for by that reason Women should not receive the Lords Supper nor Merchants or Mercers be Baptized because we never read in Scripture any such Commands or Examples nay more Men and Women should not be Baptized because we finâ— not expresly that Men and Women in Contradistinction to Children were Baptized 〈◊〉 for the word Men and Women where ever used to that purpose signifies in the Original Men kind and Women-kind but Infants are so therefore they may as well as others be Baptized 2. That Christ's Commanding Teachinâ— or Repentance and Baptizing to go together compared with Infants inability to tâ—â— former is not a good conclusion against infant-baptism 1. Because that would equall have â—â—â—cluded Infnats from Circumcision under 〈◊〉 Old Testament because God says to Aâ—â—ham when he commanded Circumcision Walk before me and be perfect Gen. 17. 〈◊〉 as a Condition of the Covenant on his pâ—â— therefore Infants who could not do theâ—â— thing should not be Circumcised and yâ—â— we find they were therefore 2. When Christ says Teach all Natiâ—â— Baptizing them he means Teach them tâ—â— are capable of being taught and Baptiâ—â— them that are capable of Baptism and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 valid reason to prove that none were â—aptized but they that were first taught and â—â—â—pented because Teaching and Repentant is set before Baptizing in Scripture then it 's as valid a reason that some were Baptised before they were Taught or Repented because Baptizing is set before Repenting and Teaching let said John Baptized in the Wilderness and Preached the Baptism of Repentance first Baptized then Preachâ—â— Mark 1.4 but 3. Infants are capable of Repenting i.e. 〈◊〉 Original sin and believing or else none 〈◊〉 them are saved for without Faith and repentance there is no Salvation but surely 〈◊〉 that have a spark either of Grace 〈◊〉 or Charity will venture to think 〈◊〉 all infants are damn'd 4. The often mention of Mens being baptized and of their Repentance concludes not 〈◊〉 Baptism unlawful because when the 〈◊〉 and Christianity were Preached and 〈◊〉 command of Baptism first given it found â—any nay all Unbelievers most Heathens 〈◊〉 they were Men now Heathens were 〈◊〉 to be baptized because there was no 〈◊〉 to believe them in Covenant therefore Repentance was necessary as the only â—â—â—ment of their being in Covenant and they being in Covenant now Men must necessarily be baptized when Men for they could not be born again that they might bâ— Infants the case was then as it would beâ— Ministers in our days should go and Preach to the Indians their Conversion must necessarily precede their Baptism and being Converted their Conversion being an Infallible token of their being in Covenant they must as necessarily be baptized and yet this hinders not but that they are in Covenant before their Conversion as Infant are may be baptized Nor. 4. Doth Infants appearing when the come to Age to be Unbelievers argue the they may not be baptized for they may be in Covenant though unconverted Gal may reach their hearts afterwards beside this would Argue against Circumcision because many of the Jews proved Revolters 〈◊〉 Apostates and do not many that are baptize in Man's estate prove so too Haâ—â— not our Times given us too many sad instances of it The next thing I shall do shall be to lâ—â— down two or three positions about the manner of Baptism whether by dipping 〈◊〉 sprinking and 1. It is more than probable that sprinkling is the manner because it is a Prophesie of Gospel times that Christ shall sprinkle many Nations Isa 52.15 which if it mean not that Christ in Gospel times should bring many Nations into his Church and in initiating and entring them into his Church as a Seal or Sign of their being in Covenant sprinkle them by Baptism I say if this be not the meaning of it or if it be metaphorical whence but from Baptism the Metaphor should be borrowed I cannot Imagine 2. The Apostle Paul who knew what Baptism was well enough calls sprinkling baptizing which proves nothing more plainly then that in his times the way of baptiizing was by sprinkling that he doth so is plain from 1 Cor. 10.2 they were all baptized in the Cloud that is some dewy drops fell from the Cloud upon them for to say they were dipoed or plunged in the â—â—nd is too absurd 3. At the furthest it is indifferent whether it be by dipping or sprinkling because Christ no where says go and dip all Nation but go and baptize them and the word in the Original is used for washing new when any thing is washed water is cast upon it as is on Infants when they are baptized by sprinkling nor is it any where used for plunging or dipping in the water but. 4. It Infants may be baptized it is not indifferent whether by sprinkling or dipping for God rathers Mercy than Saâ—â—ines and it were a sin to hazard the Life of Children by dipping when they may be baptizeds by sprinkling as they may if it be indifferent whether it be done by dipping or sprinkling 5. Those Expressions in Scripture of there was muon water and that of going down into the water conclude nothing but that water was scarce in those hot Countries and a little water was therefore called much and that the River lay in a steep place or at the bottom of an Hill all so they were fain to go down to it 6. Circumcision was the cutting off the fore skin of one part of the Body by a trope for the whole which yet signified 〈◊〉 Spiritual Circumcision of the whole Soul Dent. 30.6 God will Circumcise thy Heart that is thy Soul Jer. 4.4 Be Circumcise and take away the fore skins of your Heart that is the Original bent and propensity 〈◊〉 your Souls to sin Now if Baptism sucâ—â—â— Circumcision then this may also be of out part for the whole to deaote the washing of the whole Sâ—â— from the power and guilt of sin and what part of the Bâ—â—ly is more fiâ—◠〈◊〉 our Faces which outing uish us frâ—◠〈…〉 other Creatures and so where chieâ—◠〈…〉 Image of God lies the Face whâ—◠〈…〉 Perch of the Souls Palace the Heaad 〈◊〉 the â—es and keeps Court and thus 〈…〉 with this point I have not 〈…〉 the least invective against the People that hold the adverse Opinion because I have a high esteam for most of them I have all this while only spoken of the thing not of the Persons that deny what I here defend or defend what I deny only I wish they would not hold that Opinion or having held it would do so no longer if any gives them Reason and Scripture to the contrary but these few Lines I have hastily written only for your own perusal though such success as the satisfying of you is beyond my hopes The next Question which you and I Discoursed about was concerning the Quakers Persons that pretend to a greater Light a higher perfection than the inspired Saints whom God
terms And is it not as much so it neglect then and take our selves to be unconcerned in his Commands when yet we profess to love him Surely those persons that so usually so easily neglect this Command under the Notion of an unprofitable one would have much more done so were they in our Father Adam's stead with the prohibition of eating of the Tree of Knowledge and look 〈◊〉 upon it as a very inconsiderable and insignificant Command and may we that fear they will by the neglect of this Command forfeit all happiness and cast themselves and every one else if they can prevail with them into equal into greater misery than Adam did us by his Fall To forbear doing our Blessed Saviours Commands till we know why and wherefore and what reason he had to command them is pride and presumption too great for a Christian to be guilty of To fix bounds to the Commands of Christ when himself doth not so to say they reached no further than the end of that dispensation when he himself says to the end of the World Or that it was to be of force no longer than till Christ came in his Spirit when sure the Christians in those times had his Spirit nay when the Apostles had no sooner received the Spirit in an extraordinary manner but the first thing they preached was Repent and be Baptized Acts 2.38 And when all along after we find them executing this Command and mentioning it in their Epistles Eph 4.5 c. To say that we find God binding the phrases of for ever to the end of the World and the like in the Old Testament to a certain period of time therefore Man may do it now are all Argumentations as wild and Extravagant as they are proud and impudent and certainly Men that Argue at this rate are arrived to the highest pitch of pride and Arrogance I wonder these men do not blot out Teaching as well as Baptizing when they go together in the same command Teach all c 2. Baptism is a priviledge It is a Command therefore Christians must Obey it It is a priviledge and so they have a right to it and should bless God for it that which doth distinguish between Believers and Unbelievers is a priviledge but Baptism doth so No Indians no Heathens â—â—nay no Children but them of Believing Parents may be Baptized that it is a priviledge is plain from Acts 36.37 3. Baptism confers not Grace of it self it doth not nor doth God give Grace aâ— part of the Nature of Baptism for many have Grace before they are Baptized and yet are really Baptized after Conversion therefore it is a gross mistake that Infants are Baptized because Baptism makes them Holy or Gracious but they are so because God Commands they should be and because they have a Covenant Holiness before hand and so have a right to God 1 Cor. 7.14 4. Baptism is what Circumcision was Circumcision was an outward sign of invisible Grace so is Baptism The Apostle makes Circumcision and Baptism to shadow out the same thing Col. 2.11 12. 5. Circumcision was a sign or Seal of the Covenant Gen. 17.11 Rom. 4.11 6. Baptism is the same it is sign of the Covenant for that which signifies the grace of the Covenant must needs be a sign of it but Baptism doth so Col. 2.12 If it be come in the room of Circumcision and that was a sign of the Covenant then Baptism must needs be so if Circumcision was a priviledge and Believers under the Gospel have more priviledges than they before it then either Circumcision is yet to be practised as it must be being the Command of it hath never been repealed and it was given before the date of the Ceremonial Law if nothing is done in it's stead I say Believers are yet to be Circumcised or it was no priviledge or we under the Gospel want a great priviledge which they before it enjoyed or Baptism must be come in it's room and so we enjoy the priviledge of a Seal of the Covenant in Baptism If the Covenant was a priviledge the Sign of it must be so too now if Circumcision was a priviledge and Infants were Circumcised notwithstanding their Actual unbelief and Baptism be come in it's room then Infants may be baptized though they do not Actually believe or Believers since the coming of Christ are still bound to Circumcision and have less priviledges than they before 7. Being in Covenant is the proper 〈◊〉 son of and a sufficient reason for Baptism Baptism is a sign of the Covenant and thâ—â— that have a right to the thing signified whâ—â— is the greater have to the sign which is 〈◊〉 less but they that are in Covenant have 〈◊〉 right to the thing signified either being 〈◊〉 Covenant is the proper reason of Baptism 〈◊〉 or there is no such reason for the administring it what true Faith for we can neâ—â— be sure where that is and if it be not 〈◊〉 Faith I am sure it cannot be the profession of it 8. The Infants of Believers are in Covenant If they were so in the Old Teâ—â—ment that they should not be so in the Neâ—â— is very strange that they were in the Old is plain from Gen. 17.10 11 12. that thâ—â— are so in the New is as plain from Acts. 〈◊〉 39. The promise is to you and your Children It is indeed usually objected that 〈◊〉 is to them when they come to believe whâ—â— as it is to them when they believe upon 〈◊〉 former account the promise is to you 〈◊〉 that if this Exposition be true the laâ—â—â— part and to your Children must signâ—â—â— just nothing at all and what encouragement could it be to tell them the promise was to their Children when they believâ—â— when it was so to every body else 9. The Infants of Believers may be baptized if the former positions be true this cannot be denyed therefore I will not insist upon it nor shall I enlarge into other reasons it would be too tedious but surely if Children be Holy or Saints 1 Cor. 7.14 the word being in the Original the same with that 1 Cor. 1.2 6.2 If Christ did bless them Mat. 19.15 unless we take his blessing to be no more than that insignificant Ceremony that Old people use to their Children or God Sons if he would have them come to him as in the 140. If they be a part of all Nations and Christ commands to Baptize all Nations Mat. 28.19 and if they may be saved as who so uncharitable us to think otherwise I say if these things be true then surely they may be they must be Baptized and they may be they must be reprov'd that forbid them Baptism Mat. 19.14 And now I shall lay down a few positions which I hope shall prevent and anticipate the usual Objections and they are these 1. That Infants are being expressed in Scripture Commands or Examples is not a sufficient Argument to exclude them from Baptism
plausible objection What command have you â—or infant-Infant-Baptism Bring me one plain Scripture Precept for it without Consequences is not Believers Baptism plainly Commanded Go and Teach all Nations Baptizing them 1. Take notice that it is granted by us that Believers Baptism is clearly Commanded but not that onely Insant-Baptism is no less so we are for Believers Baptism and onely for that in the same Case that Christ and his Apostles were if the Goâ—pâ—â— were Preached amongst Heathens or the like but supposing the Text to be understood in their confined sense of Men and Women or Believers only our case 〈◊〉 not the same now and therefore the Argument will not hold But 2. Here is no plain Command for Baptizing Men and Women no nor Believâ— without a Consequence for here is no mâ—â—tion of Men or Women or Believers bâ—â— some such Argument must be framed and we must draw some such Consequence 〈◊〉 Conclusion as these onely they that are â—â—pable of being Taught or onely those that receive the Teachings of Christ and his Mâ—â—sters are to be Baptized but Men and Womâ—â— or Believers onely are so therefore they onely are to be Baptized And now my good Friends where is your Plain Scripture Proof for the Baptizing of Men and Women or Believers without Consequences Or if you could produce it for that were for them onely we desire leave therefore fâ—â— your further Conviction if you please to retort your question upon you where is your Plain Command Answer it if you can yet 3. I humbly conceive that Text Mâ—â— 28 19 20. is a plainer and more direct Command for Baptizing Children than Men and Women which besides that the meaning of it if my former assertions should not hold seems very fairly without any wresting and distortion of it to be this As before my Coming you have given Circumcision the then Sign of the Covenant to the lâ—ws and their Children so now give Baptism which I appoint for the future to be a Sign of the Covenant to the Gentiles all Nations upon their accepting of the Covenant which she Jews reject and to their Children â—esides this I say I attempt to prove thus That place which Commands Baptism before Teaching doth not directly and plainly Command Men and Women to be Baptized for they are to be taught before they be Baptized but this doth so Baptize in the 19. v. and then Teach in the 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Teach by Instructing and our Brethren know very well for they contend that the Teach in the 19. v. is not rightly rendred but should e Translated Disciple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or make Disciples or Scholars now we know Children are sent to School not because they have Learnt but that they may Learn they are truly Scholaâ—s as soon as they are entred into the School and given up to the Care and Tuition of the Master before they have leard a Letter so Children are entred into the Church of Christ and Baptisin is as is were their entrance money before they learnt any Lession when they are solement given up and devoted by their Partents to Je2us Christ and if it be granted that Infants may be Baptized as soon as they an capable of Learning any of the Commands of Christ and so may be Scholars indeed this grant will over-throw our Baptized Brethrens Opinion See here theresore my good Friends a plainer Command for the Baptizing of Children than you haye for Baptizing Men and Women Councerning the Second Dispute it may be thought I am too tart and Satyrical against the poor Quakers if I am so any where I desire to be understood of the censorious the wilfully Ignorant the haughty the persect of them such as that Quking Pope George Fox with whom it is at impossible to Write calmly and Christianly as it is to Write Sense I have a great deal of Charity for many of those People who walk according to their Light and are not tainted with the Socinian Mysteries of the Trade such I hope there are amongst them and I am for Union even here also so as to keep up an a micable correspondence with them that we may Live Civily and unictly together like Men and Christians without damning infesting and railing at deth other I know the Ingenious and Nobly-designing Author of the Asiddle-wayes hath studiously attempted a Reconciliation between us about Perfection but I fear they will not be content with an Allowance of an Evanelical unless he grant them also a Legal Perfection against which my Arguments and Discourse about that point altogether militate I must add one word further with Respect to the Second Letter against Atheism and particularly concerning the Eternity of the World which I take to be the surest and strongest Refuge of the Atheist if he can maintain it and for this reasion I am apt to think the new Philosophy hath not deferved so ill of Divines as the Old but neally merits more civil entertainment than she usually meets with it being much the easier Province to prove that the World is not the Product of the Concourse or jumblement of Atoms than it's Non-Eternity against this grand Fancy of the Atheist I offer these two Arguments Ad Hominem 1. That which is imperceptible not a be perceived by the Senses is not but the Eternity of the World is imperciptible neither to be seen felt heard nor smelt if the former Assertion be false then doch the Atheists great Objection against the Baing of a God or a Soul falls to the grount if the latter be true then oh you Atheistion Clubs where alone is the constant Reldence of Wit Oh you at are the grey and onely Wittist of the Age you that has so long ago engrossed to your selves all reson and had the Monoply of all Ingenuity for Love who is your onely Deity I say for Loves sake produce one of your grea Racierinose's some Mighty Leviathan it Rea2on for you are all so some presound Admirer of Dame Nature your Leving Mother and Mistress too that shall irrefragably demonstrate the Eternity of the World by Sense and tell us boldly and bravely for that he may as well as that there is no God that he hath often seen and admired we may be sure that grea Beauty Eternity of the World and heard her play the most melodious Musick that over was heard If there be any other Principle of Reasoning besides Sense what is it How came we to have that knowledge that never came by our Senses I mean by being the Objects of them or those Notions which we are sure Sense could never teach us What reason can your Witnesses give why she should not have an insenlible or immaterial pringiple of discerning as well as a material or corporeal Principle of Sensing or perceiving by the Senses But if you will needs have it so that there is noshing but what is seen and nothing else is to be believed to be then produce the