prove thus from this following Argument and it seems cogent Argument 2. Those that the Scripture give us good ground to hope are Believers may and ought to be Baptized but the Infant Seed of Believers are such as we have good ground from Scripture to hope are Believers therefore such may and ought to be Baptized All that I can conceive can be said against my Major Proposition is to deny that we are to Baptize any upon hopes that they are Believers and to affirm that we ought to Baptize none but such as we are sure have true Justifying Faith But sure I am such an Objection savours of high Presumption since this is to pretend to be Wiser than the Apostles and as Wise as God himself First Wiser than the Blessed Apostles as you may see by comparing Acts 8.13 with 22.23 where you read of one Baptized that was in the Gall of Bitterness and Bonds of Iniquity and yet we cannot be so uncharitable as to think they had no hopes of him when they Baptized him But if any should so judge it makes the more for me for if the Apostles themselves Baptized such as they had no hopes had true Faith then sure we may Baptize such 〈◊〉 we have good ground to hope 〈◊〉 Faith But if they had Hope 't is evident it was but Hope unless he could lose his Faith or have Faith and at the same time be in the Gall of Bitterness and Bonds of Iniquity neither of which could be Secondly This is to pretend to be as wise as God at least in this point since he only that works Faith can infallibly judge where it is 'T is peculiar to God to search the Heart where Faith is seated the Lord only knows who are his we see the best of Churches have been mistaken in taking in of Members The Apostles did not know Judas to be a Hypocrite till he betrayed his Lord unless we can suppose they would take in known Hypocrites And I would ask my Friends the Anabaptists if they themselves have not Baptized some as Believers who have afterward discovered themselves to be in the Gall of Bitterness So that in a word if we must Baptize none but such as we are sure have true Justifying Faith we must Baptize none in this World For though many have such a Faith yet no Man can infallibly tell the Anabaptist themselves not excepted who they are This is that new Name which none knows but God and them that have it So that I think it needless to add any more to confirm the former part of my Argument viz. That we can only hope that this or the other Person hath true Faith Minor Proposition But the Infant Seed of Believers are such as we have good ground from Scripture to hope are Believers Now if any thing of force be Objected it must be against this and therefore I shall labour the more to confirm it But before I come to the Proof I must add a Caution that when I speak of Faith in Infants I mean Habitual Faith for though it cannot on good ground be denyed but that some Infants may actually Believe since God is able to cause them so to do and hath no where in his Word declared he will not yet it may easily be proved that some Infants have Habitual Faith and that will render one as truly a Believer as the Act. He that hath the Habit of Faith is a Believer though asleep and so as uncapable of Acting Faith as an Infant having during that time no more use of Reason than a Child at the Breast nor perhaps so much for an Infant hath so much Sense as to know when it is Hungry or to Cry for Food and if it be in Pain But let a Man be never so Hungry or in Pain yet when asleep he is unsensible of either And yet such may be Believers in the mean time they having the Habit of Faith Now by the Habit of Faith in Infants I mean a Principle of Grace or Internal Renovation which is wrought in Regeneration for Regeneration is an infusing the Seeds of all Grace into the Soul and consequently of Faith This being premised I come to lay down a Proposition for the clearing the Way to that which I intend more largely to insist upon Proposition That Infants are capable of having the Habit of Faith wrought in them And though we cannot from hence conclude that all such have it yet it is a good Foundation for my following Argument And because in all Cases the Foundation had need stand fast I shall therefore confirm it that Infants are capable of Grace is not my Judgment alone however strange a Doctrine it may seem to some for I have the Judgment of all the Church of England on my side their Words after Baptism are Seeing now Dearly beloved Brethren that this Child is by Baptism Regenerate c. And again We yield thee most hearty thanks most merciful Father that it hath pleased thee to Regenerate this Infant by thy Holy Spirit c. Now though I am far from being of the Judgment which they seem to be in this that all that are Baptized are in that Ordinance Regenerated and so consequently many fall from Grace My Soul abhorrs that Popish Doctrine that Baptism confers Grace ex opere operato from the Work-wrought but while they thank God for the Work done 't is evident they suppose them capable of having that Work wrought in them and so far I agree with them But because the very citing any thing from the Church of England may make some giddy-headed People who have more Zeal than sound Knowledge nauseate what I have said I shall therefore proceed to prove that both they and I have Divine Testimony on our side in this that Infants are capable of Grace and I shall make use of plain Scripture since the Anabaptists pretend so much delight in it and I shall produce several Instances that in the Mouth of two or three Witnesses this truth may be established Jer. 1.5 Before thou camest out of the Womb I Sanctified thee and Luke 1.15 of John it is said He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his Mothers Womb and then no doubt Sanctified And of Christ it is said verse 35. That Holy Thing that shall be born of thee c. mind born of thee was Holy when Born From whence it is past all dispute unless we dare dispute with God that Infants even in the Womb and as soon as Born are capable of Grace nor doth it seem harder to me to conceive that Infants should have Grace wrought in them than Adult since the latter are purely passive in the Work and so may the former be If it was a Work of Reason or performed by Humane Power or Policy something might be said but it is not Eph. 1.19 Nay according to our apprehension it seems harder to work Grace in Adult than in Infants for as a Tender Plant
belongs to all the Children of the same a Parent But it may be some may say this Houshold were all Servants but if they were yet here is not a Word of their Faith or Profession And then I conclude that if Lydia's Servants were Baptized by Vertue of that Relation to Lydia much more should her Children be Baptized standing in a nearer Relation to her Thus I have shown you there are some Texts that afford us good ground to think some Infants or little Children were Baptized but yet if there were not any such therein contained yet the same Scriptures do afford undeniable Consequences that some Infants have a Right to Baptism as I have proved at large But suppose no Instance in Scripture could be given of an Infant Baptized or any thing like it yet if I prove from Scripture they ought to be it is a sufficient Warrant for us so to do and I conceive I shall extort a Consent to this from my Brethren from this following Consideration That there was a time when no Instance could be produced of any Adult that had been Baptized I mean in its first Institution as Abraham could produce no Instance of any that had been Circumcised Now then according to this Rule none must be Circumcised or Baptized because no Instance could then be produced of any that had but you must say Tho' no Instance could be given of any Adult that had been Baptized yet when God made it known to be his Will that so it should be it was sufficient to justifie their Practice in so doing So say I as to Infants tho' no Instance could be given of any Infant that had been Baptized yet if God hath made it known to us in his Word such ought to be it is a sufficient Warrant to us so to do and whether I have proved some Infants Right to Baptism from Scripture I leave it unto any Understanding Impartial and Unprejudiced Reader to judge and I must tell you if I have proved their Right to this Ordinance it is far more than if I could produce an Instance or many Instances of such as had for Right will be Right but 't is possible the best of Men being imperfect may fail as to some particular Fact Hence we say a facto ad jus non valet Argumentum that is we cannot from the Fact conclude the Right of the thing We are not to imitate David in his Adultery nor Peter in his denying Christ tho' the one was a Prophet and the other an Apostle For tho' it cannot be denied that they did so yet the Scripture proves they ought not to have done so and if the Apostles in Baptizing of Adult and not Baptizing Infants suppose it to be so did not do the former and omit doing the latter upon the Account of the Right the one had and want of a Right to the other tho' you could produce a Thousand Instances we are no more bound to imitate them than to imitate David in his Adultery or Peter in Cursing and Swearing because we are not to live by Examples but Laws nay as notwithstanding such sad Instances in Scripture we have Liberty and are bound not only not to imitate them but to act contrary thereunto so could you prove that the Apostles never Baptized one Infant yet if I can prove from Scripture as I hope I have they ought to be Baptized we ought in this to act contrary to their Practice and not make one Sin an Inlet into another since the Right of the thing is more than if you could produce as many Instances as there are Stars in the Firmament without this Right Let not any think I do this to reflect on the Practice of the Blessed Apostles God forbid for I am confident they were not wanting in the due Administration of any Ordinance in God's House but I do it to shew that the Right of this Ordinance is more than barely the Action and that you may see how unreasonable it seems in the Anabaptists to make such a noise about one Infant Baptized when we can produce that which is more than a Thousand Instances simply considered the Apostles did first consider their Right before they Baptized any Obj. 6. But we find no Command in Scripture to Baptize such and so have good ground to believe it is not the Mind of God such should be Baptized A. There is no need of a Positive Command or an Express Scripture in so many plain Words to affirm a thing in order to the proving a Duty or Truth We have a Matter of as great Concern as the Baptism of Old or Young proved by Christ himself by a bare Consequence and that is the Resurrection Mat. 22.31,32 But as touching the Resurrection of the Dead have ye not read that which was spoken to you of God saying I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob God is not the God of the Dead but of the Living This Scripture he cites from Ex. 3.6 to prove the Resurrection and yet not one Word of the Resurrection mentioned in it but proves it by Consequence thus That because God is the God of Abraham but not the God of the Dead therefore Abraham must live not only in his Soul but the Body they both making up but the whole of Abraham And if nothing must be received as a Truth but what we have a plain Scripture for in so many Words how will my Friends the Anabaptists prove That the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to any of us since tho' we have Scriptures that will prove it as to the Substance of it yet I know no Scripture which in so many plain Words doth affirm it but perhaps some of the Anabaptists will rather reject this as a Truth than admit of Infant Baptism and as to Doctrines so in Point of Duty There is no Necessity of an express Command to make it a Duty to illustrate this if God command us to be Charitable to poor Saints tho' the Command makes no mention of any expresly by Name yet when we see such in Wants we are bound to relieve them and cannot omit it if able without Sin it will not excuse us to say I am not commanded to relieve such by Name so tho' Sinners are not called by Name to come to Christ 't is their Duty to come so when God commands us to Baptize all such as we have good ground to hope are Believers if some Infants are found in that number we are as much bound to Baptize them as any others as if mentioned by Name God once commanded Circumcision to the Jews and their Infant Seed but if in the New Testament he hath declared as I have shown that we come in the Jews room and that Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision that Command of Circumcising Infants doth as much enjoin the Baptizing of Infants And no wonder Infants are not mentioned expresly in the New Testament as the Subjects
is more easily eradicated than a Grown Tree so in this Case Sin by Custom and Continuance gets root and though all things are equally possible to God yet to change an Old Sinner is most difficult in it self We may conceive a greater opposition in the Heart of Grown Persons to a Work of Grace than in Infants The longer we have been wedded to Sin the more unwilling we shall be to give it a Bill of Divorce and put it away So that Infants are as capable of Grace as Adult and more capable as to the Humane Conception of any unless Arminians And though 't is said Faith comes by hearing yet that only points out the ordinary way of God's Working Faith in Adult This directs us to our Duty but sets no bounds or limits to his Power God can work Faith other ways than by the hearing of the Ear if he will Thus having cleared my Proposition that Infants are capable of Faith I now come to confirm the Minor Proposition of my Argument which was this That the Infant Seed of Believers are such as we have good ground from Scripture to hope are Believers Before I proved Infants were capable of Faith now I come to prove some Infants have Faith which I prove thus Argument If some Infants get to Heaven then some Infants have Faith But some Infants do get to Heaven therefore some Infants have Faith 'T is possible that the Anabapatists may say That there is no necessity for Infants to have Faith in order to their getting to Heaven but I am loth to resign up such a Gospel Truth meerly because they have said it I shall lay down nothing but what I shall prove from plain Scripture and I shall expect the same of them especially in Matters of such grand Import And sure I am the Scripture no where affirms any such thing that any can get to Heaven without Faith-Nay Nay I am certain the whole Currant of Scripture doth in most express terms run directly contrary thereunto as I shall shew anon So that we cannot open our Mouths in Defence of such a Notion unless we dare even fight against God I grant indeed there are some Secrets in God's working in Infants yet this makes nothing against the Truth of the thing because we cannot comprehend it We cannot conceive the manner how God works Grace in Adult unless very imperfectly As John 3.8 the Wind Bloweth where it listeth and thou hearest the Sound thereof but canst not tell whence it cometh nor whither it goeth so is every one that is Born of the Spirit Mind every one Adult as well as Infants where Christ himself makes it as hard to know how God Regenerates as to give Account of the Wind which hath puzzled our wisest Philosophers We may feel the Wind refresh us and see the effects of it but cannot tell exactly how it is caused So in this Case we may find and feel the refreshing Influence of the Spirit in our selves and may see the effects of it in others yet can no more comprehend the manner of his working than we can conceive how the Body is formed in the Womb of her that is with Child Eccles 11.5 There you have these two compared Why then should it be thought incredible that God should Work Faith in Infants Though we cannot fully comprehend his way of Working God can make use of various ways to effect one and the same thing though in the mean time he gives us no account of his Matters His ways are in the deep Waters and his Footsteps are not known And sure I am if we must believe nothing but what we can fully comprehend the Articles of our Faith may stand in less room for what can we say as to the Trinity we are bound to believe such a thing because God hath revealed it but alas how little can we comprehend of Three in One or to the Hypostatical Union of Two Natures Personally united What shall we say as to the Resurrection of the Dead Of the Joys of Heaven or the Torments of Hell If nothing must be Believed but what we can comprehend we must blot out these and many more Articles of our Creed Is not this the way to Atheism if we must not believe God to be unless we can comprehend him since 't is but a little portion we have heard of him Job 26.14 and since none can by searching find out God to Perfection This is to prefer the Light within or Carnal Reason above the Word of God if we must not believe God's Word unless we can comprehend it Nay this is to make a Man worse than a Beast while he must not believe that which he sees Hence we must not believe such a thing as the Tide or Sun since though it is easie to see both yet we cannot fully comprehend either Nay at this rate we must not believe our selves to be Creatures since we cannot tell how we were formed in the dark Recesses of the Womb for we are said to be wonderfully made In a word by this Rule we must believe nothing because there is nothing but what doth in some respect or other exceed our shallow Understandings This is a Rule to be observed among all that profess themselves Christians whatever God reveals we are to believe though it be as far above the reach of our Reason as the Heavens are above the Earth since 't is impossible for God to Lie and Blasphemous for us to suppose he should and worse to suppose God to Lie than to suppose him not to be As once Plutarch said Malo de me dici nullum esse Plutarchum quam malum Plutarchum I had rather said he Man should say I am not than say I am wicked And therefore since God hath in his Word set forth the necessity of Grace and Faith in order to our getting to Glory we ought to Believe the one or to Despair of the other Some time since I was reading a Book put out by one of the most Learned of the Anabaptists and in that he owns the Sins of Children are done away and that some such if not all such do go to Heaven but most boldly affirms they are not done away in Regeneration But sure that Gentleman would have done well to have told us which way they are cleansed and not to leave so many tender-hearted Parents mourning for their deceased Infants as those without hope as they must needs do if they are not capable of Regeneration or if they cannot tell some others way how they may be fitted for Heaven But I perceive that Gentleman was resolved none should know his new-found way but himself let the effects be what they will But though he is thus unkind his Dear Brother Mr. C. seems to be a Man of a better Spirit and though he seems to agree with him in the former yet he tells us if we will believe him how Sin comes to be destroyed in Infants and that is saith he
is like to be lost that hath no better Witness than an ignorant Nicodemus and we may suppose the Anabaptists at a Loss when the ablest and most learned among them are forced to summons in Nicodemus as a Witness for tho' they must own him to be a poor Evidence if they will believe Christ Verse 10. Art thou a Master in Israel and knowest not these things and they that do not know things are unmeet to prove them But either this Person put more Confidence in Nicodemus than Christ or else knowing his Cause was almost gone would rather cite Nicodemus concerning which he knew neither what he said nor whereof he affirmed rather than have no Witness but 't is no wonder to see the most Learned of the Anabaptists run into such gross Absurdities and to be at such a Loss in such Mysteries for if Learning could teach a Man the Mysteries of the Gospel Nicodemus had not been so grosly ignorant of Christ's meaning and I leave it to any Judicious Person to determine whether we have not as good Ground and better to judge that this Objecter was of the same Mind of Nicodemus in understanding it to be a natural Birth then to conclude that because he understood it as spoken of Adult only therefore it must be so for we may suppose had not this Doctor had great Confidence in the Infallibility of Nicodemus he would never have ventured that Cause which was as dear to him as his Life upon his single Evidence and especially in such a Cause wherein he had so many Hundreds opposed him and sure had he judged him in a gross Mistake as to the Nature of that new Birth he would never have put such Confidence in what he said with the same Breath as to the Subject and as we have infallible Ground to conclude from his own Words that this Objecter is far from believing any Necessity or Possibility for Infants to be regenerated so I think I do him no Wrong if I suppose 't is his Judgment that there is no more Necessity for grown Persons to be regenerated for of this Judgment was his trusty and well-beloved Friend Nicodemus for had Nicodemus once supposed that grown Persons any more than Infants must be born again Spiritually he would never have mentioned such a gross Absurdity as to be born again Carnally but taking it for granted that Adult to give the Objecter his Sence could not be born again Spiritually absurdly supposes it to be meant a Carnal Birth and why we may not suppose the Objecter to be of his Judgment in the one as well as the other especially since he puts such Confidence in him I see not and now I leave it to my understanding Reader to judge whether we have not better Ground to believe that under the Word Men Children are comprehended because the Word signifies both than to conclude Christ only meant grown Men because Nicodemus understood him so since it is past all dispute the Word signifies so but whether Nicodemus did rightly understand Christ's meaning may justly admit of a Debate nay it seems almost past all Dispute he did not by his gross Mistake about other Passages relating hereunto Thus I have I hope sufficiently proved a Necessity for Infants to have Faith if they get to Heaven from God's Appointment and what can be more cogent to confirm any Point than the express Mind of God And I am certain had the Anabaptists such-clear Proof that no Infants ought to be Baptized as I have given to prove that all Infants that get to Heaven must have Faith they would soon cry Victory nor should I ever hold up my Weapons against them was it so lest haply by so doing I was found fighting against God himself Secondly There is a Necessity for Faith in Infants if they get to Heaven arising from the Corruption of their Natures Which tho' the Anabaptist may probably deny yet I doubt not but to confirm this also from Scripture When Adam had sinned by eating the Forbidden Fruit he was immediately seized with a Spiritual Death according to the Commination in the Day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die And Adam being a publick Head and Representative of all Mankind this Spiritual Death is intailed on all his Posterity Hence we are said to bear the Image of the Earthly nor is this true of Adult only but of all his Posterity 1 Cor. 15.22 As in Adam all die Mind all die Infants as well as grown Persons and this I shall further prove from most express Scripture Eph. 2.3 And were by Nature the Children of Wrath even as others Gen. 8.21 For the Imagination of Man's Heart is evil from his Youth The Evil in our Hearts is the Cause of all the Evil in our Lives Hence Foolishness is said to be bound up in the Heart of a Child Prov. 22.15 It is so bound up that for a while it may not discover it self yet is in his Heart See Psal 58.3 The Wicked are estranged from the Womb they go astray as soon as they be born speaking Lies That is they have a straying Principle as soon as born Once more Psal 51.5 Behold I was shapen in Iniquity and in Sin did my Mother conceive me So that by Nature we not only want a Title to Heaven but a Meetness also Col. 1.12 Giving Thanks unto the Father who hath made us meet to be Partakers of that Inheritance of the Saints in Light Implying that by Nature they were unmeet and if Children are not thus corrupt by Nature how came they to die since the Wages of Sin is Death Now if Death reigned as the Apostle saith from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the Similitude of Adam's Transgression that is Infants that had not sinned actually then it must be because they were Sinners in Adam and had the Seed of Sin in themselves habitually for the Guilt of Adam's Act is not transferred to any of the meer Sons of Men but such as partake of his Image also and I dare be bold to say and can abundantly from Scripture prove that the Seed and Spawn of all our Actual Sins are in our Hearts before we commit one of them for as in Grace there must first be the Habit and then the Act so in Sin the Heart is first Wicked then the Life The Tree is first evil before the Fruit is so Mat. 12.33,35 Now if the Nature of all is so corrupt as I have proved then 't is impossible for any thus corrupt to get to Heaven without an inward Change for what would Heaven be to an unregenerate Soul What would the Works of praising God be to one that hates God Or what would Holy Company be to such as are dead in Trespasses and Sins and to every good Word and Work reprobate But least this should not suffice I shall prove from Scripture that such cannot get to Heaven in an unchanged State 1 Cor. 15.50 Now this I
say Brethren that Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God neither doth Corruption inherit Incorruption VVhere we must not understand the VVord Flesh Physically or in Point of Being for so we believe Christ is now in our Humane Nature in Heaven VVe believe also the Resurrection of the Body when the Saints shall in their Flesh see God Job 19.26 But Flesh here must be understood morally as corrupted as Gal. 1.16 Immediately I conferred not with Flesh and Blood in which Place he means he did not hearken to the corrupt Reasonings of the Flesh That this is the meaning seems clear for in the foregoing Verse he had been mentioning our Earthly Image which consists in the Depravity of our Nature and then concludes That Flesh and Blood that is such as retain that Earthly Image cannot inherit the Kingdom of God so Heb. 12.14 Without Holiness no Man shall see God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no one no Body as it signifies Nor is it to be understood of actual Holiness in our Conversation only for should a Man die the same Moment that he closes with Christ he shall as surely see God to his Comfort as if he had liv'd a holy Life never so long our Title to Heaven arising from our Union to Christ and not from our Holiness tho' never so great nor do his good VVorks so properly render him meet for Heaven as that Holy Principle from whence they proceeded A clear Instance we have in the Thief on the Cross that was converted and in Heaven in a few Hours By his embracing of Christ he came to have a Title to Heaven and his inward Change of Heart rendred him meet for Heaven notwithstanding he had no time to spend in a Holy Conversation From all which it doth appear that as we are corrupt by Nature so this Nature till renewed can never enter into Heaven nor do I see what the Anabaptists can say to this unless they deny the Corruption of our Nature and I perceive some of them have fled thither for Refuge But this is so confuted by the former Scriptures that I judge it needless to add any more and I cannot but wonder how such as pretend so high an Esteem for plain Scripture dare cast such Contempt on those many plain Texts I have cited and more that I might cite to prove the Corruption of our Natures as we come into the VVold This gives us sad ground to Fear that whatever high esteem such may pretend to plain Scripture when it seems to make for them yet they prefer their own Fancies before it when it really makes against them Thus I hope I have sufficiently proved a necessity for Infants to have Grace if ever they get to Glory I come now to the close of my Argument Minor Proposition But some Infants do get to Heaven Now I need not spend much time to prove his for I hope the Anabaptists will not be so uncharitable as to Sentence all Infants to Eternal Destruction rather than receive the Truth of the Gospel And indeed I find some of them so far from denying that some Infants get to Heaven that they rather believe that none miss of Heaven But if any of the rest of the Anabaptists should so far differ from their Brethren as to deny it yet 't is our comfort the Scripture doth in most express words affirm it Mat. 19.14 Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven not that the Kingdom of Heaven consists only of such but that some such are of that Kingdom By the Kingdom of Heaven saith Marlorate we must understand the Eternal Felicity of the Elect. Some indeed understand it of the visible Kingdom of Christ on Earth But such do not understand it so in opposition to their Eternal Felicity and indeed if some of such as are in Christ's Visible Kingdom here on Earth do not get to Heaven I know not who shall come there Visible not being opposed to Invisible but only distinguished from it So that since some such do get to Heaven as I have proved but none get to Heaven without Renovation hence it unavoidably follows some such are renewed which Renovation takes in the Seeds or Habit of Faith and all other Graces And thus have I confirmed my Argument which I am confident stands so firm on Scripture ground that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against it All I shall add shall be to Answer some Objections that may be made by some against it though indeed the truth is so clear that Objections are not worthy to be heard much less to to be answered But to the End that things may be made plain to the meanest capacity and nothing wanting for satisfaction to such as desire it I proceed Object 1. We see no such Ground to hope such have Grace Do not we see that oft-times the Children of Godly Parents prove wicked which they would not have done if they had Grace in Infancy unless they fall from Grace which we may suppose you do not Believe To which I answer That some Children of Believing Parents do prove Graceless and Wicked by too sad experience we find true Nor can we from hence infer that such fall from Grace for I know none that hold that all such have Grace I mean of Unbaptized Infants for as to Baptized Infants the Papists and Church of England both hold That all such have Grace though for my own part tho' I hope well of all such as are Baptized de jure of right yet to affirm that all such have Grace I dare not neither do I think any from Scripture have good ground so to do Should none have Grace among the Seed of Believers but such as Die in Infancy or who do in time appear Gracious but know not so exactly the time of their Conversion who may be supposed to be wrought upon in Infancy they would amount to a vast number And perhaps as many by the Rule of Proportion as may be found to have Grace in the great Day when all must be weighed in the Ballance of the Sanctuary in our particular Churches But if we must not hope of any because some prove wicked what shall we say of Adult Professors who are Members in Churches Do not many of them prove Hypocrites Must the Eleven therefore be condemned for Hypocrites because a Judas was among them Would not this be to Judge before the time Sure I am at this rate we must hope of none Adult or Infants But if you say notwithstanding some professors prove Wicked yet we are to hope well of others till such time as their Wickedness discovers it self So say I as to Infants though some prove wicked yet till others appear so we ought to hope well of them if we see nothing that doth cut off our hope and not so to do must be judged the greatest uncharitableness Oject 2. But Adult Persons make a Profession of Christ so do not Infants Answ All their Profession is but
the ground of our hope of an inward Change and was it possible to see the Heart unrenewed Whatever Profession such a one might make it would be a Sin to Baptize such a one So that if we have but good ground to hope they have Faith be it by Profession or otherwise it matters not If the Objecter say 't is his bare Profession gives a right then they give away the cause they have so contended for since Faith and Profession are not only distinct but separable If they say Faith gives them a right this makes for me as I have proved If they say 't is Faith as Professed and no otherways this is evidenly to lay more stress upon their Profession than Faith since whatever other ground we have to hope they have Faith yet without a Profession of that Faith they must not be Baptized Object 3. This makes Baptism a Regenerating Ordinance which is not a Truth Answ I have reason to think this a meer Cavil and a wilful Mistake of the Objecter For my own part tho' I am for Infant-Baptism and am fully perswaded from Scripture I have good reason so to be yet I must again declare I am far from approving of that Popish Doctrine that Baptism conferrs Grace from any Vertue in it though I cannot deny but God may work Grace in some in that Ordinance I believe some have Grace that never were Baptized and that some are Baptized that never had Grace both of Adult as well as Infants Nor doth our practice give the least countenance to believe that this Ordinance Regenerates Nay it seems clearly to hold forth the contrary since I do not pretend to Baptize to the end they may be Regenerated but in hopes they are already so There must first be a Right before they partake of the Seal But I expect some should say to what end should Parents bring their Children to this Ordinance if they hope they are Regenerated before Answer If the Objecter be an Anabaptist I answer him to the same end they bring their Adult whom they own to be Believers but if of another Judgment I answer to the same end Adult Believers come to the Lord's Supper after they are in Christ and that which will serve for an Answer to the one may serve as an sufficient Answer to the other There may be a necessity of doing a thing in order to our avoiding Sin when there is not a necessity to do the same in order to avoiding of Hell For instance A Saint is bound in his own Person to fulfil the Moral Law perfectly in order to his avoiding Sin but not in order to his avoiding Hell If he was who then could be saved And if no other Reason can be given but because God will have it so 't is sufficient to justifie our practice But to this I add ex abundanti that as a grown Person who hath Grace stands in need of Prayer Preaching and the Lord's Supper for to strengthen his Grace they being appointed to that end So though we were sure Infants had such Faith as we Baptize yet we ought to Baptize them for the strengthening of that Faith and to look on it as our Priviledge as well as Duty Object 4. If we may Baptize Infants on this ground then we may Baptize the Infants of Unbelieving Parents for we have the same ground to hope of them And further we find such were Circumcised but you do not Baptize such therefore you ought not to Baptize others Answ Though I cannot deny but some such may be Saved and so consequently must have Grace yet this no way weakens my Argument laid down as I shall prove by another Argument thus Those to whom God hath made special Promises of them we have special ground to hope But the Infant Seed of Believers are such to whom God hath made special Promises therefore of such we have special ground to hope The Major is clear For though we cannot from hence infallibly conclude the certainty of the Salvation of all such the Promise respecting the External as well as Internal part of the Covenant yet sure I am such Promises give more ground to hope than where he hath made none and for any to deny this is no better than to charge God with mocking of his Dear Children since in their Judgment all the Promises God hath made to their Seed will not afford sufficient ground so much as to hope concerning their future Happiness And sure I am if there is no ground to hope of them there is none of others and so all must in their Judgment perish Minor Proposition But God hath made special Promises to the Seed of Believers First He hath made Promises unto such Gen. 17.7,8 And I will establish my Covenant between thee and me and thy Seed after thee in their Generations for an Everlasting Covenant to be a God to thee and thy Seed after thee So Acts 2.39 For the Promise is to you and to your Children c. Which Promise being renewed in the New Testament and so many hundred Years after it was given to Abraham proves it was no bare Promise of the Land of Canaan as some vainly suppose Secondly I say special Promises I mean such as are not made in common to the Seed of Unbelievers and I challenge any to shew me one such promise made to them For though I cannot deny but some such may be Saved yet I see no more ground to hope of such dying in Infancy than of the Infants of Heathens there being no more Promise to the former than the latter according to the best of my knowledge in Scripture Nor can we conclude as was Objected that because the Seed of Unbelievers as well as Believers were Circumcised suppose it so that therefore the Seed of all both Unbelievers as well as Believers must be Baptized no more than we can conclude that 't is lawful for Women to Baptize because Zipporah Circumcised her Son There was no fixed Officer in the Jewish Church as Mr. Strong hath observed to administer that Ordinance and then no wonder if there was some Male-administration as to the Subject But suppose it was the Will of God it should be so in that Day it doth not follow it must be so now Though Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision for the same God that had power to Change the Seal may if he will Change or Limit the Subject also But is Objected by some That the Promises were not made to Abraham's Natural Seed but Spiritual For 't is said Gal. 3.29 If ye are Christ's then are ye Abraham 's Seed and Heirs according to Promise And from hence conclude there is no ground to Baptize the Natural Seed of Believers as Believers because the Promise is not made to them as Natural Seed To which I Answer Had this Objection been brought against the Corrupt Practice of such as Baptize the Infants of such Parents as are openly Prophane for 't is evident
Circumcision was first instituted to Believing Abraham I think it would have been unanswerable because there is nothing of Christ appears in such Parents no not so much as a Profession and how such Infants can be supposed to stand in the Place or partake of the Priviledges of Abraham unless one of their Parents stood in Abraham's room I see not But since the Objection is made against such as only Baptize such as have Believing Parents I must further Answer The forecited Scripture seems not in the least to oppose the Truth I have laid down as will appear if we consider the Apostle is there speaking to Adult Gentiles and doth assure them that though they were not the Natural Seed of Abraham and so could not on that account lay claim to the Promise either to themselves or Children as they might have done had they been so and their Conversations had been becoming the the Gospel of Christ yet by Virtue of their Relation to Christ or their believing in Christ though not of Abraham's Natural Seed they shall partake of Abraham's Priviledges And as at the first the Promise was made to Abraham and his Seed so when the Gentiles came to initiate the Faith of Abraham the Promise should be to them and their Seed as it was to Abraham Now the Promise at first reached unto Abraham's Natural Seed as is clear from Gen. 17.7,8,9,10 Now we cannot suppose the Seal to be applied to any but such as the Promise was made to But such as were Eight Days Old were Circumcised therefore to such the Promise was made For though I grant that all in Abraham's House were Circumcised both Old and Young the Adult being such as we may suppose were at least Professors For 't is said of Abraham he would teach his House yet it is evident none were excepted if but Eight Days old So that this Text strongly confirms my Argument for if upon our Believing we come to be Abraham's Seed and to partake of his Blessedness as in Gal. 3.9 then it follows by an undeniable consequence that as the Promise at first was made to Believing Abraham and his Natural Seed so it must he continued to us Believers and our Seed or else we are not Blessed as Abraham for it was no small part of his Blessedness that the Promise extended to his Seed But to put all out of doubt if the Promise was made to a Spiritual Seed then it must be to such as we are sure are Spiritual or to such as we have good ground to hope are so If you say the former then we must Baptize none either Old or Young because as I have proved we can-never infallibly tell who are Spiritual it being only proper to God who is the Father of Spirits to know that But if you say the latter that is such as we have good ground to hope are Spiritual then the Infant Seed of Believers must come in since I hope I have sufficiently proved we have good ground to hope such are inwardly renewed and if such as are renewed and born again by the Spirit and have the Image of God Engraven on their Hearts may not be reckoned for a Spiritual Seed I know not who must So that till my former Argument is overthrown concerning the necessity for Infants to be Regenerated and the good ground we have to hope some are so on the account of the Promises made to them I say till then all that is here added is of no Force Object 5. But we have no Instance in Scripture of any Infants ever Baptized therefore we have ground to think such ought not to be Baptized for we cannot suppose the Apostles were wanting in their Duty in that Case To which I answer Tho' we have no express Instance of any Infants Baptized yet we have some Texts that will I conceive infallibly prove either that some then were Baptized or at least now ought to be Baptized 'T is said of the Jaylor Acts 16.33 He was Baptized he and all his straightway Now we have good Ground to believe that all his takes in Children and that some of these all were little Children or at least so small as not to be able to make a Profession of their Faith but suppose they were able yet there is no express mention made that they did so before they were Baptized 'T is said indeed he spake to them the Word of the Lord but we cannot from thence conclude they that heard believed 't is said indeed after that he rejoiced believing in God with all his House but this was after he and all his were Baptized But there is one Text more that will be as a sharp two-edged Sword which will wound the Anabaptists let them defend themselves with all the Subtilty they can Acts 16.15 of Lydia And when she was Baptized and her Houshold c. Now the Enquiry is who this Houshold were But let them be who they will yet the Anabaptist will not reckon little Children among them because none such are mention'd but if so then because neither Husband Servant nor Kindred are mentioned therefore there was none And thus the Anabaptists have by an Art never before heard of reduced this Houshold to just no Body but Lydia and her self but I will suppose and I can do no other that in this Houshold there were more than Lydia And First I will suppose some of them Children as I have good ground to do from the use of the Word in Scripture and I find some of the Anabaptists do not deny this only say Lydia was too old to have young Children Now if there was any young Children in this Houshold as we have ground to suppose then here we have an Instance of such Baptized but I will suppose those Children of Lydia's as the Anabaptists affirm to be grown up then I ask by what Claim they were Baptized Now that her Houshold were Baptized the Word expresly affirms if they say as they were Professors I deny that and it lyes on them to prove it there is not one Word of their believing or any of them either before or after they were Baptized and had they made any Profession we have ground to think some mention would have been made of it but since the Scripture is silent tho' the Anabaptists should never so boldly affirm it yet I am confident scarce any but those of their own Perswasion will in the least regard what they say If they were Baptized as being related to Lydia tho' they made no Profession themselves then this overthrows the Practice of the Anabaptists since here are some Baptized that made no Profession of their Faith and also it gives us the Cause by an undeniable Conclusion for if such Children as are Adult but no Professors yet have a Right to Baptism on the Account of their Relation to a Parent that did believe then it follows that what belongs to any Child meerly as the Child of such a Parent
a Cloud most exactly answer to our manner of Baptizing The chief Reply I have met with to this is That if the Cloud rained on them while they were going through the Sea then they could not be said to go through on dry Ground as the Text affirms To which I Answer They that are so careful of the Sense of the Text in one thing should also of another for as it is said They went through on dry Ground so it is said They were Baptized in the Cloud and sure it must mean some Water came from the Cloud either to plunge them or to wash them or else how could it be called Baptism Can any be Baptized without Water I doubt not but if this Scripture would but have countenanced Dipping as well as some other Washing the Anabaptists would never have stood on the dry Ground But what a poor Reply is this That the Rain could not fall on them because 't is said They went on dry Ground As if that Mighty God who made a Way for them through the Deep that the Water even to a Miracle stood as a Wall to defend them could not cause also that the Ground should be dry notwithstanding some shower might Fall As if he that dried up the Ocean could not also dry up some Drops Suppose the Rain from the Cloud did fall on the Ground might they notwithstanding go on dry Ground Yes sure without a Miracle We read Gen. 8.14 The Earth was Dried where the Word Dry is opposed to the Flood and not to all Moisture for it is scarce credible in an ordinary Way that after the Earth had been so long soaked by such an unheard of Flood it should within so few Days be so dried that it should not have so much Moisture as a small shower of Rain might occasion When 't is said the Earth was dryed it shews that the Flood was so far gone that they might walk upon it So the Israelites though some Rain might fall on them yet might properly be said to go on dry Ground because no doubt but the dry Ground is opposed to the Sea that was wont to overflow that place See what poor shifts the Ablest of the Anabaptists are forced to make use of to support their tottering Cause Sure I am it gives any rational Man cause to suppose they are at a loss when they can make no better a Reply than thus See on what slender Grounds they can oppose the plainest Scripture when it makes against them as if they were resolved to follow their own Fancies let the Scripture say what it will Thus you see the Word will justifie our way of Baptizing and if so then the Anabaptists can never justifie their Separation from us or Calumnies against us on that Acount But because there are some Scriptures which are urged as presidents of Persons Baptized by Dipping I shall therefore weigh them in the Ballance and see if they are not wanting to that End for which they are brought The first Text I shall mention is Rom. 6.4 where we are said to be buried with Christ in Baptism and so they conclude that as Persons when Buried are put under the Earth so when Persons are Baptized they should be put wholly under the Water But here they would do well to consider this is but a Metaphor and 't is a known Maxim Similitudes will not run on all four but if this Metaphor must hold good in all things then let the Anabaptists be careful that the Party Baptized lye as long under the Water as the Dead do under the Earth before they Rise again but if you say the comparison will not hold good in that then by your own Confession not in all and so proves nothing to the point But if a Burial may serve to set forth Baptism this makes for us for as in Burying a Person they throw the Earth upon him so we in Baptism throw the Water on the Party Baptized Another Text is Acts 8.38 And they went both down into the Water and so draw a Conclusion such a one as it is that because he went down therefore he was Dipped But here I must remind my Friends this is not a plain Scripture to prove Dipping nor will it afford any more than a poor consequence such as I am sure they would reject with the greatest scorn and derision if brought against them to conclude because one went into the Water therefore under the Water with their whole Bodies when they might as truly be said to go into the Water if their Feet were but inâ— as if under the Water with their whole Body and no wonder that 't is said they went down since Water usually lyes in some bottom and they that will have it must go down for it But now that this going down was not a Dipping is so clear even from the Text it self that all that do not wilfully shut their Eyes must needs see it 'T is said They went both down and what is said of the one is in that respect said of the other So that if from hence it can be proved that the Eunuch was Dipped it proves that Philip was Dipped also From whence I frame an unanswerable Argument from the Words that the Eunuch was not Dipped Thus the Eunuch went down no more under Water than Philip But Philip was not Dipped therefore not the Eunuch The Major is clear for 't is said both went down and if any Scripture can be produced to prove the Eunuch went lower into the Water than Philip I will believe it But sure I am this Text is silent nay it seems to speak the contrary for 't is said both went down which Words seem to imply both went equally down The Minor I conceive will by most readily be granted that Philip was not Dipped And before I would have the Anabaptists believe he was I desire them to prove it but though I doubt not but they can produce many Instances of Baptized Persons Dipped among themselves yet I am ready to believe should they search the World through they could not produce one instance of an Administrator Dipped If they think Philip was Dipped why do not they then imitate him That the Baptizer as well as Baptized are Dipped But do they thus No they bind heavy Burthens to lay on others Shoulders but care not for bearing any part themselves But I wonder how such as pretend to walk so exactly by Scripture Rule dare thus mangle it while they force it to speak in what Langnage they would have it while they readily embrace what of it seems to make for them and in the mean time trample under Foot what doth really make against them They own that Philip was not Dipped The Text says not one word of the Eunuch's going lower than he into the Water but much rather proves the contrary and yet notwithstanding all that this Scripture speaks against it Such is the Love of the Anabaptists to Dipping that the poor