ſea on each hand, and the cloud over their heads, ſeemed to be as it were dipped or encloſed in water. On which I would obſerve, that the Apoſtle ſays not that they ſeemed to be as it were baptized, but in plain terms that they were Baptized. But whatever reſemblances of dipping, people may imagine, immerſion without wetting is certainly no real baptiſm. For whether the mode of waſhing be eſſential or not, yet the waſhing or wetting itſelf is indeed eſſential to a true and proper baptiſm. If people may be baptized by having the water round them, though they were not wet by it at all, the dry hold of a ſhip upon the water would ſerve as well as Jordan: and, by going down into it, we ſhall be dipped in the ſea in like manner as the Iſraelites were.—The fathers were baptized in the cloud and ſea.—A true baptiſm neceſſarily implies wetting. They were not wet by immerſion—they could not therefore be baptized by immerſion—whatever waſhing they received could be only by ſprinkling.—It was therefore in this made undoubtedly that they were baptized. Which is another proof that ſprinkling is a mode of baptiſm.

Let us now conſider the words of Chriſt, Luke xii. 50, I have a bap •••• to be baptized with, and how am I ſtraitened till it be accompliſhed. Chriſt here calls his ſufferings a baptiſm. The ſacred body of the bleſſed Jeſus was truly and literally baptized.—He was wet and bathed in his own tears, and ſweat, and blood, in his agony in the garden, and when he was ſcourged, and nailed to the croſs. He was baptized and ſanctified by the blood of the covenant, Heb. x. 29, that is, by his own blood; even as the Jewiſh high prieſts were baptized, ſanctified, and conſecrated with water and the blood of beaſts, as types of Chriſt. And accordingly it was a common expreſſion of the ancient fathers, concerning the martyrs, who had ſhed their blood in bearing witneſs to the Chriſtian faith, that they were baptized with their own blood.—Here is then, I think, another very good proof, that dipping is no ways eſſential to baptiſm.—For, Chriſt was not dipped, and his martyrs are not dipped in their bloody baptiſm, but he was wet, and tinged, and bathed in his ſweat, and blood iſſuing from his pores and veins.

Let us now make ſome remarks on the baptiſm with the Holy Ghoſt, which is often ſpoken of. This is indeed a ſpiritual baptiſm, by which the ſubjects of it were ſanctified, conſecrated, and ſeparated to God, in a higher and more eminent ſenſe, than thoſe were who had only been conſecrated by water baptiſm. But how is this ſpiritual baptiſm explained? There are ſeveral expreſſions which are plainly of the ſame import; ſuch as the "pouring out of the ſpirit" upon the ſubject. When the Apoſtles were baptized with the Holy Ghoſt, according to Chriſt's p •••• ſe, Acts i. 5, Peter obſerves, that this was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel, It ſhall come to paſs in the laſt days, ſaith God, I will pour out of my ſpirit, Acts ii. 17, and again, verſe 33, That Chriſt being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promiſe of the Holy Ghoſt, he hath ſhed or poured forth thoſe things which ye now ſee and hear. Here we ſee "that pouring upon," and baptizing, are ſynonimous expreſſions. The one explaine the other. Now, if the pouring out of the Spirit be the baptiſm of the Spirit, the pouring of water muſt alſo be •• baptiſm of water.—It is to be well obſerved, that as the Holy Spirit is in ſcripture often ſignified by water, as a fit emblem of his ſanctifying and comforting influences; ſo the conferring of the ſpirit upon us, which is undoubtedly the true intendment of the baptiſm of the Holy Ghoſt, is not repreſented by the ſimilitude of dipping into water, but as a pouring or ſprinkling of water upon us.—Iſa. xliv. 3, I will pour waters on the thirſty, and floods on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit on thy ſeed, and my bleſſing on thine offspring. See alſo Ezek. xxxvi. 27, I will ſprinkle clean water on you, and ye ſhall be clean. A new heart will I give you, &c. All which I think proves plainly, that ſprinkling is in ſcripture conſidered as a mode of baptiſm.—I will add one remark more. The baptiſm with the Holy Ghoſt is termed, an unction or anointing, 1 John ii. 20, 27. The holy oil, with which perſons were anointed in their conſecration, was a ſign or emblem of the Holy Spirit given to them, to fit them for the offices to which they were called. The ſame is alſo ſignified by Chriſtian baptiſm. Now, it is by pouring on of oil that perſons are anointed; and it is by pouring out of the Spirit upon us, that our anointing or baptiſm with the Holy Ghoſt is expreſſed. As therefore baptiſm anſwers in ſignification to anointing, we may well conclude, that it may properly be adminiſtered in the ſame way, that is, by affuſion. Can we doubt whether affuſion be a true baptiſm, when we find that in ſcripture, Baptizing, Pouring, Sprinkling, and Anointing, are parallel, and ſignify the ſame thing?

One remark more I will add. In all the different tranſlations of the New Teſtament that I have ſeen, I have not found that the word baptize in the original is ever rendered by a word ſignifying or implying immerſion. But they either retain the original word, or render i waſhing or ablution; which we cannot think they would have done, if the authors had not been ſatisfied that this is the true ſcriptural ſenſe.

To find and aſcertain the ſignification of the word, will, I think, determine the diſpute concerning the mode of Baptiſm. For which reaſon, I have examined the matter more carefully. And the concluſion in which this inquiry has iſſued, will not be at all weakened, but rather much confirmed by the account we have in the ſcriptures of the adminiſtration of this ordinance. And this leads us to conſider,

Secondly, Whether the neceſſity of dipping can be argued from theſe ſcriptural precedents. Some ſuppoſe, that John Baptiſt and the Apoſtles baptized by immerſion only: And that we are bound herein ſtrictly to follow their example. On the contrary, we can find no certainty that immerſion was ever practiſed in the apoſtolic age. It is morally certain that this was not the conſtant mode of adminiſtration.

It is true, we read that Jeſus was baptized by John in Jordan; and then came up out of the water, Mark i. 9, 10. That the Jews were alſo baptized of John in Jordan," Mat. iii. 6. "That John baptized in Enon, becauſe there was much water," John iii. 23. That the Eunuch went down into the water with Philip, and when he was baptized they came up out of the water, Acts viii. 38, 39. But whether any of theſe were dipped is uncertain. It is not even certain whether in any of theſe inſtances they went into and were baptized, in the water; though the texts are ſo rendered in our Engliſh Bible. But the Greek, which is the authentic ſtandard, will fairly admit of this ſenſe, as critics have often obſerved, viz. That they went down to, were baptized at, and went up from the water.The Greek text does not determine whether Jeſus and the Jews were baptized in Jordan or only at Jordan, for the particles (en and eis) h •• e uſed, ſignify, in, at, or to. See Rom. viii. 34 ( n), At the right hand of God. Nor is it certain that the Eunuch went into the water. The particle (eis) is often rendered to, John xx. 4. The other diſciple came firſt (eis) to the ſepulchre, yet went he not in. Philip and the Eunuch went up (ok) from the water: ſo the particle is elſewhere rendered. See Matth. xii. 42, The queen of the ſouth came (ok) from the uttermoſt ends of the earth. Jeſus when he was baptized went up (apo) from the water; as the phraſe moſt properly ſignifies. I do not mention theſe things as ••• lting our Engliſh tranſlation. All that I aim at is, that the original may fairly be rendered either way; and that this circumſtances, as it is imm ••• rial, ſo it is leſt undetermined. But, waving this remark, ſuppoſing they did go into the water, and were there baptized; it does not follow that they were plunged. It is nothing ſtrange or improbable if they ſtepped into the water, that they might be baptized by affuſion. Though there was much water, or many waters (as the phraſe properly ſignifies) at Enon, where John was baptizing. This is no proof that he dipped, or made uſe of much water in baptiſm, or that there was even a convenient depth of water for ſuch a purpoſe. Travellers have reported that there are only ſprings and ſmall rivulets to be found in this place. As multitudes reſorted to John, a place that was well ſupplied with water, for their uſe and refreſhment, would be moſt convenient, ſuppoſe none of them were dipped, as I find no certainty that they were. And if any ſhould think that the adminiſtration of baptiſm at rivers, and in places where there was plenty of water, is a circumſtance that favours immerſion, though it is needleſs to conteſt this point, yet we might eaſily mention ſeveral things as probable arguments that immerſion was not practiſed in theſe inſtances. It ſeems unlikely that mixed multitudes of both ſexes ſhould be dipped naked. And it was contrary to the Jewiſh cuſtom to bathe with any of their clothes on; in which reſpect they were ſo ſtrict, that they held a perſon to be unclean, if but the top of one of his fingers were covered, when he bathed himſelf for his cleanſing.—Or if immerſion were received with the clothes on, this would require a ſhifting of apparel, which we have no hint of. Nor can we eaſily conceive how ſtrangers, who came from home without any deſign of being baptized, as was the caſe with ſome, ſhould be furniſhed with neceſſary change of raiment for this purpoſe. Or how John ſhould be able, without a miracle, to bear the hardſhip of ſtanding in the water up to his waiſt, a great part of his time, to dip the multitudes that came to him. Theſe circumſtances muſt ſurely weaken, if not overbalance, all probabilities or preſumptions that can be pleaded in favour of immerſion, in theſe inſtances.

But be this as it may, we have accounts of ſeveral inſtances, ſo circumſtanced, that the ſuppoſition of their being dipped is moſt incredible. Particularly the 3000 baptized on the day of Pentecoſt. For it was at leaſt nine o'clock when Peter began his ſermon. After this he had a long conference, and with many words counſelled, teſtified, and exhorted them. Then the Apoſtles had to receive a confeſſion of faith from each of them diſtinctly: and then baptize them ſeverally: which, though done in the quickeſt manner, would require the whole remainder of the day. But in the ſlower way of immerſion, we cannot conceive how it could be done by the Apoſtles without a miracle. Nor may we ſuppoſe that the Apoſtles were aſſiſted in this work by the ſeventy diſciples, who appear not to have been authorized to adminiſter the ordinances. Beſides, how incredible is it, that they ſhould on a ſudden find conveniences for dipping ſo many, in the midſt of a city, among zealous oppoſers: or that ſo many ſtrangers ſhould either be baptized naked, or have change of raiment. We cannot rationally think, that they could be baptized otherwiſe than by affuſion. Nor is it probable that Paul was baptized by immerſion: for, upon Ananias coming in to him, putting his hands upon him, &c. we read, that he immediately received his ſight, aroſe and was baptized; that is, in the houſe where he was: there being no hint of his going out to any water, weak as he was with long faſting and agitation of mind.Acts ix. 17, 18. Note, Paul was baptized without a profeſſion of faith, upon Chriſt's teſtimony concerning him, that he was a choſen veſſel. The teſtimony of Chriſt, that infants are of the kingdom of heaven, are holy, are intereſted in the promiſe, is as good a warrant for baptizing them without a profeſſion of their faith. It is not probable that thoſe were dipped who were baptized at the houſe of Cornelius, Acts x. 47. Peter ſeeing them filled with the Holy Ghoſt, ſaid, Can any man forbid water, that theſe ſhould not be baptized. The natural ſenſe is, Can any forbid water, to be brought or provided to baptize theſe: not, whether any could forbid their going to the water. And, in the account of their baptiſm, there is no hint of their going from the houſe. It is highly improbable, that the jailer and his houſe were baptized by immerſion; for, this was done in the night, and in the priſon, where there was no river nor pool to be imagined. Can it be thought, that the jailer, with his whole family, and his priſoners, whom he was charged to keep at his peril, ſhould at ſuch an hour, grope away in the dark, or go with a lanthorn or torch to a river or pool, no one knows where, and that through a city, juſt waked up with a great earthquake, and the ſtreets, it is probable, filled with the frighted citizens? They might all well expect to be taken up and puniſhed for helping the priſoners to make their eſcape. Nor is it credible that the Apoſtles would have done ſuch a thing, who would not leave the priſon till the magiſtrates took them out. The adminiſtration of baptiſm would, doubtleſs, have been deferred, if it could not then have been attended to without all this difficulty and danger. Beſides, there is no account of their going out to the water or leaving the priſon. The houſe of the jailer, into which he brought the Apoſtles, ſeems to have been a ſeparate apartment of the building, where the keeper dwelt, that he might conveniently attend his charge. And we may here make this general remark; that among all the inſtances of baptiſm mentioned in the New Teſtament, it is never ſaid or intimated, that they went from the place where they happened to be, to any river or ſtream, that they might be baptized in or at it. But all who are ſaid to have been baptized in any ſtream, were by it, 〈…〉 themſelves to baptiſm.

Thirdly, The neceſſity of immerſion is argued 〈◊〉 the Apoſtle's word , Rom. vi. 4. We are buried 〈◊〉 Chriſt in baptiſm. Which words have been ſuppoſed to refer to this ode of burying the ſubject is •• ter. But it does not appear that any ſuch reference or alluſion is here intended. The Apoſtle is here ſhewing, that Chriſtians may not live any longer in ſin, inaſmuch as they are dead to it. To prove and illuſtrate this, he reminds us of our being "baptized into Chriſt." By baptiſm, we are not only dedicated to Chriſt, and brought into a ſpecial relation to him as his diſciples; but, our baptiſm is the outward ſign of our ingrafting into Chriſt, and ſo of our ſpiritual union to him, and communion with him, in the benefits obtained for the members of his body, by his crucifixion, death, burial, and reſurrection; and alſo of our obligation to a ſpiritual conformity to his crucifixion, death, burial, and reſurrection, as is noted and illuſtrated in what follows. Being th •• baptized into Chriſt, we are baptized into his death. We not only participate of the benefits obtained by his death, but are bound to a ſpiritual conformity to him in his crucifixion and death; by the crucifixion and death of our old man, with its affections and luſts. Therefore we are buried with him by baptiſm into death. Baptiſm ſignifies our union and communion with Chriſt; and our profeſſion and obligation to a conformity to him, "in his burial," as well as his crucifixion and death. The old man, with his deeds, muſt be put off, utterly rejected and buried. We muſt, in reſpect of our former luſts and converſation, be as if we were "dead and buried." We, by our baptiſm, are obliged to have done with theſe things; to endeavour, that the body of ſin may be quite mortified and deſt ••• ed. But this work of mortification, in which "we are made conformable to Chriſt's death," is in order to a ſpiritual reſurrection; in conformity to the exa p •• , and by the quickening virtue of Chriſt's reſur •••• ion: That like as Chriſt was raiſed from the dead by the glory of 〈…〉 we alſo ſhould walk in newneſs of 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 •• cording to the Apoſtle, baptiſm imp ••• s our union and conformity to Chriſt in his crucifixion, death, and reſurrection, as well as in his burial. And why baptiſm ſhould be ſuppoſed to b •• r an outward reſemblance of his burial, rather than of his crucifixion and death, or why any ſhould fancy n alluſion to the mode of immerſion, I can ſee no reaſon.

I might further obſerve, that dipping a perſon in water does not reſemble the burial of Chriſt, who was not laid in a common grave, but in a tomb hewn out of the ſide of a rock, into which they entered by a door. Nor does it reſemble a common burial, which is not ſo properly the letting down the body into the grave, as the caſting in the earth upon it; of which the ſprinkling or pouring of water on a perſon is no unfit repreſentation; but dipping bears no reſemblance to it. It is not an outward, but a ſpiritual conformity to Chriſt's death and burial that is intended by our being buried with him in baptiſm.

Let us now inquire, Fourthly, Whether dipping anſwers to, and repreſents the thing ſignified in Baptiſm better than ſprinkling. It has juſt been obſerved, that Baptiſm is the outward ſign and taken of the application of the benefits of redemption to believers, in their juſtification and ſanctification. Chriſt waſhes us from our ſins in his own blood. And Baptiſm, as the outward ſign of the application of Chriſt's blood, is, "for the waſhing away of ſins." But how is the application of Chriſt's blood for our cleanſing repreſented? It is called, "the blood of ſprinkling." And the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the ſprinkling of the blood of Jeſus Chriſt. But we are never ſaid to be cleanſed from ſin by being dipped into the blood of Chriſt.—Again, Baptiſm is the inſtituted ſign of our having the gift of the Holy Ghoſt beſtowed upon us. "Be baptized," ſays Peter, and ye ſhall receive the gift of the Holy Ghoſt. Now, the donation of the Holy Ghoſt is never expreſſed by our being dipped into the Holy Ghoſt; but by his being poured out, and our being ſprinkled thereby; which lled our being baptized with the Spirit. Sprink ing 〈…〉 a 〈◊〉 not repreſentation of the application of the blo •••• 〈◊〉 Chriſt, and the influences of the Spirit, for the cli ••• ng of our ſouls from ſin. The argument, therefore, from the ••• logy of the ſign with the thing ſignified, is plainly 〈◊〉 favour of ſprinkling rather than dipping. It is true, our ſpiritual conformity to Chriſt in his death and reſurrection is not unfitly ſignified by immerſion. But ſprinkling more aptly repreſents the application of the benefits of redemption to us; which is the main thing ſignified by baptiſm.

THE SECOND PART. On the SUBJECTS of BAPTISM.

THE ſecond part of the argument in hand, was to conſider who are the proper ſubjects of baptiſm, or to whom this ordinance is to be adminiſtered.

Our preſent inquiry, concerning the ſubjects of baptiſm, is, Who they are that, according to the goſpel rule, are to be admitted by the church? In anſwer to which, we ſay, that all who make a credible profeſſion of faith, are proper ſubjects, together with infants, or children in minority. It is agreed, that profeſſed believers are ſubjects of baptiſm. And that this ordinance is not to be adminiſtered to one of adult age, unleſs he has in ſome manner made a credible profeſſion of (at leaſt, penitential) faith. But that the infants of members of the viſible church are to be received as members alſo, and as the proper ſubjects of baptiſm, has ••• n denied by ſome; and the adminiſtering the ordinance to infants, has been cenſured as irregular, unwarrantable, of no validity or advantage.

I ſhall ••••• fore 〈◊〉 to prove and vindicate the "di 〈…〉 baptiſm," as briefly and plainly as I 〈◊〉

〈◊〉 •••••• ce of this deſign, I ſhall, firſt, repreſent the 〈◊〉 and plaineſt reaſon, upon which I believe in •••• 〈◊〉 to be a divine ordinance.—Then I will conſider •• e principal objections that are made to it.

But before I enter on the proof of the point be •••• us, let it be obſerved and remembered—That there i nothing poſitive in the New Teſtament againſt infant baptiſm. It is no where ſaid or hinted, that the Apoſtles forbid or refuſed, or declined to baptize infants; or that any child of a believer was, after he was grown up, baptized upon a profeſſion of faith. It muſt alſo be acknowledged, that infants are capable not only of the outward ſign of baptiſm, but alſo of having an intereſt in the bleſſings and Grace of the New Covenant, and coming under its bonds, which is the thing ſignified in the ordinance, and that they need thoſe New Covenant bleſſings. Further, it is no where declared in ſcripture, either in expreſs, or equivalent terms, that "adult perſons only," or that "none but thoſe who believe," or profeſs faith, are to be baptized. In ſhort, there is abſolutely and perfectly nothing that ſtands in the way of our embracing the doctrine of infant baptiſm, if we can find any kind of evidence in favour of it, either expreſs or conſequential.—This then is what we have now to inquire into, viz. Whether any ſuch evidence appears? And I think enough may be collected from the ſcriptures to put the matter beyond all reaſonable doubt.

And my firſt argument is taken from the church memberſhip of infants:

All thoſe who are to be received as members of the viſible church are the ſubjects of baptiſm.—But infants are to be received as members of the viſible church. They are therefore ſubjects of Baptiſm.

Firſt, I ſay that all who 〈…〉 members of the viſible church, are 〈…〉 iſm. This is granted by our opponents, particularly 〈◊〉 Dr. Gill, moſt expreſly. "Let it be proved," 〈◊〉 he, "that in •• nts are or ought to be members of ••• pel churches—and we ſhall readily admit them," i. e. to ••••• ſm.—Anſwer to Dickinſ •• , p. 89.

Some have pretended "that it is inconſiſtent to ſay, that a right to baptiſm is grounded upon church memberſhip, and yet that we are admitted into the church by baptiſm." But this is a mere cavil. The right of church memberſhip is one thing; and admiſſion into the viſible church is another. They who are qualified for admiſſion into the church, according to the rule of the goſpel, are members by right, before they are members by admiſſion. And they are accordingly to be received as rightful members by baptiſm, an ſo admitted in an orderly way to thoſe ſubſequent privileges of chriſtian communion, to which baptiſm is a regular and ſolemn introduction. For the right of church memberſhip, though it give ••• immediate claim to admiſſion into the church by baptiſm, yet it does not give an immediate and or ••• ly claim to any, while 〈…〉 all the privileges of admitted and baptized mem •••• But be this as it will, whether the right of church memberſhip be 〈◊〉 to baptiſm, or baptiſm be antecedent to church memberſhip, it cannot be denied that all thoſe are the proper ſubjects of baptiſm, who are, 〈◊〉 ought to be ad members of the goſpel church.

N •• 〈◊〉 be made to appear, that infants are, or ought to 〈◊〉 acknowledged and admitted as members of the viſible church, we muſt una ••• dably conclude that they are ſubjects of baptiſm. And this is what I undertake to prove. And there is a remarkable paſſage rec ••• ed by three of the Evangeliſts which ſeems to be ſufficient to determine the point. I will recite it at 〈◊〉 , collecting all the particulars mentioned in the ſeveral accounts. Mat. xix. 13, 15, Mark x. 13, 16, Luke xviii. 15, 16,—And they brought unto him little children, infants, that he ſhould touch them, put his 〈…〉 th d pray: and his Diſciples reb •••• th •• , i. e. thoſe who brought them. But when Jeſus ſaw it he was much diſpleaſed, and called them to him, and ſaid unto them, ſuffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, f r of ſuch is the kingdom of Heaven. Verily I ſay unto you, whoſoever ſhall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he ſhall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put or laid his hands upon them, and bleſſed them.

Theſe were young "infant" children which were brought to Chriſt, whom he took up in his arms, as we are expreſsly told. They who brought them gave evidence of their faith in him; for they brought them that he might put his hands on them and pray. We may alſo obſerve, that it was agreeable to the mind of Chriſt that they ſhould be brought to him; for when the diſciples rebuked thoſe that brought them, Jeſus ſeeing it, was much diſpleaſed. The diſpoſition they manifeſted on this occaſion to deſpiſe little ones, and ſet themſelves above them, as if young children were not fit to be introduced into their company, Chriſt did much diſlike. And he was alſo diſpleaſed, as it ſeems, to find they were ſo dull of underſtanding, and ſo miſtaken in their apprehenſions. They might reaſonably have concluded, that as little children always had been received as members of the church of God, as Chriſt had not intimated any de •••••• cut them off from this their right, as they needed his bleſſing, and were capable of 〈◊〉 on theſe grounds they ought to have concluded, that it was fit and proper that they ſhould be preſented to the Meſſiah, the king of Iſrael, as his diſciples and ſubjects, that they might receive his bleſſing.—But the diſciples ſeem to have reaſoned in a quite different manner, as ſome others have done ſince. To what purpoſe is it to bring theſe little children hither? They are not capable of being taught. They do not underſtand what is in •• aded to be done with them. It will be of no advantage to them. We cannot look upon them to be believers, o 〈◊〉 to belong to our ſoci ••• uch 〈◊〉 as the •• they ſeem to have had. 〈…〉 are as plain and pointed as po ſt 〈◊〉 —Their miſtake at this time gave our 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 to declare his mind fully and expreſsly upon the •• ſe of infants; that they are of the kingdom of 〈◊〉 ; and therefore none ſhould forbid, or diſcourage 〈…〉 bringing and preſenting them to him. Suf ••••• little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of ſuch is the kingdom of heaven.

From theſe words it appears, in the firſt place, that 〈◊〉 are the children of the covenant, belong to the •• urch of God: for this is what we are here to underſtand by the kingdom of heaven, as I ſhall ſhew preſently. Such as theſe, properly and naturally ſignifies, perſons of this ſort or claſs, and that come under this denomination.—They were included among that ſort of perſons; even as the woman taken in adultery was one of thoſe condemned by that law, which commanded that ſuch ſhould be •••• ed.

〈◊〉 would fain have the meaning of this expreſſion 〈◊〉 That thoſe who reſemble little children in hu •••• ty belong to the kingdom of heaven. But how 〈◊〉 and unnatural is this? Chriſtians are to reſemſemble lambs and doves for meekneſs, as well as infants. But what ſhould we think of a man that ſhould ſay to his ſervant: Suffer the ſheep and lambs to come to me, and hinder them not, for of ſuch is the kingdom of heaven?—Would not this be highly improper, and worſe than ridiculous? And yet this would be juſt as proper as the words of Chriſt are, according to the meaning that theſe would force upon them.—The reaſon Chriſt gives why the little children ſhould be brought to him, is, becauſe of ſuch is the kingdom of God. And a very plain and pertinent reaſon it is, as we underſtand it. For if children belong to the kingdom of Chriſt, we can ſee a manifeſt fitneſs that they ſhould be preſented to him as his ſubjects and people, that he might own them, and give them his bleſſing. But what weight 〈…〉 there in ſuch a reaſon as our adver •• 〈…〉 for bringing theſe children to 〈◊〉 uffer little children to come to me, for ••• gh it is true they belong not to my kingdom, yet 〈◊〉 ſubjects of my kingdom are ſomewhat like them. There is that in little children which looks like meekneſs and humility, and is a fit emblem of it. Muſt every thing then that any ways reſembles true chriſtians, be brought to Chriſt, for him to lay his hand upon it, and pray over it? What an uncouth, unintelligible reaſon is this for bringing children to Chriſt? Which will ſerve as well for a reaſon why lambs and doves ſhould be brought and preſented to him, as Mr. Henry well obſerves. Becauſe the kingdom of God conſiſts of grown perſons, meek and harmleſs like children, is it a juſt and plain conſequence, that children ſhould be brought and preſented to Chriſt; though they belong not to his kingdom? Surely no one has any cauſe to be diſpleaſed with another (as Chriſt was with his diſciples) for not apprehending weight in ſuch a reaſon as this. Indeed there is no weight in it.

Again, the reception which Chriſt gave thoſe children, and his actions towards them, may put it out of all doubt that he acknowledged them as the ſubjects of his kingdom. For he took them in his arms, put his hands upon them, and bleſſed them. Chriſt never pronounced a ſolemn bleſſing upon any but thoſe whom he owned as the ſubjects of his kingdom. By laying his hands on theſe children and bleſſing them, he recognized them as his own people, and put upon them the •• me token of acknowledgment which he gave his diſciples immediately before his aſcenſion. The bleſſing was always looked upon as a ſacred thing, which belonged only to the profeſſed worſhippers and people of God; eſpecially that ſolemn religious bleſſing in the name of God, with impoſition of hands, which had been practiſed in the church in all ages. None were the ſubjects of this, upon any occaſion that we read of, but they that belonged to the church. When we read that God bleſſed Noah, and Abraham, and the other 〈…〉 no doubt but that hereby he owned them, in 〈◊〉 ſolemn manner, as his people. And ſhall any be 〈◊〉 reaſonable as to deny or call in queſtion the church ••• berſhip of infants, after Chriſt himſelf has not only declared that of ſuch is the kingdom of heaven, but has given this further token and teſtimony of the ſame, even laying on his hands, and pronouncing a bleſſing upon them: which is as diſtinguiſhing a token of church memberſhip as baptiſm itſelf, or any other ordinance whatever.

Infants then muſt be allowed to belong to the kingdom of heaven. Chriſt has declared them ſo by words and actions as ſignificant as poſſible. But, it may be inquired, What are we to underſtand by the kingdom of heaven? I anſwer, it is plainly the church that is here meant.—It will be needleſs to confirm this by particular quotations; they are ſo many, and ſo well known to all who have read the New Teſtament with any attention. Nor is it denied by any that I know of: and, I think, it is the Viſible Church that is to be underſtood.

Chriſt declares, that theſe children were then members of the kingdom of heaven. Of ſuch is the kingdom of heaven. But, will any ſay, that the kingdom of glory conſiſts of thoſe who are have upon earth? They were upon earth, and were in the kingdom of heaven upon earth, if they were in it at all; that is, in the kingdom of grace or viſible church.

But, if it were ſuppoſed, that theſe words are to be underſtood as affirming, that children belong to the inviſible church, and as ſuch, are heirs of the kingdom of glory; yet this will prove that they ought to be acknowledged and received as members of the viſible church. For, can they be reaſonably refuſed a place in the church on earth, whom Chriſt affirms to be heirs of heaven? If we have evidence that they belong to Chriſt, as his peculiar people, there needs no more to ime any one a clear and undoubted ••• ht, in the account f the church, to be received as belonging to him, or as 〈◊〉 of the church on earth. And what better evi ••••• 〈◊〉 there be that any are ſubjects of the kingdom of ••• ven, than the teſtimony of the king himſelf? Is 〈◊〉 any profeſſion of faith that ought to have more 〈◊〉 in the church? Though infants are not able to ſp •• k for themſelves, yet Chriſt has ſpoken for them, declaring, that "of ſuch is the kingdom of heaven." And, is not the teſtimony of Chriſt a ſufficient credential to warrant our receiving them? Our Lord ſubjoins the following memorable words, in which he ſtrikes at the very root of his diſciples' error, which their conduct diſcovered. Whoſoever ſhall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, ſhall not enter therein. The diſciples were much diſpoſed to ſtand upon their diſtinctions. They ſeemed to think that they had a clearer and better title to the privileges of the Meſſiah's kingdom than infants. They were actual believers and followers of Chriſt; which could not be ſaid of babes. If theſe are admitted to have a part in this kingdom, it muſt be conſidered as a ſpecial indulgence and favour to them, who have done nothing to give them any claim to ſuch a privilege. Whereas, thought they, we have left all for the kingdom of heaven's ſake. And, ſhal theſe be allowed to have as good a title as we? "Yea ſays Chriſt, their title is as good as yours in all reſpects." It is, indeed, an act of mere grace and favour, that infants are admitted. They have done nothing to merit it. And, do you imagine, that any thin that you have done gives you any peculiar claim to the •• privileges? Do you conſider the kingdom of heave as the due reward for any doings of yours? No, be 〈◊〉 known to you, that your title ariſes entirely from th free grace and gift of God, as well as theirs. If y •• will not receive the kingdom of God, and hold it 〈◊〉 the ſame title that little children do (viz. as the free g ••• of God made over to them by his covenant and promi •• as his adopted children) you ſhall not enter therein."Receiving the kingdom of God as a little child," is monly explained to mean, receiving the privileges of the king of heaven with humility, or a child-like temper. I think, it gives a ſenſe more appoſite to the occaſion, if we underſtand the 〈◊〉 as imparting, that we muſt receive and hold the kingdom of heaven by the ſame right and title with children.

The common exception, "That thoſe 〈…〉 not baptized by Chriſt, nor were brought to 〈◊〉 any ſuch purpoſe," is altogether impertinent. 〈◊〉 not argue, that infants are the ſubjects of baptiſm, 〈◊〉 cauſe we ſuppoſe that theſe infants were bap •••• by Chriſt; but that infants belong to the church, is here plainly aſſerted; and that all ſuch as belong to the church, are the ſubjects of baptiſm, cannot be de •••• , t is further aſked, "Why Chriſt did not th •• bapti •• them, if they were proper ſubjects? Before men urge ſuch queſtions, they ſhould make it appear, that thoſe infants had not been baptized before. However, whether they were baptized or not, is of no importance to us. If they were not baptized, it is not incumbent on us to give the reaſon. But it is incumbent on thoſe who aſk ſuch queſtions, to ſhew, Why it ſhould be thought neceſſary, that all members of the goſpel church ſhould then be baptized before baptiſm was fully ſettled as the ordinary right of admiſſion, which was not till after Chriſt's reſurrection. But, if Chriſt did not baptize theſe children, yet he gave them as ſure a token of church memberſhip as baptiſm itſelf, when he laid his hands upon them and bleſſed them. It is further objected, "Chriſt's entire ſilence about inſtant baptiſm at this time, has no favourable aſpect on ſuch a practice." Anſwer, Chriſt having aſſerted the church memberſhip of infants, and ſolemnly bleſſed them with impoſition of hands, and having ſaid nothing againſt the baptiſm of them, more than of a •••• , theſe things have a very favourable aſpect on the practice of infant baptiſm, and imply a good warrant for it. After having thus owned them as his people, both by words and actions, if it had been his will that the ſacrament of ind ction ſhould not henceforth be adminiſtered to infants, as heretofore, but only to adults, he would not have failed to have given 〈◊〉 intimation on this occaſion, that notwithſtanding 〈◊〉 e had ſaid and done, infants were not to be bap •••• Chriſt's ſaying nothing againſt infant baptiſm o 〈◊〉 occaſion, when it appears ſo neceſſary to prevent •••• kes, had infant baptiſm been contrary to his will, has no favourable aſpect on the practice of thoſe who refuſe to admit them.

I have enlarged the more upon this proof of th church memberſhip of infants, becauſe I take it to b very deciſive and unanſwerable. And, I ſhall lay before you another paſſage, which will fairly lead us to the ſame concluſion. Mark ix. 36, 37, Jeſus took a child, and ſet him in the midſt of them, and when he had taken him in his arms, he ſaid unto them; whoſoever ſhall receive one of ſuch children in my name, receiveth me.

Now obſerve, Chriſt ſays, "Whoſoever ſhall receive one of ſuch children" (or, "this child," as it is in Luke ix. 48) "in my name, receiveth me." To receive one in the name of Chriſt, is to receive him as belonging to him. So the words are clearly explained i the 41ſt verſe of this chapter, Whoſoever ſhall giv you to drink a cup of water in my name, becauſe y belong to Chriſt, verily I ſay unto you, he ſhall no loſe his reward. Since then Chriſt would have 〈◊〉 receive little children in his name, as belonging to him and declares, that in ſo doing we receive him; we may aſſuredly conclude, that they are to be reputed as belonging to him, as the members of his church. When therefore, a believer offers his child to the church, to b received by baptiſm, as belonging to Chriſt, and admitted as a member of the ſame body; ſhall they refuſe to receive it in his name? Shall they thus deſpiſe Chriſt's little ones, as to ſhut the doors of his houſe upon them and, as much as in them lies, caſt them out of the inheritance of the Lord, and declare that they have n part in the Lord, and lay ſuch a ſtumbling block before our children, to make them ceaſe from fearing the Lord? Joſh. xxii. 25. God forbid! Take he •• that ye deſpiſe not, and offend not one of theſe little ones.

Let us now conſider more particularly the words of our text, containing the Apoſtolic commiſſion. Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt: teaching them to obſerve all things whatſoever I have commanded you. It has been obſerved, that the words properly ſignify, Go make or admit all nations Diſciples, baptizing them—teaching them, &c. This, our oppoſers do not deny. But, they ſay, that no one can be made a diſciple but by teaching; which is true, only with reſpect to adults: becauſe no "ſuch perſons," are to be admitted into the ſchool of Chriſt, but by their own conſent, and a previous profeſſion of their faith in him, and obedience to him; and this neceſſarily pre-requires teaching. But to argue from hence, that infants are not to be admitted as diſciples, becauſe not in a preſent capacity of being taught, and profeſſing their faith, is no better than begging the queſtion, talking at random, and without proof. Though adults are not made diſciples, till they are firſt taught, and are not admitted but upon a profeſſion of faith, yet with infants the caſe is otherwiſe. They are to be admitted by the order of Jeſus Chriſt, without a perſonal profeſſion and conſent, of which they are not capable. But this may be further conſidered afterwards.

Let us now ſee whether any thing can be argued from the words, in favour of infant diſcipleſhip and baptiſm.—When the Apoſtles received an order to diſciple all nations, they would naturally underſtand, that they had it in charge to make all nations proſelytes, to introduce and admit them into the church of Chriſt, as a ſchool, in which they were to be taught and trained up in the knowledge and obſervance of chriſtianity, in order to their being meet for heaven. It is true neither infants nor adults are expreſsly named. But the Apoſtles were ſent to diſciple and baptize "the nations," which none can deny, include perſons of every age. And the Apoſtles muſt needs have underſtood that it was their buſineſs to make Diſciples of the infants, and baptize them as well as others. For, let it be remembered that the Apoſtles had been educated in the Jewiſh church, of which infants had all along been undoubted members They underſtood that the memberſhip of ſuch had never been called in queſtion, ſince there had been a church in the world. They knew that the infants of proſelyte from among the Gentiles were conſtantly admitted and circumciſed, together with their parents. Not only ſo, but ſuch infants were baptized; as the ancient Jews report. They knew that Chriſt had taught them that little children belonged to the kingdom of Heaven; that he had accordingly laid his hands, and pronounced a ſolemn bleſſing upon them; and ſignified his will that they be received in his name, as belonging to him; and that themſelves had been reproved by him for forbidding infants to be brought to receive his bleſſing. They knew, that the admiſſion of the children into the church, with the parents, was always reckoned a great privilege; that Chriſt never ſaid or intimated that it was his will that infants ſhould be cut off, or not admitted ſtill as members of the goſpel church. They underſtood that the privileges of the church were to be enlarged, and not abridged in any reſpect.—Now, the Apoſtles, whoſe views and apprehenſions may have been ſuch as has been repreſented, would, without doubt, have underſtood that they were inſtructed by their commiſſion, to admit the children with the parents into the number of proſelytes by the initiating rite, as had been the conſtant practice of the church.—They muſt have underſtood the matter as a miniſter who had never heard that infant baptiſm was ever objected to, would underſtand his charge, if he was ordained and ſent out to preach to the heathen, and gather churches among them, baptizing them. It would be unnatural, and highly unreaſonable for them to underſtand the matter otherwiſe. This then muſt be received as the juſt interpretation of the commiſſion. It is the natural and true meaning: which is ſo far from cutting off infants from the goſpel church, that it furniſhes us with a good warrant for admitting them.

We have another unanſwerable proof, that the children of believers are fit to be members of the viſible church, and ſubjects of baptiſm, in 1 Cor. vii. 14, 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. The Apoſtle had juſt ſaid, that a believer ought not to ſeparate from an unbelieving wife, who was willing to continue in the marriage relation. And in theſe words he removes a doubt which might be apt to ariſe in their minds, viz. Whether the children born in ſuch a marriage were to be reckoned as fit to be of the church, with the believing parents; or were to be ranked with the unbelieving parent, and ſo reckoned among heathens that were without?—Though infants had always been received as members of the Old Teſtament church, yet when the Jews had, in the time of Ezia married ſtrange wives which had born them children, theſe children were not received; but it was ordered that they be put away, together with their heathen parents, as unclean. It might therefore be a ſcruple, whether a believer, and member of the Chriſtian church, were obliged or allowed to live in the ſtate of marriage with an unbeliever; and whether their children were not to be excluded from the church, as the unclean offspring of a heathen parent; as had been determined among the Jews in the caſe juſt mentioned. This point, the Apoſtle plainly reſolves, declaring, that a believer is not defiled by having conjugal ſociety with an unbeliever. On the contrary, ſays he, "The unbelieving huſband is ſanctified by the wife," or rather is ſanctified in or to the wife, and the unbelieving wife is ſanctified in or to the huſband. That is, the believer, has a lawful and ſanctified enjoyment of an unbelieving yoke-fellow. For, as the Apoſtle elſewhere teaches us, All things are pure to him that is pure. And every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refuſed. For, it is ſanctified by the word of God and prayer. Thus the unbelieving huſband or wife is ſanctified to the believer, as every creature of God is, which we may have occaſion to uſe. Formerly, all that were out of the pale of the church were accounted unclean; and a Jew would have been defiled by living with a heathen wife. But now there is no defilement in the lawful uſe of any of God's creatures. They are all ſanctified to a believer. Or we may take the meaning of theſe words thus: a believer and unbeliever being married together, are one fleſh; they are one principle or ſource of offspring. But though an unbeliever, conſidered in himſelf perſonally, is unholy, and has no claim to church privileges; yet the children are entitled to theſe privileges, as fully and perfectly in all reſpects, as if both the parents were believers. For the unbelieving huſband being one fleſh with the believing wife, is ſanctified in or by her, ſo far as reſpects the church privileges of children. The huſband, though an unbeliever, is, in conſequence of his union in marriage with a believer, in ſome ſort ſanctified. The unbeliever, in this relation is capable of tranſmitting church privileges to his offspring, to as good advantage as any believer.

The Apoſtle goes on—Elſe were your children unclean, as the heathen were termed and accounted. All thoſe who were aliens from the commonwealth of Iſrael, and ſtrangers to the covenant of the promiſe, and not members of the church of God, were commonly reputed uncircumciſed and unclean. They were not admitted into the holy place, or to attend on holy ordinances. Now, if the unbelieving wife were not ſanctified to and by the believer, as has been ſaid, the children muſt have been unclean, and ſo not be received as members of the church, and ſubjects of holy ordinances.—But now they are holy—and are to be admitted into the viſible church, into the ſociety and fellowſhip of thoſe who are viſibly ſeparated from the reſt of the world, and devoted to God as his holy people. The word, Holy, as it is uſed in ſcripture, is applied to perſons and things that are devoted and d ••• cated to God. Men are termed holy either as being ſeparated from the reſt of mankind, and ſtanding in a peculiar relation to God, as his viſible profeſſing people; or as being conformed to the will and moral image of God in temper and practice. The one is called a relative, the other an inherent holineſs. The firſt is attributed to all thoſe who belong to the viſible church. Thus the people of Iſrael are all ſpoken of as an holy people. And, upon the ſame account, goſpel churches are conſidered as conſiſting of faints, or holy perſons. For, though it is not ſuppoſed that they are all really and inherently holy, or partakers of a divine nature, yet they are viſibly the people of God, ſeparated and devoted to him. But let it be particularly noted, that no perſon is ever ſtiled holy, from the beginning to the end of the bible, except he be of the church of God. And in the New Teſtament, a Saint, or Holy Perſon, a Diſciple of Chriſt, a Member of the Church, and a Subject of the Kingdom of Heaven, are of the ſame ſignification. Now, ſince we find that the title or appellation of Holy is never given to any perſon in the world, except he be of the church; and ſince the Apoſtle declares, that the children of believers are holy; it is a plain and undeniable conſequence, that ſuch children are of the church, and are the proper ſubjects of baptiſm, as was to be proved.

The Antipedobaptiſts have endeavoured, in vain, to wring and wreſt theſe words of the Apoſtle to a compliance with their tenets.—But, in the firſt place they would perſuade us, That the Holineſs which the Apoſtle here intends, cannot be that which is implied in, and connected with church memberſhip.—For, they ſay, the ſame Holineſs which is aſcribed to the children, is alſo attributed to the unbelieving parent.— If the children are Holy, the unbelieving huſband and wife are alſo ſaid to be ſanctified. But, I anſwer, the Apoſtle's words plainly ſhew, that the unbelieving yoke-fellow is only ſanctified to the believer, as all the creatures of God are ſaid to be ſanctified to the Saints, ſo as that they may have a holy uſe and enjoyment of them. He is not ſanctified in reſpect to God, but only in reſpect to his wife and offspring, who derive no more defilement either by conjugal cohabitation with or by natural generation from him, than if he were a believer.—In a word, the unbelieving huſband is only ſanctified in that particular reſpect, and unto the particular purpoſe there pointed at, as has been ſaid.—But the Children are declared to be not unclean, but "holy." A title which is never given to any but thoſe that are of the church. Unbelievers who belong not to the church may be ſanctified, or prepared as inſtruments to anſwer the purpoſes of divine goodneſs to the ſaints. But this reſpective ſanctification does never give them the denomination of "Holy ones." The words of the text, and the reaſon of the thing therefore plainly ſhew, that the ſanctification of the unbelieving huſband or wife is a different thing from the holineſs of the children.— This gives a good, pertinent, and inſtructive ſenſe to the Apoſtle's words, which are taken and explained in the ſcriptural ſenſe, as no doubt they ought to be.

And hence we ſee, there is no juſt foundation for that objection, That the unbelieving parent being ſanctified by a believing yoke-fellow, may as well be concluded to be a member of the church and ſubject of baptiſm, as the children whoſe holineſs depends upon this ſanctification of the parents. For a perſon's being ſanctified in ſome certain reſpect, does not give him the denomination of a holy one, in the language of the ſcriptures; which is a peculiar and appropriate title of thoſe who belong to the church, and is never given to any others of the children of men. And, ſince the children are Holy, which is not ſaid of the unbelieving parent, though in ſome reſpect ſanctified, the children are to be acknowledged as of the church, but not the unbelieving parent.

Let us now conſider how this paſſage is expounded by thoſe on the other ſide. And here they would perſuade us, that the Apoſtle means, what they call, a matrimonial holineſs. And that the meaning of the text is, The unbelieving huſband is married or eſpouſed to the wife, and the unbelieving wife married to the huſband: elſe were your children baſtards, but now are they legitimate. I do not think it will be needful to ſay much to expoſe the unreaſonableneſs of this interpretation. It is ſo ſtrained and unnatural, it ſo ſinks and ſpoils the ſenſe, and is ſo utterly without foundation, that I think it may paſs for one of the moſt improbable, unhandſome, and incredible gloſſes, that we ſhall readily meet with upon any text whatever. Neither the Corinthians, nor any one elſe doubted, or had need to be told, that the unbelieving huſband had been and was married to the wife, and the unbelieving wife to the huſband. For, how could they be huſband and wife, if they had not been married together? And, can any one believe in ſober earneſt, that the inſpired Apoſtle filled up his epiſtle with ſuch a trifling ridiculous buſineſs, as telling his converts, that if they had children without being married, the children would be baſtards, but now as they had been married, they were legitimate? Far be it from any chriſtian to burleſque the ſacred ſcriptures, at this rate.—A profane infidel, who would ridicule the Apoſtle, could ſcarce give his words a meaner, and more ludicrous turn.

THAT the infant ſeed of believers are members of the church, and ſubjects of baptiſm, further appears from their intereſt in that gracious covenant, by which the church is conſtituted. To ſtate and clear up this argument at full length, would require a large diſcourſe. I muſt only give a brief ſketch.

I think it is granted, that all who are viſibly intereſted in the new covenant, are to be received as members of the viſible church; and that the outward token of an intereſt in the covenant, and of admiſſion into the viſible church belongs to them. After the fall of man, by the breach of the firſt covenant, God was pleaſed to reveal a new and gracious covenant, of which Chriſt was the Mediator; which was to be the rule of intercourſe and communion between God and his people, and the great charter by which the church was formed. All who were taken into this covenant were thereby ſeparated from the reſt of mankind, and brought into a peculiar relation to God, as his people and ſubjects, to be ruled by the ſpecial laws, and obſerve the ſpecial ordinances, and enjoy the ſpecial privileges of his kingdom. This kingdom of grace was to make an outward appearance upon earth, and have an outward adminiſtration in the viſible church, according to the rules which God ordained. And according to theſe rules, all who were viſibly in the covenant, were to be admitted as members of the viſible church. They were to have the appointed token of the covenant put upon them, and were viſible ſubjects of the outward ordinances and privileges of the church. For, a viſible intereſt in the covenant, a right of memberſhip in the viſible church, a right to the token of the covenant and of church memberſhip, and to the outward ordinances and privileges, which, according to the covenant, belong to the church; theſe things are inſeparably connected together, and mutually infer each other. Many, it is true, who are in the covenant viſibly, and in the acceptation of the church, have not a real and ſaving intereſt in new covenant bleſſings. They will not at laſt be owned by God as his peculiar people; nor is there a ſpiritual, effectual, and ſaving application of the grace of the new covenant to them. Hence ariſes the common diſtinction between the viſible, and the inviſible church.

Now, if this covenant, by which the church is formed and conſtituted, includes the children with the parents, then the token of the covenant, and of admiſſion into the church, belongs regularly and viſibly to them. This then is the point we have to prove.

Let it be remembered, in the firſt place, that the ſuppoſition of infants being comprehended in the covenant, and being the ſubjects of its outward adminiſtration in the viſible church, is no ways incredible, on account of any incapacity in them. For, they are certainly capable of coming under its bonds, and having the grace of it ſecured and applied to them; and they greatly need new covenant bleſſings. It is an important privilege to them to belong to the viſible church, that they may, under its watch, inſtructions, and diſcipline, be trained up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. They are alſo capable of having the outward token of the covenant put upon them; which may afterwards be improved by them for their excitement and encouragement in the ſervice of God. In ſhort, infants are, for ought that appears, as capable ſubjects as any, of the obligations, the privileges, and token of the covenant; and they ſtand in like need thereof with others. The preſumption, therefore, is not at all againſt, but rather in favour of their being comprehended in the covenant, as well as others.

We may further obſerve, that it has always been cuſtomary for children to be included in covenants with the parents; to come under the bonds, and receive the privileges therein ſtipulated. That this is common in covenants which take place among mankind, is known to all; and no one imagines there is any thing unreaſonable and improper in it, if the covenant be in itſelf good and reaſonable. It is alſo certain, that when God has been pleaſed to covenant with mankind, the children as well as the parents have been comprehended. This appears to have been the caſe in the covenant with Adam, with Noah, with Abraham, and with the Iſraelites at Horeb. Indeed, this ſeems to have been the caſe in all God's federal tranſactions with the children of men. It is, therefore, altogether agreeable to the common ſenſe of mankind, and the method of God's government of his people, that his covenant with them ſhould reſpect and take in both them and their ſeed. And this conſideration may, I think, render it quite credible and probable that the new covenant, by which the church is conſtituted, may be, in this reſpect, ſimilar to God's covenant tranſactions with mankind, which, ſo far as appears, have conſtantly comprehended the children with the parents.

But, having premiſed theſe obſervations, I ſhall proceed to the direct and poſitive proof, that the children of God's covenant people, have alſo an intereſt in the covenant. The new covenant, which, I have ſaid, is the great charter by which the church is formed, do moſt plainly and expreſsly take them in. It was, indeed, this new covenant I am ſpeaking of, that was revealed to our firſt parents the very day that they fell, and by the propoſal of it to them, they were conſtituted th viſible church and people of God, before they were expelled from paradiſe.—It was again revealed to Noah after the flood, whereby he, with his children, were again recognized by God as his church and people. The ſame covenant was afterwards more clearly and diſtinctly revealed to Abraham, and the ordinance of circumciſion was annexed, as an outward ſign and token. And though there are ſufficient intimations, that the ſeed of God's viſible and profeſſed people, had always, from the beginning, been conſidered as in the covenant, and church of God; yet as this is moſt expreſsly declared in the revelation which God made of his gracious covenant to Abraham, I ſhall take this more eſpecially as the ground of the preſent argument.

The Abrahamic covenant, I ſay, was but a plainer exhibition of that ſame new and gracious covenant, which had been all along the foundation and charter of the church. The addition of a new ordinance, and the grant of a particular country to him and his natural poſterity, made no alteration in its ſubſtantial duties, or privileges, but only pointed out a different external adminiſtration, which was to take place in the church. Hitherto the external adminiſtration of the church ſeems to have been domeſtic; the ordinances of worſhip being diſtinctly and ſeparately adminiſtered in the ſeveral families of the Patriarchs: nor do we read of ſolemn aſſemblies, for the purpoſe of attending public worſhip. But, as God had a deſign of forming a national church, of the poſterity of Abraham, all the members of which were to join and have an external communion with each other in the ſame ordinances, and acts of worſhip; this different mode of adminiſtration was provided for in the grant of the land of Canaan to the poſterity of Abraham; that ſo they might be formed into a political body, and live together, for their convenient attendance on holy ordinances. But this proviſion, which was made for a different external adminiſtration in the church, is no argument but that the covenant which was revealed to Abraham was, for ſubſtance, the very ſame with that by which the church had at firſt been formed, and had all along ſubſiſted.

This may ſhew how unreaſonably ſome would inſinuate, that we would make ſeveral covenants of grace. As if the ſame covenant could not be revealed at ſundry times, and in divers manners, and, as if there might not be a different external adminiſtration of ordinances in the church at different times, and yet the covenant by which the church is conſtituted remain ſubſtantially the ſame.

Now, that we may diſtinctly ſtate this argument, grounded on the covenant with Abraham, let us take a view of it as we have it recorded in Gen. xvii. I am the Almighty God, walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. As for me, my covenant is with thee, and thou ſhalt be a father of many nations. Neither ſhall thy name any more be Abram, but thy name ſhall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and Kings ſhall come out of thee.—And 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 to thy ſeed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy ſeed after thee, the land in which thou art a ſtranger; all the land of Canaan for an everlaſting poſſeſſion, and I will be their God. Thou ſhalt keep my covenant therefore, thou and thy ſeed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant which ye ſhall keep between me and you, and thy ſeed after thee: Every man child among you ſhall be circumciſed. And ye ſhall circumciſe the fleſh of your foreſkin, and it ſhall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old ſhall be circumciſed among you, every man child i your generations; he that is born in the 〈…〉 bought with money of any ſtranger 〈…〉 thy ſeed. He that is born in thy houſe, and he that is bought with thy money, muſt needs be circumciſed; and my covenant ſhall be in your fleſh for an everlaſting covenant. And the uncircumciſed man child whoſe fleſh of his foreſkin is not circumciſed, that ſoul ſhall be cut off from his people: he hath broken my covenant.

From this memorable paſſage, which I have recited at large, we ſee that the Abrahamic covenant comprehended the children with the parents, in their ſucceſſive generations; and that the outward token of an intereſt in the covenant was to be applied to infants. We may further obſerve, that all who were included in this covenant were by it conſtituted a viſible church, ſeparated from the reſt of the world to be the people of God. That grand article of the covenant, I will be a God to thee and thy ſeed, implies, that they were to ſtand in a peculiar relation to God, as his church; who were to be ſubject to peculiar laws and ordinances, by obſerving which, they declared on their part, That they were his People. This promiſe contains alſo the ſum of new covenant bleſſings. The promiſes and ordinances did appertain only to the church; of which all who had an intereſt in the covenant were members. Infants, therefore, being expreſsly included in the covenant, were always looked upon as of the people of God; and were to receive the diſtinguiſhing token of a covenant dedication to him.

Nor was this covenant, with its ordinances and privieges, ever limited to Abraham, and his natural poſterity, and particularly that article which takes the infant ſeed into the church with the parents, was not any peculiar privilege of the native Hebrews: nor was circumciſion appointed as the token of a peculiar intereſt in thoſe temporal bleſſings, which were granted excluſively to the natural ſeed of Abraham, as ſome would pretend. For it appears that by the expreſs direction of God ſome were to have the token of the covenant and of church memberſhip for themſelves and their children, who were neither the natural deſcendants of Abraham, nor were with them to inherit the land of Canaan. When circumciſion was firſt inſtituted, not only Abraham, with his ſon Iſhmael, but all the males of his family were ordered to have this token of admiſſion into the viſible church. And it was a ſtanding rule, that bought ſervants, and children born in the houſe, ſhould be circumciſed. And the Old Teſtament church did receive proſelytes from the Gentiles; and this token of their intereſt in the covenant of Abraham was accordingly adminiſtered to them and their children; who were thereupon ſubjects of Church ordinances and privileges. But this their intereſt in the covenant of Abraham gave them no right of inheritance with the native Iſraelites in the land of Canaan. Which I think is a clear proof, that the covenant with Abraham, to which circumciſion was annexed, was not any mere national covenant, conveying peculiar temporal privileges to him and his poſterity, but it could be no other than God's new and gracious covenant; by the revelation of which, thoſe who profeſſedly conſented to it, with their children, were conſtituted his viſible church and people, and were the regular ſubjects of the ordinances appertaining to its outward adminiſtration.

The Abrahamic covenant, we ſee, did comprehend both parents and their infant children, conſtituting them members of the viſible church. And not only the natural children of Abraham, but many among the Gentiles, upon their becoming proſelytes, profeſſing the faith and religion of the church, they and their infant children had an intereſt in the covenant of Abraham, and were to be received into the viſible church by the initiating rite. They were adopted into the family of Abraham, and, the bleſſing of Abraham came upon the Gentiles," and he was "made the father of many nations, long before the goſpel diſpenſation took place, and before the diſſolution of the national hierarchy of the Jews, which was a middle wall of partition between them and the Gentiles. Even before this wall was taken away, there was a door left open in it, to receive all of every nation, who would join themſelves to the God of Abraham, and take hold of his covenant.

The church having been conſtituted, according to the covenant with Abraham, it muſt be allowed, that during its continuance, the children are as evidently in covenant, and of the church, and ſubjects of the initiating ordinance, as any others. If then it ſhall appear, that this covenant ſtands now in force, and that the goſpel church is in and under it, and enjoys all its privileges without any abridgement; the right of infants to church memberſhip will ſtand upon the ſame firm baſis that it did under the Old T ſtament.

But our opponents deny, that baptiſm comes in the room of circumciſion. And if we ſhould ſuppoſe with them, that it does not, it would be no proof but that the covenant itſelf may remain, though the outward token be laid aſide, as it is certain that the ſame covenant for ſubſtance had been revealed to, and adminiſtered in the church, long before circumciſion was inſtituted. And if the covenant remain, infants are ſtill fit to be church members, and conſequently are the ſubjects of baptiſm. But, indeed, it is no better than wrangling, to deny that baptiſm comes in the room of circumciſion: what we mean by the aſſertion is, that circumciſion being abrogated under the goſpel diſpenſation, baptiſm was inſtituted to be an outward token of an intereſt in the new covenant, the ſacramental rite of admiſſion into the viſible church, the ſign and badge of memberſhip, even as circumciſion had been to the fathers; and in a word, that it anſwers the like purpoſes in the goſpel church, and is of like myſtical and ſpiritual ſignificancy, as circumciſion was under the former diſpenſation. And this I ſhould think our adverſaries can ſcarcely deny.

Indeed, as circumciſion was afterwards annexed to the Horeb covenant, and ſo became an ordinance of the national church, and worldly ſanctuary of the Jews, binding the ſubjects to the obſervance of the whole of the Moſaic law, in this relation and reſpect, it muſt of courſe have ceaſed with the other Jewiſh ordinances, when that old covenant was abrogated.—And if our opponents only mean to deny, that baptiſm comes in the room of circumciſion, conſidered as a Moſaic ordinance, we ſhall not contend with them. But it ſhould be remembered, that circumciſion had been appointed as a token of the Abrahamic covenant, long before the Horeb covenant and national conſtitution of the church had a being. And I ſhall ſhew, that the Abrahamic covenant was the very ſame that the goſpel church is now under; and that it never was annulled.

It is objected, That the Apoſtle has declared, that the covenant, which was the foundation of the Jewiſh church, of which infants were members, is waxed old, and vaniſhed away, Heb. viii. 8, 9. I anſwer, The covenant which the Apoſtle ſays was ready to vaniſh, was that which God made with the Fathers, in the day that he took them by the hand, to lead them out of Egypt; that is, the covenant at Horeb. But that covenant, which is the foundation of infant church memberſhip, had been revealed to Abraham hundreds of years before; and the Apoſtle does not ſay, that this had waxed old, or was annulled; but the contrary. Infants were indeed members of the national hierarchy of the Jews, which is aboliſhed. But they had been church members long before this national church was formed; nor was the foundation of their memberſhip ſhaken, when that diſpenſation was taken away.

Let it then be conſidered, that the covenant of Abraham, containing a charter of privileges for the church, and the right of memberſhip for infant children, being an undoubted privilege granted in this covenant; it muſt be preſumptuous and injurious for any to deny that this covenant ſtands in force, or to pretend that infants are now cut off from this right and privilege, unleſs they can prove, that God has taken away this covenant, or at leaſt has cancelled that article, which is the foundation of infant church memberſhip. But there is no intimation in the ſcriptures that this covenant is annulled, or that infants are cut off from their intereſt in it. The old covenant which the Apoſtle ſays was vaniſhing, was the covenant made with the Iſraelites, when God led them out of Egypt. But of the aboliſhing that covenant which conſtitutes infants, church members, there is nothing to be found in the whole Bible. And, till it can be proved to be aboliſhed, it muſt be conſidered and held as valid as ever.

The Apoſtles are ſo far from teaching, that Chriſt has annulled God's gracious covenant with the fathers, or taken away any of the privileges therein granted to them or their children, that Paul aſſerts the contrary, in Rom. xv. 8, Jeſus Chriſt was a miniſter of the circumciſion, for the truth of God, to confirm the promiſes made to the fathers. Theſe promiſes are ſummarily contained in the covenant with Abraham, that the Lord would be a God to him and his ſeed; that he ſhould be a father of many nations; and that all the nations of the earth ſhould be bleſſed in him. Theſe promiſes are all confirmed by Chriſt. Abraham is the patriarch of the church. He is conſtitated the father of all them that believe; of all the people of God, of every nation; who are adopted into his family. Even the Gentiles, who were not his natural deſcendants, are received into the number, and entitled to the privileges of his children. He is made the father of more nations, than are derived from his blood. All the nations of the earth derive bleſſings from him, and hold their church privileges under him, as his children and heirs. The covenant with Abraham has, indeed, been accompliſhed more eminently ſince Chriſt confirmed it, than ever before. His family has been larger, and he has been made a father of more nations than ever. This article of the covenant, which receives the children with the parents into the church, is confirmed, as well as the reſt. It would be moſt unreaſonable to think otherwiſe, when the ſcriptures never hint that this article is reſcinded.—And we have, beſides, good evidence, that the chriſtian church has not loſt this privilege, but their children are ſtill children of the covenant, to greater advantage than ever.

The Apoſtle tells us again, That the covenant with Abraham was confirmed of God in Chriſt, and that the law which was four hundred and thirty years after, could not diſannul it, Gal. iii. 17. And will any yet inſinuate, that Chriſt has annulled this covenant, which God confirmed in him? This would overthrow the Apoſtle's argument; who confutes the error of the Judaizing teachers about juſtification, by the ſtability of the Abrahamic covenant; which would be inconcluſive, if that covenant was not in force.

Indeed, the third chapter to the Galatians, and fourth to the Romans are a proof, that the covenant with Abraham abides in force, under the goſpel diſpenſation, and that the Gentile believers, with their children, have an intereſt in it which can never be evaded. The Apoſtle ſays, that They who are of faith, are the children of Abraham, and are bleſſed with faithful Abraham.Gal. iii. 7.9. And being his adopted children, they are heirs. They inherit the bleſſings of his covenant; and all thoſe privileges of church memberſhip, which were granted to Abraham and his ſeed, belong to believers. And as it was one covenant privilege of the children of Abraham, to have their infant children taken into the covenant and church with them: this privilege is tranſmitted by the covenant, to all who are adopted into the family of Abraham; otherwiſe they are cut off from a part of that inheritance of church privileges which was entailed upon the children of Abraham. The Apoſtle adds, The bleſſing of Abraham is come upon the Gentiles, through Jeſus Chriſt.Verſe 14. Which is, s if he had ſaid, the bleſſings and privileges granted in the covenant with Abraham belong and are conveyed to the Gentile church. The very ſame privileges without any diminution, both for them and their children. If ye are Chriſt's, then are ye Abraham's ſeed, and heirs according to the promiſe.Gal. iii. 29. Whatever privileges were by the covenant and promiſe of God granted to the children and heirs of Abraham, whether for themſelves and their ſeed, the chriſtian Gentiles are entitled to. For they are alſo declared to be the children and heirs of Abraham. To the ſame purpoſe the Apoſtle writes in the fourth chapter to the Romans, quoting thoſe words of the covenant, I have made thee a father of many nations,Rom. iv. 16, 17. as a proof, that Gentile believers are the children of Abraham; and conſequently are comprehended in the covenant and church, together with their offspring.

Again, in Eph. iii. 6, we read, That the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and of the ſame body, and partakers of the promiſe in Chriſt, by the goſpel. That is, they are fellow-heirs with the Jews of the bleſſing and covenant of Abraham, they are admitted to that inheritance of ſpiritual privileges, which God's covenant and promiſe conveyed to his deſcendants; they are of the ſame body the church, which was formed by this covenant; and partakers of the promiſe; that ſame promiſe of the covenant which had been the great privilege of the church all along, and was expreſsly to them and their children.

But, let us once more hear what the ſcripture ſays.— When thoſe, who were pricked in their hearts, on the day of Pentecoſt, ſaid to Peter and the reſt of the Apoſtles, Men and brethren, what ſhall we do? Peter ſaid unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jeſus Chriſt, for the remiſſion of ſins, and ye ſhall receive the gift of the Holy Ghoſt. For the promiſe is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God ſhall call, Acts ii. 37, 38, 39. That it was the covenant with Abraham, that is here called the promiſe, will appear from the following conſiderations.— 1. This covenant is commonly in the New Teſtament called the Promiſe, by way of diſtinction and eminency. See Rom. iv. 13, 14, For the promiſe, that he ſhould be heir of the world, was not to Abraham or to his ſeed, through the law, but through the righteouſneſs of faith. For, if they which are of the law, be heirs, faith is made void, and the Promiſe of none effect. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end that the Promiſe might be ſure to all the ſeed, not to that only which is of the law, but to that alſo which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all." Gal. iii. 17, &c. "The covenant which was before confirmed of God in Chriſt, the law which was 430 years after cannot diſannul, that it ſhould make the promiſe of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promiſe, but God gave it to Abraham by Promiſe. If ye are Chriſt's then are ye Abraham's ſeed, and heirs according to the Promiſe." Once more. Gal. iv. 28, We, as Iſaac, are children of the Promiſe.

In all theſe places, and in divers others, the covenant with Abraham is called the Promiſe; which ſhews that it was commonly ſo ſtiled. 2. If we compare this text with Acts iii. 25, we ſhall find the promiſe there explained, to mean the covenant with Abraham. For the Apoſtle, there addreſſing the Jews, to perſuade them to repent and be converted, in like manner as he had done on the day of Pentecoſt, propoſes the very ſame encouragement to them in theſe words: Ye are the children of the covenant which God made with our fathers, ſaying unto Abraham, And in thy ſeed ſhall all the kindreds of the earth be bleſſed. His telling them that they were the children of Abraham's covenant, is to the ſame purpoſe exactly, as if he had told them, that the Promiſe was to them and their children. For this covenant was undoubtedly to the parents and their infant children. And their being declared children of the covenant, ſignified that they were heirs to the privileges of the covenant. So that theſe texts are exactly parallel, and explain each other. The ſame Apoſtle, preaching to the ſame ſort of hearers (that is, the Jews) propoſes the ſame argument in different words, even their intereſt in the promiſe, or covenant with Abraham, in order to enforce the ſame exhortation, viz. Repentance and converſion for the remiſſion of ſins. So that we cannot reaſonably doubt, whether the promiſe here ſpoken of, be not the covenant with Abraham, if we will allow the Apoſtle to explain his own words. 3. What the Apoſtle here ſays of the promiſe, agrees exactly in every particular, with the Abrahamic covenant, which had all along included the poſterity of Abraham and their infant children, together with the Gentiles that were afar off, even as many of them, as the Lord did from time to time call into his church, and who, in obedience to his call, became proſelytes, or Comers, as the word properly ſignifies.— All who, upon the divine call, came from afar to join themſelves to the Lord, and his people, were received, together with their children, into the church and covenant by circumciſion; and the promiſe was to them and their children alſo, as has been obſerved. The covenant of Abraham did belong to all thoſe who were in, and of the church. Peter's hearers, with their children, being actual members in the church, did not need a new call into the church, in order to their being the children of the covenant and promiſe. But, with the Gentiles who were afar off, and out of the church, the caſe was otherwiſe. They muſt firſt be called in, and become proſelytes, before the promiſe would be to them and theirs. But ſo many as were thus called, and admitted into the family of Abraham, had an intereſt in the covenant and promiſe, as well as the Jews. Thus the caſe had ſtood all along according to the Abrahamic covenant; and thus the caſe ſtood upon the day of Pentecoſt, as Peter ſays. Which ſhews that it was this covenant that Peter had in his eye, when he ſaid, The promiſe is to you and your children: that his words are therefore to be explained according to the tenor of the Abrahamic covenant. That this covenant, which is the foundation of infant church memberſhip, was not then aboliſhed: but ſtood in force: and I preſume no one will ſay it has been aboliſhed ſince.

In this manner Peter's hearers muſt have underſtood his words. They had been born and bred in that church and covenant, which included both parents and children. They knew that infants had always been acknowledged as church members, ever ſince a church had been formed in the world. The idea of a church which ſhould not admit the children with the parents, would have been as new and ſtrange to them, as a church that would not admit females, would be to us. A promiſe, or covenant, conveying privileges to them and their children, would be naturally underſtood by them in the ſame manner as thoſe promiſes in the Old Teſtament, which ſo often occur in the ſame form of expreſſion, had conſtantly been taken; and particularly the promiſe to Abraham, which was the moſt eminent and fundamental. They would as naturally conclude that their young children are immediately reſpected, as we ſhould conclude ours to be in an inſtrument, conveying privileges to us and our heirs; and they would have no doubt, that a grant of privileges was here aſſerted to the children of thoſe who were in the covenant and church, more than to the children of heathens. Now as the words of the Apoſtle would carry this meaning moſt naturally and obviouſly to the underſtanding of his hearers, and as the ſame form of expreſſion elſewhere is conſtantly to be thus underſtood, and no reaſon appears why it may not be taken here in the ſame ſenſe: this muſt in all reaſon be received as the true intrepretation. And if this promiſe belonged to the infant children of the inchurched and covenanted Jews, at the day of Pentecoſt, none will deny that it ſtill belongs to the children of the Gentiles, who were afar off; even as many as it pleaſes the Lord to call into his goſpel church.

This promiſe Peter holds up to the Jews, as a warrant or reaſon why they ſhould be baptized in the name of Chriſt. Repent and be baptized; for the promiſe is to you, &c. Now if their intereſt in the promiſe was a good reaſon why they ſhould be baptized, as the Apoſtle aſſerts; then their children's having an intereſt in the promiſe with them (as is alſo aſſerted) is as good a reaſon for their being baptized; even as an intereſt in the covenant was a reaſon for circumciſion to Abraham and his children.

This text is then a ſubſtantial proof that the covenant of Abraham ſtood in force, after the goſpel diſpenſation took place: ſince this appears to be that very promiſe which Peter addreſſes to his hearers. And we ſee that that particular clauſe, which contains a grant of the privilege of church memberſhip to the children of God's people was not taken out, when Chriſt the miniſter of the circumciſion confirmed by his death the promiſes made to the fathers. We then, and all others, whom God ſhall call into his church, together with our children, as the adopted children and heirs of Abraham, have an intereſt in this promiſe; are members of the goſpel church; and the proper ſubjects of chriſtian baptiſm.

Some ſay, that the Promiſe here ſpoken of, was not the covenant with Abraham, but the promiſe of the pouring out of the Spirit, in Joel. But how can this be, when the Apoſtle ſays that the prophecy of Joel foretold thoſe miraculous gifts of the Spirit, ſpeaking with tongues, and propheſying, which appeared on the day of Pentecoſt? Are theſe gifts promiſed to, and conferred upon all, whom the Lord ſhall call? Beſides, I have proved, that the promiſe here mentioned, was the covenant with Abraham; and till the reaſons adduced are ſhewn to be without weight, it is folly to ſet up an unproved aſſertion in oppoſition to them. But whatever the promiſe may be ſuppoſed to be, it belonged to Peter's hearers, and their children, as he ſays; and he holds it up to them as a reaſon for their being baptized. It muſt therefore be a reaſon for the baptiſm of their children alſo. If the gift of the Holy Ghoſt was promiſed to them, it was to their children. And they were to be conſidered as ſubjects of baptiſm on account of the promiſe; not becauſe the gifts of the ſpirit were manifeſt in them, but in order to their receiving the gift of the Holy Ghoſt. For it is to be obſerved, that the gift of the Holy Ghoſt is propoſed as the conſequence, and not the pre-requiſite of baptiſm. Be baptized, and ye ſhall receive the gift of the Holy Ghoſt.

But to give this plea the greateſt advantage, let us ſuppoſe that the pouring out of the Spirit in his ordinary ſanctifying influences is the matter of that promiſe in Joel, though Peter explains it otherwiſe: and that this is the promiſe, which he, in this text propoſes to his hearers, as reſpecting them and their children, though we have ſeen him explain himſelf otherwiſe.— Our argument from theſe words, would yet ſtand good. For the promiſe of the ſanctifying Spirit being included in the bleſſing, we may hence infer, that they to whom this promiſe belongs, are intereſted in the covenant and bleſſing of Abraham, and may properly be recognized as of the church and people of God.

It is further ſaid, That the children to whom the promiſe belongs, are not infants, but adults—the poſterity of the Jews. But though adults are the children of their parents, yet infants too are doubtleſs children. What warrant then have any to deny that they have an intereſt in that promiſe, which is to the children indefinitely, without any exception of infants?

But the evaſion which is moſt inſiſted on, is, That the promiſe is reſtrained to thoſe only whom the Lord ſhall call: and infants give no evidence of their being called. But this will not bear examination. I have already ſhewn, that this promiſe was the covenant with Abraham, and is therefore to be explained according to the tenor of that covenant, which included him and his children, and ſo many of the Gentiles as God ſhould from time to time call into his church. The calling of Abraham was a ſufficient call to all his poſterity, to give them a viſible intereſt in the covenant, and ſtanding in the church, till they forfeited and were cut off from this privilege. The reſtraining clauſe, therefore, only reſpected thoſe who were not yet called into the church of God, and not thoſe Jews and their children who were then actual members and children of the covenant. Repentance and baptiſm in the name of Chriſt, were required to prevent their being cut off from the covenant and family of Abraham; but the promiſe was th •• to them and their children. There is a plain reaſon why the promiſe ſhould reſpect only ſo many of thoſe who are without, as the Lord ſhould call into his church. But how abſurdly would the Apoſtle ſpeak, according to the interpretation which the Antipedobaptiſts put upon his words.—The promiſe is to you and your children. But neither you nor your children, appear at preſent to have any intereſt in it; and no one knows, that they ever will have. You are not to imagine that either you or your children are entitled to any privilege by it, more than belongs to every man and child in the world. All that I mean is, that the promiſe will belong to thoſe who ſhall be called. If this ſhould prove to be the caſe with any of you, or of your children, or any other perſon, then, and not till then, the promiſe will be to you and them. If this be all that is intended, it had been much more plainly expreſſed by only ſaying, The promiſe will be to thoſe whom the Lord ſhall call. To what purpoſe is all this flouriſh of words, without meaning? What end can this particular mention of them, and their children, as intereſted in the promiſe, ſerve, unleſs to perſuade them, that ſome ſpecial privilege belonged to them, while there was nothing at all in it? It is either inſignificant or fallacious; and would convey to the underſtanding of the hearers either no meaning, or a falſe one.

Suppoſe it were declared, that all the privileges contained in our frame of government belonged to the native ſubjects and their children, and alſo to foreigners, even as many as the government ſhould naturalize: and ſome one pretending to give the ſenſe of this declaration ſhould contend, that according to it, neither the native ſubjects, nor their children, had a right to any of theſe privileges, unleſs they ſhould be firſt naturalized by an act of the government; would he not be thought ridicuouſly abſurd? The adverſaries of infant church memberſhip are equally abſurd and unreaſonable, in their way of explaining the Apoſtle's words.

The argument from this text we have ſo long been conſidering, cannot be evaded. And we may further add, that ſince it is on all hands allowed to have been a great privilege of the Jewiſh infants, that they were in the covenant and church of God; if the infants of chriſtians are left out of the church, as ſome teach, then the goſpel church is deprived of an important privilege, which the Jewiſh church enjoyed: and its conſtitution is leſs favourable to infants. But can we believe, that the goſpel diſpenſation has diminiſhed the privileges of the church in any inſtance; or that it has put any claſs of mankind, whether infants or adults, in a more diſadvantageous ſtate than before; depriving them, without any fault of theirs, of their ſtanding in the church of God, which is acknowledged to have been an important privilege? This ought not to be ſuppoſed, unleſs clear and poſitive proof of it could be produced. But no ſuch proof has been or can be found. Wherefore, to bring this argument to a point: the privilege of church memberſhip has certainly been granted to the infant children of God's profeſſing people; which grant ſtands in force till it be revoked. Our opponents have often been called upon to produce an authentic act of revocation, and the demand is reaſonable. This they cannot do. On the contrary, we demonſtrate, that this grant has not been revoked, but is renewed, confirmed, and ratified in the goſpel.

As a proper appendix to what has thus far been diſcourſed of the intereſt of infants in the viſible church covenant, I ſhall juſt mention that common argument from baptiſm ſucceeding in the room of circumciſion; but ſhall not enlarge upon it. As infants were the ſubjects of circumciſion, and were recognized and marked as the people of God by this rite, the concluſion is very natural and reaſonable, that if baptiſm comes in the place of circumciſion, as the token of admiſſion into the church, infants are the proper ſubjects of this ordinance; unleſs God has declared to the contrary, which can never be made to appear. It is indeed denied by our opponents, that baptiſm does come in the place of circumciſion. But I cannot find that they have explained themſelves diſtinctly, how far, and in what reſpect, they mean to deny it. I own that baptiſm does not anſwer all the ſame purpoſes under the goſpel diſpenſation, that circumciſion did under the Moſaic. It does not introduce the ſubjects into a national church, and worldly ſanctuary. It has not a typical reſpect to the Saviour to come. It is not a yoke of bondage, obliging to the obſervance of the carnal ordinances of the law of Moſes. And our opponents, if they will be ingenuous and reaſonable, muſt allow that baptiſm does, in many reſpects, come in the place of circumciſion. It anſwers ſimilar ends in the goſpel church; and is of the ſame general ſignification; and is to be applied to the ſame ſubjects; and has even the ſame name given to it; and upon the inſtitution of baptiſm, as an ordinance, of ſtanding and univerſal obligation, circumciſion was no longer the token of admiſſion into the viſible church, as it had been before. And this is all we mean, when we aſſert, that baptiſm ſucceeds to circumciſion.

As circumciſion was the outward token of the covenant, and of admiſſion into the church; ſo baptiſm is the outward token of church memberſhip, and of an intereſt in the new covenant; which I have proved, is ſubſtantially the ſame with that of Abraham, to which circumciſion was annexed. They are both the appointed outward ſign and badge of the people of God. As circumciſion was a ſeal of the righteouſneſs of faith to Abraham, ſo is baptiſm to chriſtians.

Again, circumciſion and baptiſm though different in external rites, are alike in their ſpiritual ſignification. They both pointed out our native corruption, and need of purification, by an inward and ſpiritual renovation. They both ſignified cleanſing from the guilt and defilement of ſin by the blood of Chriſt, an admiſſion into the church, a dedication to God, an obligation to walk in his commandments and ordinances, and a right to covenant privileges.

It is further to be obſerved, that the Apoſtle calls chriſtians the Circumciſion, under the goſpel; which was the common appellation of thoſe who had, under the former diſpenſation, received the token of induction into the church. A ſufficient intimation that the one takes the place of the other.

Accordingly, circumciſion ceaſed to be longer the token of church memberſhip, after Chriſt ſent out his Apoſtles to preach and baptize in his name, when baptiſm was made the ſtanding rite of admiſſion into the goſpel church.

For theſe reaſons, we cannot but conſider baptiſm as taking that place in the goſpel oeconomy, in which circumciſion ſtood under the old diſpenſation; though we readily allow that each of theſe ordinances had ſome peculiar ends and ſignifications, ſuited to the different ſtates of the church, in which they were reſpectively in force; in reſpect of which peculiarities, they may not properly be parallel. And hence we argue, that ſince circumciſion and baptiſm are manifeſtly ſimilar in their main ends, uſes, and ſignificancies; infants are as proper ſubjects of baptiſm, as they were of circumciſion; and that the divine order for adminiſtering the one ordinance to them, warrants our adminiſtering that other ordinance that comes in its room. And the argument is not only popular, but of real weight; though I do not lay the greateſt ſtreſs upon it.

It is objected, That the outward rites are very unlike. But I can ſee no weight in this. The different ſtates of the church under the Old and New Teſtament might require this difference of outward adminiſtration reſpecting the initiating rite.

It is further objected, That the ſubjects of baptiſm and circumciſion were different. Circumciſion was to be adminiſtered only to males, baptiſm to both ſexes. I anſwer, The circumciſion of the males was the appointed token of church memberſhip to the people of God of both ſexes. The females were accounted of the circumciſion; and were admitted to the holy ordinances which were interdicted to the uncircumciſed and unclean.

It is objected again, That baptiſm was in uſe and force before circumciſion was aboliſhed. I anſwer, Though baptiſm was adminiſtered by John, and the diſciples of Chriſt, a ſhort time before circumciſion was aboliſhed, yet this no more proves that the former ſucceeds not in the room of the latter, than Solomon's reigning with his father a ſhort time, is a proof that he did not ſucceed and reign in his ſtead. But though baptiſm was in uſe before, it was not fully eſtabliſhed as the rite of induction into the church, till the miſſion of the Apoſtles; after which, circumciſion was no longer required for that purpoſe, as it had been before; though for other reaſons it continued in uſe among the believing Jews ſome years longer.

It is further inquired, What need there was that thoſe who had been circumciſed ſhould be baptized, if they are both ordinances of the ſame uſe and ſignificancy? I anſwer, It was the will of Chriſt, that all his diſciples ſhould receive the new token and badge of church memberſhip, although they had been admitted members of the Old Teſtament church. And ſuch as would not recognize themſelves as his diſciples, were to be rejected, and unchurched, and be as branches broken off by their unbelief. Their circumciſion became uncircumciſion, and the token of their being the people of God became null and void.

To theſe ſcriptural arguments in favour of infant church memberſhip, I ſhall add another conſideration, which ſeems to me to have great weight.

The Jews certainly knew that their infants had an intereſt in the covenant of Abraham, and had always been acknowledged, received, and recognized by circumciſion, as being of the church and people of God. If the Apoſtles had taught that infants were no longer to have an intereſt in God's covenant, or be members of the church, or receive any token of their being the people of God; the doctrine muſt have been new, ſtrange, very ſhocking and offenſive to the Jews. They muſt certainly have taken notice of it, and been greatly diſpleaſed at it. They oppoſed the Apoſtles with all their might, and did all in their power to render them odious, and ſet the people againſt them and their new doctrine. They were ready to take offence, and wanted neither wit nor will to lay hold of and exaggerate a plauſible and popular objection. Such an objection they would have had, if the Apoſtles had denied that their children were to be church members any longer. They would not have borne ſuch a doctrine, which declared all their children excommunicated and cut off from the church and people of the Lord, and to have no part in him; but would certainly have urged the objection with a vehemence. And the Apoſtles muſt have ſeen, that it highly concerned them to anſwer the objection, and take up ſo dangerous a ſtumbling block, if their doctrine had given ſo obvious and fair a handle to their enemies againſt them. But we have no hint in the New Teſtament, or any author, Jewiſh, Chriſtian, or Heathen, that ever I could find or learn, that the Jews ever made any ſuch objection to the Apoſtles, or their doctrine; or that the Apoſtles ever attempted either to obviate or ſilence it, or ſaid one word about it: which is certainly a moſt violent preſumption, and may almoſt paſs for plenary evidence, that the Apoſtles did not, by denying the right of church memberſhip of infants, furniſh an obvious occaſion and ground for any ſuch objection.

I ſhall mention but one argument more, grounded upon the Hiſtory of Infant Baptiſm, and the practice of the church from the apoſtolic age, according to the teſtimony of the earlieſt writers. The fact, in ſhort, is found to ſtand thus: 1. That the validity and lawfulneſs of infant baptiſm appears not to have ever been denied by any chriſtians till about the year 1130; and then only by one Peter de Bruis in France, with his followers, a ſmall ſect, which held withal, that no infants were ſaved, and divers other groſs errors, as hiſtorians report. It ſoon dwindled to nothing. After which, there cannot be found a ſingle inſtance, well vouched, of a perſon oppoſing infant baptiſm (except ſuch as denied water baptiſm) till the Anabaptiſts ſprang up in Germany about 250 years ago. To this purpoſe we have the teſtimony of Doctor Wall, a learned, diligent and faithful writer on the ſubject, in his Hiſtory of Infant Baptiſm. Theſe are his words, For the firſt 400 years there appears only one man, Tertullian, that adviſed the delay of infant baptiſm in ſome caſes, and one Gregory that did perhaps practiſe ſuch delay in the caſe of his children; but no ſociety ſo thinking, or ſo practiſing, nor any one man ſaying that it was unlawful to baptize infants. In the next 700 years, there in not ſo much as one man to be found, that either ſpoke for, or practiſed ſuch delay, but all the contrary. And when about the year 1130, one ſect among the Waldenſes declared againſt the baptizing of infants, as being incapable of ſalvation, the main body of that people rejected their opinion; and they of them that held that opinion, quickly dwindled away, and diſappeared; there being no more heard of holding that tenet, till the riſing of the German Antipedobaptiſts, in the year 1522. Thus far Dr. Wall. To this our opponents have hitherto found nothing to oppoſe, worthy of credit, except ſome teſtimonies to the practice of baptizing adults; which are nothing to the purpoſe; ſince no one doubts that unbaptized adults, as well as infants, are the ſubjects of baptiſm. Or if any have been found ſpeaking againſt the baptiſm of infants, they have appeared to be ſuch as were againſt all water baptiſm.

2. On the other hand, we have the expreſs teſtimony of the learned Chriſtian writers, who lived within one, two, and three hundred years of the Apoſtles, that infant baptiſm was not only then commonly practiſed in the church, but had been received and practiſed from the Apoſtles; and that none were known of, among all the numerous ſects of Chriſtians, pretending to deny it.

The teſtimonies of the fathers to this purpoſe, are commonly known by thoſe who are moderately verſed in this controverſy. Juſtin Martyr, who wrote about 40 years after the Apoſtles, mentions expreſsly ſome aged Chriſtians, who were made diſciples in, or from their infancy. And though he mentions not their infant baptiſm, his words fairly imply it. For if they were made diſciples in infancy, they were doubtleſs the ſubjects of baptiſm. Irenaeus, who is ſaid to have been born in the apoſtolic age, mentions the baptiſm of infants. He calls it, indeed, their regeneration;—but ſo baptiſm was commonly termed by the ancient fathers, as all who are verſed in their writings know and acknowledge. Tertullian, who lived within 100 years of the Apoſtles, ſpeaks of the baptizing of infants as a practice of the church; but adviſes to the delay of it, except in caſes of neceſſity; though he has nothing to ſay againſt the validity and lawfulneſs of it. He adviſes alſo the delay of baptiſm to adults, till they were married, or confirmed in continency. Though he was ſingular and whimfical in his opinion, yet he may well be admitted as a credible witneſs that infant baptiſm was a common practice in the church at that time. And this is all the uſe we mean to make of any of the teſtimonies we ſhall produce.

Origen, who alſo lived within 100 years after the Apoſtles, and was one of the moſt learned and knowing men of the age, declares, that infants are, by the uſage of the church, baptized. And that an order for the baptizing infants, had been delivered to the church, from the Apoſtles, who knew that the pollution of ſin is in all.

Cyprian, who lived but little more than 100 years after the Apoſtles, gives as full a teſtimony as poſſible to the practice of infant baptiſm at the time he lived. At a council of 66 miniſters, held about 150 years after the Apoſtles, it was debated, whether it would not be proper to delay the baptizing of infants, till the eighth day, according to the law of circumciſion. [Note, it appears they conſidered baptiſm as coming in the room of circumciſion.] They were unanimouſly of opinion that there was no reaſon for any ſuch delay.

WE are now to conſider the objections.

And the firſt is, that there is no command in ſcripture for baptizing infants, nor can it be proved, that the Apoſtles baptized any ſuch. We have expreſs accounts of the baptiſm of men and women; but that infants were, or ought to be admitted as ſubjects of this ordinance, the ſcripture ſaith not. How can this be a divine ordinance, when there is neither precept nor precedent for it?

I anſwer, If it any way appears from the ſcripture, that infants are ſubjects of baptiſm, it matters not whether this doctrine be grounded on an expreſs precept or example, or whether it be taught in ſome other way. Is it not preſumption for us to ſay, that we will not believe this to be the mind of Chriſt, unleſs he has revealed it in the particular way that we may pitch upon? The queſtion ſhould be, whether we can find, or gather from the ſcriptures any Sufficient evidence, that infants are to be baptized. If the reaſons on which our doctrine and practice is grounded, be good and concluſive, we ought to acquieſce in them. It never can be proved, either by ſcripture or reaſon, that conſequential evidence is inſufficient to determine our judgment and practice, in matters of religion; or that every part of God's revealed will is delivered in expreſs propoſitions.

Since the ſcriptures plainly acknowledge and aſſert the right of memberſhip of infants in the goſpel church, that they are of the number of Chriſt's diſciples, that they are holy, and have an intereſt in God's gracious covenant; and ſince it is owned by all, that, according to the order and rule of the goſpel, all thoſe who are diſciples, holy, and in the covenant, are the proper ſubjects of baptiſm: the conſequence is clear, that infants are to be baptized. And this is equivalent to an expreſs order for it. It is as plain and valid a warrant, though it be conſequential, as an expreſs order would be.

We have alſo ſuch precedents in favour of our practice, as, though they may be cavilled at, muſt, I think, be of great weight w ••• every unbiaſſed man; precedents which ſeem to render it morally certain, that infant baptiſm was practiſed by the Apoſtles. Three whole families we read of, who were baptized. If there were any children under the age of diſcretion, in any of theſe families, they were certainly admitted. Now, though it be not ſaid whether there were any ſuch children, yet is can ſcarce be doubted that there were, when the following circumſtances are well conſidered. 1. If we ſhould take three families among us, promiſcuouſly, I ſuppoſe the probability would be, at leaſt, fifty to one, that there would be young children in ſome of them. 2. It is not ſaid, or intimated, that there were no ſuch children in theſe families. But if it had been the caſe that there were no children in theſe houſes, and if children ought not to be baptized, there was great reaſon and neceſſity that ſo important and uncommon a circumſtance ſhould be mentioned, to prevent a dangerous miſtake, which theſe accounts, left as they ſtand, would naturally lead men into. For the baptiſm of theſe families would naturally be conſidered as precedents for baptizing other families, in which there were infants. And as the conſtant and known practice of the church for thouſands of years, and the declarations of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, were in favour of infant church memberſhip; how reaſonable muſt it needs appear to practiſe houſehold baptiſm, unleſs it were plainly teſtified and guarded againſt? In ſhort, we have expreſs precedents, or examples, if not of infant baptiſm, yet of houſehold baptiſm, infants not excepted; and that too upon the faith or profeſſion of the head of the family. For it is to be carefully noted, that in theſe accounts it is not ſaid, or intimated, that all in theſe families were baptized on a perſonal profeſſion of faith; but only, that the head of the family believed, and thereupon was baptized with all the houſe. And upon the authority of theſe precedents of family baptiſm, in conjunction with the other grounds which have been mentioned, we aſſert and claim the right of houſehold baptiſm, on behalf of the families of believers, infants not excepted. And we challenge thoſe who will not admit them, to produce an authentic order or precedent for this their refuſal.

As the goſpel, though it has changed the initiating ſacrament, continues infants in the ſame ſtanding in the church, which it was well known they had had all along; it is nothing ſtrange that we have not more expreſs orders and precedents touching infant baptiſm. What need of new precepts and examples to aſcertain a point, which had in effect been long ſince ſettled; which all underſtood, and all agreed in? But how infinitely ſtrange would it be, if infants, who had from the beginning been of the church, by the appointment of God, and the ſubjects of the initiating ordinance, ſhould be caſt out of the church, and cut off from the people of God, without any order or precedent for it in ſcripture? And yet this we muſt believe, if we deny their right to church memberſhip and baptiſm. For certainly there is neither order no precedent for excluding them from the church, or from the initiating rite.

If the Apoſtles had refuſed to admit infants into the goſpel church by baptiſm, we ſhould, without all peradventure, have had a plain order not to receive them. The caſe was ſuch as muſt, in all reaſon, have required it. Such a great and important change in the conſtitution of the church, as would cut off a great part of thoſe who had always been acknowledged to be in the church and covenant of God, muſt have ſeemed ſtrange to the Jewiſh converts; who would naturally have expected that their children were ſtill to be received with them, as heretofore; and would, accordingly, have moved to have them baptized; as the ancient Jewiſh writers atteſt was commonly practiſed at the admiſſion of proſelytes. At leaſt, they would have inquired, whether the goſpel church admitted infants as well as adult believers; which muſt have given occaſion for a plain and expreſs determination of the point, if ſo great and ſtriking an innovation was to be eſtabliſhed. And it would be of great neceſſity that ſuch a decree ſhould be promulgated and recorded, as a ſtanding rule or canon, to be obſerved by all the churches. But nothing like this appears in any writings, ſacred or profane. We may therefore retort the argument upon our adverſaries thus: ſince infants had always been received as church members, by the initiating rite, they who refuſe ſtill to receive them, ought to be able to produce plain orders or precedents for this their refuſal: which ſince they cannot do, we conclude that the right of church memberſhip ſtill belongs to them, and that they are ſubjects of baptiſm.

There was not that occaſion for an expreſs mention of the baptiſm of infants, as of women; for as women had hitherto been admitted to the privileges of church memberſhip, without being circumciſed, it might well be doubted, whether baptiſm, the ſacrament of admiſſion into the goſpel church, was to be adminiſtered to females. To remove this ſcruple, we have expreſs precedents of female baptiſm; ſhewing that perſons of either ſex are alike proper ſubjects of this ordinance. But there was no room to doubt, whether the token of church memberſhip were to be applied to infants; nor had it ever been called in queſtion.—And yet the New Teſtament furniſhes clear proofs that they are members of the goſpel church; and expreſs precedents of houſehold baptiſm, without exception of infants; as has been ſhewn; nor is there any thing of weight to be urged againſt it.

If, after all that has been ſaid, the want of more expreſs orders or precedents for infant baptiſm ſtick as a ſcruple in the minds of any, let the following conſiderations be added to what has been ſaid. 1. Is it not as ſtrange, and more ſo, that we have but one expreſs example of infant circumciſion, in all the Old Teſtament, and not one among the Iſraelites? And yet, no doubt, it was practiſed every day. Is it not ſtrange, that there is neither expreſs precept nor example, in the New Teſtament of women's coming to the Lord's ſupper? And yet, no doubt, they did ſo commonly. Jeſus, it ſeems, baptized more diſciples than John, John iv. 1. Is it not ſtrange that none of the writers of the New Teſtament, except John, give the leaſt hint that he baptized at all, though John's baptizing is often mentioned by almoſt all of them? Theſe inſtances may ſhew, how little ſuch a negative argument is to be depended on in the preſent caſe. 2. Is it not a manifeſt ſign of prejudice, and an unfair mind, to think there is no ſufficient warrant for infant baptiſm, unleſs there be expreſs orders or precedents for it; and yet refuſe to receive infants into the church, though there be neither precept nor precedent to warrant or juſtify our refuſing them that privilege, with which they were inveſted by God, and held it without diſpute thouſands of years? Is not this to ſtrain at a g at, and ſwallow a camel? 3. Does it become us to diſregard, and refuſe to admit ſuch evidence as muſt be acknowledged to be of weight, and ſtand cavilling, that the caſe might have been made plainer? I grant it might, if God had pleaſed. And ſo might many other truths, which yet we have ſufficient reaſon to believe. Our opponents muſt own, that if infant baptiſm be contrary to the mind of Chriſt, this would have been much plainer, had there been an expreſs order againſt it; and much diſpute and trouble would have been prevented. The caſe is left juſt as plain as Chriſt has thought fit it ſhould be. And it belongs not to us to object, that the evidence is not ſuch as we ſhould like beſt; but to inquire ſeriouſly, humbly, and prayerfully, what is truth; and thankfully to cloſe with it, upon any good evidence of it that we can find. 4. Let me aſk the objector, What he would have? What proof would ſatisfy him? Would it give ſatisfaction, if the order had run thus: Go teach all nations, baptizing them, and their children? You could as eaſily and fairly evade this, as you do the expreſs proofs we bring of infant church memberſhip. Chriſt ſays expreſsly, that the kingdom of heaven is, or conſiſts of little children; and it is not denied, that the kingdom of heaven is the church; yet we are told, that theſe little children, which are of the church, are not infants, but adults, reſembling little children in humility. The Apoſtle ſays expreſsly, that the children of believers are Holy. A character never once given in ſcripture to any but church members: yet this avails nothing. A new ſenſe, unknown in the ſcriptures, is invented, and put upon the word, though it makes nonſenſe of the text. We bring expreſs ſcripture to prove, that the promiſe is to the children, as well as the parents; that believers are accounted the children and heirs of Abraham, according to the promiſe; and that his bleſſing is come upon the Gentiles: and the right of church memberſhip for his natural poſterity, was certainly one article of this bleſſing. Yet our opponents go on againſt all this evidence, upon no better foundation than their own arbitrary conjectures and hypotheſis. While men are in this humour, what confidence can we have, that, if there had been an expreſs order for infant baptiſm, they would not ſet their inventions to work to explain it away? And we might be told, that the children to be baptized are ſuch as are capable of profeſſing faith; or that they are ſuch as reſemble infants in humility; or that they are ſpiritual children, who imitate the faith of the firſt converts; or that they are to be baptized after they have been firſt taught, and have given evidence of their effectual calling, &c. In ſhort, a fair and honeſt mind will embrace the truth upon any ſufficient proof, whether direct or conſequential. But when the integrity of the mind is corrupted and diſtorted, by prejudices, and fondneſs for particular ſchemes, the light that is in men becomes darkneſs; and ways will be found to ward off conviction, for the moſt part, by any arguments whatever. I have conſidered this objection the more largely, becauſe, though it has really no weight in it, yet it is apt enough to amuſe and puzzle weak and ſimple minds, and to breed ſcruples, which ſometimes prove very troubleſome and hurtful.

It is ſaid by ſome, That it is not being in the covenant, or church, that gives a right to baptiſm; but a divine order to that purpoſe.

But to what purpoſe is this ſaid, except to raiſe a duſt, and keep up a fruitleſs altercation? You acknowledge that it is according to the order and rule of the goſpel, that all thoſe be received as the ſubjects of baptiſm, who have viſibly an intereſt in the covenant and appear to be ſuch as are to be received into the goſpel church. Whether, therefore, their being viſibly in covenant or of the church gives them the right to baptiſm or not; yet, by your own acknowledgment it proves, or evidences an unqueſtionable right thereto. The allegation in the objection is, indeed, moſt unreaſonable: but if we ſhould admit it, for argument ſake, the right of church memberſhip of infants being proved, their right to baptiſm is undeniable, as long as it is allowed that all ſuch are the proper ſubjects of baptiſm.

Another principal objection is, that according to the goſpel order, faith and repentance, or at leaſt a credible profeſſion thereof, are required of all previouſly or in order to their being baptized. The Apoſtles were firſt to teach thoſe whom they baptized, Matt. xxviii. 19. Chriſt puts believing before baptiſm, when he ſays, He that believeth, and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved," Mark xvi. 16. And Peter ſays to the Jews, who being pricked in their hearts, aſked, what they ſhould do; "Repent and be baptized," Acts ii. 38. And when the eunuch moved, that he might be baptized, Philip ſaid to him, "If thou believeſt with all thy heart, thou mayeſt," Acts viii. 37. We read alſo of ſeveral, who, agreeably to this rule, were baptized, profeſſing their faith and repentance. If repentance and faith are the neceſſary conditions of baptiſm, infants cannot be admitted: for they make no profeſſion, and give no evidence of theſe qualifications.

Anſwer. To ſhew that this objection is without any weight, we need only open our Bibles, and read the ſeveral texts that are brought to ſupport it. Let us take them in their order.

The firſt is Matt. xxviii. 19. I have before obſerved, that the proper ſignification of the Greek is, Go make all nations diſciples (or proſelytes) baptizing them— teaching them, &c. as our opponents grant: and this is a good warrant for the baptiſm of infants, as well as the parents; and they are therefore to be admitted by the ſame outward rite. And to ſay that infants can no otherwiſe become diſciples than by being taught, is no better than a mean begging of the very point to be proved. Whenever the Apoſtles made a diſciple of the parent, the right and privilege of diſciples was given to the children; who were as ſuch to be baptized, together with the parents, according to the Apoſtles' orders, to diſciple and baptize all nations.

And if we ſhould underſtand the word here uſed as ſignifying to inſtruct or indoctrinate, there would be no reaſon for any one to conclude, that infants may not be baptized till they are firſt taught.—No ſuch thing is ſaid, or in the leaſt implied. Chriſt's diſciples are indeed to be taught, as well as baptized; children as well as adults; as far, and as ſoon as they are capable of it. But that they may not be baptized till after they have been firſt taught, there is not one word, not iota in the whole paragraph. And to argue from the bare order of the words, that indoctrination is a neceſſary pre-requiſite to baptiſm in all caſes, is to build upon quick-ſand indeed. For it is well known, that things are often mentioned in ſcripture, in a promiſcuous or inverted order.—Nay, if the order of the words were any ſolid foundation to argue upon, we might, in this way, prove that it was the will of Chriſt, that the Apoſtles ſhould make diſciples, by firſt baptizing them, and then teaching them. For the inſtructions Chriſt gave them when he ſent them forth, ſtand in this order; Go diſciple all nations, baptizing them—teaching them, &c. But we lay no ſtreſs at all upon ſuch precarious arguments. The truth is, ſome are to be taught before, and in order to their being baptized. Others are by baptiſm to be introduced into the ſchool of Chriſt, and put under the diſcipline of the church before, and in order to their being taught. Adults we grant, are to be firſt taught, and to make a profeſſion of faith, in order to their being baptized; and that for two reaſons. 1. They are immediately capable of it. 2. They have no viſible right or meetneſs to be received as members of the church of Chriſt, till they profeſs their faith in him. And we may add, that it is not the will of Chriſt that any ſuch ſhould be taken into his ſchool, without their free conſent. On the contrary, there are two reaſons why infants ſhould by baptiſm be received into the church, without their being firſt taught, and profeſſing their faith. 1. They are not at preſent capable of it. 2. Their church memberſhip and right to baptiſm is manifeſt without it from the ſcriptures; as has been ſhewn. And it is the will of Chriſt, that they be entered into his ſchool immediately, previous to their actual conſent. A profeſſion of faith, does not more evidence the right of a believer to baptiſm, than his infant child's right to the ſame is evidenced by the ſcriptures, which declare that, of ſuch is the kingdom of heaven, that the promiſe is to them, and that they are holy.

This text then contains nothing againſt infant baptiſm, and I have elſewhere ſhewn, that it furniſhes a good argument in favour of it. The next paſſage we have to conſider is Mark xvi. 15, 16, Preach the goſpel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved; but he that believeth not ſhall be damned. If this text does not contain ſo much in favour of infant baptiſm as the other, yet certainly there is nothing againſt it. It is true faith and baptiſm are here required in order to ſalvation. But whether in order to ſalvation, faith be required before baptiſm in all caſes, or in any caſe, is not ſaid; nor can it be proved from this text; which only contains a promiſe of ſalvation to thoſe who believe and are baptized. And I preſume it will be allowed, that if any one ſhould firſt be baptized, and afterwards ſhould believe; this promiſe would belong to him, as really as if he had firſt believed, and then was baptized.—If any one ſhould be baptized upon a hypocritical profeſſion of faith, and afterwards ſhould become a true believer, he would no doubt be ſaved; nor would it be required of him that he be again baptized. And though we grant that a profeſſion of faith is required of an unbaptized adult, in order to his being baptized; yet it is an abuſe of ſcripture, to argue that infants are not to be baptized till they believe, becauſe believing is mentioned before baptiſm in this place, which, by the acknowledgment of our opponents, "Speaks only of thoſe who are capable of attending to the preaching of the goſpel, and of actual believing." They do not apply to infants the damnatory ſentence againſt unbelievers; and it is equally unreaſonable, to urge their want of faith, as an objection to their being admitted to baptiſm.—In ſhort, I can find nothing in theſe words, that makes the leaſt difficulty in the matter; unleſs we will be ſo ridiculouſly abſurd as to imagine, that infants and adult believers cannot both be the ſubjects of baptiſm; or that the mention of the one alone, implies the denial of the other.

In Acts ii. 38, Peter exhorts his hearers to repent and be baptized for the remiſſion of ſins. Thoſe whom he thus exhorts were all adults. For no one preaches to young infants. It is alſo obſervable in theſe words that they were only required to repent in order to be baptized; which is contrary to the opinion of thoſe who renounce infant baptiſm. They ſay we muſt believe as well as repent. We grant that repentance is required of unbaptized adults, in order to their being baptized. But does he ſo much as hint, that infants are not to be admitted? No. But in the next words aſſerts, that the ſame promiſe which belonged to them, and which he holds up as a warrant and encouragement to them, to repent and be baptized, did alſo belong to their children. But theſe words have been before conſidered.

The ſame remark is to be made on the words of Philip to the Eunuch, If thou believeſt with all thine heart, thou mayeſt be baptized. Any Pedobaptiſt, muſt, upon his own principles, have ſaid the ſame, upon the like occaſion.

The examples of thoſe who were baptized upon a profeſſion of faith, are ſometimes brought as an objection againſt infant baptiſm. Theſe, we grant, are a proof that believers are the ſubjects of baptiſm. We grant further, that they are no proof that infants are ſubjects. But it is ſtrange it ſhould ever be thought that theſe examples make any thing againſt the baptiſm of infants. Cannot adult believers be admitted, unleſs infants be rejected? Is there not room enough in the church for both? A thouſand inſtances of one ſort, are no argument againſt the admiſſion of the other. The truth is, we have not many certain inſtances of adult baptiſm mentioned particularly in the New Teſtament. Several of theſe were perſons of note, who had no children. Of others, it appears, that if there were children in their families, as is highly probable, they were baptized with them. And ſome that are confidently ſuppoſed to have been adults, might a great part of them have been infants, for any thing that appears to the contrary; particularly the three thouſand added to the church on the day of Pentecoſt. But among all thoſe, who are ſaid to have been baptized upon a profeſſion of faith, it is remarkable that we find not one that was born of Chriſtian parents, or was, on our principles, a fit ſubject of baptiſm in infancy. We have, in the New Teſtament, the hiſtory of the church for thirty years after Chriſt's aſcenſion, in all which there is not one inſtance that in the leaſt countenances their practice, who are againſt the baptiſm of the children of believers, till they are of age to profeſs their faith. Wherein they differ from us, they have moſt certainly neither precept nor example in ſcripture to ſupport them.

Upon the whole, this objection, which has often been held up with ſo much parade, is like a vapour; which, beheld at a diſtance, may look as if there might be ſomething in it; but upon a nearer view, is found to be as light and unſubſtantial as the air, while we endeavour to handle it, we can find nothing in it.

It is objected by ſome, that Chriſt was baptized in adult age; and we ought herein to follow his example.

Anſwer. John's baptiſm, with which Chriſt was baptized, was not inſtituted till Chriſt was of adult age. How could it be expected that he ſhould have the ordinance adminiſtered to him, before it was a divine ordinance? We might as well argue againſt infant circumciſion, becauſe Abraham was circumciſed in adult age. But Chriſt in his infancy was dedicated to God, and received into the number of his people, according to the ordinances then in uſe: which may ſerve as a precedent and pattern to chriſtians to dedicate their children to God in baptiſm, the rite of induction to the Chriſtian Church. Chriſt's baptiſm was the token of his ſolemn conſecration to his public miniſtry; ſignifying his anointing with the Holy Ghoſt to the offices of prophet, prieſt, and king (and eſpecially as the high prieſt of his church) which he was to execute, and was accordingly inaugurated at his entering on the public diſcharge of theſe his offices, when he was about thirty years of age. There were many peculiar circumſtances attending Chriſt's baptiſm, which are not imitable by us.

As many people have miſtaken the nature and end of Chriſt's baptiſm, and have therefore thought it their duty to follow him by being baptized in adult age. For their ſake, I ſhall alſo make the following remarks.

1. The baptiſm with which Chriſt was baptized was not the chriſtian baptiſm, as it plainly appears from Acts xix. 3, 4, 5. There we find the Apoſtles baptized ſome perſons over again, who had been before baptized by John; which they never would have done, if John's baptiſm had been that of the chriſtian diſpenſation.

2. We muſt obſerve, when Chriſt was baptized, he was juſt then about to enter into his prieſtly and miniſterial office, as the great high prieſt of his church; and as ſuch he was typified by Aaron and his ſucceſſors. Now God had poſitively commanded that Aaron ſhould be admitted into his office by waſhing or baptiſm, ſee Exod. xxix 4. &c. We alſo find that this was accordingly done, ſee Levit. vii. 6. Therefore when our bleſſed Lord was about to take this office upon him, he went to John to be baptized; and though John was ſenſible that he had more need to be baptized of Chriſt, and therefore ſeemed to draw back from the duty; yet Chriſt ſaid (in alluſion, no doubt, to the command for initiating the high prieſt by waſhing or baptiſm) Suffer it to be ſo now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteouſneſs, all that was typical of me as the high prieſt of the church. And "then he ſuffered him," Matt. iii. 13, 14, 15. It is alſo very remarkable that Jeſus Chriſt at that time, was about thirty years of age, under which the prieſts were not to enter on their office. Compare Levit. iv. 3 and Matt. iii. 23.

It is objected, That infant baptiſm is a part of popery, the baſis of national churches, and worldly eſtabliſhments; that it unites the church and world, and keeps them together.

Anſwer. Infant baptiſm is grounded on the ſcriptures; and is commonly practiſed in thoſe churches that are not, nor ever were ſubject to the Pope; therefore, it is not a part of Popery though practiſed, as divers other ordinances are, in the Roman church.

Infant baptiſm is not the baſis of national churches, and worldly eſtabliſhments. Infants were church members long before there was a national church in the world; which was not till the Horeb covenant. That particular conſtitution of a church, and form of adminiſtration, whereby it becomes national, has no connection with, or dependance upon infant baptiſm. A national church may as well be formed upon the principle of Antipedobaptiſm as any other. If the church of England ſhould renounce infant baptiſm, and yet retain its preſent conſtitution in other reſpects, it would ſtill be, and might as well continue, a national church as ever. There may be a national church, though not one half of the nation are of it. And there would be no national church, though all the individuals of the nation were members of congregational churches. And as for worldly eſtabliſhments of religion, it is too plain to need inſiſting on, that infant baptiſm no way affects them. Infant baptiſm ſtands as well without, as with human eſtabliſhments; and human eſtabliſhments can ſtand as well without, as with infant baptiſm.

Infant baptiſm does not unite the church and the world, and keep them together. If by the world we mean thoſe that are not of the viſible church; how can the baptizing the infants of church members unite the church with thoſe that do not belong to it? If by the world be meant profeſſed chriſtians, who are manifeſtly unmeet and unworthy of chriſtian communion, infant baptiſm neither u •• tes the church, nor keeps it united with any ſuch. It is owing to the neglect or abuſe of diſcipline, when ſuch remain united with the church. Or if any ſhould mean by the world, viſible Chriſtians, who are ſecretly hypocritical; it is not the will of Chriſt that the church ſhould be ſeparated from theſe, till their hypocriſy becomes manifeſt. Nor would the aboliſhing of infant baptiſm make ſuch a ſeparation.

It is objected, That the anſwer of a good conſcience is required in baptiſm, in order to its being of ſaving advantage, 1 Pet. iii. 21. And as infants are incapable of this, they are not ſubjects of baptiſm. I anſwer, Though the anſwer or engagement of a good conſcience muſt be joined with the outward waſhing with water, when the ſubject is capable of it, yet this makes nothing againſt infant baptiſm. For if the anſwer of a good conſcience be afterwards annexed to the ſacramental waſhing received in infancy, ſuch a baptiſm is as valid, and as available to ſalvation, as if the waſhing with water, and the anſwer of a good conſcience, had been at the ſame time. And infants are by their baptiſm bound to the anſwer of a good conſcience; which they are to recognize and perform, when they are capable of it. Indeed this paſſage ſpeaks plainly in our favour. For the Apoſtle compares baptiſm to the ark of Noah, as being the figure or antitype of it, bearing a reſemblance to it. Noah by faith prepared the ark, for the ſaving of himſelf and his houſe. As his children were received with him into the ark, ſo the children of believers have a right to the church, and are the ſubjects of baptiſm, together with their parents; which bears in this reſpect, the figure and reſemblance of the ark.

It is alſo objected, that, if infants are to be members of the church, and ſubjects of baptiſm, they ought alſo to be admitted to partake of the Lord's ſupper, which is an ordinance to which all the members of the Chriſtian church have a right. And accordingly it was cuſtomary with the ancient chriſtians, who practiſed infant baptiſm, to adminiſter the Lord's ſupper alſo to them. And they who diſapprove the communicating of infants, ſhould, if they would be conſiſtent, diſallow the baptizing of them.

Anſwer. We grant that infants, as church members, have an external right to all the ordinances of the viſible church, as far, and ſoon as they are actually capable of, and meet for them. As they are immediately capable and meet ſubjects of baptiſm, they are to be admitted thereto without delay. As ſoon as they are capable of receiving inſtruction from the word, they ſhould be brought to give their attendance to it; and when they can ſo far underſtand the nature and deſign of the Lord's ſupper, and have ſuch a meaſure of knowledge and faith, that they can diſcern the Lord's body, and examine themſelves, and ſo eat of that bread, and drink of that cup; it is not only their right, but their duty, to do ſo, without delay. Though an infant may have a right to an eſtate, of which he is an heir, yet he is not admitted to poſſeſs, occupy, and improve it, till he is of capacity for it. And ſuch is the nature and deſign of the Lord's ſupper, that a right attendance on it, requires an actual capacity and preſent meetneſs for it; which infants have not. And it is this want of capacity and meetneſs, and not a want of right to church privileges, that is the reaſon why we do not admit them. But this reaſon does not exclude them from baptiſm; of which they are as capable and meet ſubjects now, as they were of circumciſion formerly. They are capable of the ſign, and the thing ſignified; of coming under the obligations, and having the grace and privileges of the covenant ſecured and conveyed to them; of being ſolemnly dedicated to God; recognized and admitted, as his viſible church and people. Theſe things they are capable of in infancy. And to ſignify and effect theſe, is the deſign and uſe of baptiſm, as has been obſerved.

It appears, I truſt, that our opponents have no reaſon to ſay, as they are wont to do with great confidence, that there is nothing in the ſcriptures in favour of infant baptiſm, but they plainly declare againſt it. We have ſearched the ſcriptures, and find nothing at all contrary to infant baptiſm; and plain proofs that infants are the ſubjects of baptiſm. Whether this does not amount to a fair and full proof, let every one who has the reaſon of a man conſider and judge.

We learn alſo, the error of rebaptizing thoſe, who have been baptized in their infancy. This practice cannot be juſtified either by precept or example, or any good reaſons. Infant baptiſm adminiſtered by ſprinkling, we have examined by the ſcriptures, and find it to be well warranted. To renounce it therefore, and be baptized over again, is utterly wrong. And though we charitably believe that thoſe who have gone into this practice, have done it conſcientiouſly, yet their conſciences were therein miſguided, and they have entangled themſelves by the wrong ſtep they have taken, and given Satan an advantage againſt them. Having openly renounced communion with all chriſtians, but thoſe of their own party, they too often appear to be exceedingly hardened againſt all means that can be uſed for convincing them of their error; and take it with great ſcorn and impatience, to have it ſuggeſted to them that perhaps they are in a miſtake. And if any ſuch ſuſpicions ſhould ever ariſe in their minds, yet what a ſtrong temptation will they have to wink hard againſt the light, when it begins to enter into their minds, and to diſcover to them, what they cannot bear the thoughts of, that in the height of their confidence they have been wrong. It is very unhappy when chriſtians run themſelves into ſuch ſad entanglements, and get their ſcruples and prejudices fixed and rivetted.

FINIS.