the Heads of such Families It was no more necessary that Infants should be made mention of as being in such Families when Baptized than it was that they should be nam'd in the Grand Commission the Spirit which gave out the Grand Commission was in and with the Apostles when they Baptized and it is to me convincing that Infants are intended in both seeing they are excepted against in neither which the Adversary must needs be convinc'd of unless he be able to prove that Infants are neither a part of Nations or of Families The other Word Teach in the Commission is Didaskontes which properly signifies a Teaching or Instructing Doctrinally those who are already made Disciples by the former way of Teaching Neither can it without Lying be said to be Nonsense and folly to term Infants who are by the first Teaching made Disciples Schollars or Disciples seeing that Infants in Age are by the Spirit of Truth so styl'd witness Acts 15.10 where such are called Disciples who were made so by the Initiating Ordinance of Circumcision who afterwards when grown up were taught Doctrinally what they were to know and practice neither is this any whit repugnant to the Method God took with Abraham but rather agreeing with it as appears by Gen. 18.19 and even among Men nothing more common and frequent than to call our little Children Schollars or Disciples and that from the very first day of their being entred into a School And as in Mens Schools there are sundry Ranks or Classes of Schollars some lower and some higher so in the School of Christ the great Prophet of his Church there are several Ranks or Degrees of Church Members It is well known how ignorant in the Mysteries of the Gospel the very Apostles themselves were when they first entred into Christs School yet Christ calls them his Disciples for all that The Apostle Paul could not write or speak unto the Corinthians but as unto Babes as unto Carnal Men yet they were Church Members for all that These things duly considered forces me to conclude those Men profoundly ignorant in the Mystery of Gods Holy Covenant who because Infants are uncapable of being taught and instructed Doctrinally as adult and grown Men are peremptorily deny that Infants are capable of being made Disciples to Christ by the Ministry of Men. This Principle came no doubt from the same Spirit which teaches that Infants while Infants are uncapable of Regeneration which are both manifestly false because contrary to Gods revealed Will. Object 3. Baptism is a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to which none have a right but he or she who is a real true Believer Answ I answer in three particulars First If Baptism be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith then must it needs succeed and come in the room of Circumcision And so the truth is here granted which else where is denied that Circumcision is a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith is most plain from Rom. 4.11 Now if Baptism be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith as the Objector grants and as I believe and affirm it is then Baptism did undeniably come in the room of Circumcision that the same might be to Believing Gentiles under the Gospel what Circumcision was of Old to Abraham viz. a Seal of the Covenant of Grace Secondly If none but actual Believers have a Right to that Righteousness of wâ—ich Baptism is a Seal then must it follow unavoidably that all Infants who Dye in Infancy are Eternally lost And how cruel this Doctrine is and how inconsistâ—nt with the Doctrine which teacheth that all Infants Dying Infants are saved all Men may see Thirdly If none but real true Believers have a Right to Baptism I would gladly see how those I Dispute against can justify their own practices in admitting so many poor ignorant Folk to that Ordinance in their way who with some who admit them are as ignorant of the Mystery of Regeneration and of Baptism the external Seal thereof as was Nicodemus Can they without a Divine Revelation know that those whom they admit to Baptism are infallibly real true Believers Object 4. To apply Baptism the Seal of the Covenant to an unintelligent Subject who neither knows what is done to him nor yields consent thereto It is all one as to present a Picture to a Blind Man which to do is most absurd and ridiculous Answ To this I shall reply in four particulars And first I say with a Learned Man this is at best but a blind Comparison and which is far worse a high and fancy Reflection on the infinite Wisdom and uncontroulable Soveraignty of the most high God for most certain it is that nothing can be offered as an Argument to keep Infants from Baptism meerly on the account of their being unintelligent Subjects and uncapable of yielding their consent to what is done to them in Baptism But what will be of as great force to keep them back from Circumcision And so the Objector may see plainly how herein he arraigns the Wisdom and Soveraignty of God at the Bar of a shallow and corrupt Creatures Reason which demonstrates him to be more Brutish I am sure more proud end wicked than those Non-intelligent Subjects which the Objection is levelled against This will appear by considering Gods dealing with Abraham in that he commanded him to Mark or Seal his Son Isaac with the Seal of Circumcision at Eight Days old Had Isaac the use of reason at that Age Had he actual Faith or Speech to express his consent to what was then done to him No sure what then must God be charged with weakness or unreasonableness for applying the Seal of his Covenant to an unintelligent Subject By these kind of Objectors Gods Act herein stands charged with weakness and folly but I conclude with Paul Rom. 3.4 Yea let God be true but every Man a Lyar. God commands nothing in vain and the reason is because his Ordinance hath no kind of dependence on the Creature to give it power or to make it effectual to accomplish what he hath appointed it to but on his own free Spirit which works most powerfully yea irresistably where he himself hath purposed to confer the Spiritual Good signified by the outward Ordinance Object 5. The Promise of Gods Covenant is made to the Elect and none but they have a Right to the Seal No Man can affirm that an Infant brought to Baptism is Elect. Answ I Answer to this in two things First I grant that none shall ever reap any saving Benefit by the Covenant but the Elect and that in the right of Election yet doth it not hence follow that none but they have a right to the Seal of the Covenant in the Church Visible seeing that by the very Constitution of Gods Covenant with Abraham the Ecclesiastical Father and pub ick Visible Head of all the Seed of Believing Church-Members God commands that the Seal of his Covenant shall be equally apply'd to
all the Male-Seed of the Believer and that without any regard to the Election which is a Secret known only to God about which he would not have us to trouble our Spirits any farther than to give all becoming diligence to make our own Pe sonal Election sure to our sâ—lves As touchiâ—g the Infants of Church Membâ—rs about whom all the Dispute is We are not â—nxiously to be concerned about them whether they be in the Election of God yea or no. It is ground sufficient for us to Bless and thank God for his dealing so Graciously with our Infants in that they with us are taken into the same Covenant and Sealed with the Seal thereof for by Gods dealing thus with Believers Infant-Seed Believers have a good foundation laid whereon to bottom their Hope and Comfort with reference to theiâ— Dying or Deceased Infants and also of wrestling with God in Prayer for their Conversion and Eternal Welfare the which the Enemies to Infant-Baptism do by denying that Infants belong to the Covenâ—nt or have any right to the Promisâ—s thereof till they themselves Bâ—lieve deprive and insensibly sâ—oil themselves of This is most evidently true as will appear if it be sâ—riously consiâ—ered thaâ— all right Prayer is a Plâ—â—â—iâ—g the Promises of Gods Covenant in the Name and Merit of Christ his own Soâ— in and through whom the said Promisâ—s are intail'd on all the Children of Promise Now if my Infant be Sick or Ailing If he be going on in Sin c. how can I by the Anabaptist Principle put up a Prayer to God for him seeing there is no promise of Gods Covenant belongs to him Or how can I comfort my sorrowful Spirit with reference to my Deceased Children if I must look on my dear Babes as Strangers and Enemies to God the which they are by Nature and must remain so for ever in case they be not Partakers of the Grace of Gods Covenant Secondly If none but the Elect have right to Baptism this Objection will fall like a Mill-stone on them who Baptize whole droves of Men and Women of whose Election to Eternal Life neither Baptizer nor Baptized know any more than they know how many Stars in the Firmament so that by thus arguing against poor Tongue-ty'd Infants they may see how they deny Salvation to their own as wâ—ll as others Infants and render themselves uncapable of discharging a good Conscience to their poor Children in putting up daily Petitions to God for them Object 6. We have an open Profession from those we Baptize and that warrants our Baptizing such as offer themselves to join to the Churches You have not the like from Infants Answ I Answer hereto in three particulars First it were well for both Baptizers and Baptized if both the one and the other were better acquainted with the Nature of right Conversion than they are and that they were better grounded in the sound and experimental knowledge of the Covenant of Grace the which if they were I dare boldly say they would not be so precipitant and rash in condemning and despising those poor Infants who are set forth by the Wisdom of God as Patterns and Examples by which grown Persons are to be moulded and sitted for Heaven Neither would they be so forward to offer themselves to Baptism on such slight and evanid Motions as falls short in too many of common Convictions Secondly poor Infants never yet broke or transgressed the Moral Law Personally and that is one great reason why an actual confession of Faith and Repentance is not required of them to qualifie them for Baptism As the Sin of Infants lyes in the imputation of Adams Disobedience and the Pollution of Nature derived by fleshly Generation so their help and remedy lyes in the imputation of Christs Spotless Righteousness to their Persons and his Spirits renewing their inward Faculties in Regenerating them And this twofold work of the Spirit in Justifying and Sanctifying the Elect Infant is plainly signifiâ—d and Sealed in that Ordinance of Baptism to the Infant as well as to a grown â—eliever Thirdly albeit Infants be not able to speâ—k for themselves and to claim that right to the Seal of Gods Covenant which the Covenant it self hath entail'd on them as they are the Church Seed of Believing Parents yet there is one who speaks for them whose Judgment and Testimony of them is more sure and infallible than all other Testimonies of Men and Angels the Lord Jesus I mean who with his Father and God the Holy Ghost contrived and made the Covenant of Grace wherein they are comprehended I will lay down in six Particulars what is the Judgment of Christ concerning Infants as they are concerned in the Covenant First he propounds them as Patterns by which grown Persons must be moulded and fitted for Heaven Mat. 18.3 Secondly declares their right to the Kingdom of God Mar 10.14 For of such is the Kingdom of God Thirdly rebukes most severely his Disciples for hindering Infants being brought to him Mar. 10.14 But when Jesus saw it he was much displeased c. In the Greek it is Eganaktese which signifies to have the Bowels inwardly moved or affected with Grief to be filled with Indignation as Beza renders it Indignatus est to be Stomackt at a Person or a thing which is greatly or highly displeasing A Word which judicious Sydenham observes was never used by Christ in any case or on any occasion besides this of poor Infants to instruct and teach Men No doubt how greatly he was concerned for helpless Infants and how displeased he was at the hardness of his Disciples Hearts against them Oh! that the consideration of this might melt the hard Hearts of such into a Christ like tenderness towards poor Infants Fourthly commands Infants to be brought to him Mar. 10.14 Suffer little Children to come unto me c. Fifthly pronounces them Holy Rom. 11.16 1. Cor. 7.14 Sixthly Blesseth them Mar. 10.16 And he took them up in his Arms laid his Hands upon them and Blessed them These six Particulars laid together and weighed in the Ballance of Gods Sanctuary I leave it to any Man of Sense in Spiritual matters to judge whether is safer to credit this infallible Testimony of the Son of God concerning Infants than to rely on the bare Testimony of a meer Man concerning himself who may in all he pretends to be but a Painted Sepulchre Object 7. If Infants must needs have a right to Baptism because it is a Seal of the Covenant then of necessity they must have a right to the Lords Supper also for that is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace as well as Baptism The Wine in the Supper might as well be poured down the Infants mouth with a Spoon as to sprinkle Water on his face Answ This Objection better becomes a Superannuated Man who borders on perfect Dotage than one who pretends to be a Teacher of ignorant and misguided Souls and not only so but who
God Bless the Reading thereof to the keeping thee back from Espousing the Errors herein decry'd or if it should prove the occasion of thy Vomitting up by sound Repentance and hearty Reformation the love and liking thou hast had to those Principles of Darkness give God the Glory of his own Grace and suffer thy self no longer to be impos'd on by such Preachers who are not only Intruders into the Sacred Office but also Heterodox and Unsound in what they Teach concerning God's Covenant with Abraham being a Covenant of Works concerning Infants-Baptism being but a Popish Invention and a piece of Will-Worship and what they Teach and confidently Affirm of Dipping being the only right Mode of Baptizing Commanded by Christ and Practised by John and all the first Baptizers By which Principles they Rase the very Foundation of Salvation to Grown Believers as well as to their Infants And disown that Christ hath any right Gospel Churches but themselves From which Principles I shall ever say and heartily pray Good Lord Deliver me and all the Families of thy Faithful People THE INTRODUCTION An occasional Discourse between a Minister and a Church Member concerning Infant-Baptism wherein sundry material Questions are put by the Church Member and plainly and particularly Answered by the Minister for the Information of the Ignorant and the satisfaction of such as are staggering in their judgments about the lawfulness of Infants-Baptism Minister Brother Edward By what I have heard from some of my Neighbours as also by the discourse which past between you and me when last together I suspect that some have been tampering with you to draw you away to Anabaptism is it so or no deal plainly to the end I might address my self to my duty in giving you satisfaction herein from Gods Word Church Member I must ingeniously acknowledge Sir that I am not without wavering and doubtful thoughts in my Mind about Infant-Baptism occasioned partly by discoursing with some of that way and perswasion partly by reading some Books which were put into my hand which to me seems full of clearness that Infant-Baptism is no way warrantable or justifiable by the Gospel of Christ Minist I find then that I am not mistaken in my apprehension of you in this matter but for your encouragement I must tell you that you are but tryed herein by a temptation for which I think never the worse of your Souls state neither are my hopes and confidence of your integrity towards God a jot or whit lessened by the inclination in your Mind to favour that Opinion for I have known some very Holy and upright Hearted Christians who in the simplicity of their Hearts have strongly enclined to favour and espouse that cause and principle as the most plausible and likely to agree with the Gospel there being no mention at all of Infant-Baptism in the Gospel neither in Precept nor yet in Example to recommend it yea I my self have in my first setting out in the ways of Christianity met with temptations to draw me to that Opinion and that by the very same means which hath occasioned your staggering herein And the main things which induced me to hanker after that Principle were 1. The high and charitable opinion I had of some of that Party being Men of high attainments in Grace and Gospel Holiness 2. There appearing to me no command for Infant-Baptism in all the Gospel nor yet any one instance where it is said that such were Baptized 3. The many Quotations of Learned Divines and Counsels which the Anabaptists Books assured me were all of their Judgment and Perswasion herein which much startled and sway'd me to kind apprehensions of their way 4 Their Branding Infant-Baptism with the Black Brand of Will-worship and Popery against both which I always had since I knew Christ in the Gospel of his Grace and ever shall have I humbly hope in Christ a Mortal Dislike and rooted Hatred By means of the 4 particulars now mentioned I was drawn to the very verge or brink of Anabaptism being just on the point of renouncing my Baptism received in my Infant State as being a meer Nullity or no Baptism at all My roving Spirit thus fluctuating and tossing between the Waves and Billows of doubtful and distracting Cogitations what I had best to do in this Case whether to offer my self to be Dipt yea or not or to address my self to Ministers of the contrary Judgment for resolution in so weighty and material a point Matters being thus I providentially and happily happened into the Company of some of the Congregational Perswasion Men no whit inferiour to those I so much admired for Piety and Holiness and who I very well knew were able to instruct and teach the others for matter of Learning and deep knowledge in the Mysteries of the Gospel These debating sundry points in Controversy between the Anabaptists and the Orthodox Protestant Reformed Churches concerning Infant-Baptism I apprehended and saw so far into the Mystery of Baptism that I was at a stand and began to question whether I was not under a delusion in disliking my Infant-Baptism received in Infancy by means hereof I was stirred up to Pray earnestly to God that his good Spirit might teach and guide me in the way of Gospel-Truth which was seconded by a diligent search into the Holy Scripture and a careful reading and weighing the Arguments brought by both Parties both for and against infant-Infant-Baptism And in a short time through the special assistance of the Spirit of Christ I was enabled to see and understand that there was nothing of solid weight in the Reasons brought against Infant-Baptism but what are in reality repugnant and contradictory to the Word of God as will I hope in time most plainly appear to your understanding I have been the more prolix in speaking my experience herein that you might become sensible that even Godly Men might be entangled in erronious Opinions And to let you know what be the ordinary means to escape the Nets of Crafty Men who lye in wait to ensnare poor unstable though Honest and well meaning Souls Now as Christ my Lord and Master said to Peter after his recovery from his fall When thou art Converted strengthen thy Brethren Luke 22. So I am now come as my Duty binds me to endeavour your recovery and full satisfaction in these points about Infant-Baptim wherein you seem to stagger Church Memb. I hope I can say through special Grace that I am no way fond of Errour But what I do herein I do it really from my Conscience according to the light thereof I hope Sir you will not blame me for acting according thereto Minist I am far from arraigning your integrity to God being very sensible that herein you are but under a temptation as stronger Christians than you or I have been and now are neither shall I in the least attempt to press you to act herein against your Conscience Conscience I am sensible is a
Seal thereof in the Visible Church must belong to them also But Infants are Saved by the Grace of God's Covenant made with Abraham and in no other way Therefore the Covenant of God's Grace by which they are Saved and the Seal thereof in the Visible Church must belong to them also This Argument hath been constantly maintained by the Orthodox against the Enemies of Infant-Baptism with such success that I never yet heard the Man's Name who was able to answer or overthrow the same by sound or solid Argument To deny Salvation to Infants is a Principle so monstrously Cruel and Uncharitable exposing to the Judgment of God and to the deserved Frowns of all Tender-hearted Parents that some who account it a point of great Skill and Wisdom in the Mystery of the Gospel to Decry and Witness against Infant-Baptism have declared themselves strongly inclin'd to believe that all Infants are Saved and that without distinguishing between Elect and Reprobate or between the Seed of Professing Godly Believers and that of Mahometans c. a Principle altogether as silly and groundless as that of denying the Right of Believers Infant-Seed to the Covenant of Grace and the Visible Token or Seal thereof in the Church And at what Door this Heterodox Dream should enter or from what Root or Principle it should spring I know not unless from that Popish Arminian Principle of general Redemption and universal Grace Here by the Concession or Grant of the very Adversaries Infants are Saved but how or in what way whether by a Covenant or without a Covenant Here they are profoundly silent not daring to mention any Covenant at all fearing an Advantage may be thereby given to discover or prove the Right of Infants to the Covenant It is sufficient such Dreamers Judge to leave poor Infants to the general Mercy and Grace of God as those do who Dream and Conceit that the very Damned in Hell shall at length be delivered from the Torments of that Place For which Chymerical Whym there is as much to be said from the Word of God As there is to prove that God will extend the Grace of his Covenant to all Infants Dying so The Adversary I dispute against knows very well that should it be granted in Terminis in plain Terms that Infants are Saved by the Grace of the Covenant it can no way be avoided but that Infants must be in that Covenant and must have an Indisputable Right in foro Ecclesiae to the outward Seal thereof But this must be deny'd and its contrary asserted for the most Glorious Gospel-Truth viz. That Believers only excluding their Infants are Interested in the Covenant and have a Right to the Seal thereof and that in the Right of the Profession they make before Men. Now how absurd and contrary to the very Tenure and Design of God's Covenant with Christ in the behalf of the Elect this Principle of Anabaptism is I leave to every Unprejudiced Reader who understands any thing in Religion to Judge And whether to restrain the Promise of God's Covenant which equally extends to all the Elect to that part of the Elect which are Adult and Grown up to make a Profession and to extend the Grace of God beyond the bounds of his own Covenant be not equally to Rase the Foundation of Gospel-Truth and to Usurp the Throne of God or to Invade his Prerogative in the Church I leave to Wise Men to determine If thus to do falls not under that dreadful Commination or Woe threatned in Rev. 22.18 I am greatly mistaken Arg. 3. If Infants do stand in as real need of the Grace of God's Covenant as the Adult do and be every way as capable thereof as the Adult are then must they of necessity be allow'd the Seal thereof in the Church But Infants do stand in as real need of the Grace of God's Covenant and are every way as capable thereof as the Adult are Therefore the Seal of God's Covenant in the Church must of necessity be allow'd them That Infants are Partakers of Adam's Guilt and also of that Pravity and Pollution of Nature which came by Adam's Fall I am confident will be deny'd by none unless by downright Dreamers now to own this And at the same time to Teach and Hold that Infants are because not Grown up to the use of Reason and actual Faith uncapable of Regeneration is to deny Salvation to all Infants who Die Infants And how well this Principle accords with all Infants being Saved who Die Infants is not difficult to understand If this be not Contradictio in Terminis viz. A Contradiction in plain Terms I know not what a Contradiction means The Lord Christ who can neither lye nor be deceived in what he saith assures us that except one be Born again he cannot possibly see the Kingdom of God Jo. 3.8 wherein the absolute need of Regeneration is discovered and asserted and the Subject of which this is predicated in that Text being indefinitely and universally exprest we are taught that neither Adult nor Infant shall ever enter Heaven till that work of Regeneration pass on the guilty polluted Soul And to say that an Adult or grown Person by reason of his Age is capable of this great Change but that an Infant because he wants the use of reason c. is uncapable of it What is this but interpretatively to hold and say that the Creatures own will and reason must concurr to the producing the New Creature in a Dead Soul And how advantageous this Principle is to Papists Arminians Pelagians and Socinians the Learned and Orthodox well know The Enemies themselves do with us acknowledge that Water-Baptism is a Passive Ordinance and strange it is that those of that Party who are concerned to deck and adorn the Frontispiece of their Books against Infant-Baptism with such Ornate Florishes of Greek Hebrew and Latin Sentences do not in their way of arguing about this matter give us to understand that they understand and know the meaning and proper signification of the word Passive better than it appears they do certain it is and the Learned know it that the term Passive signifies and imports a Non-agency in the Subject when a change is passing on it or a work producing in it to the effecting of which change or work the Subject Recipient neither wills nor acts any thing towards the production of such a change If I understand any thing of Gods Mind revealed in the Sacred Scripture or was ever experimentally acquainted with the Spirits method in passing that great change on a Sinner in effectual Calling The work consists of two parts First Gods Gracious Acts in freely Pardoning all the Rebels Sins and Transgressions committed against the Law imputing to him that spotless Righteousness of Christ his Son the Sinners Sponsor or Surety as truly and really as if that spotless Righteousness had been acted performed by the Sinner himself Personally This is the first part wherein that great
change lyes or consists which in Divinity is called Justification The Second is Goâ—s quickening and renewing the inward Powers and Faculties of the Soul by communicating a principle of Spiritual Life to the Sinner in every of the Souls faculties within I do not mean or intend that in this work of Regenerating the Sinner the Natural faculties concreated with the Nature of Adam are destroyed or annihilated but that the Predominancy of those vitious qualities inhering in the Souls faculties is overpowered by the Sanctification of the Spirit and a contrary Principle of saving and unloosable Grace is communicated to every of these faculties in the Soul whereby the new Principle communicated maintains its own Being in those respective Faculties and this through the continual supply of the Spirit which produced the change and making continual resistance against that Vice and Corruption as yet remaining in the same Faculties where the new Creature is appointed to War and Combat until that Sinless Perfection promised in the Covenant of Grace supersede and dispossess that indwelling Corruption in the Soul under which the new Creature continues to groan until a perfect release come This is called Sanctification and when the set time prefixt in Gods Decree for calling an Elect Sinner is come what produceth this great change I will suppose the Sinner to be come to the Years of Manhood capable of acting or exercising his natural Faculties doth his will or his reason help the Almighty in producing so miraculous a change can the Eye of this Sinners blind reason and understanding see into or comprehend the hidden Mystery of that Wisdom manifested and set forth in that stupendious and astonishing contrivance of Gods justifying and reconciling to himself an Apostate Rebel Sinner by the imputed Righteousness of another can the Eye of blind reason be capable of this can the Will of this dead Sinner incline or move it self towards the Sinners own Conversion to be a Coadjutor or Fellow-helper to forward or help the Almighty in effecting this strange and miraculous change can it possibly be that Spiritual or Corporal Blindness can cure it self or that Enmity and Rebellion can change its own Nature Let the experience of every rightly assured Believer speak to this If then nothing in the poor dead Sinner neither the use of his natural reason nor yet any activity in his unrenewed Will doth contribute any help to produce so wonderful a change the work must needs be entirely Gods own work From which I argue in the behalf of poor Infants if God can and doth freely pardon and blot out the Millions of actual Sins added to the original guilt of an adult Sinner if he can and doth freely and most graciously impute the Righteousness of his Son and by thus doing justifies an adult Sinner If God can and doth by the irresistable efficacy of his own Holy Spirit renew the faculties of the Soul of an adult Sinner which is as I may say steeped and even soaked in Vitiosity and actual Pollution cannot the same Almighty Just Wise and Gracious God do and effect the like change in and upon a poor helpless Infant though that Infant understand not what is done to it neither is capable of contributing any help towards so great a change From what hath been here offered to consideration to me it is evident and plain that when Men cry out and say Infants while Infants are uncapable of Regeneration because they want the use of reason c. they speak most injuriously and ignorantly against God himself as if he could not or would not effect that in and for an Elect Infant which he doth for an adult Sinner as the justifying and renewing an adult Sinner hath no dependence on the reason will or speech of a grown Sinner even so the want of actual reason activity of Will or Speech in an Infant cannot possibly hinder God from effecting this great and gracious work in and upon an Elect Infant though the poor Infant can do nothing towards so great a change The Subject Recipient of this work of Regeneration is every way Passive the adult as well as the Infant Agreeable to this Act of Gods in changing a Sinner is that Ordinance of Water-Baptism whose principal use is twofold First to signifie and represent his own gracious dealing with the Sinner Baptized in Pardoning all his Sins for Christs sake whose Blood represented by the Water in Baptism was shed for the Remission of the Sins of all comprehended in that Covenant of Grace whereof Baptism is a Seal And Secondly that it may be a Seal to confirm to the Baptized if Elect all the gracious Promises of the same Covenant of Grace as Gods work upon the Soul of a true Convert is in respect of the Sinner wholly Passive so Baptism the outward Sign and Seal of Gods Covenant of Grace is altogether Passive And as the Wisdom of Christ saw fit to appoint the Element of material Water to be used in Baptism as above all the other Elements most suited to the design of that Ordinance because of the Analogie and resemblance which is between Water and the Blood of Christ so no mode or way of administring this Water-Baptism doth so exactly and to the life set forth the freeness of Gods Grace and Mercy exhibited in the Covenant of Grace then the act of Sprinkling or pouring out the Water on the Party Baptized By this way of Sprinkling under the Gospel there is a sweet and orderly Harmony kept between the Pen-men of Gods Word both under the Old and New-Testament Dispensation with whom whoever studys to agree in applying the Water of Holy Baptism they will be at length found to be in the right how many and black Censures soever are heapt on them by injudicious Spirits The Spirit of God in the work of Regeneration applys the Spiritual Baptism by Sprinkling or pouring out of his Graces on the Soul There must be an Analogie kept between the thing signified and the outward Sign Against what hath been laid down to prove Infants right to Baptism the Seal of Gods Covenant many things are objected I will for brevity sake contract the Objections with my Answers to as few particulars as possibly I can Object 1. In the Words of the Grand Commission there is not one word concerning Infants Mat. 28.19 Go ye and Teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name c. This seems too weak though well meaning Minds to be unanswerable But in the strength of him who gave out this Grand Commission I hope to shew how wretchedly the Objector is mistaken herein In order whereto let two things be seriously and warily considered First that albeit Christ the Lord doth not mention Infants in particular yet he includes them in the Words of the general Commissionâ— Go Teach all Nations Baptizing them c. Here the Lord commands expresly that all such as belong to Gods Covenant with Abraham Gen. 7.7 shall be Baptized Namely all
who shall embrace the Son of God by Faith and their Infant-Seed if any they have That this is the true sense and meaning of Christ in that place is clear to any who do not wilfully shut their Eyes for evident it is and none can deny that he there commands to Baptize all Nations not excepting against or forbidding the Disciples to Baptize little Infants He knew that he spake to Men who after the sending of the Holy Ghost should know and consider that Abrahams Covenant with Believers and their Infant-Seed was to remain and continue the same to the end of the World And this together with the sharp rebuke he gave to his Apostles for offering to hinder Little Ones being brought to him and his laying before them such a convincing reason wherefore such should not be kept from coming to him Mar. 10.14 was the principal if not the only reason wherefore his infinite Wisdom saw it not needful to mention Infants in particular they being most certainly included in the general term all Nations All Men who know any thing of Learning understand that Omne majus continet in se minus every greater includes or contains in it the lesser is a sure and standing Rule both in Logick and Divinity Agreeing with this sense I have given off the Grand Commission is that of Peter Acts 2.39 For the Promise is to you and to your Children c. which affords an invincible Argument to prove that there is now under the Gospel no change of Abrahams Covenant any other than in the external administration of it The Covenant in its substance abides the same for ever By the Grace thereof all Gods Elect both of the Jewish and Gentile Race are to be Saved Rom. 3.29 What I have said will yet receive farther confirmation by what is laid down by Paul in Gal. 3.14 That the Blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christ c. The places now quoted out of Acts 2.39 and Gal. 3.14 presuppose a command to all whether Jew or Gentile who by Faith receives Jesus Christ for a Saviour that they shall be Signed with the Seal of Abrahams Covenant according to Gen. 17.9 For if the Gentiles who believe in Abrahams Saviour do expect that they and their Infants should be made actual Partakers of the Blessings of Abrahams Covenant they must be sure to observe and keep Gods Covenant with Abraham throughout their Generations Secondly seeing that Christ himself words the Commission so in general terms which undoubtedly includes the particular not excepting against Infants It must necessarily follow that if Infants be a part of those Nations which the Apostles c. are commanded to Baptize that Christ commands them to Baptize Infants as well as any others Reader observe the Words of the Commission Go and Teach all Nations c. Here is no more mention of grown Persons Men or Women than there is of Infants If then Anabaptists cannot deny that Infants are a part of Nations and that they can no way prove how Abrahams Blessing can come on the Gentiles through Christ Jesus any other way than by and through the Covenant of Abraham It will unavoidably follow all the Wit in Man cannot oppose it with success that Infants as well as adult Persons are as the proper Subjects of Baptism intended by Christ in the Grand Commission Object 2. None are the proper Subjects of Baptism but such as are first taught Go and Teach c. Infants are not capable of Mans Teaching therefore they are not the proper Subjects of Baptism Answ This with the Objection already spoken to seems to weak and injudicious People to be unanswerable for excluding Infants from Baptism but he that looks into it with a Spiritual Eye will find nothing in it against Infants In order to discover the weakness and mistake of the Objector let it be observed with care that the Word Teach is twice mentioned in the Words of the Commission Go and Teach all Nations Baptizing them c. And in Ver. 20 Teaching them to observe c. The first Teach is in the Original Matheteusate and the other is Didaskontes which I choose to set down in the English rather than in the Greek Character to the end the Unlearned may Read them and in Reading observe the great difference which is between the two Words and that both in the Letters and Sound of the Words if this be taken notice of it will afford to the Unlearned who would not be impos'd upon ground to suspect not only the Skill in Tongues but also the Honesty and Faithfulness of those Guides whom they Judge come nearer to Infalibility in what they Teach than do the other eminent Servants of Christ who differ from them and at whose Labours the ablest Preachers of that Party are glad to Light their Candles As these two Words differ in Letters and Sound as the Unlearned themselves will find if they be but Faithful to themselves so they differ also in their Sense and Signification as the Orthodox and Learned well know I begin with the first viz. Matheteusate which signifies properly to Disciple or to make Disciples in all Nations where the Gospel shall be gladly received How is this to be done Answ Even as God Taught Abraham when he Instructed him in the great Mystery of the Covenant The which when Abraham Embrac'd for himself and his Infant-Seed he received gladly the Visible Token or Seal of that Covenant of Grace viz. Circumcision and marks out his Infant-Seed by putting the same Seal of the Covenant on them and that in compliance with God's Command It is but Rational to suppose and grant that the first Subjects of an Ordinance should be Persons Adult and Grown up to the use of Reason that they may be capable of Acting for not only themselves but for their Off spring and Posterity also who are not while Infants capable of Acting for themselves This was God's Way and Method with Abraham his Friend he Propounds his Covenant of Grace to him and in him to his Seed as their Stipulating and Covenanting Head and Representative In Instructing Abraham God in Abraham's Person Instructs his Infants so as by that Instruction his Infant-Seed became Disciples and were accordingly Sign'd with the Seal of their Stipulating Father's Covenant This undoubtedly was the Method which the Apostles went in when they were sent forth to make Disciples to Christ in every Nation They Instructed Adult and Grown Persons in the Mystery of God's Grace by Christ and when such laid hold on Christ in the Covenant by an External Profession of Faith in him they were Baptized with their Infants if any they had Hence we Read of the Jaylor in Acts 16.33 who on his Believing was Baptized he and all that were of him viz. His own Personal Off-spring so the Greek Word signifies Hence also we Read of whole Families who were Baptized by the Apostles on the Faith of such as were
the Subject who must undoubtedly be in great fear and in apparent danger of being let fall if not of being Suffocated or Smothered in the Water And strange it is to me that Arminians who plead so much for the universal Love and Mercy of God to Mankind in general should not see how full of Reflection on God this Principle of theirs is which makes the God of Love and Mercy the Author of such a Mode or Way of Baptizing which is not possible to be practised without apparent Danger both to Health and Life of both the Subject and the Administrator too I conclude this Argument with the Saying of Judicious Sydenham viz That if Baptism be to be Administred in that way of Dipping only Happy are those who live in hot Climates or who have Bodies of Brass A third Argument may be grounded on Scandal thus That Mode or Way of Baptizing which is both Immodest and tends to Excite Lustful Motions and Carnal Desires in Men and Women cannot be commanded by Christ neither was the same ever practised by John But that way of Baptizing by Dipping the whole Body under Water is both Immodest and tends to Excite Lustful Motions and Carnal Desires in Men and Women Therefore that Mode of Baptizing by Dipping the whole Body under Water was never commanded by Christ neither was the same ever practised by John He who commands all Matters relating to Divine Worship to be done decently and in order 1 Cor. 14.40 and who commands Believers to abstain from all appearance of Evil 1 Thes 5.22 can never be the Author of such Disorderly Practises as thwart and contradict his own general Rules Now whether it be not an Immodest and unseemly Sight to see a mixt Company of Men and Women stand in Garments to use Mr. Sydenham's Expression next to Nakedness it self Let any not bereav'd of common Modesty Judge And whether the Administrator can possibly handle the Female Sex as he doth when actually Dipping them and not feel the risings and motions of Concupiscence in his Nature I leave to Thinking Persons to Determine and Judge Again in the fourth place to add no more let the last Argument be grounded on the Analogie which is and must be between the Baptism of John and that of Christ The Argument is thus framed If Christ's way and manner of Administring the Inward Spiritual Baptism whereof that of John was but the Outward Visible Sign be by Sprinkling or Pouring out upon Then John did certainly Baptize by Sprinkling or Powering out the Water on those he Baptized But Christ's way and manner of Administring the Inward Spiritual Baptism is by Sprinkling or Pouring out upon Therefore John did certainly Baptize by Sprinkling or Pouring out Water on those he Baptized If there was a necessity that John should Harmonize with Moses the Ceremonial Law and the Prophets I cannot see any reason why he should not be as greatly concern'd to Harmonize with Christ himself And seeing that the manner of Christ's Administring the Inward and Spiritual Baptism is by Pouring out and Sprinkling the Graces of the Spirit upon the Souls of the Elect in the Work of Regeneration why John the forerunner of Christ should Administer his Baptism which was but an External Sign or Christ's by Dipping or Plunging the whole Body into the Water can never be demonstrated by all the Wit and conceited Skill in our Doctor though he were as well Verst in all the Roots and Heemantique Nouns of the Hebrew Tongue as his so much admired Robertson was And if the Doctor will not be offended I am very desirous to know if his so highly commended and admired Robertson was by his so great Excellency in the Hebrew and Greek Tongues more Infallibly acquainted with the Mind of the Holy Ghost than other Men and that Mr. Robertson did certainly believe that the Etymology which he gave of the word Baptizo was Infalible as he said How came it to pass that the Learned Robertson did not Renounce that Baptism which he received in Infancy and by Sprinkling I think I knew Master William Robertson as well as Dr. Russel and during the time of my Acquaintance with him I am sure he was far enough from Anabaptism All the Skill he had in the Tongues with his Acquaintance in the Arts did not convince him that the Baptism he received in Infancy and by Sprinkling was a Nullity as the Doctor holds it is But to return to John the Dooper I think fit to assure the Doctor that I own my self bound to believe John himself rather than Doctor Russel or any of those Learned Men he so greatly Brags of The words of John are so plain that I can see no need of a Commentator to explain their Sense he tells us in Mar. 1.8 and in Mat. 3.11 that he did Baptize with Water but that Christ should Baptize with the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do both intend and signify the very same way and manner of Administration All the difference between John and Christ in both their Baptisms is in the Subject Matter viz. In the outward Water and the inward Grace John he did Administer Water the outward Sign but Christ he did Administer the Spiritual Grace But as touching the manner it was most certainly the very same in both Now if the Doctor grant as he must if he speak Truth that Christ doth Administer the Inward and Spiritual Baptism by Pouring out or Sprinkling the Graces of the Holy Ghost he will find it altogether Incongruous and no way agreeing with the Analogie of Faith to hold or assert that John did Administer the outward Sign in such a manner as was directly contrary to Christ There must be necessarily an Harmonious Agreement between the Sign and the Thing signified thereby which can never be in case Christ Baptizes by or with Pouring out or Sprinkling and John should Baptize by Dipping or Plunging into As Christ applies the Graces of the Spirit to the Soul in Conversion not the Soul to the Spirit so in the outward Baptism John he apply'd the Water the outward Sign to the Person not the Person to the Water For making the Thing or Point now in Debate obvious and plain to the meanest Capacity let it be seriously considered how plain and express the Scriptures are in affirming that Christ's way or manner in Administring the Spiritual Baptism is by Pouring out and Sprinkling the Holy Spirit on the Souls which he Regenerates but never by applying the Souls to the Holy Spirit Read without prejudice Tit. 3.5 6. Not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he hath saved us by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the holy Ghost which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath powered on us the very same word is made use of in Acts 2.17 And it shall come to pass in the