I offer this Proof That Principle which makes the Covenant of Grace less beneficial and extensive than the Covenant of Works hinders the Propagation of Christian Religion But the former Principle does so Therefore such a Principle hinders the Progress of Christianity The Major is undoubtedly so and I will endeavour to make the Minor to be such by this One Argument That Principle which allows not as great Immunities Benefits and Privileges to the Covenant of Grace as to the Covenant of Works makes the Covenant of Grace less Beneficial and Extensive than the Covenant of Works But the Principle that denies Baptism to Infants does so Therefore it makes the Covenant of Grace less Beneficial and Extensive than the Covenant of Works Siquidem evidentissimum est quod semel cum Abrahamo Dominus foedus percussit non minus hodie Christiano constare quam olim Judaico populo adeoque verbum istud non minus Christianos respicere quam Judaeos tum respiciebat Nist forte arbitramur Christum suo adventu Patris gratiam imminuisse aut decurtasse quod sine execrabili blasphemianon vacat Calv. Institut lib. 4. cap. 16. Par. 6. And the Judicious Mr. Calvin in his Institutes seems to speak the same sence with this last Argument for after he had said It is most clear that God entred once into Covenant with Abraham he tells us That that Covenant had a respect and regard to Christian as well as Jewish People unless peradventure we should suppose that Christ by his Advent or Coming had diminish'd or curtail'd the Grace of his Father which would be execrable Blasphemy to imagine CHAP. III. The true Sence of the Holy Jesus's Commission unto his Blessed Disciples for the Administration of Baptism St. Matth. xxviij 19. makes for the Baptizing of Infants AND now I will endeavour to confirm these Arguments by the Authority of Holy Scripture and prove in particular That that Text of St. Matth. xxviij 19. must have such a sence as to evidence That the Covenant of Grace or else it would not be such a Covenant and so forfeit its Title is full as or rather more beneficial and extensive than the Covenant of Works and consequently that the Baptizing Infants is a Christian as well as a Comfortable Doctrine which is the Truth to be proved and then it will plainly appear this Text our Adversaries so much Glory in and Vaunt of is on our side For if there had been as General a Commission given by Moses to Twelve Elders of Israel as the Blessed Jesus gave to his Disciples and it had been said to them Go teach all Nations circumcising them this had been no Prohibition to the Circumcising the Jewish Children because there was a Positive Command given them by Divine Revelation and no After-Commission could discharge from Obedience to such a Command And where the same Reason holds for the same Observation under a different Dispensation there is no necessity for the Publication of a New Command to enjoyn its Observance Now there never was since the Creation of the World but two Instituted Religions that had Truth on their side the Jewish and the Christian And the Blessings that were conferred by either of these Religions and the Duties and Services required to ensure and consign the Blessings from the Party that was to bestow them to the Parties that were to enjoy them were transacted transmitted and conveyed in a Covenanting way Now the Evangelic Dispensation being in a Covenanting way as well as the Legal one those that had a right to the Covenant under the Holy Gospel had a right to the Sign Seal or Sacrament of the Covenant as well as those under the Law Hereupon that Children under the Holy Gospel had a right to the Covenant is not very difficult to prove from St. Mark x. 14. Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of God i. e. the Kingdom of Grace For in that sence is that Phrase of the Kingdom of God in several places of Holy Writ to be understood and it plainly signifies that his Holy Gospel-Dispensation by which the Kingdom of God is meant was as extensive and mercifull as the Legal Dispensation and of which they were capable of being Members and having the Benefits and Blessings therein communicated consigned to them which is true not only in respect of their Innocency and Meekness for by reason of their Infantile State they were not capable of actual and voluntary Sins and so might in some sence be fit for his Kingdom of Glory but because also they were to be allowed an admission into his Covenant by virtue of an Imputation of their Parents Faith as the Jewish Children were upon that account capable of being Members of the Covenant and of receiving the Sign thereof Circumcision So that by this Argument which I doubt not is sufficiently founded upon this place of Holy Scripture whereby Christian Children have as true a right to Baptism under the Holy Gospel as the Jewish Children had to Circumcision under the Law It may appear there is no necessity for an express Place of Holy Scripture in so many words for the Baptizing Children when the reason of the thing is founded in Circumcision for which there was a Positive Command Now our Blessed Saviour substituted Baptism in the room of Circumcision for these two Reasons as may probably be conjectured 1. Because he was the Author of a more Mercifull Dispensation and that That might not be said of the Christian Parents which Zipporah said to Moses Exod. iv 25. Surely a bloody Husband art thou to me 2. Because he was the Author of a more extensive Dispensation and therefore he appointed a Sacrament or Seal of his Covenant that Females as well as Males might undergo Whereas under the Legal Dispensation Females were not capable of the Sign of the Covenant and because it was a more narrow Dispensation and likewise for St. Paul's reason the Man being the Head of the Woman 1 Cor. xj 3. she was included in or comprehended under the Man which there was no need she should be under the Evangelic Dispensation that admitting a Sign or Seal of the Covenant she was as capable of as the Man Thus as our Blessed Saviour took his Holy Supper from the Postcoenium or After-supper after the Passover which as I have found in some Authors was only a Sallad of Endive Lettuce and Succory so he took Baptism as the Sacrament of Initiating or Entring Disciples into his Evangelick Dispensation being well known among the Jews because it was the Ceremony for admitting Proselytes into their Church That by taking both Sacraments from known usages among the Jews he might the more easily and powerfully reduce and bring over his own beloved Country-men the Jews to his Holy Gospel and this being a more gentle way of Entrance into his Church might have a better Influence and be more probably successfull to
with our Adversaries I will give them two Concessions which I think is all they can reasonably ask 1. We will allow that St. Peter designed to support their Spirits as to their Infants upon their outcry when the Roman President declared himself innocent of the Blood of that just Person St. Matth. xxvij 25. upon which they exclaimed His Blood be upon us and upon our Children 2. We will allow that it is not impossible but that by Children here may be understood adult Persons yet in the words are several particulars so clear as will be strong enough to defend our Orthodox Principle 1. That the Promise here offered to them and their Children was the New Dispensation the Holy Jesus was Author of and the same Dispensation which tho' in obscurer terms and times had been declared to the Father of the Faithful which Dispensation also included Father and Son 2. That except St. Peter did in this Promise include their Children they had not been strongly supported under the Curse they wished for themselves and their Offspring upon supposition they should depart this World before actual Repentance 3. They had no reason to believe their Infants included in the Promise except they had been qualified for the Sign and Sacrament under the New Dispensation as they were of the Sign of the Old Covenant for all visible Confirmation is by Seal and by this account we may understand the full sense of what is said Ver. 41. And the same day were added to them about three thousand Souls viz. Masters of Families becoming Christians Infants and all in their House according to the Terms of the Covenant and Usage of the Jews were admitted and received to Baptism otherwise how should three thousand Souls be particularly taught for it is not probable that St. Peter's Sermon did reach the ears of all that were there present and moreover as our Adversaries would perswade us they must every one be treated with and spoken to which was morally impossible for so few Apostles as may probably be conjectured to be there and in so short a time as we may reasonably suppose they stayed where they were But to all this our Adversaries gainsay because the Text tells us not An Obj. they and their Children were receiv'd to Baptism but they only that gladly receiv'd his Word Answ To which I make this return 1. This Text doth not so evidently conclude the thing done that Children were then receiv'd to Baptism tho' it may properly enough infer it from what hath been offered in the general Account as their Title to it by force of their being adopted into Covenant by virtue of their Parents Faith 2. That the Infants were receiv'd to Baptism is not specified becauset here was no necessity for doing that which might be reasonably supposed 3. Because the Covenant for substance was the same with that delivered to Abraham of old time the Administration made the sole distinction 4. There being three thousand Souls added to the Church they could not be admitted Members thereof without Baptism and this being all done in one day it is not in the least probable they could all be adult Men or if they were it is as highly improbable so few as the Holy Apostles then were could have time which our Adversaries think necessary to treat with and discourse every person 5. Because all is not expressed in Holy Writ that was tranfacted and when an Historical Account is rehearsed some Particulars are inserted not named in the prior or former Declaration As for instance In the Story of the Holy Apostle of the Gentiles his miraculous Call is taken notice of three times and his being baptized more than once and yet in the second Relation concerning his Baptism there is something added to the first Account Acts xxij 16. Arise and be baptized and wash away they sins calling on the Name of the Lord declaring the Scope and Design of Baptism as well as how necessary it was and it is probable had there been reason to rehearse this Account related Acts ij as there was of St. Paul's other matters possibly this of admitting Infants to Baptism had been inserted 6. By way of Retortion to return their own Argument upon them because Women are not named neither in the Commission St. Matth. xxviij 19. nor Acts ij 41. to be baptized both being rendred by the Greek in the Masculine Gender I may therefore according to their way of arguing urge because it is not declared in the Sacred Text that they who gladly received the Word with their Wives were baptized I might therefore according to their manner of disputing say no Women had as yet received Baptism for it was after this time that we read in Samaria Women were baptized by St. Philip. Acts viij 12. So that tho' the Design of the Covenant be known yet not always declared in Holy Writ and the baptizing of Infants may verily be believed to be of this kind CHAP. X. The Sense of St. Matth. xxviij 19. strengthned by an Exposition of 1 Cor. vij 14. THE second place is that of St. Paul the Holy Apostle of the Uncircumcision or the Gentile World 1 Corinth vij 14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband else were your children unclean but now are they holy This place of St. Paul is a strong confirmation of the Sense and a clear conviction of the truth of the Interpretation I have given of the first Text of the last quoted place of St. Peter St. Paul was a Pharisee the most learned and strictest Sect among the Jews and was so well instructed in the Christian Religion that he himself saith he was not a whit behind any the best and most knowing of the Holy Apostles and for the encouragement of the Pagan World to embrace Christianity he publickly declares and assures them that the believing Paganish Husband or Wise should have a Power and Priviledge to transmit and convey their Faith to their Seed so that their Children after such a conversion of the Parent should be capable of a Federal or Covenant-Holiness which should be of such efficacy and vertue as to impute and make over to them a Right to the Covenant and then by the Seal of Baptism to be receiv'd into the Church admitted to the favour of God and made Heirs of Heaven by virtue of their Membership in the Covenant of Grace Thus we plainly see by the Testimony of Holy Scripture and by the Evidence of Reason a Reason so infallible and unerring that it is conducted by the Light of Divine Revelation what is the plain natural and proper sense of the Holy Jesus's Commission to his Blessed Disciples St. Matth. xxviij 9. Go teach all Nations baptizing them So that he who shall from a mistaken sense of that place of Holy Scripture deny Baptism unto Infants hinders the Propagation and Progress of Christian Religion makes the
only a distinction in the manner of Conveyance why should any barr lie against the Admission of Children now more than formerly Is Baptism an higher spiritualized Rite than Circumcision That is not possible because Circumcision is an Evangelic Institution I mean an Institution of that Doctrine which was to Abraham delivered of old And if the Spirituality of outward Ordinances is to be drawn from the design of their Appointment then Circumcision was as much spiritualized as Baptism because it truly seals the same Covenant and assures the same Grace and was a Rite of Admission for the same spiritual stock of the Father of the Faithfull as Baptism is among us Hereupon if Circumcision as a Sacrament was the same formerly that Baptism is now it must be consequent That Infants now are as capable of the One provided there is no Precept de novo or a new to exclude them as formerly they were of the Other If it were not absurd that Children then were allowed to be Members of the Church why should it be so under the Holy Gospel If the Almighty allowed them under the former Dispensation to be imbodied into the Church without a Precept to forbid them there is reason they should be allowed the same favour now Nay if Children were made Members of the Church when the Admission was more harsh how irrational is it not to allow them an Entrance now when the way of Admission is more suitable to the Tenderness of an Infant Surely if Jewish Children were Circumcised by blood made with hands Christian Children without a Prohibition of Holy Scripture should be allowed the Spiritual Circumcision which is Baptism Whom the Lord hath admitted an Heir to the Glory above and given an Interest in his Church below no Man should dare to hinder his Title that seals the Inheritance and offers the Privilege But yet so impertinent and censorious have some Antipaedobaptists been Vid. Case of Infant-Baptism p. 30. as to say Children are as unfit for Baptism as the Off-spring of Brutes and that it is as nugacious and triffing to Invocate our Heavenly Father for the Descent of his Divine Spirit as to beseech him to enlighten a Stock or a Stone So that upon this Hypothesis or Supposition That Children are not fit to be Baptized the Antipaedobaptists generally affirm That admitting Children to it is a reproach to the Sacrament a very Nothing an uncommanded Duty and thereupon in contempt term it Baby-Baptism as I have heard some of them phrase it though in truth the strongest Arguments I have heard from them or met with in their Books may more properly be called a Baby than a Manly Defence of their mistaken Principles Not remembring at the same time that Circumcising Children was no Reproach to the Sacrament of Admission into the Jewish Church but had a proper sence and signification so that the Antipaedobaptists might as well say there was Baby-Circumcision and Baby-Baptism under the Mosaic Dispensation both being used to Children among that People Obj. The main Argument they offer against it is drawn from Childrens unfitness for some Purposes of that Ordinance which can be performed by none but such as are Adult who have the use of Reason to know the terms of the Covenant they are admitted to and to exercise the Graces proper for that Ordinance and to confirm those Graces by such an Exercise but Children cannot undertake these things and therefore should not be allowed the use of that Ordinance whose design is so much disappointed in the Application thereof Answ But this Argument or Objection how pleasing soever at first sight is not good 1. Because it is deceitfull in its Consequence and therefore the Conclusion will not hold 2. Because it is a reflection upon some of the former Dispensations of the Wiseft Being 1. Because it is deceitfull in its Consequence and therefore the Conclusion will not hold and that for a Reason I find urged by a Learned Man in his Excellent Tract called The Case of Infant-Baptism which is so strong that if well understood would fully answer if not for ever silence this Objection His Reason is this Because this way of arguing takes away the difference between a strict Institution which is appointed to answer one or more Purposes and particularly for persons of one kind and an Institution of Latitude which is appointed for several Purposes and for different kinds of Persons differently qualified for those several Purposes Of the first kind was the Institution of Fringes which could only be worn properly by those that were Adult because they alone were fit to perform the design of their appointment viz. To look upon them and remember the Commandments of the Lord And these you may suppose were those Phylacteries the Pharisees did wear and because they were Ostentatious Men affected to make them broader than others which Hypocrisie and Dissimulation our Blessed Saviour the Holy Jesus did severely reprove in them and tartly upbraid them for and with And of the other kind is the Sacred Institution of Matrimony which was Instituted by Heaven for several Purposes and for those that are differently qualified and fitted for those several Purposes inasmuch as Persons that are not fit for some Purposes may yet lawfully enter into that State of Life because they are fitted for other ends thereof All the Purposes for which it was Instituted cannot be performed but by such as are past the Age allowed by all for the begetting Infants yet such as have out-grown those years are not wholly unfit for that State Nor is their Matrimony of no force or an Impeachment of the Sacred Institution of Matrimony because they are only fitted for one Purpose for which Matrimony was Instituted and that is the last End for which our Excellent Church tells us Marriage was Ordained viz. the mutual society help and comfort the one ought to have of the other in prosperity and adversity This one Instance declares how deceitfull our Adversaries Argument is against the admitting Children to Baptism because of their unfitness for some Purposes for which it was Instituted they should first offer a Proof for what they would have allowed but have no reason to expect viz. That it was a Sacred Appointment of the former kind which I term a strict Institution and then their way of arguing would hold But this I am well satisfied they can never do because that Ordinance came in the place of Circumcision which was a Sacred Appointment of the second kind and because the Blessed Jesus underwent Baptism in whom there was more unfitness than there could be in Children The Baptist in truth used the Baptism of Repentance and thereupon assured the World of the Pardon of Sins and on that account knowing our dear Saviour stood in no necessity thereof was not willing to admit him to it St. Matth. iij. 14. But John forbad him saying I have need to be baptized of thee and comest thou to me But our Blessed
Saviour returned such an Answer as satisfied him in the next Verse Suffer it to be so now Mat. iii. 15. for thus it becometh us to fulfill all Righteousness i.e. It is just and equitable that I who being now Thirty years old and so qualified by Moses's Law to Preach should enter upon my Public Ministerial Office and being I intend Baptism as the Sacrament to admit Members to my Church should undergo that Ordinance my self being the Head of my Church which may be a good Reason why our mercifull Redeemer would not be Baptized before and may satisfie such of the Antipaedobaptists for some of them have urged it to me as would from thence draw an Argument against Infant-Baptism and besides it is like the Logicians Argumentum ad hominem it is against themselves for it is well known that sometimes they Baptize persons before that Age. And this Account plainly signifies That the Ordinance of Admission into the Christian Church is a Sacred Appointment of Latitude and that in such Appointments the unfitness of the Party as to some Purposes doth not unfit him for the Ordinance when he is qualified for others 2. Because it is a reflection upon some of the former Dispensations of the Wisest Being For it was the Appointment of Heaven that Infants should undergo Circumcision though all the Purposes of that Ordinance could not be performed but by such as were grown to years of discretion who were only fit to know the Meaning of the Appointment and the Obligation of the Covenant they were admitted unto So that this Argument is as much against Circumcising as Baptizing Children because Circumcising them was appointed for the same Purposes as that used in our Church And hereupon when Men were by that Sacrament received into the Church they were to believe in God and repent of any breach of his Laws and openly to disown any Idolatrous Belief or Practice and even to forsake their Idolatrous Relatives and Acquaintance and yet on the Request of those Proselytes their Children were Baptized and Circumcised and thereby admitted into their Church though they were wholly ignorant of those duties their Parents undertook the performance of Hereupon such who oppose Baptizing Children because it agrees not to all the Uses of that Ordinance vilifie the Wisdom of God and undervalue the Wisdom of the Ecclesiastic Governors among the Jews not weighing with themselves that Circumcising Children then and Baptizing them now is an Appointment of great Latitude intended by Heaven for Infants in whom there is a a fitness for some nay the principal uses of that Ordinance as well as for grown Persons to whom all are fit Rem praecipuam in Baptismo non attendunt viz. testificationem divinae benevolentiae in foedus tutelam suam suscipientis gratiam conferentis c. Nam in Baptismo praecipua res est divina Gratia quae consistit in remissione peccatorum regeneratione adoptione haereditate vitae aeternae cujus sane gratiae infantes indigentes capaces sunt Cassand de Bapt. Infant They neither regard nor consider the chief thing in Baptism viz. the Testification or Witness of the Divine Benevolence taking them into his Covenant Protection and Patronage and conferring and bestowing Grace upon them For in Baptism the chief thing is the Divine Grace which consists and stands in the Remission Pardon and Forgiveness of Sins in Regeneration or the New-birth in Adoption or Son-ship and in a Right and Title to the Inheritance of Eternal Life of which Grace Infants stand in need and are as capable as the Adult and full-grown Persons as the Judicious Cassander observes in his Excellent Treatise of the Baptizing of Infants Children are fitted for all the Purposes of Baptism as it is appointed by Heaven for a Sign to us to convey unto us the Advantages of the New Covenant For their Infancy is no barr but they may be accounted Parts of the Church as well as Members of any different Company or Society of congregated Persons Nor does it any more hinder them from being the adopted Sons and Daughters of Heaven than it denies them a Right to any Earthly Possession nor of being the Inheritors of Everlasting Happiness by force of such Adoption than by force of any other Civil Adoption the Inheritors of an Earthly Estate For Infants are fitted for all Testimonies of Honour and Favour from God and Men and of having a Title to the Benefits of any Company though they are not able to discharge the Services thereof nor know the least matter of them Since therefore Infants are as fit to receive and do as greatly want almost all the Advantages of the New Covenant and the Immunities of Church-society as grown persons Is it not as reasonable that the Seal which confirms those Advantages and Immunities should be given to one as well as the other If a Monarch adopts the meanest Man's Infant and Embody him into his own Family and make over to him some of his Revenue and Empire and to establish and strengthen to him this should in allusion to Circumcision take away a piece of his flesh or in resemblance to Baptism should order him by Water to be purified and cleansed who would reckon this a Ceremony of no signification or declare the Infant not fit for the Sign when he was fit for the Principal matters of which the Rite was a signification Or to give you another Similirude that may more properly suit our present Case Imagine a King should order an Attainted Traytor 's Infant to be brought before him and before many people gathered for that intent should thus deliver himself You understand the Blood of this Infant is Attainted by his Parent 's Crime the Title to his Father's Honour and Possessions is confiscated by Law and he is wholly ruined though he understand not his miserable Estate My Pity for him is great and here I give him a Title to his Blood and forfeited Estate and for the future he shall have as proper a Right as if his Ancestor had not been Attainted I heartily pardon him and hereby publish that I take him into my Favour and that no stain may be imputed to him I do in the presence of you called together sprinkle him with clean Water to shew that he is purged from all Guilt upon his own or his Father's account Now imagine this transacted for an attainted Infant Will any declare that what is done signifieth nothing and is of no force because the Infant understands it not or that he was not fit for the Sign when he was fit to be cleansed from the Guilt transmitted to him by his Parent and had his Estate re-convey'd to him which was the Principal matter thereby signified What I have now offered ought to be seriously weighed by those that are Adversaries to the Baptizing of Children to whom I might propose the Precedents of Circumcision and Baptism used among the Jews both which as I shall shew
admission into the Church by Baptism than the Infants of Pagans who were not in Covenant they had preached a Doctrin which would assuredly have been a higher Scandal than whatever they had preached against the necessity of circumcising Males and the observation of Moses's Law of Ceremonies Whereupon since we do not find among their grievous Accusations on the change of the Jewish Usages that they murmured or repined that their Infants were not baptized and so made capable of the Benefits of the new Covenant of Grace It is a much more probable Reason to believe that the first Planters of Christianity and their Associates admitted Infants to Baptism than the not shewing a plain Example or direct Precept for it under the H. Gospel Dispensation is that they were not at all baptized And now having given such Reasons and Authorities for this laudable and christian Usage before I come to answer the Objections which is the last part of my Undertaking give me leave to make one Observation Menno who was one of the greatest Scholars of the Adverse Party who lived about 100 years since Vid. Cassand adv Anabapt Case of Infants Bapt. p. 47 48. was so close put to it by this sort of Argument from Authority that he owned the Ordinance of baptizing Children as ancient as the H. Apostolic Age but then declared it came from counter felt Pastors of that Age but if so how happens it we find not any thing recorded of it in the sacred Epistles nor in the Books of any of that Age such as S. Clement S. Ignatius and S. Polycarp How happens it that S. John who lived the longest of all the H. Apostles mentions it not Or how happens it that the Inditer of the Apocalypse that censured several Errors of that Age should take no notice hereof It is very wonderful that none of the inspired Writers such as assisted them 〈…〉 should not mention so reproachful a practice that would stock the Church with counterfeit Professors and in a short time Unchurch it In the same sort if it hapned by erroneous Guides in the times immediately after the H. Apostles how came it to pass that none of the Illustristious Confessors that lived in that Age contradicted it as a Doctrin that might endanger the overthrow of Christianity nor told us any thing in the least of it They published Books against the Errors of Simon Magus Menander Saturninus Cerinthus Ebion Valentinus Basilides Marcion c. but we read not any thing in their Writings against baptizing Children tho' we are assured from Iraenus and Tertullian that it was used in their times as we have made it appear CHAP. XV. An Answer to an Objection that would overthrow the Sense given of St. Mat. xxviij 19. THe Antipedobaptists do object An Obj. that the Command for baptizing all Nations doth not help the cause of Infant-baptism because there are some places of H. Writ of a like sound are not to be interpreted as if they took in all indefinitely but only such as have a capacity to act the Duty as worship God and sing to him all you Nations To which I return 1. answ 1 Supposing daâ—â— sed non concesso as the Logicians speak that the sext S. Mat. xxviij 19. doth not conclude tho it do not forbid that Children should be brought to Baptism I say this Allowance being given the Antipedobaptist can never prove his Principle from it 2. This Text being no more than a Command can be no Evidence in matter of fact nor have I urged this Text as matter of Fact but necessity of Duty 3. The Example that is brought to overthrow the force drawn from the Sense we have given of the Text is mighty weak For tho' in the Precept Worship God and sing to him all you Nations they that are not able to do either cannot be believed to be obliged For nemo tenetur ad Impossibile none is bound to Impossibilities as the Civil Lawers speak yet in a Precept in acting that for others of which all are alike able to whom the Precept is delivered as certainly there was no more difficulty for the commissionated Teachers to administer Baptism to Children than to adult Persons there is no ground to limit or confine it And that this is the truth may appear because the Precept is not delivered to all Nations to fit and qualify themselves for Baptism but to the H. Disciples to disciple them and administer Baptism to them and of being brought to the Church and admission into the number of the Members of Christ's Mystical Body And of cleansing by the Baptismal Waters the Infant is capable tho' not of worshipping God or Singing at least Musically and Harmonically An Obj. Again another Objection they fetch from the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizing them into the Name because the baptized should not only catch for themselves the Profession and Name but also be deeply immersed in the thing named and professed answ To which I return The Sponsors promise for the Children out of a regard to the Profession but the name and thing themselves take They are sanctified and washed in the Name of Christ and are thereupon termed Christians outward Communication being needful to a Member of the visible Church but not Profession personal and outward in this matter the Party being not fit for it and the profession of others equivalent for those Parties An Obj. But still they object against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them and perceiving it to be of another Gender and not the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they find out a word to lay it on which themselves have obosen and that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciples and thus they would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them not applied to Nations Rev. xx 8. but to the Disciples of the Nations To which I return we have the same Conjunction in H. Writ I mean of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nations and them and they are both mentioned in one verse with relation to one another And why may not we more naturally draw a Companion from the common Custom of Speech and rather substitute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word appliable to all Ages Men Women and Children and bind up all in the end of the Construction with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of all Nations Neither is the Conjunction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nations and Them improper because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is most expressive in the Original Tongue and so fit to make the Construction perfect Nations being made up and composed of Men Women and Children And seeing now we are criticizing upon the Text let me offer something should have been brought in at the Coherence Go teach all Nations baptizing them If we correct our Translation by the Original it will run thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciple you all Nations not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Teach you them The
yet this doth not exclude Infants from Baptism as appears from the reason already offered To all this let me add in short what is meant by the Promise as recorded by Joel and cited by the Text and it is double 1. The Pardon of Iniquity 2. The Gift of the Divine Spirit whereby was not always intended a miraculous Gift but the comfort and support of the Divine Spirit in their Souls by his Holy Inspirations and Breathings 1 Cor. xij 29 30. his powerful Aid and Assistance for it is clear by St. Paul the Gift of Miracles was not imparted to some and the Kingdom of God or Grace that good Christians enjoy in this World Rom. xiv â— 6 consists in Righteousness and Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost and that these very persons had this Communication of the Holy Spirit appears at the latter end of this Chapter for this reason Acts ij 46. Because they did eat their Meat with gladness and singleness of Heart And further Another Communication of the Holy Spirit they had in that they were willing to leave their Possessions and deliver them to be disposed of as the Holy Apostles thought most useful for the good and benefit of the Church iv 34. which were clear and great Testimonies that the Divine Spirit resided and dwelt in their Souls I know a great and learned Man saith he will not defend the Arguments from this Text because he thinks it inconcludent for this reason because he believes the word Children there used is really the Posterity of the Jews and not their Infant-Children And I believe so too And yet with deference to my Superiors and with submission unto better Judgments I take the Argument to be concluding upon this account because it would be a great Incentive to incourage the propagating Christianity and a Motive to both Jews and Gentiles to embrace and come in and own themselves Professors of the Holy Gospel and Disciples of the Blessed Jesus And it is very probable in his first Sermon St. Peter would use the most prevailing Argument with the Jews that he might remove the Prejudice that lay upon their Hearts to hinder them from believing in a crucified Saviour and it is not improbable his numerous Auditors understood him in this sense because we read in the latter part of this Chapter the same day were added to the Church about three thousand Souls Acts ij 41. So that when St. Peter saith the Promise is to you and unto your Children it is as much as if he had said these words O you Jews that now hear me if you will repent and be baptized you and your Posterity and the Children of you and your Posterity if you will repent i. e. own your Guilt in crucifying the Lord of Life and Glory and embrace his Holy Gospel and live according to the Rules thereof and be baptized i. e. receive the Sign of Admission into the New Covenant of Grace you and your Children shall have the same Priviledge you had in your own Dispensation under the Law i. e. your Children shall be in Covenant as well as your selves and equally with you be admitted to the Sign of the Covenant Baptism as your Children are now admitted to Circumcision the Sign of the antiquated Covenant in your way and this might be a great Argument to the Gentiles to become Christians because they should not only enjoy the same Priviledge as the Jew if one of their Proselytes but much greater by being a Disciple of the Blessed Jesus as much greater as the Holy Gospel did exceed the Law as appears by St. Paul's Argument But if the Ministration of Death or the Law written and engraven in Stones was glorious so that the Children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the Face of Moses for the Glory of his Countenace which Glory was to be done away how shall not the Ministration of the Spirit or Gospel be rather glorious For if the Ministration of Condemnation or the Law be Glory much more doth the Ministration of Righteousness or the Gospel exceed in Glory for even that which was made glorious or the Law had no Glory in this respect by reason of the Glory or Gospel that excelleth for if that which was done away or the Law was glorious much more that which remaineth 2 Cor. iij. 7. 12. or the Gospel is glorious Thus I hope I may say without assuming or taking too much to my self I have rescued this Text from the Antipedobaptists Objections and drawn a concluding Argument from it for Infant-Baptism but because the Reverend Dr. Hammond thinks he hath founded the Practice upon a better Basis give me leave to mention it because it will corroborate and confirm what I have said and when I shall have answered the Objections brought against the other place of Holy Scripture I hope I shall for ever silence the Objections of any Antipedobaptist from Holy Writ from having any influence or prevalency on unprejudiced minds that love Truth better than Interest and had rather comply with the Sacred institutions of the Holy Jesus than carry on and promote any Faction against him and his Holy Religion The Argument is this Baptism or Washing was a known Rite solemnly used among the Jews as it is now among Christians for the initiating or entring Jews and Proselytes into the Covenant of the Lord and so into the Congregation of the Jews as among us it is into the New Covenant and into the Church of Christ Many Branches of that Custom there were I shall briefly gather them together and farther testifie the truth of those Affirmations which any way seem questionable to any 1. Baptism or Washing the whole Body was a Jewish Solemnity by which the Native Jews were entred into the Covenant of God made with them by Moses This that learned Doctor makes appear by several Quotations from their great Rabbins and tells us nothing can be more clearly affirmed by them 2. As the Native Jews were thus entred into Covenant by Baptism so the Proselytes of the Jews that were taken in as Profelytes of Justice or Righteousness as professing or undertaking all their Law and not only as Proselytes of the Gate to live among them were received into their Church by Baptism likewise This also the same excellent Doctor proves by several Authorities and Testimonies of their learned Men in all Ages whensoever any Gentile was willing to enter into Covenant and to be gathered under the Wings of the Schecinah or Divine Majesty and to undertake the Yoke of the Law he was bound to have Baptism Circumcision and a Peace-Offering and if it were a Woman Baptism and Sacrifice And again the stranger that is circumcised and not baptized or baptized and not circumcised Arrianus in Epictet l. 2. c. 9. is not a true Proselyte until he be both A clear Testimony we have of this in Arrianus the Stoic Philosopher where the Jewish Proselyte is by him called
told him I would speak more intelligibly and that by Foederal I meant a Covenant Holiness Now Children antecedent to exercise of Reason are not capable of a Personal Holiness which is a comprehensive Word for all the Graces of Christian Religion But here the Antipaedobaptists object object We read of two Persons endued with Holiness before they came to the use of Reason the Blessed Jesus and St. John the Baptist To which I answer answ We do not find that either of them acted any Divine Grace antecedent to Years of Discretion though they were sanctified from the Womb. After I had given this Sence I was told the reverend Dr. Hammond had given the same Interpretation Upon which I was pleased I had the concurring Judgment of so learned a Man Though I had not read it in him or any else to my remembrance but it was purely the suggestion of my own Mind assisted by the Divine Spirit who is never wanting with his Grace to help those that are sincerely employed in the Investigation of and Enquiry after Truth This is the main Substance so far as my Memory will reach of the many hours Discourse we had If I had had any Thought of printing it I would have transcribed it while fresh in my Memory and then possibly might have given a more particular Account but I hope this may be satisfactory being as much as I can remember Toward the end of our Discourse I told him if he could make appear he had answered any Argument of mine or properly stated any for his Principles I dare promise to yield the Cause but to this as I remember he returned no Answer After this was brought from 1 Cor. VII 14. I remember not I had any Answer but he did as he used make an Harangue to the People And when he could neither answer my Argument nor state any proper for his Principles he diverted to another Subject and would needs enter into a Dispute against Tiths Upon which I desired we might come to a better Conclusion about the Doctrine of Infant-Baptism but I could have no further Discours on that Subject But he requested me to shew him a place of Holy Scripture in the New Testament for Tiths which I told him was unreasonable to demand seeing our dear Redeemer and his blessed Disciples lived under Heathen Governors that were Enemies to Christianity and it could not be expected such as were Gentile Rulers should make Laws in Favour of the Christian Religion Yet St. Paul asserts the Reasonableness of Ministerial Maintenance 1 Cor. IX 14. when he saith He that preacheth the Gospel should live of the Gospel But when Constantine made Profession of Christianity he adopted Tiths into the Laws of the Empire and then Tiths were to be paid under as high an Obligation of Conscience as the Jews were under by virtue of their Judicial Law which was a part of their Theocracy or the Government of God himself So that a Man who after such an Obligation defrauds his Minister either in whole or part may be said to be guilty of the Sin of the Jews which they committed Mal. III. 8. and it is well if none commit it in our days who are said directly to rob God which they that love their Souls believ a God and a future Judgment may tremble at the Consideration of Which made me wonder Mr. M. C. should tell me he paid Tiths to a certain Clergy-man I think he said one of the Residentiaries of Chichester but he did it as he said against his Conscience Whereupon I told him he could not be an honest Man because he paid that voluntarily which was against his Conscience For any Man that payeth what he thinketh he ought not to do without force doth it voluntarily because he is under no Compulsion and he that consents to that which he believes a Sin though it be not yet is a Sin to him as the Author of The Whole Duty of Man informs us Dr. Tillotson in his Sermon at the Funeral of Mr. Gouge the best of Books as our learned and most rational Arch-bishop calls it Because God judgeth according to our Wills not according to our Understandings And now to pay my Adversary all the Respect he may look for and to do him all the Justice he can expect I believe from the Fame I have heard he could have disputed like a Scholar more coherently and congruously argued more closely and properly but without breach of Charity I think I may suspect he talked impertinently with a Design to put me in a Passion which I was somewhat aware of and therefore stood on my Guard and that I might not be guilty of self-confidence I implored the Divine Assistance to prevent my falling into the Indecencies and Disadvantages of Passion because I knew from my natural Temper I had some Inclination thereto and that makes me think he did not believ the Character I have been told he heard that Morning he came For enquiring whether I was a Man of Passion he was answered I was not easily disturbed on which I was told he shook his Head But I believe by his roving Talk he thought to raise a Passion for nothing disturbs a Man of Sens more than impertinent Talk and when that would not do he fell to the mean Art of Flattery by commending my Patience and told me after three hour's Discourse he had oft talked with Men of my Coat but before so long time had been turned out of Doors Upon which I told him his impertinent Discourse deserved such usage but I would not give him occasion against me For then I supposed he would go into the Town and boast what a Victory he had obtained But being he was there I would inflict that Penance on my self as to discourse till Bed-time if he would stay and then leav him but I would have the Courage to meet him next Morning For I now found where his Strength lay which was more in evading an Argument than in rightly stating one or standing to it and learnedly defending it After this Day 's tedious Work because of the Impertinency I was troubled with I saw him no more till New-Year's Day which hapned to be on a Sunday the Festival engaged me to say something of Infant-Baptism When Evening-Prayer was done I sent to Mr. M.C. where he held forth and I think it was the first Day he did so in my Parish He was so kind as to come and brought two of my Neighbours of his Opinion I treated them civilly and after a while desired them to withdraw because I had a Mind to speak with my Antagonist alone which they did when they were gon and none but he and my self I told him He might have the same suspicion of me I had of him that when he and I discoursed before a Company we might be tempted more to purchase Reputation than to maintain Truth but now it was not in the Devil's power to
the gaining the Gentile World to his New Dispensation and to be professors of his Sacred Institutions and obedient Subjects to his excellent Laws And this did more suitably answer his Advent or Coming into the World who came to be an Universal Saviour for all Mankind For Moses was but a Legislator to the Israelites and Joshua a Saviour to the Jews only and yet on that account called Jesus because he delivered that People from their Enemies and entred them into Canaan But he that was to be an Universal Redeemer and so the true Jesus in the most extensive signification of the word thought fit to appoint such a Sacrament of Admission into his Kingdom as might work upon and prevail with the whole World even all Mankind Now from what hath been said and from a custom among the Jews concerning Proselytes of Justice which all learned Men know to be so and Men of Sense among the Antipaedobaptists acknowledge that after such a Proselyte was Baptiz'd and Circumcis'd and had thereby a Right to eat of the Passover his Child born after such an Admission into the Covenant had a Right to Circumcision at Eight days old as well as a natural-born Jew it may appear that denying Baptism to Infants now is an Hindrance to the Propagation of the Holy Gospel both as to Jews and Pagans As to the Jew because he might say to an Antipaedobaptist offering Arguments to perswade him to become a Christian He would not be of his Religion because after he was in Covenant and had received the Sign of the Covenant his Child was not in Covenant and so had no Right to the Sign which he had in his Way by virtue of his Faith and so consequently the Benefit and Privilege less in ours than in his Way And so the Pagan might say to an Antipaedobaptist perswading him to embrace Christianity I will rather be a Jew than a Christian because as soon as I own and profess their Faith my Child after such a Declaration is in Covenant as well as my self and hath a Right to the Sign So that by this account it plainly appears that the denying Infants Baptism is an Hindrance to the Progress of the Holy Gospel from Evidence of Reason From whence it may seem rationally to follow That he who holds any Principle that derogates from and diminishes the Honour of Christianity and impedes the Propagation of the Religion of our dear Redeemer hath no true and proper Right to the Honourable Name and Title of a Christian which is the natural and pernicious consequence of Antipaedobaptistic Tenets So that how General soever the Commission the Holy Jesus gave to his Blessed Disciples for converting the Heathen Nations was the sence must be plainly this which if I can secure by two other Texts of Holy Scripture confirm by Allusion to Jewish Customs and by the Coherence establish by the Authority of the Ancient Primitive Fathers and answer the strongest Objections of our Adversaries I shall say all that can be thought necessary by Men of Reason in defence of Infant-Baptism Go teach all Nations Baptizing them i.e. When you have sufficiently instructed the Pagan World in and convinced them of the Excellency of my Holy Gospel and thereby perswaded them to embrace my Divine Religion my Spiritual Worship and then after a publick Profession they have declared themselves my Disciples and Followers ascertain them that they are admitted into my Covenant of Grace and receive them into and give them a possession of my Covenant by the Sign and Seal of Baptism and then assure them that their Children shall have the same Right to my Covenant that the natural-born Children of Jews have and the Children of the Proselytes of Righteousness or Justice had after their Parents were converted to the Jewish Religion The Naturalists have learn'd by diligent enquiry That if a Pearl have a foulness and happen to fall into the Womb of a Dove 1 Pet. ij 2. Albertus lib. de Gemmis Vid. Mr. Carpenter's Anabaptist washt and washt and shrunk in the washing p. 15 16. and continue some time there the Dove will return it fair and clear So Doctrines should be proved in the Womb of the Holy Spirit the true Holy Scripture-Dove which Womb is the sincere Word of Truth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and if the Doctrine be true Pearl the Holy Spirit will speedily deliver it for such and cleanse it from any Foulness or Impurity it hath contracted in this naughty World This Interpretation is suitable to the Nature of Baptism because it was appointed for all that need it and all should have Baptism that stand in need of Baptismal-Grace and all stand in need of Baptismal-Grace that would be cleansed from Original Pollution and all stand in need of being cleansed from Original Defilement that are Polluted therewith Aequè certa sunt ac evidentia quae ex sacris literis evidenter ac certe deducuntur atque ea quae in illis expressè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. ad verbum in terminis habentur Ex veronil nisi verum Principia fides vel quae ex iis deducuntur sunt in Scriptura Omnis divina Revelatio est in Scriptura vel directe vel per necessariam inevitabilem consequentiam It is a true Maxim That Matters are alike sure and clear which are assuredly and evidently drawn from Holy Writ as the Matters which are read there in their own proper terms and phrases Or the same Observation may be thus worded Consequences are as true as the Principles they are drawn from if truly and properly deduced The ground of this is as certain as Truth it self From Truth proceeds nothing but what is so if drawn by a right Consequence And another Ground may be because the Consequence so drawn is in a manner as true as the Principle and Truth so drawn is the same with that from whence the Deduction springs and rises Upon this account we observe That the Doctrines of Faith and what is deducible therefrom is contained in Holy Writ And again Every Doctrine that is the Discovery and Birth of Heaven is either expresly or by a needfull and unavoidable Conclusion in Holy Writ And on this account we declare That he who believes a Truth believes all the Deductions that can properly be drawn therefrom CHAP. IV. An Exposition of St. Matth. xxviij 19. Whereby the Sence delivered is further cleared IF Christian Children from the Sence I have delivered of this Text be not as capable of Baptism as the Jewish Children of Circumcision Upon what account arises the Distinction Not from the Nature of Abraham's Covenant for that as to the material part was the same with ours made over to us by the Holy Jesus Nor from the manner of Conveyance for Circumcision did signifie the same thing under the former Dispensation as Baptism under the latter And hereupon seeing the two Covenants were for the Nature of them alike and
Seal be changed the Covenant continues In short there was no engagement on our mercifull Redeemer to disuse the Custom of Baptizing Children as being disagreeable to the Ingenuous Catholic and Generous Notion of his Divine Institution And surely these things being duly weighed there is much greater ground to inferr our Blessed Saviour would have forbidden Children being Baptized had it been his Design not to have had them admitted thereunto than that he would have enjoyned that Holy Ordinance if it had been his Design as undoubtedly it was the Custom thereof should be used and allowed under his New Dispensation For there was no necessity to enjoyn his Disciples to observe what without a Command they would practise unless he had forbad them and that he did not forbid them the use of this Holy Ordinance is plain in that he did not forbid Children being Baptized For if he forbad Children that Holy Ordinance he either did it by a direct Injunction or by Consequence by confining the use of that Holy Ordinance only to Adult persons That he never did debarr them by a direct Injunction all Antipaedobaptists of sence allow because we read it not in his Sacred Gospel Obj. But they say it was his Purpose that those alone that were Adult were to be admitted thereunto because antecedent to Baptism Men were to be instructed to believe and to repent which they seem to prove from this Text of St. Matth. xxviij 19. and St. Mark xvj 15. and Acts ij 38. Now they alledge these are only suited to those that are Adult and therefore they only should be admitted to Baptism These are the Texts by which the Antipaedobaptists would evidence that Christ did so far confine that Holy Ordinance as to debarr Children its use Answ But I Answer They herein notoriously err for these Places do no more evince or prove that only those that are Adults should be Baptized than what St. Paul saith 2 Thess iij. 10. will inferr that the Adult only should eat For even when we were with you this we commanded you that if any man would not work neither should he eat On which account in a fallacious manner this Argument might be drawn because St. Paul saith Those that eat must work but now the Adult only can work therefore they only must eat whereby we should starve Children and infirm People that cannot work and Aged persons that are past it I have given this Example to signifie how impertinent the Arguments against Baptizing Children are and that it can never be evinced or made out from any place of Holy Scripture that That Ordinance is limited only to the Adult because such only can be instructed can believe and can repent The falseness of this way of arguing will appear from an easie Similitude that as I remember I have read in the Learned Cassander's Excellent Tract of Insant-Baptism which the weakest Man may apprehend Imagine there was a mortal and infectious Distemper in a populous City and Heaven should appoint a sett number of persons to acquaint them with an Infallible Remedy that should cure this Distemper and it should be declared to them Travel to such a City and assemble the Inhabitants and acquaint them with the good this Remedy will do and ascertain them That whosoever hath Faith to receive it from you for that purpose shall recover but he that doubts the truth of what you say shall perish Upon this allowance which is reasonable to allow I ask any Antipaedobaptist if the terms of such an Order were enough for those that had it or any else to inferr That it was the Design of Heaven that they ought to communicate this Remedy only to the Adult because only such could be assembled to know its Worth have Faith in its Efficacy or doubt of its Power Surely such a conclusion would not be allowed because Infants would be as fit to receive the Remedy as the Adult though they did not at all know the Advantages thereof Now then because Infants were fit to receive the Advantage of that Holy Ordinance and the Disciples to whom the Order was imparted so understood it and were not unacquainted with its Usage under the Old Law how was it possible to suppose but that it was the Holy Jesus's design that Children should be admitted to Baptism as well as those that were Adult That which was really true is this Their Order was an Instruction how they should Disciple the Enemies to the Blessed Jesus Jews and Pagans to his Holy Institution according to the manner of Publishing a New Dispensation in Foreign Parts Hereupon they were Commissionated to Proselyte grown Persons by Preaching to and Baptizing such as should thereupon believe and repent but notwithstanding that according to Order they should do so as the Jews used to do with those that they Proselyted to their Religion and this was no barr to their admitting the Children of such Proselytes according to their known Custom Obj. The Antipaedobaptists lay great weight in one Phrase relating to the Commission as it is expressed by another Evangelist St. Mark Chap. xvj 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Answ To which I answer Now if they did but seriously ponder what follows they might thereby understand that Children are not thence to be denied the Right of being Baptized because it is afterwards declared in the same Verse But he that believeth not shall be damned So that what takes away the Right of being baptized takes away the Right of being saved and therefore not to be applied to Children except they will declare with the Petrobrusians Vid. Cassand Praefat adv Anabapt the Foundation of the Antipaedobaptistic Sect That the same want of Faith that unfits for being baptized unfits for being saved So that it is clear from that place That the having or wanting Faith is to be applied to those that are able to understand and by Faith embrace the glad-tidings of Salvation Thus much I have said to make appear how impertinent and unconcluding the Arguments of our Adversaries from Holy Scripture are to deny Children a right of being Baptized because all the places I have mentioned or they insist upon do signifie the Duties Vertues and Graces of those that are Adult before they are admitted to Baptism Having said thus much for the Necessity of Baptizing Infants I need not say any thing as to the Benefits thereof to make appear how usefull it is For if it be necessary it will absolutely and by unavoidable consequence follow that it is usefull However they that desire to receive an Account thereof may be fully and excellently satisfied from the Learned Author of the Case of Infant-Baptism who acquaints us with five or six Benefits and from the Reverend Bishop Taylor Bp. Taylor â—s Life of the Holy Jesus who reckons up eight Effects or Blessings of Baptism in his Grand Exemplar and likewise from the Judicious Mr. Walker Mr. Walker's Modest Plea
for the confirming the Sence I have given of the Holy Jesus's Commission to his Blessed Disciples for the bringing whole Nations over unto Christianity And that I may speak fully hereto I will give 1. A General and 2. A Particular Account First then in General The Text is Acts ij 39. For the promise is to you and to your Children and to all that are afar off as many as the Lord our God shall call An Obj. That is true saith the Antipaedobaptist As many as the Lord our God shall call by the public Ministry of his holy Word so that they would insinuate that Children are not to be admitted into Covenant or the Sign thereof till converted But hereto I answer answ This is plainly false because the word Many cannot refer to Children seeing it should have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the Greek word for Children is in the Neuter Gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that the sense is plainly this The Promise is to you and to your Children i. e. after you have forsaken the beggerly Elements of Moses and embraced my holy Religion my more excellent Dispensation your Children while Children shall after such a public Profession of your Faith in me and my heavenly Doctrin be made capable of being Members of my Covenant of Grace and by the Sign and Seal of my Covenant Baptism be admitted and received into the same and to all that are afar off a usual Phrase in holy Scripture to express and signify the Heathen Nations by as many as the Lord our God shall call i. e. as many of the Gentile World as shall be converted by the public Ministry of the holy Word shall have the same Priviledges which the Proselites of Righteousness or Justice had in your Church i. e. after such a Conversion and public Profession of the Christian Faith your Children likewise shall be received into my Covenant of Grace and by the baptismal Seal have a Right and Title thereunto and now that any other Interpretation must distort the Words from their proper meaning and that this I have now given must be the true Sense of them will clearly appear from the Original For what the Antipedobaptists would make the meaning of this Text is true in one sense tho' not to their purpose i. e. That Children cannot be called or converted to the Christian Faith because of their natural Incapacity by the public Preaching of the holy Gospel and therefore it could not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that the holy Apostle St. Peter makes this comfortable Promise to those of years of discretion in the Pagan World that should embrace the Christian Faith upon the Conviction they received in their minds from the public Ministry of the holy Apostles And St. Peter uses a word of the Masculine Gender because that agrees with a Greek word of the same Gender that signifies Men I mean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that being the more noble Sex includes the Feminine and so takes in the Female and that when Persons of Discretion were brought over into the Christian Religion their Children should have the same Priviledge with natural born Jews or the Children of the Proselytes of Righteousness who had publicly owned and been converted to the Religion of Moses may appear plainly and evidently from the Literal and Grammatic sense of another Phrase in the Text where there is a Dative Case applied to the Pagan World in the same sense that he applies two words to the Jewish Nation that have the same Case in the Original which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which do answer unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Promise is to all that are a far off must have the same sense with the words preceeding in that Verse The Promise is to you and to your Children which no Antipedobaptist that hath sense but must own that they refer to the Jewish Nation otherwise the words could have no force upon those to whom St. Peter spoke them So that when St. Peter saith The Promise is to you and to your Children the meaning must necessarily be this if you will have him speak consistently and with any tolerable good sense If you of the Jewish Nation will embrace the Christian Religion and own and submit to the Faith of the Holy Jesus the Benefits Immunities and Priviledges of the New Covenant of Grace are by us Apostles promised to and shall by the power of the holy Ghost the Gift of which for the use of the Church is communicated to us be conveyed and made over conferred and bestowed upon you and your Children and the same Promise St. Peter makes to the Jewish Nation and their Children he also makes to the Heathen World and their Offspring which enlarges the sense I have given And that this must be the sense may appear from the Original Word used for Promise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is of a like sound and of the same derivation and of a near signification with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the Greek word for the holy Gospel which is as it were the counterpart of the new Covenant or the Covenant of Grace that contains all the Parts and Articles thereof So that by virtue of your Faith the Title and Blessings of the Covenant shall be imputed to your Children that thereby they may be made as capable of Baptism the Sign of Admission into the Christian Church under the holy Gospel as your Children are now by vertue of your Jewish Faith capable of Circumcision the Seal that gave a Title to the old Covenant under the Law and if you will not allow the words this sense what St. Peter spake must rather confirm and harden the Jews in their own way and their Mosaic observations then persuade and bring them over to Christianity and upon this undeniable sense of the former part of the Text the latter must be allowed the same Exposition because any other Sense and Interpretation will be an impediment bar and hindrance to the Progress of christian Religion So that if we have any love for the blessed Jesus and desire exactly to observe his divine Institutions this Phrase And to all that are afar off must be expounded and interpreted from unquestionable parity of Reason according to the sense we have already given of the former part of the Text The Promise is to you and to your Children which answers the true meaning of our blessed Saviour's Commission to the holy Apostles according to the Account we have offered and may be called a Logical Demonstration as convictive to Reason as a Mathematic Demonstration is to the Senses of Mankind CHAP. IX A further Conformation by a particular Exposition of Acts ij 39. BUT Secondly I will give you a more particular Account that I may offer all that is necessary to be said upon this Text And here that I may deal fairly
Covenant of Grace less beneficial and extensive than the Covenant of Works and so consequently doth not allow as great Benefits Priviledges and Immunities to the Covenant of Grace which he doth to the Covenant of Works all which are the dangerous Consequences of Antipedobaptism as I hope I have sufficiently proved and convincingly made out and in the evincing or proving this Argument I have plainly shewed that we have the proper meaning of three Texts of Holy Scripture which I think to any Man of sense is as clear a Proof and as powerful an Evidence to engage our belief to the truth of any Doctrin propounded to us as if we had brought the positive and express Words of Holy Scripture which is as strong a conviction as any Man can with the least shew of reason desire So that if the true sense of the Holy Jesus's Commission to his Blessed Disciples be duly considered and that no other meaning can tolerably be put upon them being backt with the Authority of two other places of Holy Scripture and a threefold Cord is not easily broken no Antipedobaptist that is a Man of sense will hereafter press for a positive and direct place of Holy Writ because he hath no reason to expect a Tautology in Sacred Scripture to please an Humour or serve an Interest and because he will thereby weaken his Cause and then have great reason to be ashamed of if not repent for the Injury he doth his Principles and he will see the vanity of demanding express words for a confutation when he hath plain sense against him for the Holy Scriptures are to be expounded and interpreted by their Sense and not by their Sound by their Spiritual Meaning and not by the bare Words Syllables and Letters for they are best understood by their proper Design and Purport or a true Relation to their Coherence and Connexion with what preceeds and follows after And now give me leave to offer one thing that will confirm the sense of the Texts I have delivered and will also further shew how unreasonable and absurd weak and trifling the Antipedobaptists are for being so peremptory and positive in demanding an express place of Holy Scripture for the baptizing of Infants and this I will endeavour to evince from Customs among the Jews well known to all learned Men. Three things were required by the Jews to make a Male Proselyte of Righteousness Circumcision a kind of Purfication by Water which was an Allusion to Baptism and Oblation which was commonly two Turtles or Pidgeons To a Female Purification by Water and Oblation Now because the Jews since their Dispersion have neither Altar nor Sacrifice they say For the Male Circumcision and Purification by Water are sufficient For the Female Only Purification by Water In David's time they tell us many Thousands were added to the Church without Circumcision by Purification only Hence we may observe that a kind of Admission by Water into the Church was long in use among the Jews tho' it were not Sacramental till the Blessed Jesus's Institution therefore it may seem to be used by them because they looked for it as a Sacrament at the coming of the Messiah as is evident by their coming to St. John the Baptist not so much scrupling his Baptism as his Authority by what Power he baptized St. John i. 25. And they asked him and said unto him Why baptizest thou then if thou be not that Christ nor Elias nor that Prophet By which three different words they meant the Messiah because he was well known to the Jews by those Terms or Phrases to be foresignified so that had he owned himself for such they would not have doubted his Commission but Christ being plainly proved the Messiah he was Lord of the Sacrament as well as of the Sabbath and so had a sufficient Power to institute a New Sacrament and so substituted Baptism in the room of Circumcision which whosoever believes not to be as extensive as the other is so irrational as to make the holy Jesus not so merciful a Legislator as Moses which shews the unreasonableness and absurdity of demanding an express Text of holy Scripture for Infant Baptism which was the Truth to be cleared and I hope is sufficiently made apparent and manifest CHAP. XI Some general Observations upon the Sense and Expositions delivered LET me now offer some general Observations upon the Sense and Expositions of those Texts I have brought for the Proof hereof and I will begin with the Observation of Chemnitius in his Plea he makes against the Antipedobaptists of Germany * Ego sane qui simplicitatem amo etiamsi nec intelligam nec explicare possim quomodo Infantes qui Baptizantur credant judico tamen suffitire firmissima illa testimonia explicata Infantes esse Abaptizandos neque enim ab illis propterea discedendum etsi non possim vel intelligere velexplicare quomedo credant Infames Chemnit Exam. Conc. Trid. part 2. Tit. de Baptismo ad Canon 13. I do so truly love Simplicity and Truth that altho' I cannot tell how Children who are baptized believe yet I judge the Testimonies from Holy Scripture above-named most strong Evidences and a sufficient Proof for this Christian Practice neither ought Christians to depart from this Truth tho' I cannot understand or explain how Children believe In some things we should take St. Paul's Advice And become Fools that we may be wise 1 Cor. iij. 18. Obedience being more acceptable than burnt Offerings 1 Sam. xv 22. And we should offer up our Understandings to divine Revelation where there is clear Reason to submit to it Faith is the wisest and most well-pleasing Service we can offer to God Nescire ea quae docere non vult Magister maximus erudita est inscitia not to know those things our great Master would have us ignorant of is if I may so speak without a Solecism a learned Ignorance But prais'd be Heaven I have yet met with no Arguments of the Adversaries so strong as to need such an Apology or Plea We find not any Accusation laid to the Charge of Christianity by the Jewish or Pagan World upon this Account which certainly would have been done by some of the Enemies of our holy Religion if the Jewish Believer had not enjoyed the same Immunities when Christian that he did before Or if the first Planters of Christianity had preached the same Doctrin the Antipedobaptists do now how would the Enemies of our holy Religion have declamed against us and declared the Doctrin they preached was not the same Covenant God offered to the Father of the Faithful and the People of Israel because that included Father and Son as to the Covenant and the Sign that conveyed the Benefits of the Covenant An Obj. Now because the Antipedobaptists call upon us for an Example of any baptized in a gathered Church without Faith and that herein the holy Scripture is silent Answ To which I
words that our Adversaries may see I deal fairly with them He argues from the Coherence and Sense of the 15 16 17 and 33. Verses of Acts 2. and recites Vers 38. And that by you and your Children are meant the same which are mentioned Vers 17. under the term of Sons and Daughters answ To all which I answer This cannot be the Sense so as to exclude Infants from Baptism if they have a Right unto the Covenant which the Holy Scripture seems plainly to assert and hath been sufficiently convincingly and undeniably proved by Learned Men which may supersede any Attempt of mine to evince it or make it plain and evident because it was Repentance and Baptism gave a Title to the Promise and till they did Repent and Believe i. e. Embrace the Holy Gospel they had no Right to the Promise for it is said Repent and be Baptized and you shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost But they were to be in Covenant by Repentance or Faith before they enjoyed the Priviledges of the Holy Gospel and until then were in the same Case with them afar off who were not in Covenant and so had no right unto the Promise until they did Repent or Believe But here it may be further objected by the Antipedobaptists An Obj. that the gentile Converts of Cornelius's Family had this Gift of the Holy Ghost antecedent unto Baptism so that that was not necessary unto the Gift Act. 10.44 For it is said While Peter spake these words the Holy Ghost fell upon all them which heard the word i. e. that believed and upon their hearing St. Peter was convinced of the Truth of his Blessed Doctrin and thereupon embraced the Faith of the Holy Jesus and became Christians So that the same Qualification that fitted them for the reception of the Holy Ghost capacitated them for Baptism as appears three Verses after Act. 10.47 Can any forbid Water that these should not be Baptized that have received the Holy Ghost as well as we answ To which I answer Supposing the Promise to relate to the Gift of the Holy Ghost it neither excludes the necessity of Baptism nor Children from coming or being brought to receive the benefit of that Holy Ordinance Vid. ch 8 9. pag. 43. 51. according to the rational and true Exposition we have already given of that Text in this Book to which I refer my Readers But here An Obj. like the monstrous Hydra another Objection springs up and arises It 's true saith the Antipedobaptist tho' we own by the Promise the Gift of the Holy Ghost yet we do not believe that Gift excludes from Baptism but we deny Baptism unto those that are not qualified as those first Converts were i. e. endued with the Gifts and Graces of Repentance and Faith answ This I acknowledge true in those Subjects that are capable of acting those Graces but not necessary in those that have a natural as well as moral incapacity to act those Graces as the Case with Children is because they are in Covenant as hath been already declared and proved And being Baptism is not the Covenant but the Seal of the Covenant he that is in Covenant hath a right to the Seal that ensures the Benefits and Priviledges of the Covenant by the same Rule and Reason as he that is the true Heir unto an Estate hath a Right and Title unto the Instruments that convey that Estate Moreover add to this Children have one of these Graces tho' not the other and if one be sufficient the other is not necessary I mean Faith which in some and a true Sense they may be said to have otherwise the Blessed Jesus would not have cautioned Persons against offending little Ones that believe in him Mat. 18. by whom he meant small Children as I hope we have made sufficiently to appear Vid. ch 7. p. 42 43. And that this was a true Faith we may be assured not only because it was spoke by Truth it self who would not therefore impose upon Mankind but also because Christ is the proper Object of Faith and him the Text expresly tells us they believed in and for Repentance it is not indispensably necessary which I shall thus endeavour to prove I may say of Hatred as is usually said of Love Ignoti nulla Cupido for that which is unknown we have no Desire or Affection So of Hatred the odiousness and deformity of that I am wholly ignorant of I cannot properly be said to hate Now before Hatred there usually preceeds Grief and Sorrow and I cannot be said truly to lament or mourn for a Thing if I understand not any loss or damage I thereby sustain Now to apply this to our present Case there may be a Sin pardoned in some Cases and in some Persons without Repentance as that word imports Grief and Sorrow Detestation and Hatred Dereliction and Forsaking by all this I mean Original Sin of which Infants are guilty as well as the Adult Person by the imputation and transmission of the Protoplast's or first Adam's Guilt Now Children by reason of their Infantile capacity are not allowed the ability of exercising these Passions and cannot be said to be afflicted and grieved to detest and hate to abandon and forsake that which was not their own proper and voluntary Act. So that upon this Account Repentance is not necessary for their state and condition because of their Incapacity to act the proper parts of Repentance and because they lye not under such a Personal Guilt as may be said in a more especial manner to be proper and peculiar to the exercise of some parts of Repentance But for Faith so far as it is necessary that Children in some sense may be said to have it as they have the Benefits of their Parents Faith derived to them But that Faith and Repentance are not always and in all Cases indispensably necessary unto Baptism may appear plainly from the Instance of the Holy Jesus who was Nullius Poenitentiae Debitor in him was no Guilt and so consequently no necessity of Repenting there was was no necessity of Faith in him For of Faith he was the Author and Finisher as the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews acquaints us Heb. 12.2 and yet he submitted to St. John's Baptism which was in order to Repentance and therefore called the Baptism of Repentance and hereupon it is that Faith and Repentance are not always absolutely and indispensably needful to the being baptized And this may sufficiently solve an Objection lately made to me against Infant Baptism An Obj. by an Antipedobaptist from our excellent Church Catechism who promised me upon conviction to return to our Church which Promise he is obliged in Conscience to perform if he give not a Rational Answer to what I have said and shall offer for the solution of this seeming Difficulty What is required of Persons to be baptized Repentance whereby they forsake
that the Promise is imputed to the Children may appear Because 1. The first thing in every sort is the Rule for the rest that are consequent upon it but to Abraham as the prime Guardian the Holy Gospel-Covenant was given and the Sign of it applied to Infants hereupon the same must be to all that believe and their Off-spring For all that believe shall inherit the Promise and be Heirs as well as the Father of the faithful This St. Paul speaketh clearly in express words Gal. iij. 29. And if you be Christ's then are you Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise 2. That which was granted to Abraham was not a particular Priviledge to him alone or to his People the Jews but it was the Holy gospel-Gospel-Covenant that all Nations were to be interested in and concerned with what it was to Abraham it was to be unto the whole Race of Mankind and therefore called a Covenant of Grace as may appear by the forequoted place of the Holy Apostle St. 8. Paul and from St. Matthew we are assured St. Matth. viij 2. that the Heathen World shall sit down in the Kingdom of Heaven as equal unto Abraham Eph. ij 19. because they are fellow Citizens with the Saints and of the Houshold of God Now the Covenant made with Abraham included Father and Son as I have I hope proved and upon this account possibly it might be the Holy Jesus called the Chief of the Publicans a Son of Abraham St. Luke xix 9. and so consequently a Son of God for it was usual to call the People that worshipped any God the Children of that God whether the God they worshipped were true or false Mal. ij 2. Now that there is a necessity of Baptism this Consideration may prove it That Children as soon as born by reason of Adam's transgression are under the Sentence of Death and Damnation except secured from it even while Children if they dye without according to any outward means yet revealed they cannot ordinarily be happy and except this be cleared the Fathers can have little comfort in them Now there is no other Method appointed by Heaven for the Pardoning and Purging of Guilt but the Blood of Jesus and the Covenant that Blood gives a Title unto and there is no other external Medium or Means discovered to us by God to make this Blood so efficacious as to procure us pardon and peace but only the being baptized St. Paul tells us that those that are baptized into Jesus Christ are baptized into his Death Rom. vj 3. So that if we are not cleansed by this external Baptism supposing the neglect to be with our own consent which cannot be the condition of Children we have no interest in his Merits When we thus declare we intend only the external common appointed Means of Salvation The Holy Ordinance of Baptism is the Instrument that sues out and purchases through Christ's Blood a Pardon to our selves and our Infants How far Heaven extends its Mercy to those that are without Means and cannot use them is a Mystery hid from us and known only unto God But now to return to a more particular defence of Acts ij 39. Besides this particular and express Gift of the Holy Ghost was only in the infancy of the Church and then that Gift was indispensably necessary to enable the Blessed Apostles to perform the Holy Jesus's Commission which he gave to them presently after his Miraculous Resurrection and not long before his Illustrious Ascension unto the Mansions of Glory which was to teach and publish his Holy Gospel to all Nations which they could not do without this Gift of Tongues because they knowing no more than their own Native Language had been Barbarians to a great part of the Gentile World and therefore could not have spoken so intelligibly as to be understood and this appears by the effusion of the Holy Ghost on the first Jewish Converts in this Chapter and upon those of the Gentile World as appears eight Chapters after this Acts x. 46. they heard them speak with Tongues and magnifie God which Children were incapable of not being arrived to the use of Reason or Speech which might be for the greater encouragement of the Gentiles because the Holy Gospel-state assures a more plentiful effusion of the Holy Spirit than the weaker Oeconomy or Dispensation of the Law Besides seeing the Antipedobaptists object and say Infants are excluded from Baptism by this Text An Obj. because this Gift refers to Sons and Daughters mentioned Verse 17. To which I do answer Answ I may say Children are not excluded for a like reason because Sons and Daughters may in reason be supposed to mean more adult and full-grown persons and because this Promise referring to the Gift of Tongues could not belong unto Children capable of Baptism for they had not the use of Speech Infused Habits must suppose the Subject capable of them or by the Infusion render them so as in this Instance of the Gift of Tongues when it is supernaturally infused it must either suppose the Subject predisposed with understanding or must make him so by that Infusion Now we read no where that this Gift of Tongues was bestowed but it found the Subject predisposed with understanding for upon all on whom this Gift was conferred it is said they spake with Tongues Acts ij 4 6 8 11. x. 46. i. e. in different Languages which we never yet read or heard any Infant-Children did which evidences beyond denial to you and to your Children must be meant of Sons and Daughters that were adult and of full-grown Years Lastly I may urge this descent of the Holy Ghost was the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and of Fire prophecied of and foresignified by S. John the Baptist St. Matth. iij. 2. St. Luke iij. 16. and that he who was Praecursor Christi the Fore-runner of the Messiah should be the Minister of and dispense and deal forth to the World and this may appear true because when St. Luke describes this Advent or Coming of the Holy Ghost he tells us he descended in cloven Tongues like as of Fire i. e. having a resemblance like unto Fire Acts ij 3. St. Mark 1.8 and this St. Mark calls expresly the Baptism of the Holy Ghost And this doth not vacate or make void the other Baptism of Water because St. Peter makes it the assurance of the Messiah's Baptism Acts ij 38. Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost An Obj. And tho' it is objected and said by the Antipedobaptists answ that the Gentiles had this Gift before Baptism Yet in answer hereunto they had the Grace of Faith that qualified them for Baptism because the Holy Ghost fell upon all them that heard the Word i. e. by Faith embraced and received it and
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dipped and he that is so only in shew not indeed is termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a counterfeit baptized Person So that it is observable that the Baptism of the Native Jews was the Pattern by which the Baptism of the Proselytes was regulated and wherein it was founded By all this it appears how little needful it will be to defend the Baptism of Christians from the Law of circumcising Infants among the Jews the Foundation being far more fitly laid in that other of Jewish Baptism a Ceremony of Initiation or Entrance for all especially for Proselytes who were by Water to be cleansed from the Pollutions and Defilements of Heatherism before they were to be admitted into Covenant by the Token thereof Circumcision as well as that of Circumcision and whereas that of Circumcision belonged only to one the other was common to both Sexes and yet from that Example of Circumcision among them thus much must needs be gain'd to our present Design that the Child 's not being able to understand the Vow of Baptism doth no way prejudice the baptizing of such for if it did it must necessarily be an Objection against circumcising the Jewish Child at eight days old who could then no more understand the Covenant of which that was made the Sign nor the Wickedness that the Eutrance into the Covenant obliged to abstain from than the Christian-Infant now can and yet under pain of Excision or cutting off was commanded to be circumcised which being so far vindicated from being unreasonable and incongruous Vid. Dr. Hammond's Resolution of Six Queries whereof Infant-Baptismis one p. 179 181 p. 189 190. by the Example of Circumcision which is alallowed by all Dissenters there will be little ground to fear the Objections from Reason or upon that score to doubt of the Practice of that which is so reasonable when it hath besides this the Example of Baptism among the Jews from which it is immediately deduced so adequately proportionable and directly parallel unto it And here I shall found Christian-Baptism rather than in Circumcision but if any shall overthrow the Argument commonly taken from Circumcision my Return is That it may be made use of by the Rule of Proportion and tho' it may not directly prove yet it clearly illustrates the truth for Argumenta symbolica sunt magis illustrantia quam probativa according to the excellent Lord Bacon's observation such Arguments do rather illustrate than prove Yet it may be reasonably inferred from the Judgment of Heaven in a Case exactly like that such may be admitted in a Sacramental way to be partakers of a Covenant who do not at their admission into it clearly apprehend the terms of it as is evident in the circumcising of the Infant Now against this Account of Circumcision the Antipedobaptists Argument or Objection infers An Obj. and proves nothing As that Types infer nothing unless a Precept attend them answ or the signification of something that hath such a tendency To which I return I do not say Circumcision is a Type of Baptism nor do I infer any thing from it Baptism was substituted instead of Circumcision not as the Antitype comes in the room of the Type but as one established Appointment comes in after a former that is disused and laid aside and this is needful Men should be acquainted with because the Antipedobaptists would weaken the strength of some Reasons which without the allowance of this Hypothesis or Supposition are not easily answered by objecting and affirming An Obj. that the Circumcision used in Abraham's and Moses's days was a Type of the Sacrament used in Holy Gospel-times Now to evidence that the Jewish Sacrament of Admission was not a Tipe of the Holy Gospel one we must by way of Answer observe if we will speak pertinently there was a like distinction between the thing typifying answ and what was typified as between a living person and his resemblance drawn with a Penciâ— that what was substantial in the Antytipe and of a true force virtue and value was usually by way of representation in the Type and did prefigure somewhat which did in an higher and more exalted Sense appertain to the Antitype than to it self Accordingly the Mosaic Offerings that had a tendency to cleanse the outward Man were but weak Representings of the more powerful force and greater value of the Blood of the Holy Jesus the Sacrifice of whose Blood was of such great Efficacy as the Author to the Hebrews tells us that it was able to purge the Conscience from dead Works to serve the living God Heb. ix 14. But it is not thus with the Old and New Sacrament because the former had not such a Resemblance unto the latter nor any thing the same with it which doth not as truly appertain to it as to Baptism Is Baptism an Ordinance of Admission into the New Covenant of Grace in our times So was Circumcision in the days of Abraham and Moses Rom. iv ij Is not Baptism what St. Paul calls Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith So that what Baptism doth now Circumcision did then Circumcision was then a Sacrament as well as Baptism is now the one did as truly admit Members into the Covenant as the other did Moreover if we look back unto the first rise of baptizing as a Mosaic appointment we shall be satisfied Circumcision could not be a Type thereof Because a Type in its genuine Notion is a representation or a prefiguring of somewhat that is to come A Type so far as that word hath a Theological Sense or Divine Acceptation Typas quatenus vox ista sensum habet Theologicum ita definiri posse videtur ut sit futuri aâ—icujus symbolum aut exemplum ita a Deo comparatum ut ipsius plane institutio futurum illud praefiguret quod autem ita praefiguraturillud Antitypus dici solet Outramus de Sacrificijs l. 1. v. 18. may seem thus to be defined That it is a certain representation of something future or a resemblance ordained by God that by his institution and appointment should plainly prefigure something future or to come What is so prefigured is that which is wont to be called the Antitype But baptizing was an institution or appointment under Moses's Dispensation and therefore Circumcision could not be a Type and Representation of it because it was for some Ages administred at the same time therewith I allow Circumcision to be a Divine Institution a Rite of entring Jews and their Infants into Abraham's Covenant And I allow Baptism in this to be the like by a correspondency therewith of entring us into the Holy gospel-Gospel-Covenant that it is a Rite of Entrance for the Proselytes of Christians and their Infants into the Covenant of Grace not after the way of Circumcision but the Jewish Baptisms For the making out of which Principle if I had only the proof of the Circumcision of
of its being administred to Infants never once questioned the Unlawfulness of it never urged it is a plain Case that those Times had no such Thoughts of Infant-Baptism as the Antipaedobaptists in our Days entertain For had they thought Baptizing Infants unlawful for want of an Holy Scripture Command or Example when any Persons had been exhorted to an early Baptizing their Children how easie an Answer had been at hand The Holy Jesus never commanded such a thing as Infant-Baptism the Blessed Apostles never practised such a thing as the Baptizing Infants There is neither Precept nor Example in Holy Scripture and therefore it is unlawful and we dare not do it But in regard there is in all those times not the least appearance of any such Objection or of any such Plea pretended for the delay it is evident they thought there was either Precept or Example in Holy Scripture or both or else that the want of either or both did not make it unlawful and so did not delay it on the Account of the Unlawfulness thereof And so all our Antipaedobaptists boasting of Antiquity for the Baptizing only Adult Believing Persons and against the Baptizing Believers Infant-Children affords them little Boast there is not the least strength added to their Cause nor weakness brought on ours I heartily wish those ignorant People that are deluded and cozened with the great Noise and gay Shew of Antiquity to take notice hereof that they be no longer deceived and imposed And now this grand prejudice is as I hope fully removed and all Objections I can imagine any way considerable have been endeavoured to be rationally and clearly answered in the following Book I shall now heartily desire my Readers to join with me in the pious and devout Suffrage of our excellent Liturgy in the Office of the Litany That iâ— may please thee to bring into the way of Truth all such as have erred and are deceived We beseech thee to hear us Good Lord. And now as I begun this large Preface with some of the Sens of a Learned Bishop of our Church in some of his Prefaces to his Books so I will conclude this large Account not only with some of the Sens but in the Words of the same Reverend Bishop I mean the Lord-Bishop of Ely In short then to shut up all if it had not been to fill up some vacant Pages and to be just to the performance of the Promise I made in the Title-Page of giving a Relation so far as my Memory would serve of a Conference publicly held with an Antipaedobaptist of no small Fame I had made almost as short a Preface as those Words of the Son of Syrach according to which I expect the Success of my Labour Ecclus XXI 15. If a skilful Mad hear a wise Word he will commend it and add to it But as soon as one of no Vnderstanding heareth it it displeaseth him and he casteth it behind his Back Examine all things and judge righteous Judgment July 26. 1692. A TABLE OF THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. AN Introduction unto the Subject discoursed upon Pag. 1 CHAP. II. Some Rational Arguments offered for Infant-Baptism Pag. 2 CHAP. III. The tru Sens of the Holy Jesus 's Commission unto his Blessed Disciples for the Administration of Baptism recorded St. Matth XXVIII 19. maketh for the Baptizing of Infants Pag. 4 CHAP. IV. An Exposition whereby the Sens delivered of St. Matth. XXVIII 19. is farther cleared Pag. 12 CHAP. V. The Exposition for clearing the Sens of St. Matth. XXVIII 19. farther enlarged Pag. 26 CHAP. VI. The Sens of St. Matth. XXVIII 19. proved by the Coherance and Connexion of the Words Pag. 38 CHAP. VII The Sens of St. Matth. XXVIII 19. farther evidenced from the Original Pag. 40 CHAP. VIII The Sens of St. Matth. XXVIII 19. confirmed by an Exposition of Acts II. 39. in general Pag. 48 CHAP. IX A farther Confirmation by a particular Exposition of Acts II. 39. Pag. 53 CHAP. X. The Sens of St. Matth. XXVIII 19. strengthened by an Exposition of 1 Cor. VII 14. Pag. 57 CHAP. XI Some General Observations upon the Sens and Expositions given Pag. 62 CHAP. XII A defence of the Expositions delivered from Jewish Customs Pag. 68 CHAP. XIII Authorities of the Ancient Fathers to establish the Sens of the Three Texts of Holy Scripture Pag. 72 CHAP. XIV The just Complaint of the Jews if this Doctrin be not tru Pag. 76 CHAP. XV. An Answer unto an Objection that would overthrow the Sens given of St. Matthew XXVIII 19. Pag. 79 CHAP. XVI An Answer unto an Objection that would undermine the Sens offered for Acts II. 39. Pag. 91 CHAP. XVII An Answer unto an Objection that would overturn the Sens delivered of 1 Cor. VII 14. Pag. 125 CHAP. XVIII An Account whence Infant-Baptism results Pag. 137 CHAP. XIX An Appeal unto the Reason of Mankind Pag. 140 CHAP. XX. The Conclusion Pag. 142 A Prayer used at the end of these Dicourses by way of Humble and Importunate Address unto the God of Truth sitting upon his Throne of Grace his Mercy-Seat the true Scheinah or Symbol of his Divine Presence to implore the Descent of the Heavenly Blessing upon this charitable and well-intended Design Pag. 145 CHAP. I. An Introduction to the Subject discoursed upon SEeing some Men of ill Principles and Separatists from our excellent Church have with an evil design set up a Meeting in this Parish as we may reasonably conjecture without breach of Charity I think it my most indispensible Duty to confirm and settle you in those necessary and fundamental Truths our Church holds by the clear Testimony of Holy Scripture and the evident Dictates of Reason that you may not be seduced into dangerous Errors by weak or cunning Men that lie in wait to deceive I have formerly made appear I hope to the satisfaction of unprejudiced because dis-interested Persons that the Place of Holy Scripture the Enemies of Infant-Baptism so much insist upon and boast of viz. St. Matth. xxviij 19. Go teach all Nations baptizing them is no more against the Comfortable and Christian Doctrine of Infant-Baptism than Gen. 1.1 In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth And now I will endeavour to prove That that Place of Holy Scripture if rightly understood is not only not against us but for us and against them And this I will attempt to evince and make appear by the Evidence of Reason and the Testimony of Divine Revelation CHAP. II. Some Rational Arguments for Infant-Baptism THE Argument I offer in short is plainly this which I will reduce into the form of a plain and proper Syllogism That Principle which hinders the Propagation of Christian Religion can be no Christian Doctrine But the denying Baptism to Infants hinders the Progress of the Christian Religion Therefore such a Principle can be no Christian Doctrine The Major all Christians even our Adversaries allow but the making out the Minor is the Difficulty for which
the Infants of the Jews and the concurrent usage of the first Planters of Christianity and their Successors in the early times of the Church that followed their Example I should not infer it from the Jews circumcising Children because tho' by the instance of circumcising Children under the old Law it hath been defended from several Objections brought to disprove it Yet I understand there is not a proper and infallible Consequence that whatsoever is not Irrational must instantly be that a thing is therefore true because a possibility it may be so according to the old Logical Maxim Ab esse ad posse non valet Consequentia or that what is allowed must therefore have an Institution An Obj. But when the Antipedobaptists object and alledge That tho' there be a correspondency of Analogy between Circumcision and Baptism yet is there no correspondency of Identity Tho' by way of Answer I own with the Learned Dr. Hammond Answ I know not the Sense of this latter Term and therefore understand not why they use it yet I own the agreeableness doth not suit with all Circumstances especially in one particular because I find Females were not nor could be circumcised there being no Foreskin of which there could be an abscission which is no more an Objection against Christian Baptism than the Jewish one I think it fitter to fix the agreeableness where there is greater reason for it and seeing as the Author to the Hebrews saith He tasted death for every Man Heb. ij 9. it was fit that he who upon that account was an universal Saviour for all Mankind should make choice of such a Sacrament of admission into his Church as should be correspondent with and agreeable unto both the Sexes An Obj. But under this Head I meet with another Objection of the Antipedobaptists which I am very willing to remove They seem to offer an Argument why circumcising should be more proper for Infants than baptizing them because Circumcision left a Character in the Flesh which being impressed on Children did its work when they were Adult and baptizing left no remanent Character But in Answer hereto this hath no force Answ if we lay the Foundation of the Christian Sacrament in that which was used to Jewish Proselytes which had no outward Mark on the Body for Water being fluid though it hath a Dew leaves no Impression or Sign but what is immediately transient and not in Circumcision which hath yet I will not wholly neglect it but if it be of any seeming strength own it to be allowed in some measure against our Principles but in truth I believe it hath not for though there be a small distinction in reference to Circumcision and Baptism the first Maims the second Cleanses the first Hurts the second Washes only yet that Objection is of no great strength in this concern for upon different Accounts but solely in respect of the Infants in regard of God and the Assembly there is nothing that differs for in regard of both both are alike Signs of the Covenant And whereas it differs in regard of the Infant sure it is that at the season of Administration it signifies not at all because then the Child hath not the power or faculty of understanding the Character and that he knows when he becomes Adult arises from Teaching and Discipline For the Character imprinted when he is circumcised hath no signification by Nature but only by the will of him that appoints it or because it is instituted else Ishmael was in Confederation and Covenant with God as well as Isaac and consequently the Infant can never know it by the force of natural Principles but as he is taught when he is at Age how he was used in his Infancy and the reason of it and therefore the Law that enjoyned Circumcision enjoyned Instruction and of that the Christian that hath Baptism when a Child is as capable as a Jewish Child that hath Circumcision in its Infancy and the diligence of the Church may be as exact in our days as the care was great in the Synagogue formerly An Obj. As for the Objection the Antipedobaptists make That Christ baptized none I Answer thereunto Answ That will hold against baptizing at all for the Text is clear Christ baptized not but his Disciples St. John iv 2. 1. The negative Argument holds on our side that his Holy Disciples so far as we can know never denyed the baptizing any Nor is it like they would when they were once reproved for doing something of such a Nature as you may read in the Holy Gospel as it can be reasonably supposed they did not Baptize any St. Mark x. 14. but indeed neither is conclusive However 2. That in the Holy Apostolic Age Infants did receive Baptism is more than probable by the Sense we have given of 1 Cor. vij 14. and then there will be no imaginable ground left but that the Holy Apostles did administer Baptism unto such or at least which is much the same did well like it and by such their approbation did strengthen the same And that we may confirm the Sense we have given of that Text of Holy Scripture and prove and make appear that what we offered is its true and proper meaning we come with our endeavours to give a satisfactory Answer unto the strongest Objection that ever was started by the most Learned of the Antipedobaptists or any of the Adverse Party CHAP. XVII An Answer to an Objection that would overturn the Sense delivered of 1 Cor. vij 14. THE same Ingenious Antipedobaptist makes this Objection to the Sense we have given of 1 Cor. vij 14. An Obj. That the word Holy there used is only such an Holiness as is opposite to some kind of Uncleanness which saith he I take to be this as if when they are said to be Holy it is no more than to say they are not Unclean viz. no Bastards To which I answer If 1 Cor. vij 14. Answ may seem rationally to be interpreted of Matrimonial Legitimacy and thereby a Priviledg of freeing from Bastardy then a fortiorl with more strength it may signifie a federal Holiness that gives them a Title unto the Sign of the Covenant and thereby makes them the Legimate Sons of Heaven by Adoption which is a greater Priviledg than a Matrimonial Legitimacy and this might be a greater Motive unto the Gentile World to be proselyted to Christianity as much as the Spiritual Legitimacy is to be preferred before the Matrimonial one and the Holy Scripture is to be taken in the more favourable and exalted sense rather than in an inferior or subordinate one and besides this is agreeable to the Jewish Custom where when any married to an Heathen the Male-Children after such a Marriage were circumcised whether the Children were born before or after such a Marriage which caused the Holy Apostle in allusion thereto to use that Phrase of Baptizing