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 infant- Dr. Walker 's Preface to his Plea for infant-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
between God and them if Baptism had not come in its stead to the same purpose it would have been a wonder if we should not have heard of many Heats about the Loss of it And these things being thus stated sure Infants can be no more uncapable of Baptism now than they were of Circumcision formerly but will have a just and reasonable Right to it I acknowledg yet that there were some Ends in the Appointment and Administration of Circumcision then which are not common to Baptism now viz. in respect of the Messiah who was promised and foreshewn thereby to come into the World by Generation And so that was a Mark made upon that Part of the Body which is inservient to Generation and to that end was put upon that People of whom the Messias was to be born to keep them as a separate People from all other Nations that the Pedigree of the Messiah might be the more distinctly and securely preserved And this end of Circumcision ceasing when the Messiah appeared therefore in that Respect it expired of it self But yet neither of these nor both together were the chief or only Ends of Circumcision as is clear from what hath been discours'd but we see likewise it had a spiritual Significancy and Design to other Purposes and in these Respects was of the same Use then as Baptism is now and so they both have the same Subjects viz. Infants as well as grown Persons And we are informed that that was abolish'd because of the Burdensomness of it Acts 15.10 And Baptism now succeeds in the room as a new Institution to the same spiritual Ends and as a more gentle Administration which would be less offensive and troublesom to the Gentile World than that was or would have been And as for the Apostle's Disputes against Circumcision it was in the Sense that the Jews took it as Circumcision in the Letter only and as a Part of the Political Law of Moses into which it was afterward incorporated and from the keeping of which they expected to be justified before God and that with respect chiefly to its outward Performances Against this Sense and Abuse of it the Apostle discourseth not as it was a Sign or Token of the Abrahamical Covenant and as it was in its true End a Seal of the Gospel-Promises contained in it So that the Apostle's Dispute against it in the corrupt Jewish Sense doth no way enervate or invalidate that which we have said concerning the true End and principal Design of it And therefore it no way destroyeth the Parallel or Analogy between Baptism and that in Respects of the Ends mentioned As for that Objection which some have made against the Usefulness of Baptism in comparison of Circumcision to Children because Baptism is but a transient Sign and leaves no significant Impression behind it to instruct Persons what was done to them in their Infancy whereas Circumcision is an abiding Character in their Flesh which they themselves may take notice of I answer that in Respect of the Significancy of either it is all one for Children did no more understand at that Age what was done to them or why than Infants do now And when they come of Age they could not know how that Mark came or what that was intended for but by the Instruction of others whom they must be beholden to to know the meaning of it And so Children may know now as well by the Information of others and by the Practice thereof that they see in the Church both that they were baptized though they perceive no Mark of it remaining and also the End that they were baptized for And therefore where is the Difference As for the Objection that Males only were ordered by God to bear the Token of the Covenant then it doth not therefore follow by this Analogy that they only should bear it now because now there was no such Restraint laid upon the Administration but it was to belong to both Males and Females and yet the Analogy in other Respects holds good 3. That Infants being now as well as formerly owned and called by God into a near Relation to himself as his Children and Members of his Church should therefore be baptized may be argued from this that we read of those that were baptized upon this very Ground or Consideration viz. of their being chosen and called by God to be his People and Children and of the Church of Christ and partaking of his spiritual Gifts and Blessings So that if little Children do appear to be as much respected and called by him to the same Privileges as those grown Persons that were so and thereupon were baptized then little Children for the same Reason ought to be baptized also there being the very same Reason and Ground for Baptism in them as there was in grown Persons Now I say we shall find that the Reason and Ground upon which the Apostles did administer Baptism to grown Persons was the Evidence they had of their being taken and brought by God into the Number of his own peculiar Covenant-People and Children and so partaking of his Blessings For whensoever they perceived any the least Token or Evidence of this they presently administred Baptism to them as it were for a visible Eurollment and Admittance of them being so owned by God into the Number of his People and to have a Partnership in his visible Church Thus when the Holy Ghost was poured in an extraordinary manner upon Cornelius and his Company this being a Token of God's having alike Respect to them as to the believing Jews Acts 10.46 Then answered Peter Can any one forbid Water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we By this he perceived that he was not to look upon them any longer common or unclean as others were that God had not shewn such a distinguishing Respect unto and therefore he thought Baptism could not be denied unto them whom he saw that God had by this Mark separated and set apart for himself And in his Apology which he makes for himself about that Matter he expresseth it in more general Terms chap. 11.17 For asmuch as God hath given them the like Gift as he did unto us who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ what was I that I could withstand God Intimating to us that they partaking of the same distinguishing Gift of God as others did whereby God's singular Respect to them did appear that they should partake of the same Ordinance of Baptism likewise with them without requiring of them any further Confession of their Faith in Christ that being it self a sufficient Evidence that God had chosen them into the Number of his People and therefore it was reasonably concluded without any more ado that they also should partake of the same Badg and Seal with them And yet the Gift of the Holy Ghost which was then poured on them visibly consisted but in some extraordinary Endowments
Christ came to save all by himself Omnes inquam saith he qui per eum renascuntur in Deum Infantes parvulos pueros juvenes seniores All I say that are born again to God Infants and little ones and Boys and young Men and old Which Phrase of being born again to God in the Sacred and Ecclesiastical Dialect is but another Expression for Baptism or doth certainly imply or infer it Tertullian who lived but a very little after the said Irenaeus from a certain Notion that he had of the Use and Ends of Baptism thought indeed that it was more convenient to defer it And so he was likewise for the deferring of the Baptism of Virgins till they were married and gives the same Reason for both For fear lest they should be tempted to renounce Christ after Baptism But then by other Passages it appears Lib. de Bapt. c. 18. that he thought the Baptism of Infants as well as of others absolutely necessary in case of extream Danger And by his very Arguments against the Practice of Infant-Baptism in ordinary Cases he sheweth that it was then commonly practised and doth not produce any one Argument to prove either its Unlawfulness or Novelty which if he could have done would have been a much stronger Argument than any he hath used to confirm his Opinion and was so obvious that a Person of his Learning and Sagacity could not have overlook'd it and which therefore being not urged by him is a manifest Indication that he had no such Opinion of its being either novel or unlawful though for other Reasons in his singular Opinion he thought better to defer it In Levit. Homil. 8. In Luc. Homil. 14. In Epist ad Rom. lib. 5. par 2. p. 543. Edit Basil Origen who lived very little after him speaks again and again of the Baptism of little Children in that Age and saith expresly that the Church hath received it as a Tradition from the Apostles to give Baptism to little ones St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage a very small time after this was a great Admirer of Tertullian whom he often used to call his Master But the Evidence for Infant-Baptism was so clear to him that he declares for the baptizing of Infants even recens nati those that were just born Epist ad Fidum And there were sixty six Bishops joined in Council with him who agreed in the same Opinion and sent it as their common Resolution to Fidus who thought that Baptism ought to be deferred at least to the eighth Day according to the Law of Circumcision In the next Age lived Athanasius Q. 114. ad Antiochū Tom. 2. p. 337. Ed. Paris who again and again makes mention of Infant-Baptism and lays a great Stress upon it Much about the same time Gregory Nazianzen lived who though his Opinion was that where it could be safely deferred it was better to let it alone till Children were three or four Years old and were able to answer the Interrogatories that then used to be put to those that were baptized Orat. 40. de Bapt. yet doth he vehemently urge that in case of Danger they should be baptized in their Infancy and took his Reason from the Circumcision of Children at the eighth Day and from the saving of the first-born in Goshen by the Sign of the Blood on the Lintel of the Door and the two Side-posts and saith that though Infants be not sensible either of the Gain or Loss of it yet that it is better in case of Danger that they be sanctified without the Sense of it than that they be let alone uninitiated and unconsigned St. Chrysostom is plain for it in the Beginning of the next Age and saith Homil. ad Neophylos For this Cause that is because there are so many Benefits of Baptism we baptize Children though they have not Sin Vid. Dr. Hammond 's Defence of Infant-Baptism p. 104. And St. Austin speaks of it in many Places and urgeth it as an Argument against the Pelagians for the Proof of Original Sin which they denied And it is very observable that they in their Answer to him never denied the Lawfulness of that which he press'd so upon them nor yet the Universality of the Practice or the Antiquity of it in the Church of God But rather on the contrary owned it for an Apostolical Tradition and practised it themselves though for other Reasons than that for which it was urged by St. Austin These were very sagacious Adversaries and would easily have discovered the Innovation of the Practice if such it had been by which they might have best put off any Argument that could from it have been produc'd against them To these might be added many other Testimonies out of St. Ambrose and St. Jerome in that Age Vid. Voss de Bapt. cap. 14. Cassand Testim veter de Bapt. parvulorum and also others in the following Ages So vain is the Pretence of some Anabaptists that Pope Innocent was the first that introduced this Practice into the Church And as vain is what they produce from n = ‖ Whistons Answer to Mr. Danvers c. 1. Walafridus Strabo and Ludovicus Vives the eldest of which lived some Ages later than the Fathers before mentioned It is in vain I say what they produce from them against the Practice of it in the Church in the former Ages when we have such clear Testimonies from those Ages for it and when these Authors give no Proof at all of their Opinion by which the Reader may make any Judgment about it Now from what hath been thus discours'd about the Judgment and Practice of Antiquity in this Matter so near the Age of the Apostles and that agreeably to the Practice of the Jewish Church in their admitting of Proselytes and their Children also by Baptism is it not a fair and reasonable Inference to conclude that this was the Practice also of the Apostles between and was as old as the Churches that they planted and was derived to the succeeding Ages from them For if this had been a new upstart Invention or had been brought in by false Teachers and especially if it had been of such a pestiferous Nature as the Anabaptists pretend and had all been but profane Trifling and Mockery it is not easy to be imagined how it should so early and universally obtain in the Christian Church and that it should not be more vehemently opposed and the Mockery Profaneness and Pestilency of it discovered as that of other Heresies was Had the Churches erred they would have varied saith Tertullian but what is one and the same among them all as this of Infant-Baptism was Non est erratum sed traditum doth not come from Error but Apostolical Tradition And so St. Austin upon this very Subject That which the universal Church doth hold and was never instituted by Councils but was always retained in the Church we most rightly believe to have
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-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
Word here translated teach should be rendred then as Disciples too they should be baptized for all that are Disciples should be so Now that Infants may be Disciples is plain because they are so called Acts 15.10 Why lay ye a Yoke upon the Necks of the Disciples which must be understood of Infants as well as others it being the Yoke of Circumcision that the Apostle there speaks of which used most commonly to be administred to Infants or to them together with others and was called a Yoke because of the Burdensomness and Painfulness and Bloodiness of it So that it is reasonable to conclude that Infants here are some of the Disciples meant And it is no way unreasonable to call them by that Name though they are in no present immediate Capacity of learning or being taught for it is sufficient that they be entred into Christ's School for that purpose and engaged to learn of him as of their Master And this they may be and so may be visible admitted Disciples by Baptism in order to future teaching though they are not capable of present As for Aliens and Infidels of grown Age to whom the Apostles were sent they must be first taught before they become Disciples because they can be brought to be Disciples only by their own Consent whereas Children may be entred into Christ's School without any present actual Consent of their own by the Act of others that are their Parents or Guardians and so may become Disciples first and so be baptized as such and then be taught afterwards Now as for the other part of the Objection viz. the want of an express Example of Infant-Baptism that is of less Moment For an Example is of much less Moment than a Command and if a Command be not necessary then much less is an Example necessary But if Infant-Baptism may be concluded upon the Grounds aforesaid without an express Command then much more without an express Example so that the Answer to the former Part of the Objection will also be easily applicable here And indeed it is not at all strange that such a Practice though then in being should be silently pass'd over in Scripture Because the Scripture is not intended for a perfect Register of all Facts that were done though it be a perfect Rule of Faith and Practice in all things necessary to Salvation So that the thing might be done then though the Scripture doth not mention it And it might be pass'd over for this very Reason because it was no new thing but was common before among the Jews and so there need to be less notice taken of it or because the Apostles and Ministers Business then was principally to preach to and convert and so baptize grown Persons and Fathers and then the Baptism of Children followed of Course by the general and common Rule and Practice and therefore there was less notice taken particularly of them But yet though there be no particular Example of it it may reasonably be inferred that it was practised because there were such reasonable Grounds to build the Practice upon and considering the Practice that had been among the Jews before of the baptizing Proselytes Infants and considering that there was no Complaint amongst any for the Neglect of their Infants notwithstanding the Cessation of Circumcision as it is probable there would have been if there had no other Ordinance succeeded in the room of it which might be applicable to Infants because then they might well think that their Infants by their becoming Christians were in a worse and more neglected Condition than before for whereas before by Circumcision they were differenced from the Common and Unclean that were the Uncircumcised now they must be reckoned among the Uncircumcised too being not circumcised and so also common and unclean if no other Ordinance should succeed in the room of Circumcision So that these Considerations give just Ground to infer that it was then practised though it be not particularly mentioned Add to which that they are likely to be included in those Housholds mentioned to be baptized for the Houshold contains all that is in the Houshold and 't is strange if in all those Housholds there should be no little ones And though those that heard and believed were baptized upon their own Faith yet it is reasonable likewise to infer that the Infants were baptized though without a Faith of their own as the Infants of Proselytes before by virtue of God's Covenant which upon the Faith of their Parents they come presently to share in And then moâ—â—over the Antients delivered this as a Tradition and Practice derived from the Apostles as we have seen and there being no other probable Ground to be assigned for the Original of it so soon in the Christian Church and for the universal Practice of it that did every where obtain it is fairly agreeable that it was the Apostolical Practice before And there is as little to be said from Scripture-Example for the baptizing of Persons at Age whose Parents were Christians when they were born and who had been educated from their Childhood in the Christian Religion For there is not the least him in Scripture of any such that were baptized by the Apostles but only of those that were converted from Judaism or Paganism unto Christianity and that presently after their Conversion And yet the Anabaptists do not doubt but that such were baptized though there be no express Example of it But if this Argument be good against Infant-Baptism because there is no Example of it it will be as good against the baptizing of such because there is as little Example of their being baptized And so the Argument would prove too much and more than they intend and so they must turn Quakers too and deny all Baptism now for the same Reason that they deny infant-Infant-Baptism But if to salve this they will argue that the Warrantableness of baptizing such grown Persons may sufficiently be deduced to Scripture-Consequence from the Reason and End of the Institution of Baptism without any such Example we will allow the Argument But then we must dâ—sire that Justice of them that the Practice of infant-Infant-Baptism be likewise allowed to be warrantable for the same Reason if we can likewise deduce it by just Consequence from sufficient Grounds though we produce no Example of it To conclude there is no need of an express Example when we have sufficient Warrant besides without it We must not teach God how he must notify his Mind to us but if he hath made known his Mind and Will to us in any way we are to practise accordingly whether there be Example or no Example left of such a Practice The Mind and Will of God however made known to us being to be our Rule and not only when it is done this way or that way Object 4. That this is the Reason why the Church is so full of Hypocrites and carnal Professors and profane Persons For being
29. For the Gifts and Calling of God are without Repentance He will never repent of any Favour that he hath ever by Promise conferred upon any of Abraham's spiritual Seed or their Children So that when those Jews that are now Unbelievers and so cast out and broken off from the Church shall at length be brought to believe they shall then partake of the same Privileges and Benefits as they have ever done that continued in it and as they should have done if they had so continued and so also their Children For ver 16. If the first Fruits be holy the Lump is also holy and if the Root be holy so are the Branches Where the Parents are in Covenant or Church-Members so are the Children till they sall off through their own Unbelief So that here is no Alteration diminishing or repealing of any Church-privilege or Promise that ever did belong to the rightful Subjects of it And this is further clear from the Apostle Rom. 15.8 9. Now I say that Jesus Christ was a Minister of the Circumcision for the Truth of God to confirm the Promises made unto the Fathers and not to lessen or abolish them And so also a Saviour through his Mercy to the Gentiles that the Gentiles might glorify God also for his Mercy because partaking of the same Benefits and Privileges that were confirmed unto the Jews So that as the Apostle saith Eph. 2.12 13. they that were Aliens from the spiritual Commonwealth of Israel and Strangers from the Covenants of Promise and were sometime afar off are now in Christ Jesus made nigh And Eph. 3.6 the Gentiles are now Fellow-heirs and of the same Body with the believing Jews and Partakers with them of God's Promise in Christ by the Gospel So that belonging to the same Church and partaking of the same spiritual Promises and Privileges those that did belong to Jews and the Jewish Church and their Seed formerly do likewise belong to Christian Believers now and so in the same Extent and Latitude to their Children also there being no Alteration made in that respect more than in any other As the spiritual Seed of Abraham were ever holy and God's Covenant-People so were their Children and so it is now still with Gentile Believers and their Seed To this purpose speaks the Apostle concerning the Seed of Gentile Believers even where but one of the Parents are such 1 Cor. 7.14 For the unbelieving Husband is sanctified by or to the Wife and the unbelieving Wife is sanctified by or to the Husband that believes to the holy Use of such an one in the Sight of God for to the Pure all things are pure else were your Children common or unclean as the rest of the World are now in their Heathenism to whom therefore God hath no Regard as to his Children but now are they holy relatively and of a Religious Consideration before God as separated and dedicated to God and so are part of his Covenant-People It is not a Matrimonial Holiness that the Apostle intends or that the Children of Believers are therefore holy because they are no Bastards for the Children of Pagans are as well holy in that Respect that were born in Wedlock though the Parents neither of them were Believers So that this Interpretation would make the Apostle speak impertinently and untruly It is a relative or federal Holiness therefore that the Apostle must intend and by this he shews that such Children are of an holy Consideration in the Sight of God and are of the Number of his Holy and Covenant-People So that we can no where find any Dissolution or Discontinuance of the Church-membership of Infants under the Gospel which they once had but it still remains the same as ever and is rather more confirmed It being the same Church Covenant spiritual Privileges and Members as ever and these still keeping by the same Grant the same Place and standing in the Church as ever they did And as this therefore was once the Privilege of Infants of Abraham's spiritual Seed to stand in an holy Relation to God as his peculiar Covenant-People and Children so it is still But for a further Confirmation and clearing of this Matter we may observe also from our Saviour some such Indications of the same Respect had to them in choosing calling and esteeming of them as ever To this purpose we find Mark 10.14 They brought young Children to him that he should touch them or as St. Matthew hath it Matth. 19.13 that he should put his Hands on them and pray and his Disciples rebuked those that brought them but when Jesus saw it he was much displeased and said unto them Suffer the little Children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of God And he took them up in his Arms put his Hands upon them and blessed them All which sheweth Christ's good Will and Respect and dear Affection to them as Members of his Church and part of his Kingdom And which way soever the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven as St. Matthew expresseth it be here taken which they are said to be of either for Heaven it self or the Church on Earth their Church-membership in the visible Church will hence be concludable For if it be meant of the Church on Earth as that Phrase is often taken for that then it is the next and immediate Sense of the Words of our Saviour Or if it be to be understood of Heaven properly yet then it will follow from it For if the Kingdom of Heaven receive them and they have a Portion in that the visible Church on Earth then may not exclude them For none are of the Kingdom of Heaven above that are not first of the Church on Earth Acts 2.47 There were daily added to the Church such as should be saved And our Saviour's Reason here for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven sheweth that he meant this of such Infants properly taken and not only of Men like them in Humility For that could be no Reason why they should be brought unto him because others that are like them in Humility are of the Kingdom of Heaven unless they are also of the same And his pronouncing this as a Reason why they should be brought unto him and his imbracing them also in his Arms and his laying his Hands upon them and blessing them sheweth a great deal more Respect to them than what was required for the healing them of any bodily Distemper for neither was this Reason nor all that Demonstration of Affection to them needful for that when if they had not been of the Kingdom of Heaven they should no doubt have been healed by him if they had been brought unto him and when they had been brought a Word or a Touch would have effected that without so much imbracing praying and blessing them So that what can we conclude from all this but a more than ordinary Respect of our Saviour to little Children
of speaking with Tongues and thereby magnifying God which the Apostle acquiesced in as an Evidence of God's distinguishing Respect to them Now forasmuch as it also appears though by other Evidence as hath been shewn that little Children in like manner owned and respected by God as it appears that these were by this that was extraordinary How can any Man then forbid Water that they should not be baptized For seeing God hath given them the like Gift as he did unto them who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ what are we that we should withstand God If the Evidence of their Sonship and Relation to God be as certain and firm though not in the same way why should they not then likewise be baptized for the like Reason For the Gift of the Spirit it self was for their Admission or Entrance into the Body or Church of Christ as the Apostle sheweth 1 Cor. 12.13 For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one Body And this being a Means and Evidence of their Admission into this Body to this therefore the Baptism with Water was annex'd as the visible Token or Ceremony thereof on the Churches Part. Now forasmuch as it appears that Children are likewise of the Body of Christ there is same Reason that they should be baptized as well as those that were so who were by the Spirit baptized into this Body For it appears likewise by the Apostle elsewhere that Baptism doth belong in common to all those that are of Christ's Body and upon that very Account of their being so so that as it doth belong to others that are of this Body so likewise it doth to Infants as being of the same Body Eph. 4.4 For there is one Body the one holy Catholick Church of Christ one Spirit that by his Gifts and Graces moves quickens and rules it one heavenly Inheritance to the Hope of which they are called that are of this Body one Lord that governs it one Doctrine of Faith for the Rule of it one Baptism for a sacramental Admission into it one God and Father of all who owns and receives the Members thereof as his Children So that all that are of the Body of Christ as Children are are to be baptized that they may be owned to be of the Number and may be distinguish'd from all others that are not So that as in the Old Testament those within the Church are expressed by Circumcised and those without by the Vncircumcised See Rom. 3.30 ch 15.8 Eph. 2.11 Judg. 14.3 Jer. 9.25 26. so by Proportion those within the Church as some Infants are are to be baptized and so to be reckoned of the Church and they who are not baptized to be accounted as out of the Church Even Faith it self is to bring us into the Relation of the Children of God as the Apostle intimates Gal. 3.26 For ye are all the Children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus So that we may reasonably conclude that it was upon their Faith as the Means and Evidence of their Adoption that Believers themselves were baptized And forasmuch as it appears that little Children do partake of the Divine Adoption without Faith as well as if they had Faith there is the same Reasons for their being baptized as there was for the baptizing of those that did partake of the Adoption through Faith the Reason why they were baptized being their partaking of the Adoption of which Faith was the Means and Evidence and Baptism it self was but for the sealing of this Adoption to them and of the Covenant that God makes with them and for the visible intitling them to the Blessings thereof 4. There may at least a probable Argument be taken for the Baptism of Infants from the Account that we have of the baptizing of whole Housholds of all those that are spoken of by Name that are said to have had Housholds when once the Master or Mistress of the Family were baptized When the Master or Mistress of the Family were called and owned by God and brought into the Church it seems that all theirs were received likewise who did not reject the Counsel of God against themselves as Infants could not do It hath been observed Mr. W. A's Address to the N. C. that there are but nine in Scripture mentioned by Name to have been baptized besides our Saviour viz. Simon Magus the Eunuch St. Paul Cornelius Lydia the Jailor Crispus Gaius and Stephanus Among these whether Simon Magus had any Houshold is not mentioned But the Eunuch was baptized on the Road and so had none there St. Paul was not married and it is certain had no Houshold where he was baptized And whether Gaius had any when he was baptized is uncertain But for all the other five whose Housholds are mentioned it is likewise express'd or may be clearly inferred that their Housholds were baptized with them As Cornelius and his Houshold Acts 10. Lydia and her Houshold Acts 16.15 The Jailor and his ver 33. Crispus and his Acts 18.8 And the Houshold of Stephanus 1 Cor. 1.16 For God is pleased to have Respect to the Houses of those that are his and do believe in him as our Saviour said of Zaccheus Luke 19.9 This Day is Salvation come to this House For the Seed of the Righteous is blessed Psal 37.26 Now the baptizing of whole Housholds muâ—â— needs import the baptizing of all within the House And it is strange if in aâ—l these Housholds there should be no Person under Years of Consent to testify or profess their own Faith And if when Abraham and his Houshold were circumcised his Infants were likewise comprehended so when the Housholds of all those Persons are mentioned to be baptized that are said to have had Housholds why should we not as well conclude that their Infants likewise were baptized with them as being comprehended in the same Appellation And this need not seem strange when we find how quickly and readily the Apostles baptized many Persons upon the smallest Expression of Consent to the Faith of Christ being willing to give all kind of Encouragement to their coming into the Church of Christ when they had the least probable Hope of their future persisting therein as we see in their baptizing Simon Magus and the Jailor and his Houshold the same Night and many thousands the same Day that they first express'd their Consent And therefore I say it need not seem strange that they should baptize the Infants likewise or those that were under the Age of Consent in these Housholds seeing they might conceive as fair a Probability of their imbracing and professing the Christian Religion afterwards by Means of their Parents Care in their Education because they use to bring up their Children in the same Religion they profess themselves But for a further Confirmation of this and of the Use and Practice of Infant-Baptism in the time of our Saviour and the Apostles there are two considerable Points of History taken notice of
by the Learned which will give a great Light to this Matter 1st The first is that which is taken out of the most authentick Records of the Jewish Writings Vid. Dr. Walker's Plea for Infant-Baptism ch 30. and those Authors that are of greatest Note among them And it is this that even before our Saviour's time it was the manner among the Jews to admit Proselytes into the Jewish Church by three things Circumcision Dr. Hammond 's Defence Sect. 3. Sacrifice and Baptism whatever were the Ground or Original of this Custom which is differently accounted for by learned Men And Baptism was thought so necessary that though one was circumcised yet if he were not baptized he was not a true Proselyte which is delivered as a known Axiom by the Gemara Babylonica But if it were a Woman she must only be baptized and bring a Sacrifice And there being a Statute among the Jews Numb 15.15 That one Ordinance should be both for themselves and for the Stranger or Proselyte that sojourned among them therefore what they did to their Proselytes they did also to themselves So that as the Jewish Talmud and Gemara say the Israelites themselves do not enter into Covenant but by these three things Circumcision Baptism and Peace-offering And as this was the Manner and Custom of admitting grown Proselytes so also their Infant-Children if they had any were baptized likewise as the Gemara saith And so also Maimonides an Author of great Account among the Jews upon condition that there was Security given for the Education of the Children in the Jewish Religion that when they came to Age they might not renounce it And this their Reception of Proselytes in this way was esteemed among them to be a kind of Regeneration or new Birth they being brought and engaged thereby to a new Religion and a new Life Now if this be true as the Jewish Records do inform us and we have no Reason to doubt of it may seem less strange that the Baptism of John Baptist was so readily complied with and that there was no more Noise and Stir about it it being in it self for the Matter of it no new Institution but what had been usual and customary among them and John's Design in it being only to administer it to a different End than before that is as a Ceremony demonstrative of and engaging to Repentance against the appearance of the Kingdom of Messiah whereas it was before observed only as an initiating Rite into the Jewish Religion and Covenant And when our Saviour came and baptized or ordered his Disciples so to do it was only a Translation of an old Custom to a new End viz. to admit and receive Persons into the Religion of Messiah who was now come And it being no more for the Matter of it than what was done before it seems probable that our Saviour grounded his Reproof of Nicodemus upon his Ignorance of the Custom of his own Nation and the Sense that they put upon it John 3.10 Art thou a Master of Israel and knowest not these things For that might well seem very strange that a Person of his Condition should not understand the Phrase of his own Nation in which our Saviour spake to him though including also more in it when he said Except a Man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God But to conclude this it having been as we see the manner before among the Jews to receive the Infants of Proselytes as well as grown Persons into the Jewish Church by this Ceremony of Baptism unless our Saviour had prohibited the same to them how could the Apostles otherwise understand but when our Saviour ordered them by this Ceremony to admit Christian Proselytes they should likewise receive their Infants as the manner had been before in the Reception of Jewish Proselytes among themselves Which makes it therefore highly credible that it was accordingly done For there is no manner of Appearance of any Alteration made by our Saviour as to the Subjects but only as to the End and Intent of this Practice or Custom which only gave it the Form of a new Institution Nor need it seem at all strange that our Saviour should adopt this Custom and Practice into the Christian Religion and Church that was before in use in the Jewish it being not in the least our Saviour's Design to depart as far as he could from the Jewish Church but rather to build as much as might be with their Materials in the Erection of the Christian and to conform it after their old Platform as hath been shewn by learned Men in several Instances and particularly in the other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper it self Case of infant-Infant-Baptism London 1683. Mede 's 1st Book Disc 51. 2d Book c. 4. And as for those Rites and Customs of the Jews which were abolish'd the Reason thereof was not merely because they were Jewish but either because they were such as were fulfilled in Christ and Christianity as the Antitype and Substance of them or because they were such as were inconsistent with the Nature of a manly free and universal Church such as Christ intended his should be in opposition to the Legal Pedagogy and servile Nature of the Jewish and for the breaking down the Partition-Wall betwixt Jew and Gentile and the abolishing the Enmity of Ordinances that the Religion of Christ might become more passable among the Gentile World to whom if it had been clogged with so many Ordinances as in the Jewish Church it would have become odious and ridiculous Dr. Hammond's Defence of Infant-Baptism p. 25 26. Nor yet can it be said e're the more that the Baptism of John or of our Saviour was of Man and not from Heaven because it was a Jewish Custom forasmuch as the Design of it is now changed and the Form of a new Institution is stamp'd upon the old Matter 2dly Another considerable Point of History relating to this Matter is with respect to the times after our Saviour and the Apostles and that is this It appears by the antient Writings of the Fathers of the Christian Church in the next Ages that Infant-Baptism was then the general Practice of the Christian Church and was so observed as being derived from the Apostles themselves And there is no one Writer in any of the first Ages of the Christian Church that does at all oppose it as unlawful or speak of it as a novel Practice but even those that argue against it as less convenient yet do allow by their Discourse that it was then the general Practice of the Church and do not in the least contradict that or bring any Argument against it as being a new Invention which if it had been had above all other Arguments been most proper for their Purpose Irenaeus Bishop of Lions Adversus Haeres l. 2. c. 39. p. 192. who lived in the next Age after the Apostles saith that
all almost are baptized in their Infancy and thereby admitted Church-Members they are therefore so still esteemed and so the Churches of the Pedobaptists are overloaded with such Persons which defile their Communions Answ But what are there no such Persons to be found among those of the other Perswasion I heartily wish indeed for the Honour of our holy Master and the Credit of his Religion that there were no such either among them or us or those of any other Denomination But this is not to be expected in this imperfect State of the Christian Church Matth. 13.47 which is as a Net cast into the Sea that receives of every kind where good and bad are mix'd together and so we must expect it will be till the End of the World when the Angels shall come forth and sever the Wicked from among the Just But let us not blame that for this which is not to be blamed It is not to be laid to the Charge of Baptism either in Infancy or in Age nor to that in Infancy more than to that at Age. For if once the Baptism of adult Persons were the general Fashion and as commonly received and as much encouraged as Infant-Baptism now is I doubt not but the Church would be as full of Hypocrites then and carnal Gospellers for any thing that Baptism at Age would do more to prevent it than Infant-Baptism now doth For it is no great Matter to make such a Confession of Faith as may serve turn for Baptism and if once it were Mens Interest to do so it would be easily enough gone through As for so many profane Persons which they say are in the Church by reason of Infant-Baptism because so many are look'd upon of the Church that were once baptized and these are for the most part bad I answer However that be yet Infant-Baptism is not to be blamed for it but generally it is the want of Care in Parents and Godfathers about the Instruction and Education of Children that have been baptized and want of Discipline in the Church to expel those that are profane out of it when they once become scan dalous in it It is not Infant-Baptism that is to be blamed for that is a proper Means rather to make Persons good and that betimes That will do its Part well if it be rightly adverted to when they grow up to Understanding by Reflection upon it and full as well as if Baptism were administred at Age. This tends to continue and help forward the Conveyance of Religion down to after-Generations by laying a strict Engagement upon Children to be good betimes and upon Parents to educate them and bring them up well in order to it so that there might be still a young Nursery of tender Plants growing up in the Vineyard of the Lord. And to say otherwise is a Refiection upon the Wisdom of the Jewish Church in admitting the Children of Proselytes together with their Parents yea and of the Wisdom of the holy God himself who loves the Purity and Glory of the Church certainly more than any of us can do and knoweth best what most tends to further it who himself ordered the Token of his Covenant to be applied to Children at eight Days old For according to this Opinion it had been much better to have let it alone till all had come to Age. And the same Censure will lie upon the Jewish Church for admitting of Members then in their Infant-state as much as it can now upon the Churches of the Pedobaptists But let not us go to teach God or instruct him what Means are best to promote the Churches Purity I can make no doubt but Infant-Baptism is as great an Advantage to the Church now as Infant-Circumcision was then in all the spiritual Respects of it or as the Baptism then of Proselytes Infants was But if there be other Ordinances and Duties neglected which God hath appointed which should be for the procuring of a pure Church or for the cleansing of it when it is impure it is the Neglect of those Ordinances and Duties that is the true Reason of that Impurity in the Church and not the keeping up of that Ordinance which rather helps towards its Purification as well as admits into the Communion of it They of the other way when profane Persons are at any time found among them don't blame their Baptism at Age for it as if that were the Reason of their Badness which would rather tend to make them good and if these Persons continue still in their Church no doubt it is the Churches Neglect and not the Fault of their Baptism And so if profane Persons be sound in the Church wherein the Members are admitted by Infant-Baptism let not Infant-Baptism be blamed for that but the Neglect of those other Ordinances and Duties that should tend to promote the Churches Purity Object 5. Why may not the Lord's Supper be administred to Infants as well as Baptism that being as well a Seal of the Covenant as Baptism is and was likewise administred to them in some of the first Ages of the Church Answ If the Lord's Supper should be administred to Infants it could be of no other Use to them than Baptism is viz. to be a visible Badg or Mark of their being owned and received by us as the Children of God and Members of the Church of Christ and a Seal of the Blessings of the Covenant and of their Communion therein These things are sufficiently confirmed to them by the Ordinance of Baptism and the Ordinance of the Lord's-Supper could be of no further use to them than what this comes to And therefore the Administration of the Lord's-Supper to them would be supervacaneous and needless because it can do no more for them than Baptism doth Nor is the Ordinance of the Lord's-Supper so fit and proper to be administred to them for the Ends aforesaid as Baptism is Because Baptism is a Sacrament or Ordinance particularly designed or appointed for this purpose to be for their visible Initiation or Insition into the Church of Christ and is therefore to be administred to all the Members of it as a Token or Sign of their being the Children of God and Members of Christ and so to seal to them the Blessings of the Covenant and to engage them on their part to the performance of the Conditions And Infants being capable of all these Ends and Uses of it which are the chief Ends of Baptism it is therefore proper and fit to be administred to them Whereas the Lord's-Supper is a Sacrament of Growth or Perfection for the strengthening and refreshing of our Souls and for our Growth and Progress in Grace which is promoted and furthered by an Act of Reflection on our parts upon the Death of Christ and the Benefits that he hath purchased thereby and is to be a thankful Memorial or for solemn Thanksgiving to Christ for this great Grace and Love of his that he hath
is no actual Sin there being no need of Repentance it may be administred to them without Repentance to oblige only to Holiness and Purity of Life and keeping of the Commands of God which is a greater thing than Repentance and which Repentance it self is for and to lead to in those that have sinned Thus the Baptism of John though it was a Baptism of Repentance to others that had sinned and to that end he mainly preach'd it yet was administred to our Saviour without Repentance because he had no need of Repentance but he had perfect Holiness which was better than Repentance and it was to him also a Sign of Obligation to Holiness though not to Repentance So that it may be administred to those that have no Repentance because they have no need of it in their present State yet it may be administred to oblige to Holiness and to Repentance too hereafter when they shall come to have actual Sin And so it will be properly also to them a Baptism of Repentance which it could no way be to our Saviour and yet was administred to him it is a Baptism to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to future Repentance But as for Profession of Faith and Holiness which Infants cannot make I answer that the Baptism of Infants is not for Profession of it but for Obligation to it which we have seen before they are capable of 3. As for those Texts then that are urged to show what is prerequired of Persons that are to be baptized I answer That they are spoken of or to grown or adult Persons that are capable of performing those Acts and were obliged to it as the Condition or Proof of their Adoption and they do only concern them and no other but them And therefore they are no Bar to the Baptism of Infants whose Adoption or Sonship may otherwise be judged of without these Acts. As for the Adult we own and contend as much as they that make this Objection that grown Persons who are come to Years of Discretion that had been Infidels and Unbelievers before ought to be taught and profess Faith and Repentance before they be baptized there being no Judgment by the Church to be made any other way of God's receiving and owning them for his Children and Covenant-People And this is as much as these Scriptures do prove or hold out to us concerning this Matter but they are no Rule for all the Subjects of Baptism and as for Infants they are not at all concerned in them and therefore their Baptism is not prohibited by them there being not the same Qualifications required in them for Baptism as there are in others So that though there is a virtual Prohibition of the Baptism of grown Persons if they do not perform these Acts first here is no Prohibition of the Baptism of Infants though they do not perform them For the meaning of all such Expressions is to be judged of from the Nature and Capacity of those Persons to whom they are spoken And therefore as by the Apostle's Words 2 Thess 3.10 They that will not work neither should they eat the Relief of lazy Drones is forbidden that can work and yet will not but here is no Prohibition of the Relief or Susâ—entation of Infants or those that cannot work So by these Texts of Scripture that shew what is required of Persons to be baptized impenitent Unbelievers that are come to Age are prohibited from Baptism but not Infants there being other Grounds for their being baptized The Baptism of Infants indeed cannot be concluded from these Texts and whoever said it could but we have shewn there are other Scripture-Arguments for the Baptism of Infants And these Texts as they say nothing for it so they say nothing against it either directly or by Consequence And therefore Infants may and ought to be baptized notwithstanding what is said in these Texts Baptism as we have heard is an Ordinance of the same Use and to the same Purpose for the main as Circumcision was in the Respects mentioned Now as Circumcision was administred to different Persons of different Ages so may Baptism Circumcision was administred to Abraham as a Seal of the Righteousness of that Faith which he had before given Evidence and made Profession of so is Baptism a Seal of the same to grown Believers now upon their Profession of a like Faith with Abraham's But Circumcision was administred to Isaac and was a Seal of the same Righteousness which he should have without any such Profession made by him and why may not Baptism then be administred to Infants now without any such Profession made by them For Circumcision was administred to Isaac as being the Son of believing Abraham by virtue of God's taking him into the same Covenant-relation with Abraham without any such Profession of Faith required of him which could not be as was performed by Abraham And why may not Baptism now be administred to Infants as being the Seed of believing Parents by virtue of the same Covenant made with them as with their Parents though they cannot themselves profess the Faith as their Parents do Circumcision and Baptism both were administred to Proselytes among the Jews after their Profession of the God of Abraham but then were likewise administred to their Infants and to the Infants of them when they were grown up and came to have Children And why may not Baptism be administred now to the Infants of profess'd Believers though the Infants themselves can make no such Profession To Mark 16.16 I answer particularly because it is so much insisted upon He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved From hence the Argument is That Faith must go before Baptism because of the Order of the Words To which I might answer that no Argument can reasonably be taken from thence in this Matter for then by the same Rule according to the Order of the Words in other Scriptures Baptism should go first before the Performance of some of those Acts which they say should go before it And so this Argument would be as much against them as for them Thus Mark 1.5 Baptism is placed before Confession of Sin in the Relation of the Story there of those that were baptized they were baptized confessing their Sins And the Order of the Words in the Text that is objected especially as likewise that in Acts 2.38 concerning Repentance and Baptism is altogether insignificant to the Matter in hand because here the Design of our Saviour is not to make Faith a necessary Prerequisite to Baptism as neither the Apostles in that other Place to make Repentance prerequisite to Baptism but Faith and Baptism that is the Profession of Faith by Baptism prerequisite to Salvation But I rather answer as before that this Text is nothing to the purpose because it hath no Respect to Children at all and therefore doth not exclude or prohibit their Baptism as appears by the second Part added by way of Opposition He