be thought unreasonable If God is pleased to own and adopt little ones for his why should our Eye be evil because his is good Or why rather should we not rejoice in his Mercy and Grace in behalf of our little ones If Infants may contract Guilt or lie under an Obligation to Death by the Sin of their Parents why may it not likewise be supposed through the Grace and Goodness of God by Christ that they may be invested with a Right and Title to certain Privileges and partake of the Mark and Seals of them through the Faith of others So that as God visits the Iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children unto the third and fourth Generation of them that hate him so he may also shew Mercy to Thousands of them that love him and keep his Commandments Mat. 8.13 Mark 9.23 John 4.50 And as some were brought to be healed by Christ and were healed through the Faith of others so why should we not think that Infants may partake of the Favour of God through Christ and of the Badg or Sign of this Favour with respect also to others Faith So that the Faith of their Parents may be said to be their Faith whilst they are in their Infant-state they being as Parts of their Parents and having no Use of Power Understanding or Will to provide for themselves till they come to Years of Discretion As the Parents Act in taking a House or making a Bargain or Covenant may be called the Child's Act as no less beneficial and obliging to the Child than to the Parent and binding the Child to the Performance of the same Conditions And what indeed is more common than for such things to be required of Parents before they be admitted to certain Privileges that when they are admitted to belong alike to their Children though they could not do those things Thus those of a foreign Nation must take the Oaths of Allegiance required to a Prince before they become his naturalized Subjects or partake of the Privileges of such but after they have taken the Oaths and are admitted to the Privileges of Naturalization their Children also are admitted to the same Privileges though they cannot take the Oaths so that their Parents Act is imputatively theirs or to their Benefit or Advantage And so why may it not likewise be here And as those that are born of Parents that are admitted into a Corporation shall partake of the Privileges likewise of that Corporation which those that are born of other Parents shall not so if such be the Grace and Goodness of God may the Infants of Covenant-Believers likewise partake of their Privileges which the Infants of Heathens and Aliens are to have no Right unto And yet all this while the Infants understand nothing of the Matter but are vested in these Benefits before they come to Understanding 2. Therefore I say as to those things that are said to be pre-required to Baptism that either they have no need of them at all in their Infant-state and so may be baptized without them or by virtue of God's Grace and Covenant they have the same Benefit without them to qualify them for Baptism which others have by them and therefore may be baptized without them though others cannot As for Regeneration in the most common Sense of the Word it would be very rash in any to say that they cannot have it in the Seed or Root of it For who can tell what the Operations of the Holy Spirit are or can be upon them But though they should not or could not have it in that Sense that we commonly take it viz. for an internal Change and Sanctification of Heart and Mind yet they have that which may denominate them regenerate Persons and so they may be mark'd and signed as such as being brought into a new and saving State by the Death of Christ which they shall not fail of the Benefit of unless they fall from it by their own actual Rebellion afterwards They may be said to be delivered from the Death of Sin or from the prevailing Power of that Death which Sin brought in there being the Forgiveness or Dissolution of that Death to them And so they may be said to be quickned together with Christ and so to partake of a new Birth by being put into a new State wherein they have through Christ as immediate a Right and Title to Salvation as those have that have been regenerate in the common Acceptation of the Word And why may they not then be qualified for the Sign or Seal hereof For how can there be any more required to qualify for the Sign than for the Thing signified which they possess or have a present Right to And though they have not Faith properly speaking yet being brought into the same Condition of Sonship and put into as immediate Capacity for Salvation as adult Believers are through Faith why should they not partake of Baptism which is the Seal of these Blessings as they do For though they have no Faith properly speaking yet being by Christ redeemed from Death and put into a State of Sonship and Life as actual Believers are though without actual Faith till actual Sin takes place they may be numbred in respect of the Benefits of Faith with Believers And if Believes are baptized to seal the great Grace of Adoption to them through Faith why should not they likewise be baptized for the Sealing and Confirmation of the same Grace seeing in that respect they may well be reckoned with Believers as partaking of the same Favour with them through the Grace and Covenant of God in Christ towards them For what Faith is to adult Persons through the Covenant and Grace of God in Christ that the Covenant it self is to Infants without Faith And so what Baptism is to adult Persons upon their Faith that it may be to them without Faith through God's Covenant with them alone by the Blood of Christ So that upon the Account hereof they may full as well be baptized as those that do believe because they have the same Privileges without Faith as Believers have by their Faith It being not Faith it self or Profession of Faith that is to be the immediate Ground of Baptism but that Sonship or Relation to God of which Faith is the Means or Evidence and when this can be evidenc'd without Profession of Faith there being no necessity of that Profession to qualify for Baptism as was shewn before in Cornelius and his Company And then as for Repentance while they are in their Infant-state they have no need of it and therefore may be baptized without 〈◊〉 they have no need of Repentance for Sin because they have no actual Sin to repent of and therefore their want of Repentance can be no Bar to their Baptism To those indeed that have actually sinned Baptism is a Baptism of Repentance signifying it already to be in some measure and obliging to it farther But where there
their Infant-state but it may come to affect them as soon as any thing else can that is of such a Nature that is as soon as their Reason comes to be of use to them Whereas if this had not been done for them betimes there would have wanted this Argument to deal with them And it may be it would have been very long before they themselves might have been brought to consent to enter into such an Obligation as we read it often was among may that yet were brought to the Profession of the Christian Faith in the Primitive Times Dr. Walker 's Preface to his Plea for Infant-Baptism Some staying off for this some for that carnal Reason or Fear for a long time to the great Scandal of their Profession Some keeping off for fear of sinning after Baptism and so forfeiting the Grace of it as they thought thereby Some from the Love of the World and the Pleasures thereof being loth to part with their Sins and their vain Pleasures which they were sensible this obliged them to notwithstanding they owned themselves Christians Some again deferring it out of want of Leisure Some pleading the Inconvenience of the Time and others because they could not have it done in the Place they desired or by the Person they most affected Some taking Exception at the mix'd Company they were to be baptized with And some delaying it for fear of Perfecution from the Heathen And some for fear lest they should be accounted Tritheites Some on pretence that their Relations were not present And some hanging back because of the little Charge they did use to be at at that time These things gave Occasion to such vehement and sharp Expostulations of the Fathers of that Age to reprove their Slackness as are to be found in their Writings And how many do you think upon one or other of these Pretences there would be that would put it off in like manner still if they were not baptized in Infancy and it may be some would hardly ever bring themselves into so near a Covenant-Engagement to God at all Whereas this being done for them so early in their Infant-state it may be a powerful and prevailing Motive to engage them betimes to a sincere and upright walking with God which otherwise they might not probably have been brought so soon to If it be objected that this would be more apt to prevail with them if it had been their own Act when they came to Age. It is plain by Experience that those that are sincere or have any Sense of Honour or Gratitude among those that have been baptized in their Infancy do hold themselves as much obliged by it and do stand to the Obligation that they were then brought under and as faithfully discharge it as any of those that are baptized at Age and do look upon it a great Blessing that they were brought under so early a Pre-engagement And those that are not sincere that are baptized at Age do as little perform or discharge the Obligation that they brought upon themselves by an Act of their own as any of those that were baptized in Infancy Object 2. That Infants are not capable of performing those Acts or having those Conditions that are pre-required in Scripture in Persons that are to be baptized For asmuch as they cannot learn or be taught or confess their Sins or believe or repent or make any visible Profession of their doing so And yet these things are required in Scripture of Persons that are to be baptized and were always performed by Persons before the Apostles did baptize any According to these and the like Texts Mark 16.15 16. Go into all the World and preach the Gospel to every Creature he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Matth. 3.6 They were baptized of him in Jordan confessing their Sins Acts 2.38 Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ And ver 41. They that gladly received his Word were baptized Acts 8.12 When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God they were baptized Ver. 13. Then Simon himself believed and was baptized And ver 36. The Eunuch said See here is Water what doth hinder me to be baptized And Philip said If thou believest with all thine Heart thou mayst Acts 18.8 And many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized From these and such like Texts it is argued that here is a Prohibition laid and a Bar put against Infants Baptism because they have no Reason or Vnderstanding about what they ought to be or do and can neither hear learn repent or believe or make Profession of either in their Infant-state and therefore are not capable of Baptism before the Administration of which these things are required and used to be done Answ 1. That it is by vertue of that Covenant-relation to God as his People and Children which God is pleased to admit Infants to though themselves do not believe they being the Seed or Pupils of profess'd Believers with whom this Covenant is made and with their Seed and Family that Baptism is to be administred to them The Ground then which I build the Baptism of Infants upon is God's Election or choosing of them together with their believing Parents or those that shall undertake for them to be his own peculiar Covenant-People as likewise their Parents or Susceptors are For this was always God's Method and the way of his Grace to own and receive the Children of his Covenant-People into the same Covenant with their Fathers and so to treat with them and to seal the Covenant and Promise to them in the same manner and by the same Rite as he did to their Parents So that it is not the Childrens own Faith or Profession that qualifies them for Baptism but it is God's Election or Choice of them for his People though they have not actual Faith or Repentance of their own upon their descending of such Parents or being taken into such Families or undertaken for by such Persons as stand in a Covenant-relation to God And out of Respect to them and in Prospect of that Religious Education that they shall afterwards receive from them God is pleased to own them for his and to confirm his Promise and Covenant to them So that their Parents or Susceptors Faith is as it were vicariously imputed to them for a while till they come to Years and is reckoned accordingly for their Good though they do not yet actually believe themselves because hereafter they are to do it through their Parents Instruction As the Children of the Levites of a Month old are said to keep the Charge of the Sanctuary Numb 3.28 because they are so designed and are to be brought up to it and are in a near Capacity for it And Levi is said after a Sense to have paid Tithes in Abraham being in the Loins of Abraham when he paid it to Melchizedek Heb. 7.9 And why should these things
that believeth not shall be damned For if the Text be to be so understood that Infants are to be excluded from Baptism because they do not believe then must they likewise for the same Reason be excluded from Salvation which is more than they that urge it will own So that this Text indeed is nothing at all to the Matter But what then is the Design of it It is a Direction or Commission given by our Saviour to his Apostles to extend their Preaching to all the World which was hitherto confined within the Jewish Territories and so to make Proselytes among the Heathen Nations that they also might be saved For being in their Darkness and Infidelity before they must first be taught before they could be brought to believe and so before they could be fit for the Participation of the initiating Ordinance into the Church of Christ which was only to be upon those Terms But this doth not in the least imply a Prohibition of the Baptism of their Infants afterwards when the Parents themselves were baptized No more than if God should have sent forth his Prophets in the time of Law and should have given them the like Commission to have proselyted all Nations by Baptism and Circumcision then would have been a Bar to the Circumcision of their Infants when once the Parents were by Conversion to the true God brought into a Covenant-relation to him and were circumcised But as the Infants of such Parents by the Rule and Practice of Circumcision before ought to have been circumcised notwithstanding such Commission nor could the Prophets have understood the Commission otherwise but as consistent with such a Practice and Rule unless an Exception of Infants had been expresly put in so the Infants of Christian Believers ought to be baptized according to the general Grounds of Baptism notwithstanding this Commission of our Saviour and this Commission running in these Terms can by no means be justly interpreted to contain a Prohibition of the Baptism of Children when there are such Grounds for it unless our Saviour had put in an express Exception against it Nor could the Apostles themselves otherwise understand this Commission than as implying and comprehending the Baptism of Infants of those that were proselyted to the Faith according to the general Usage and Practice of the Jewish Church unless our Saviour had put in an express Caveat against it For they could not in Reason otherwise understand him than according to the ordinary Customs and Usages of that Church in which they had been bred and brought up unless our Saviour had otherwise made known his Mind unto them The same Answer would serve for Matth. 28.19 Go teach all Nations baptizing them c. To which I shall only add that the Fundamental Mistake of the Anabaptists in this Case seems to arise from their imagining that our Saviour in these Words hath delivered the whole Institution of Baptism and every thing that hath Relation to all the Subjects of it Whereas this Text doth not contain the Institution of Baptism at all for that was done long before though we have not in the Scripture a particular Account when but only contains a new Commission of our Saviour to his Apostles to go out to all Nations to make Christian Proselytes the Partition-wall being now taken down and no longer to confine this Favour to the Jews alone It is a Direction of our Saviour only about this particular Matter and as for all other things relating to Baptism they were to be continued according to former Grounds and Precedents for any thing that appears to the contrary And this having been the immemorial Practice of the Jewish Church before in Admission of Proselytes Children as well as themselves the Apostle could no otherwise reasonably understand it but that it ought to continue so still Nor considering the Grounds laid down for it can we now conceive any Bar put herein to it unless the Matter had been worded much otherwise than it is And I shall further observe after that this Text contains rather a good Warrant for Infant-Baptism if it be understood as it ought to be interpreted than any Prohibition of it And so I come to the next Objection Object 3. That however Infant-Baptism is not commanded nor is there any express Example for it in Scripture And therefore whatsoever the Vse or Benefits of Infant-Baptism might be if it had been commanded there is no sufficient Ground for it now nor ought it to be practised and can be no better than Will-worship if it be And this they think makes a plain Difference between the Reason of circumcising Infants formerly and baptizing them now because that was commanded and this is not This is their great and triumphant Argument and the last Refuge of any Moment that they have to fly to Answ 1. But will nothing indeed serve besides an express Command Will no Argument no Reason no Consequence serve for the Eviction or Proof of what we are to believe and to do without an express Declaration Command or Example Do we not find that our Saviour himself proves the Doctrine of the Resurrection against the Sadduces by Argument and Consequence only because it was said that God is the God of Abraham Isaac Matth. 22.32 and Jacob and because he is not the God of the Dead but of the Living And the Apostle proves by Consequence the Resurrection of Christ himself Acts 2.29 Psal 16.9 10. by a rational Deduction from Scripture-Testimony which he proves could be understood of no other but him And in this manner 't is usual with the Apostles to deduce Conclusions from the Scriptures by reasoning from them in divers Discourses both in the Acts and their Epistles And thus our Saviour himself likewise argues the Lawfulness of the Disciples plucking the Ears of Corn on the Sabbath-day Matth. 12.3 4 5. from David's eating of the Shewbread and from the Priests sacrificing on the Sabbath and from that Sentence in Hosea I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice 1 Cor. 9.8 9 10. And so the Apostle deduceth the Maintenance of Gospel-Ministers from the Reason and Parallel of some Passages mentioned in the Law Yea and do not the Anabaptists themselves as well as others make use of the same consequential kind of Deductions for the proving the Christian Sabbath and Womens Right to partake of the Lord's Supper when there is no express Command in Scripture in so many Words for either And indeed the far greater part of such Actions which Men and Women perform out of Conscience towards God J. G 's Catabaptism p. 7. are neither injoined by any express Precept or commended by an express Example in Scripture but either by some general Rule only or the Analogy of some proportional Example So that by a diligent Use of our Reason and a close Ingagement of our Minds to the Search of Scripture it behoves us to inquire diligently into it for the Conduct of