THE Consideration of the unhap­py Differences, which are this Day among the People of God, about the Doctrine of Infant Baptism; (whereby God is much disho­noured, and the Adversaries Mouths opened, to reproach the Ways and Peo­ple of God; whereby much time is spent in Controversies, which might be better improved in giving diligence To make our [Page 2]Calling and Election sure; and in helping each other forward in the way to Heaven; hath moved me to try, if by the Blessing of God on my weak Endeavours, I might be that happy Instrument, to put an end to that Controversie: For it's pity such as agree so in Fundamentals, should so much differ about Smaller Matters; and that they who hold one Lord, and one Faith, should not hold one and the same Baptism all respects: And though enough hath been Delivered and Printed on this Sub­ject by divers worthy Lights, to satisfie any impartial Reader, and clear Under­standing; yet because many have not time to Read, or Money to Buy, or Capacities to Understand large Volumes; I shall add this short Tract, as a Mite to the former Treasury: In which I shall Study both Brevity and Plainness of Speech; to tho End that, if possible, I might not over-reach the meanest Capacity; since it is for the sakes of such, I design this; and therefore to prevent tediousness, I shall sum up all I shall say, as to the Sub­ject of Baptism, in two Arguments more generally.

First, Argument in Defence of In­fant Baptism is this; If we Gentiles do [Page 3]come in the room of the Jews then we must partake of their Priviledges; but we Gentiles do come in the Jews room, therefore we must partake of their Privi­ledges. The Major I must take for gran­ted: For how, or to what end do we come in their room; unless we partake of their External Church Priviledges? One of which was Circumcision. Rom. 3.1,2. What advantage then hath the Jew? Or what Profit is there of Circumcision? Much every way, &c. which Ordinance was to be administred unto Infants of Eight Days Old; in the stead of which God hath appointed the Ordinance of Baptism, as is clear from that plain Text, Col. 2.10,11,12. And ye are compleat in him, which is the Head of all Principality and Power. In whom also ye are Circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands, in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh, by the Circumcision of Christ: Bu­ried with him in Baptism, &c. In which place the Apostle is incouraging the Be­lieving Colossians to stand fast in opposi­tion to those false Teachers, who would Preach the Law as a Covenant of Works, or at least mixed Law and Gospel together, in opposition to whom, he tells them they [Page 4]were compleat in him, that is, in Christ; and however these false Teachers might pretend a necessity to keep the Law, yet he here lets them know, forasmuch as Christ was made under the Law, and did bring in an everlasting Righteousness, and that he did in their room and stead; hence they that believed were compleat in Christ their Head, and so under no Obliga­tion to keep the Law, as a Covenant of Works, Christ being the End of the Law, (in that respect) to every one that be­lieveth.

But lest those false Teachers should prevail to draw away Disciples after them, by urging the necessity of Circumcision, he tells them they were Circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands, or had received the End of Circumcision; for that signified a necessity of the Heart be­ing Sanctified, Rom 2.28. which Grace of Sanctification, as well as Justification, they received from Christ, and so were com­pleat in him; but that they should not think themselves inferiour to them for want of the external Seal, he tells them they had the Seal of the Covenant also; and though not the same, yet a milder in its room; Buried with him in Baptism. [Page 5]Nor do I see what other design the Apo­stle can have in these words, but to prove, that Baptism to us, comes in the room of Circumsision to the Jews; and that you may see that this is not my own private Sence of these Words, I shall cite another Witness or two to confirm it. Of the same Judgment is the Learned Paraeus; saith he, Quod Apostolus precedente versu, de Externa & Interna Circumcisi­one dixit ad Institutionem & Consolationem fidelium, contra pseudo-Judees; eadem nunc applicat ad fideles in Novo Testamen­to, in quo Circumcisioni successit Sacra­mentum Baptismi, i. e. That which the Apostle had said in the foregoing Verse, concerning External and Internal Circum­cision, for the Instruction and Consolation of Believers against the false Jews, he applies the same to Believers in the New Testament, in which the Sacrament of Baptism doth succeed in the room of Cir­cumcision: Of the same Judgment is Calvin, Aretius, and many more; whose words for brevity sake I shall omit, and come to my Minor Proposition.

Minor. But we Gentiles do come in the Jews room; which I prove from that plain Text, Rom. 11.19,20,24. Thou wilt [Page 6]say then, The Branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well: because of Unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by Faith, be not high-mind­ed, but fear. For if thou wert cut out of tho Olive Tree, which is wild by Nature, and wert graffed contrary to Nature in­to the Good Olive Tree, &c. Now our Graffing in, must answer to the Cutting off of the Jews; or else the Apostle mis­sed of his Scope and Design. Nor was their breaking off, a breaking off from a real Union with Christ, as some of the Anabaptists have in my hearing affirmed, to avoid the force of this Text; but from External Church Priviledges. Now, since the Infant Seed of the Jews had a Right to Circumcision; if then we Believing Gentiles do come in their room, and Bap­tism in the room of Circumcision, as I think I have sufficiently proved (if Scripture may determine the Matter) then we and our Seed must have a Right to Bap­tism under the New Testament, as the Jews and their Seed had to Circumcision under the Old Testament: But notwith­standing the Scripture is so clear for this, yet that no doubt may remain, I shall an­swer [Page 7]such Objections as may possibly be made against it.

Object. 1. If we come in the Jews room, then all the Children in the Nati­on ought to be Baptized; since all the Children in the Jewish Nation were Circumcised: But according to your Practice all ought not to be Baptized; therefore from your Practice we may Judge you do not think we come in their room.

Answ. All that can be truly inferred from hence is this, That as all in their Church, which was National, were to be Circumcised; so all in our Particular Churches ought to be Baptized; and this is no more than I earnestly contend for.

Object. 2. But if we come in their room, then we must be a National Church, as they were, or else how can we be said to partake of their Priviledges?

Answ. It was not of the Essence of the Jewish Church, that it was National; nor was it any Priviledge above what it would have been, had it been divided in­to particular Churches as we are. I grant, that so long as the Temple stood, which was a Type of Christ, so long God required they should meet to wor­ship [Page 8]him there; which might serve to shew how the gathering of the People should be unto Christ: But now, though it was their Priviledge that they might Worship, yet it must needs be burden­some to come from all Parts of the Nati­on to Worship at the Temple, and at such expence: But now God hath eased us of this burden, while he hath appointed Particular Churches, where we enjoy all the Worship of God, with as great a Promise of the Presence of God as they had in the Temple, Matt. 18.20. So that we only want (if I may so say) the Incon­veniency of the Worship. God hath not now confined us to Places; John. 4.20,21. The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this Mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem Worship the Father; that is, with respect to Places. And yet though we are not confined to their Place of Worship, yet we are said to be graffed into their Olive; and as for such as lay such stress on this, as if it was impossible we should come in the Jews room, unless we were a Na­tional Church, I would ask them this Question, Do you believe that the Jews shall in time be brought home again, and Ingraffed into their own Olive, from which [Page 9]they have been so long broken off? And further, Whether you think at that Day, they shall Worship God in the Temple, and offer Gifts and Sacrifices, as once they did? Now that they shall be restored and brought home again, is clear from Rom. 11.12,15,26. Now if the Fall of them be the Riches of the World, and the Diminishing of them the Riches of the Gentiles; how much more their Fulness? For if the casting away of them be the Reconciling of the World: What shall the receiving of them be, but Life from the Dead? From these and the following Verses it is most clear, that the Jews shall be one Day restored, and it is that which we now are expecting; but that they shall then Worship at the Temple, when it hath been demolished so many hundred Years; and that they shall offer Sacrifices, after they come to Believe that Christ the great Sacrifice is offered, or that the Tribe of Levi should only Minister before the Lord, when all the Tribes have been so shattered and confused in this Dark and Gloomy Day, all seem to me to be things incredible. Now if they shall be graffed again into their own Olive (as the Scripture affirms) notwithstanding so [Page 10]many, and so great alterations in their VVorship, as we have good ground from Scripture to believe there will be; VVhy may not we Gentiles be said to come in their room, though we are not confined to all the Circumstances of their Wor­ship, and since we want nothing that was a Priviledge?

And more especially, if we consider that we have good ground to believe that their graffing in again, will be no more than to bestow those very Priviledges on them, which we Gentiles do now enjoy; as seems clear to me from Rom. 11.31. Even so have these also now not believed; that through your Mercy, they also may obtain Mercy. Mind, that through your Mercy, or the Mercy of God to you, they also may obtain Mercy: As if he had said, the consideration of your Mer­cies, or the Priviledges which you enjoy under the Gospel, shall be a means not only to convince them that the Messiah is come, but shall also stir them up to im­brace the same Faith, that so they may partake of the same Mercies with you. So that it seems evident, not only from Scripture, but Reason it self; that when the Jews come to be Restored, it will on­ly [Page 11]be to share with us Gentiles in our Priviledges: And yet this is called in Scripture, a graffing in again. So that there is no more necessity for us to be confined to all the Circumstances of their VVorship, in order to our coming in their room; than for them to be con­fined to all the Circumstances of their wonted Service, when graffed in again: Nor doth it seem credible, that when they are graffed in again, they shall injoy nei­ther Circumcision, nor any other Seal in its room, and that their Priviledges should be less under the New Testa­ment Dispensation, than under the Old; that God should own their Seed then, and reject them now. Sure I am, this would in all probability, be a great Block in their way, to prevent their embracing the Gospel. Circumcision was an Ordi­nance of high esteem with them, as we may judge by their chearful undergoing so much pain and smart as it occasioned; as we may gather from Ex. 4.26. A Bloody Husband thou art, because of the Circumcision. But now, if we can con­vince them that we have a milder Ordi­nance, and Seal in its room, this may have a great Influence upon them, by [Page 12]tsie Bleffing of God, in order to the bring­ing them in.

Thus I have finished my first Argu­ment, and should I add no more in De­fence of the Doctrine of Infant Baptism, it might suffice; unless Persons are resol­ved to shut their Eyes that they might not behold the Light, since I have clearly proved from Scripture, that we Gentiles do come in the Jews room, and Baptism in the room of Circumcision: But to the end there may not be left one Stone upon ano­ther of that Strong Hold, which the Ana­baptists have raised against this Truth, which may not be thrown down, I shall raise one. Argument more as a Battery against it, and shall add no more: And indeed I think I need add no more, being satisfied these Arguments will be as a two­fold Cord that will not easily be broken. Now the great Objection of the Anabap­tists, against Infant Baptism, is founded on such Scriptures as hold forth Faith as necessary in order to Baptism; as Mark 16.16. He that Believeth, and is Baptized, shall be saved, Acts 8.37. And Philip said, if thou Believest with all thy Heart, thou mayest. Acts 18.8. And many of the Corinthi­ans hearing, Believed, and were Baptized. [Page 13]And from these, and such like Texts, con­fidently conclude, that because none but Adult Persons have or can have Faith, therefore none but such ought to be Bap­tized: And if I mistake not, here lays the stress of all their Arguments.

Now for the preventing any mistake, (that none may suppose the Difference to be wider than it is) if it be enquired ther some Adult may not be Baptized; I grant they may; provided they never have been Baptized in their Infancy; and yet this may rationally be Inferred from such Texts; for those that Believed and were Baptized, had never before been Baptized, nor had they made any Pro­fession of Christ before then, that we know of; the Text seem to prove they were Baptized immediately upon their Confession of Faith; and should I meet with such, I should think my self bound from such Examples to Baptize them. So that we agree with the Anabaptists in this, that some Adult ought to be Bap­tized. But the Grand Question in Debate is, whether some Infants ought not to be Baptized as well as Adult; this the Ana­baptists deny, and I affirm, and prove [Page 14]thus, from this following Argument; and it seems cogent.

Argument 2. Those that the Scripture give us good ground to hope are Belie­vers, may and ought to be Baptized; but the Infant Seed of Believers are such as we have good ground from Scripture to hope are Believers; therefore such may and ought to be Baptized. All that I can conceive can be said against my Major Proposition is, to deny that we are to Bap­tize any upon hopes that they are Belie­vers; and to affirm that we ought to Bap­tize none but such as we are sure have true Justifying Faith. But sure I am such an Objection savours of high Pre­sumption; since this is to pretend to be Wiser than the Apostles, and as Wise as God himself. First, Wiser than the Blessed Apostles; as you may see by comparing Acts 8.13. with 22.23. where you read of one Baptized that was in the Gall of Bitterness, and Bonds of Iniquity; and yet we cannot be so uncharitable as to think they had no hopes of him when they Bap­tized him: But if any should so judge, it makes the more for me; for if the Apostles themselves Baptized such as they had no [Page 15]hopes had true Faith; then sure we may Baptize such [...] we have good ground to hope [...] Faith: But if they had Hope, 'tis evident it was but Hope, un­less he could lose his Faith, or have Faith, and at the same time be in the Gall of Bitterness and Bonds of Iniquity; neither of which could be. Secondly, This is to pretend to be as wise as God (at least in this point) since he only that works Faith can infallibly judge where it is. 'Tis peculiar to God to search the Heart, where Faith is seated; the Lord only knows who are his; we see the best of Churches have been mistaken in taking in of Members. The Apostles did not know Judas to be a Hypocrite, till he betrayed his Lord, (unless we can suppose they would take in known Hypocrites). And I would ask my Friends, the Anabaptists, if they themselves have not Baptized some as Believers, who have afterward discovered themselves to be in the Gall of Bitterness. So that (in a word) if we must Baptize none but such as we are sure have true Justifying Faith, we must Baptize none in this World: For though many have such a Faith, yet no Man can infallibly tell (the Anabap­tist themselves not excepted) who they are. [Page 16]This is that new Name which none knows but God, and them that have it. So that I think it needless to add any more to con­firm the former part of my Argument, viz. That we can only hope that this or the other Person hath true Faith.

Minor Proposition. But the Infant Seed of Believers are such, as we have good ground from Scripture to hope are Belie­vers. Now if any thing of force be Ob­jected, it must be against this; and there­fore I shall labour the more to confirm it: But before I come to the Proof, I must add a Caution, that when I speak of Faith in Infants, I mean Habitual Faith; for though it cannot on good ground be deny­ed but that some Infants may actually Be­lieve, since God is able to cause them so to do, and hath no where in his Word de­clared he will not; yet it may easily be proved, that some Infants have Habitual Faith; and that will render one as truly a Believer as the Act. He that hath the Habit of Faith, is a Believer, though asleep, and so as uncapable of Acting Faith as an Infant; having (during that time) no more use of Reason than a Child at the Breast, nor perhaps so much; for an Infant hath so much Sense as to know [Page 17]when it is Hungry, or to Cry for Food; and if it be in Pain. But let a Man be ne­ver so Hungry, or in Pain; yet when a­sleep, he is unsensible of either: And yet such may be Believers in the mean time, they having the Habit of Faith. Now by the Habit of Faith in Infants, I mean a Prin­ciple of Grace, or Internal Renovation which is wrought in Regeneration; for Regeneration is an infusing the Seeds of all Grace into the Soul, and consequently of Faith. This being premised, I come to lay down a Proposition for the clearing the Way to that which I intend more large­ly to insist upon.

Proposition. That Infants are capable of having the Habit of Faith wrought in them: And though we cannot from hence conclude that all such have it, yet it is a good Foundation for my following Argument: And because in all Cases the Foundation had need stand fast, I shall therefore con­firm it; that Infants are capable of Grace, is not my Judgment alone (however strange a Doctrine it may seem to some) for I have the Judgment of all the Church of England on my side; their Words af­ter Baptism are, Seeing now, Dearly beloved Brethren, that this Child is by Baptism [Page 18]Regenerate, &c. And again, We yield thee most hearty thanks most merciful Fa­ther, that it hath pleased thee to Regene­rate this Infant by thy Holy Spirit, &c. Now though I am far from being of the Judgment which they seem to be in this, that all that are Baptized are in that Ordi­nance Regenerated, and so consequently many fall from Grace. My Soul abhorrs that Popish Doctrine, that Baptism con­fers Grace, ex opere operato, from the Work-wrought; but while they thank God for the Work done, 'tis evident they suppose them capable of having that Work wrought in them; and so far I agree with them. But because the very citing any thing from the Church of England, may make some giddy-headed People (who have more Zeal than sound Knowledge) nauseate what I have said. I shall there­fore proceed to prove, that both they and I have Divine Testimony on our side in this, that Infants are capable of Grace; and I shall make use of plain Scripture, since the Anabaptists pretend so much de­light in it; and I shall produce several Instances, that in the Mouth of two or three Witnesses, this truth may be esta­blished. Jer. 1.5. Before thou camest out [Page 19]of the Womb, I Sanctified thee; and Luke 1.15. of John it is said, He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his Mothers Womb; and then no doubt Sanctified. And of Christ it is said, verse 35. That Holy Thing that shall be born of thee, &c. mind, born of thee, was Holy when Born: From whence it is past all dispute, (unless we dare dispute with God) that Infants, even in the Womb, and as soon as Born, are capable of Grace; nor doth it seem harder to me to conceive, that Infants should have Grace wrought in them than Adult, since the latter are purely passive in the Work, and so may the former be. If it was a Work of Reason, or performed by Humane Power or Policy, something might be said, but it is not, Eph. 1.19. Nay, according to our apprehension, it seems harder to work Grace in Adult than in Infants; for as a Tender Plant is more easily eradicated than a Grown Tree, so in this Case, Sin by Custom and Conti­nuance gets root; and though all things are equally possible to God, yet to change an Old Sinner is most difficult in it self. We may conceive a greater opposition in the Heart of Grown Persons to a Work of Grace than in Infants: The longer we [Page 20]have been wedded to Sin, the more un­willing we shall be to give it a Bill of Divorce, and put it away. So that Infants are as capable of Grace as Adult, and more capable, as to the Humane Concep­tion of any, unless Arminians. And though 'tis said Faith comes by hearing, yet that only points out the ordinary way of God's Working Faith in Adult. This directs us to our Duty, but sets no bounds or limits to his Power. God can work Faith other ways than by the hearing of the Ear, if he will. Thus having cleared my Proposition, that Infants are capable of Faith, I now come to confirm the Mi­nor Proposition of my Argument, which was this, That the Infant Seed of Belie­vers are such, as we have good ground from Scripture to hope are Believers. Before, I proved Infants were capable of Faith; now, I come to prove, some Infants have Faith; which I prove thus.

Argument. If some Infants get to Hea­ven, then some Infants have Faith: But some Infants do get to Heaven, therefore some Infants have Faith. 'Tis possible that the Anabapatists may say, That there is no necessity for Infants to have Faith, in or­der to their getting to Heaven; but I am [Page 21]loth to resign up such a Gospel Truth, meerly because they have said it. I shall lay down nothing but what I shall prove from plain Scripture, and I shall expect the same of them; especially in Matters of such grand Import. And sure I am the Scripture no where affirms any such thing, that any can get to Heaven without Faith-Nay, Nay, I am certain, the whole Currant of Scripture doth, in most express terms, run directly contrary thereunto; as I shall shew anon. So that we cannot open our Mouths in Defence of such a Notion, un­less we dare even fight against God. I grant indeed, there are some Secrets in God's working in Infants; yet this makes nothing against the Truth of the thing, because we cannot comprehend it. We can­not conceive the manner how God works Grace in Adult, unless very imperfectly, As, John 3.8. the Wind Bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the Sound thereof; but canst not tell whence it cometh, nor whither it goeth; so is every one that is Born of the Spirit. Mind, every one; A­dult as well as Infants; where Christ himself makes it as hard, to know how God Regenerates, as to give Account of the Wind, which hath puzzled our wisest [Page 22]Philosophers: We may feel the Wind re­fresh us, and see the effects of it, but cannot tell exactly how it is caused. So in this Case, we may find and feel the refresh­ing Influence of the Spirit in our selves, and may see the effects of it in others, yet can no more comprehend the manner of his working, than we can conceive how the Body is formed in the Womb of her that is with Child. Eccles. 11.5. There you have these two compared. Why then should it be thought incredible that God should Work Faith in Infants? Though we cannot fully comprehend his way of Working, God can make use of various ways to effect one and the same thing, though in the mean time he gives us no account of his Matters; His ways are in the deep Waters, and his Footsteps are not known. And sure I am, if we must be­lieve nothing but what we can fully com­prehend, the Articles of our Faith may stand in less room; for what can we say as to the Trinity; we are bound to believe such a thing because God hath revealed it; but alas how little can we comprehend, of Three in One, or to the Hypostatical Union of Two Natures Personally united? What shall we say as to the Resurrection [Page 23]of the Dead? Of the Joys of Heaven, or the Torments of Hell? If nothing must be Believed but what we can comprehend, we must blot out these and many more Articles of our Creed. Is not this the way to Atheism, if we must not believe God to be, unless we can comprehend him, since 'tis but a little portion we have heard of him, Job. 26.14. and since none can by searching find out God to Perfection? This is to prefer the Light within, or Carnal Reason above the Word of God, if we must not believe God's Word, unless we can comprehend it. Nay, this is to make a Man worse than a Beast, while he must not believe that which he sees: Hence we must not believe such a thing as the Tide or Sun; since though it is easie to see both, yet we cannot fully comprehend either. Nay, at this rate, we must not believe our selves to be Creatures, since we cannot tell how we were formed in the dark Re­cesses of the Womb; for we are said to be wonderfully made. In a word, by this Rule we must believe nothing, because there is nothing but what doth in some respect or other exceed our shallow Un­derstandings. This is a Rule to be obser­ved [Page 24]among all that profess themselves Christians, whatever God reveals we are to believe; though it be as far above the reach of our Reason, as the Heavens are above the Earth; since 'tis impossible for God to Lie, and Blasphemous for us to suppose he should; and worse to suppose God to Lie, than to suppose him not to be; As once Plutarch said, Malo de me dici nullum esse Plutarchum, quam malum Plutarchum. I had rather, said he, Man should say I am not, than say I am wicked. And therefore since God hath in his Word set forth the necessity of Grace and Faith, in order to our getting to Glo­ry, we ought to Believe the one, or to Despair of the other.—Some time since I was reading a Book put out by one of the most Learned of the Anabaptists; and in that he owns, the Sins of Children are done away; and that some such, if not all such, do go to Heaven; but most boldly affirms, they are not done away in Regeneration. But sure that Gentleman would have done well to have told us which way they are cleansed, and not to leave so many tender-hearted Parents mourning for their deceased Infants, as those without hope, as they must needs [Page 25]do if they are not capable of Regenera­tion; or if they cannot tell some others way, how they may be fitted for Heaven. But I perceive that Gentleman was resol­ved none should know his new-found way but himself, let the effects be what they will. But though he is thus unkind, his Dear Brother Mr. C. seems to be a Man of a better Spirit; and though he seems to agree with him in the former, yet he tells us (if we will believe him) how Sin comes to be destroyed in Infants; and that is, saith he, by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to them. An Answer no doubt pleasing to the Ignorant sort, that will Swallow down any thing, true or false, that hath but the Name of Christ, or the Righteousness of Christ annexed to it: But sure this bold Asserter had for­gotten that Text, Isa. 8.20. To the Law and to the Testimony, if any Man (an Ana­baptist not excepted) walk not according to this Rule, 'tis because there is no Light in him; or rather, I have reason to judge, he was resolved his own Fancy should guide him in this Matter. Now I would fain know where this Author can prove from Scripture, any imputation of Christ's Righteousness to any but Believers. I [Page 26]am sure he cannot; and till he can, how­ever fond he or his Brethren may be of his Notion, it not agreeing with the Rule in God's Word, we are bound to look upon it as arising from the Darkness his own deluded Fancy. Since I have been a Student in Divinity, I have been taught, both out of God's Word, and from our most Worthy Authors, that the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ had respect to the removal of our Guilt; and that it was the Work of the Spirit within us, to remove the Filth, and de­stroy the Power of Sin. Tit. 3.5. By the washing of Regeneration, and renewings of the Hely Ghost: Hence we are said to be born of the Spirit. Justification and Sanctification, though inseparable, yet are widely distinguished by all but Pa­pists, and such as do adhere to them: Sure this Gentleman had strangely forgot the great difference between our Title to Heaven, and our Meetness for Heaven; unless he looks upon our Claim to rise from our Meetness. The Righte­ousness of Christ, though it gives us a Title to Heaven, as we do apprehend the Person of Christ by Faith, yet it doth not take away our Filth any other way than [Page 27]by way of Purchase. 'Tis the Spirit of God in us that is the Efficient, and that is the thing we are enquiring into. VVhy then doth this Author thus beguile his unwary Reader, when he is enquiring how Sin comes to be subdued, he tells him how Sin comes to be pardoned. As if a Pardon to a Malefactor would change his Heart, or as if that Promise of a new Heart added to Forgiveness was a Pro­mise of little worth; I know not what it is to him, I am sure 'tis precious to all Saints; what doth this imply, but that the Righteousness of Christ was imputed to Infants, to the end they may go to Hea­ven reeking in Sin; and that they might be exempted from Regeneration? But to put all out of doubt, I come now to prove there is a Necessity for Infants to have Faith (in the Sence aforesaid) if ever they get to Heaven, whatever such bold Men may say to the contrary, who care not how much they say, and how little they prove. Let God be true, tho' all such are found Liars. Now there is a twofold Necessity for Infants to have Faith, in or­der to their getting to Heaven, one arising from God's Ordination and Appointment, [Page 28]the other from the Corruption of our Na­tures, as we come into the VVorld.

First, From God's Appointment and Or­dination, he hath made this the way, and the only way to Heaven, Mark 16.16. He that believes not shall be damned. I think that is plain Scripture, since 'tis so defired by the Anabaptists; and the Ex­pression being Indefinite, is equivolent to a Universe. He, that is, any he, High or Low, Rich or Poor, Adult or Infant. So John 3.3,5. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a Man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God. And then adds by way of Explanation, Except a Man be born of Water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Now Regeneration is an Infusing the Prin­ciples of all Grace into the Soul, as the Learned Pemble observes, (one Grace not being the Cause of another,) and if of all Grace, then of Faith, for that is a Grace.

But perhaps the Anabaptists may ob­ject, that by the Word Man we are to un­derstand Adult only, yet at best this is but a bare Conjecture, which in others Cases is contemned by them; and therefore [Page 29]with their Leave, or without it, I shall tye them up to the same Measures: For it seems unreasonable to contemn this in others, which we allow in our selves, especially in Matters of Religion; may we not by the same Rule exclude Wo­men? And then I know no Scripture to prove a Necessity for them to be regene­rated. But lest this should not suffice, (for by this time I may suppose the Ana­baptists to be like a Man drowning, that catches hold of every Straw to keep him from sinking) I shall therefore prove from Scripture, that the Word Man oft takes in Women and Children, without Distinction of Age or Sex; and to this end I might multiply Texts, but I shall only give you Two for many. The first is, Gen. 6.7. I will destroy Man. Now it is well known that all the old World was destroyed, both Men, Women and Chil­dren, excepting those few in the Ark, and yet only Man is mentioned. So John 16.21. A Woman, when she is in Travail, hath Sorrow, because her Hour is come; but as soon as she is delivered of the Child, she remembreth no more her Anguish for Joy that a Man is born. Mind that which in the beginning was called a [Page 30]Child, is after called a Man; nor can we once suppose that we come grown Men immediately out of the Womb; and yet this may be as easily proved as the former. And as the Word Man sometimes is of this extent, so 'tis most evident it is so here: For the Word [...] in the Greek signifies any one. Beza renders it Aliquis, any Body, or any one. But notwithstand­standing all that hath been said, I lately saw a Piece, put out by one of the Ablest of the Anabaptists, in which he will prove that Christ in that Place meant Adult on­ly; and he proves it thus. It must be so, because Nicodemus understood him so; but to me it seems strange, that any, un­less one as ignorant as Nicodemus, of the new Birth, should think such a blind Idiot as he, a meet Judge of Christ's Meaning; and infallibly to conclude it must be so, be­cause he understood him so, as if Nicedo­mus was an infallible Judge of this Mat­ter. That Nicedomus understood him so I cannot deny; but if that must be his meaning, because he understood him so, then we must conclude Christ meant a natural Birth also, for so Nicodemus un­derstood him, Verse 4. Can he enter the second time into his Mother's Womb, [Page 31]and be born; which was a gross Mistake, as is clear from Verse 5. Which Words are a Reproof of his Ignorance and Car­nal Conceptions, and an Interpretation of Christ's own Words; and might he not mistake as to the Subject, as well as con­cerning the Nature of the thing? Sure I am that Cause is like to be lost, that hath no better Witness than an ignorant Nicodemus; and we may suppose the Ana­baptists at a Loss, when the ablest and most learned among them are forced to summons in Nicodemus as a Witness; for tho' they must own him to be a poor Evidence, if they will believe Christ, ( Verse 10.) Art thou a Master in Israel, and knowest not these things? (and they that do not know things are unmeet to prove them) But either this Person put more Confidence in Nicodemus than Christ, or else knowing his Cause was almost gone, would rather cite Nicodemus (con­cerning which, he knew neither what he said, nor whereof he affirmed) rather than have no Witness; but 'tis no won­der to see the most Learned of the Ana­baptists run into such gross Absurdities, and to be at such a Loss in such My­steries; for if Learning could teach a [Page 32]Man the Mysteries of the Gospel, Nico­demus had not been so grosly ignorant of Christ's meaning; and I leave it to any Judicious Person to determine, whether we have not as good Ground, and bet­ter, to judge that this Objecter was of the same Mind of Nicodemus, in understand­ing it to be a natural Birth, then to con­clude, that because he understood it, as spoken of Adult only, therefore it must be so; for we may suppose, had not this Doctor had great Confidence in the In­fallibility of Nicodemus, he would never have ventured that Cause which was as dear to him as his Life upon his single Evidence, and especially in such a Cause, wherein he had so many Hundreds op­posed him; and sure, had he judged him in a gross Mistake, as to the Nature of that new Birth, he would never have put such Confidence in what he said with the same Breath, as to the Subject; and as we have infallible Ground to conclude, (from his own Words) that this Ob­jecter is far from believing any Neces­sity or Possibility for Infants to be rege­nerated, so I think I do him no Wrong, if I suppose 'tis his Judgment, that there is no more Necessity for grown Persons [Page 33]to be regenerated; for of this Judgment was his trusty and well-beloved Friend Nicodemus; for had Nicodemus once sup­posed that grown Persons (any more than Infants) must be born again Spi­ritually, he would never have mentioned such a gross Absurdity as to be born again Carnally, but taking it for granted, that Adult (to give the Objecter his Sence) could not be born again Spiritually, ab­surdly supposes it to be meant a Carnal Birth; and why we may not suppose the Objecter to be of his Judgment in the one, as well as the other, (especially since he puts such Confidence in him) I see not; and now I leave it to my understanding Reader to judge, whether we have not better Ground to believe, that under the Word Men, Children are comprehended, because the Word signifies both, than to conclude Christ only meant grown Men, because Nicodemus understood him so, since it is past all dispute the Word sig­nifies so; but whether Nicodemus did rightly understand Christ's meaning, may justly admit of a Debate; nay, it seems almost past all Dispute he did not, by his gross Mistake about other Passages relating hereunto.

[Page 34]Thus I have, I hope, sufficiently pro­ved a Necessity for Infants to have Faith, if they get to Heaven, from God's Ap­pointment; and what can be more cogent to confirm any Point, than the express Mind of God? And I am certain, had the Anabaptists such-clear Proof, that no In­fants ought to be Baptized, as I have given to prove, that all Infants that get to Heaven must have Faith, they would soon cry Victory; nor should I ever hold up my Weapons against them, (was it so) lest haply, by so doing, I was found fighting against God himself.

Secondly, There is a Necessity for Faith in Infants, (if they get to Heaven) ari­sing from the Corruption of their Na­tures: Which tho' the Anabaptist may probably deny, yet I doubt not but to con­firm this also from Scripture. When Adam had sinned, by eating the Forbidden Fruit, he was immediately seized with a Spiritual Death, according to the Com­mination, in the Day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die: And Adam being a publick Head and Representative of all Mankind, this Spiritual Death is intailed [Page 35]on all his Posterity. Hence we are said to bear the Image of the Earthly; nor is this true of Adult only, but of all his Po­sterity, 1 Cor. 15.22. As in Adam all die. Mind, all die, Infants as well as grown Persons; and this I shall further prove from most express Scripture, Eph. 2.3. And were by Nature the Children of Wrath, even as others. Gen. 8.21. For the Imagination of Man's Heart is evil from his Youth. The Evil in our Hearts is the Cause of all the Evil in our Lives. Hence Foolishness is said to be bound up in the Heart of a Child, Prov. 22.15. It is so bound up, that for a while it may not discover it self, yet is in his Heart. See Psal. 58.3. The Wicked are estran­ged from the Womb, they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking Lies: That is, they have a straying Principle as soon as born. Once more, Psal. 51.5. Behold I was shapen in Iniquity, and in Sin did my Mother conceive me. So that by Na­ture we not only want a Title to Heaven, but a Meetness also, Col. 1.12. Giving Thanks unto the Father, who hath made us meet to be Partakers of that Inheritance of the Saints in Light: Implying that by Nature they were unmeet; and if [Page 36]Children are not thus corrupt by Nature, how came they to die, since the Wages of Sin is Death. Now if Death reigned, as the Apostle saith, from Adam to Mo­ses, even over them that had not sinned after the Similitude of Adam's Transgression, (that is, Infants that had not sinned actu­ally) then it must be, because they were Sinners in Adam, and had the Seed of Sin in themselves habitually, for the Guilt of Adam's Act is not transferred to any of the meer Sons of Men, but such as partake of his Image also; and I dare be bold to say (and can abundantly from Scripture prove) that the Seed and Spawn of all our Actual Sins are in our Hearts before we commit one of them; for as in Grace there must first be the Habit, and then the Act; so in Sin, the Heart is first Wicked, then the Life. The Tree is first evil before the Fruit is; so Mat. 12.33,35. Now if the Nature of all is so corrupt, as I have proved, then 'tis im­possible for any thus corrupt to get to Heaven without an inward Change, for what would Heaven be to an unregene­rate Soul? What would the Works of praising God be to one that hates God? Or what would Holy Company be to such [Page 37]as are dead in Trespasses and Sins, and to every good Word and Work reprobate? But least this should not suffice, I shall prove from Scripture, that such cannot get to Heaven in an unchanged State, 1 Cor. 15.50. Now this I say, Brethren, that Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, neither doth Corruption inherit Incorruption. VVhere we must not understand the VVord Flesh Physical­ly, or in Point of Being; for so we believe Christ is now in our Humane Nature in Heaven. VVe believe also the Resurre­ction of the Body, when the Saints shall in their Flesh see God, Job 19.26. But Flesh here must be understood morally as corrupted; as Gal. 1.16. Immediately I conferred not with Flesh and Blood; in which Place he means he did not hearken to the corrupt Reasonings of the Flesh: That this is the meaning, seems clear; for in the foregoing Verse he had been mentioning our Earthly Image, which consists in the Depravity of our Nature, and then concludes, That Flesh and Blood, that is, such as retain that Earthly Image, cannot inherit the Kingdom of God; so Heb. 12.14. Without Holiness no Man shall see God, [...], no one, no Body, as [Page 38]it signifies. Nor is it to be understood of actual Holiness in our Conversation only; for should a Man die the same Moment that he closes with Christ, he shall as surely see God to his Comfort, as if he had liv'd a holy Life never so long, our Title to Heaven arising from our Union to Christ, and not from our Holiness, tho' never so great; nor do his good VVorks so properly render him meet for Heaven, as that Holy Principle, from whence they pro­ceeded: A clear Instance we have in the Thief on the Cross that was converted, and in Heaven in a few Hours. By his embracing of Christ, he came to have a Title to Heaven, and his inward Change of Heart rendred him meet for Heaven, notwithstanding he had no time to spend in a Holy Conversation. From all which it doth appear, that as we are corrupt by Nature, so this Nature, till renewed, can never enter into Heaven; nor do I see what the Anabaptists can say to this, unless they deny the Corruption of our Nature; and I perceive some of them have fled thither for Refuge: But this is so confuted by the former Scriptures, that I judge it needless to add any more; and I cannot but wonder how such as pretend [Page 39]so high an Esteem for plain Scripture, dare cast such Contempt on those many plain Texts I have ci­ted, (and more that I might cite) to prove the Corruption of our Natures, as we come into the VVold. This gives us sad ground to Fear, that what­ever high esteem such may pretend to plain Scripture, when it seems to make for them; yet they prefer their own Fancies before it, when it really makes against them. Thus I hope I have sufficiently proved a necessity for Infants to have Grace, if ever they get to Glory. I come now to the close of my Argument.

Minor Proposition. But some In­fants do get to Heaven. Now I need not spend much time to prove his; for I hope the Anabaptists will not be so uncharitable as to Sentence all In­fants to Eternal Destruction, rather than receive the Truth of the Gospel: And indeed I find some of them so far from denying that some Infants get to Heaven, that they rather believe that none miss of Heaven. But if any of the rest of the Anabaptists should so far differ from their Brethren as to [Page 40]deny it, yet 'tis our comfort the Scripture doth in most express words affirm it, Mat. 19.14. Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven; not that the Kingdom of Heaven consists only of such, but that some such are of that Kingdom. By the Kingdom of Hea­ven, saith Marlorate, we must under­stand the Eternal Felicity of the Elect. Some indeed understand it of the visible Kingdom of Christ on Earth: But such do not understand it so in opposition to their Eternal Felici­ty; and indeed if some of such as are in Christ's Visible Kingdom here on Earth do not get to Heaven, I know not who shall come there, Visible not being opposed to Invisible; but only distinguished from it. So that since some such do get to Heaven (as I have proved) but none get to Heaven with­out Renovation, hence it unavoida­bly follows, some such are renewed; which Renovation takes in the Seeds or Habit of Faith, and all other Graces. And thus have I confirmed my Argu­ment, which I am confident stands so firm on Scripture ground, that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against [Page 41]it. All I shall add shall be to Answer some Objections that may be made by some against it; though indeed the truth is so clear, that Objections are not worthy to be heard, much less to to be answered. But to the End that things may be made plain to the mean­est capacity, and nothing wanting for sa­tisfaction to such as desire it, I proceed.

Object. 1. We see no such Ground to hope such have Grace. Do not we see that oft-times the Children of God­ly Parents prove wicked; which they would not have done, if they had Grace in Infancy, unless they fall from Grace; which we may suppose you do not Believe.

To which I answer, That some Children of Believing Parents do prove Graceless and Wicked, by too sad experience we find true: Nor can we from hence infer, that such fall from Grace; for I know none that hold that all such have Grace, I mean of Unbap­tized Infants; for as to Baptized In­fants, the Papists and Church of Eng­land both hold, That all such have [Page 42]Grace; though for my own part, tho' I hope well of all such as are Bap­tized, de jure, of right; yet to affirm that all such have Grace, I dare not; neither do I think any from Scripture have good ground so to do. Should none have Grace (among the Seed of Believers) but such as Die in Infancy, or who do in time appear Gracious, but know not so exactly the time of their Conversion, who may be suppo­sed to be wrought upon in Infancy, they would amount to a vast number: And perhaps as many by the Rule of Proportion as may be found to have Grace (in the great Day, when all must be weighed in the Ballance of the Sanctuary) in our particular Churches. But if we must not hope of any, because some prove wicked; what shall we say of Adult Professors, who are Members in Churches? Do not many of them prove Hypocrites? Must the Eleven therefore be condem­ned for Hypocrites, because a Judas was among them? Would not this be to Judge before the time? Sure I am, at this rate, we must hope of none, Adult or Infants. But if you say, not­withstanding [Page 43]some professors prove Wicked, yet we are to hope well of others, till such time as their Wicked­ness discovers it self: So say I as to In­fants; though some prove wicked, yet till others appear so, we ought to hope well of them, if we see no­thing that doth cut off our hope; and not so to do must be judged the greatest uncharitableness.

Oject. 2. But Adult Persons make a Profession of Christ, so do not In­fants.

Answ. All their Profession is but the ground of our hope of an inward Change; and was it possible to see the Heart unrenewed: Whatever Pro­fession such a one might make, it would be a Sin to Baptize such a one. So that if we have but good ground to hope they have Faith, be it by Pro­fession, or otherwise it matters not. If the Objecter say, 'tis his bare Professi­on gives a right, then they give away the cause they have so contended for; since Faith and Profession are not only distinct, but separable. If they say, [Page 44]Faith gives them a right, this makes for me; as I have proved: If they say, 'tis Faith as Professed, and no otherways, this is evidenly to lay more stress upon their Profession than Faith; since whate­ver other ground we have to hope they have Faith, yet without a Profession of that Faith, they must not be Baptized.

Object. 3. This makes Baptism a Regenerating Ordinance, which is not a Truth.

Answ. I have reason to think this a meer Cavil, and a wilful Mistake of the Objecter. For my own part, tho' I am for Infant-Baptism (and am ful­ly perswaded from Scripture I have good reason so to be) yet I must again declare, I am far from approving of that Popish Doctrine, that Baptism conferrs Grace from any Vertue in it; though I cannot deny but God may work Grace in some in that Ordinance.

I believe some have Grace that ne­ver were Baptized; and that some are Baptized that never had Grace, both of Adult as well as Infants: Nor doth our practice give the least countenance to believe that this Ordinance Rege­nerates. Nay it seems clearly to hold [Page 45]forth the contrary, since I do not pre­tend to Baptize to the end they may be Regenerated; but in hopes they are already so. There must first be a Right before they partake of the Seal But I expect some should say, to what end should Parents bring their Children to this Ordinance, if they hope they are Regenerated before? Answer, If the Ob­jecter be an Anabaptist, I answer him, to the same end they bring their Adult, whom they own to be Believers; but if of another Judgment, I answer, to the same end Adult Believers come to the Lord's Supper after they are in Christ; and that which will serve for an Answer to the one, may serve as an sufficient Answer to the other. There may be a necessity of doing a thing in order to our avoiding Sin, when there is not a necessity to do the same in order to avoiding of Hell. For instance, A Saint is bound in his own Person to fulfil the Moral Law perfectly, in or­der to his avoiding Sin, but not in or­der to his avoiding Hell: If he was, who then could be saved? And if no other Reason can be given, but be­cause God will have it so, 'tis suffici­ent [Page 46]to justifie our practice: But to this I add, (ex abundanti) that as a grown Person, who hath Grace, stands in need of Prayer, Preaching, and the Lord's Supper, for to strengthen his Grace, they being appointed to that end: So though we were sure Infants had such Faith as we Baptize, yet we ought to Baptize them, for the strengthening of that Faith, and to look on it as our Priviledge as well as Duty.

Object. 4. If we may Baptize In­fants on this ground, then we may Baptize the Infants of Unbelieving Parents; for we have the same ground to hope of them: And further, we find such were Circumcised; but you do not Baptize such, therefore you ought not to Baptize others.

Answ. Though I cannot deny but some such may be Saved, and so conse­quently must have Grace; yet this no way weakens my Argument laid down, as I shall prove by another Argument, thus,—Those to whom God hath made special Promises, of them we have special ground to hope: But the [Page 47]Infant Seed of Believers are such to whom God hath made special Pro­mises; therefore of such we have spe­cial ground to hope. The Major is clear: For though we cannot from hence infallibly conclude the certainty of the Salvation of all such, (the Pro­mise respecting the External, as well as Internal part of the Covenant) yet sure I am such Promises give more ground to hope, than where he hath made none; and for any to deny this, is no bet­ter than to charge God with mocking of his Dear Children; since in their Judgment all the Promises God hath made to their Seed, will not afford sufficient ground so much as to hope concerning their future Happiness. And sure I am, if there is no ground to hope of them, there is none of others; and so all must (in their Judgment) perish.

Minor Proposition. But God hath made special Promises to the Seed of Believers. First, He hath made Pro­mises unto such, Gen. 17.7,8. And I will establish my Covenant between thee and me, and thy Seed after thee in [Page 48]their Generations, for an Everlasting Covenant, to be a God to thee, and thy Seed after thee. So Acts 2.39. For the Promise is to you and to your Children, &c. Which Promise being renewed in the New Testament, and so many hundred Years after it was gi­ven to Abraham, proves it was no bare Promise of the Land of Canaan, as some vainly suppose. Secondly, I say, special Promises; I mean such as are not made in common to the Seed of Unbelievers; and I challenge any to shew me one such promise made to them. For though I cannot deny but some such may be Saved; yet I see no more ground to hope of such dying in Infancy, than of the Infants of Hea­thens; there being no more Promise to the former than the latter, according to the best of my knowledge, in Scrip­ture. Nor can we conclude, (as was Objected) that because the Seed of Unbelievers as well as Believers were Circumcised, (suppose it so); that therefore the Seed of all, both Unbelie­vers as well as Believers, must be Bap­tized, no more than we can conclude, that 'tis lawful for Women to Bap­tize, [Page 49]because Zipporah Circumcised her Son. There was no fixed Officer in the Jewish Church (as Mr. Strong hath observed) to administer that Or­dinance; and then no wonder if there was some Male-administration as to the Subject: But suppose it was the Will of God it should be so in that Day, it doth not follow it must be so now: Though Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision, for the same God that had power to Change the Seal, may, if he will, Change or Limit the Subject also. But is Objected by some, That the Promises were not made to Abraham's Natural Seed, but Spiritual. For 'tis said, Gal. 3.29. If ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham 's Seed, and Heirs according to Promise. And from hence conclude, there is no ground to Baptize the Natural Seed of Believers as Believers; because the Promise is not made to them as Natu­ral Seed. To which I Answer, Had this Objection been brought against the Corrupt Practice of such as Baptize the Infants of such Parents as are open­ly Prophane (for 'tis evident Circum­cision was first instituted to Believing [Page 50] Abraham) I think it would have been unanswerable, because there is nothing of Christ appears in such Parents; no, not so much as a Profession; and how such Infants can be supposed to stand in the Place, or partake of the Privi­ledges of Abraham, unless one of their Parents stood in Abraham's room, I see not. But since the Objection is made against such as only Baptize such as have Believing Parents, I must fur­ther Answer, The forecited Scripture seems not in the least to oppose the Truth I have laid down; as will ap­pear, if we consider the Apostle is there speaking to Adult Gentiles; and doth assure them, that though they were not the Natural Seed of Abra­ham, and so could not on that account lay claim to the Promise, either to themselves or Children, as they might have done had they been so; and their Conversations had been becoming the the Gospel of Christ, yet by Virtue of their Relation to Christ, or their be­lieving in Christ, (though not of Abra­ham's Natural Seed) they shall par­take of Abraham's Priviledges: And as at the first, the Promise was made [Page 51]to Abraham and his Seed, so when the Gentiles came to initiate the Faith of Abraham, the Promise should be to them and their Seed, as it was to Abraham. Now the Promise at first reached unto Abraham's Natural Seed, as is clear from Gen. 17.7,8,9,10. Now we cannot suppose the Seal to be applied to any but such as the Pro­mise was made to. But such as were Eight Days Old were Circumcised; therefore to such the Promise was made: For though I grant that all in Abraham's House were Circumcised, both Old and Young; the Adult being such, as we may suppose, were at least Professors: For 'tis said of Abra­ham, he would teach his House; yet it is evident none were excepted, if but Eight Days old. So that this Text strongly confirms my Argument; for if upon our Believing we come to be Abraham's Seed, and to partake of his Blessedness, as in Gal. 3.9. then it follows by an undeniable consequence, that as the Promise at first was made to Believing Abraham, and his Natu­ral Seed, so it must he continued to us Believers, and our Seed; or else we [Page 52]are not Blessed as Abraham; for it was no small part of his Blessedness that the Promise extended to his Seed. But to put all out of doubt, if the Promise was made to a Spiritual Seed, then it must be to such as we are sure are Spiritual, or to such as we have good ground to hope are so. If you say the former, then we must Baptize none, either Old or Young; because (as I have proved) we can-never infallibly tell who are Spiritual, it being only proper to God, who is the Father of Spirits, to know that: But if you say the latter; that is, such as we have good ground to hope are Spiritual, then the Infant Seed of Be­lievers must come in; since I hope I have sufficiently proved we have good ground to hope such are inwardly re­newed; and if such as are renewed and born again by the Spirit, and have the Image of God Engraven on their Hearts, may not be reckoned for a Spiritual Seed, I know not who must. So that till my former Argument is overthrown concerning the necessity for Infants to be Regenerated, and the good ground we have to hope some are so on the account of the Promises made to them; [Page 53]I say, till then all that is here added is of no Force.

Object. 5. But we have no Instance in Scripture of any Infants ever Bapti­zed; therefore we have ground to think such ought not to be Baptized, for we cannot suppose the Apostles were wanting in their Duty in that Case.

To which I answer, Tho' we have no express Instance of any Infants Bap­tized, yet we have some Texts, that will, I conceive, infallibly prove ei­ther that some then were Baptized, or at least now ought to be Baptized. 'Tis said of the Jaylor, Acts 16.33. He was Baptized, he and all his straight­way. Now we have good Ground to believe, that all his takes in Children, and that some of these all were little Children, or at least so small, as not to be able to make a Profession of their Faith; but suppose they were able, yet there is no express mention made that they did so before they were Baptized. 'Tis said, indeed he spake to them the Word of the Lord; [Page 54]but we cannot from thence conclude, they that heard believed; 'tis said in­deed, after that he rejoiced, believing in God with all his House, but this was after he and all his were Bapti­zed. But there is one Text more that will be as a sharp two-edged Sword, which will wound the Anabaptists, let them defend themselves with all the Subtilty they can. Acts 16.15. of Lydia, And when she was Baptized, and her Houshold, &c. Now the En­quiry is, who this Houshold were? But let them be who they will, yet the Anabaptist will not reckon little Children among them, because none such are mention'd; but if so, then be­cause neither Husband, Servant, nor Kindred, are mentioned, therefore there was none. And thus the Anabaptists have (by an Art never before heard of) reduced this Houshold to just no Body but Lydia, and her self; but I will sup­pose (and I can do no other) that in this Houshold there were more than Lydia. And, First, I will suppose some of them Children, as I have good ground to do, from the use of the Word in Scripture; and I find some of [Page 55]the Anabaptists do not deny this, on­ly say Lydia was too old to have young Children. Now if there was any young Children in this Houshold, as we have ground to suppose, then here we have an Instance of such Baptized; but I will suppose, those Children of Lydia's, as the Anabaptists affirm to be grown up; then I ask by what Claim they were Baptized? Now that her Hous­hold were Baptized, the Word expres­ly affirms; if they say, as they were Professors, I deny that, and it lyes on them to prove it; there is not one Word of their believing, or any of them, ei­ther before or after they were Bapti­zed; and had they made any Profes­sion, we have ground to think some mention would have been made of it; but since the Scripture is silent, tho' the Anabaptists should never so boldly affirm it, yet I am confident scarce a­ny, but those of their own Perswasion, will in the least regard what they say. If they were Baptized, as being rela­ted to Lydia, tho' they made no Pro­fession themselves, then this over­throws the Practice of the Anabaptists; since here are some Baptized that made [Page 56]no Profession of their Faith; and also it gives us the Cause, by an undenia­ble Conclusion; for if such Children as are Adult, but no Professors, yet have a Right to Baptism on the Account of their Relation to a Parent that did be­lieve; then it follows, that what be­longs to any Child, meerly as the Child of such a Parent, belongs to all the Children of the same a Parent: But it may be some may say this Houshold were all Servants; but if they were, yet here is not a Word of their Faith or Profession: And then I conclude, that if Lydia's Servants were Baptized, by Vertue of that Relation to Lydia, much more should her Children be Baptized, standing in a nearer Relation to her. Thus I have shown you there are some Texts that afford us good ground to think some Infants or little Children were Baptized; but yet if there were not any such therein contained, yet the same Scriptures do afford undeniable Consequences, that some Infants have a Right to Baptism, as I have proved at large. But suppose no Instance in Scripture could be given of an Infant Baptized, or any thing like it; yet if [Page 57]I prove from Scripture they ought to be, it is a sufficient Warrant for us so to do; and I conceive I shall extort a Consent to this from my Brethren from this following Consideration, That there was a time when no Instance could be produced of any Adult that had been Baptized; I mean, in its first Institution; as Abraham could produce no Instance of any that had been Cir­cumcised. Now then according to this Rule none must be Circumcised or Baptized, because no Instance could then be produced of any that had; but you must say, Tho' no Instance could be gi­ven of any Adult that had been Bapti­zed, yet when God made it known to be his Will, that so it should be, it was sufficient to justifie their Practice in so doing. So say I as to Infants, tho' no Instance could be given of any Infant that had been Baptized, yet if God hath made it known to us in his Word, such ought to be, it is a sufficient War­rant to us so to do; and whether I have proved some Infants Right to Bap­tism from Scripture, I leave it unto any Understanding, Impartial, and Unpre­judiced Reader to judge; and I must [Page 58]tell you, if I have proved their Right to this Ordinance, it is far more than if I could produce an Instance, or ma­ny Instances, of such as had; for Right will be Right; but 'tis possible the best of Men (being imperfect) may fail as to some particular Fact. Hence we say, a facto ad jus non valet Argumen­tum; that is, we cannot from the Fact conclude the Right of the thing. We are not to imitate David in his Adulte­ry, nor Peter in his denying Christ, tho' the one was a Prophet, and the o­ther an Apostle. For tho' it cannot be denied that they did so, yet the Scri­pture proves they ought not to have done so; and if the Apostles in Bapti­zing of Adult, and not Baptizing In­fants, (suppose it to be so) did not do the former, and omit doing the latter, upon the Account of the Right the one had, and want of a Right to the other, tho' you could produce a Thousand Instances, we are no more bound to imitate them, than to imitate David in his Adultery, or Peter in Cursing and Swearing; because we are not to live by Examples, but Laws; nay, as notwithstanding such sad Instances [Page 59]in Scripture, we have Liberty, and are bound (not only not to imitate them, but) to act contrary thereunto; so could you prove, that the Apostles ne­ver Baptized one Infant; yet if I can prove from Scripture, (as I hope I have) they ought to be Baptized, we ought in this to act contrary to their Practice, and not make one Sin an In­let into another; since the Right of the thing is more than if you could produce as many Instances as there are Stars in the Firmament without this Right. Let not any think I do this to reflect on the Practice of the Blessed Apostles, God forbid; for I am confi­dent they were not wanting in the due Administration of any Ordinance in God's House; but I do it to shew, that the Right of this Ordinance is more than barely the Action; and that you may see how unreasonable it seems in the Anabaptists to make such a noise about one Infant Baptized, when we can produce that which is more than a Thousand Instances, simply considered; the Apostles did first consider their Right before they Baptized any.

[Page 60] Obj. 6. But we find no Command in Scripture to Baptize such, and so have good ground to believe it is not the Mind of God such should be Baptized.

A. There is no need of a Positive Command, or an Express Scripture, in so many plain Words to affirm a thing, in order to the proving a Duty or Truth. We have a Matter of as great Concern, as the Baptism of Old or Young, proved by Christ himself by a bare Consequence, and that is the Resurrection. Mat. 22.31,32. But as touching the Resurrection of the Dead, have ye not read that which was spoken to you of God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob: God is not the God of the Dead, but of the Living. This Scripture he cites from Ex. 3.6. to prove the Resurrection, and yet not one Word of the Resurre­ction mentioned in it, but proves it by Consequence thus; That because God is the God of Abraham, but not the God of the Dead; therefore Abra­ham [Page 61]must live, not only in his Soul, but the Body, they both making up but the whole of Abraham. And if nothing must be received as a Truth, but what we have a plain Scripture for in so many Words, how will my Friends, the Anabaptists, prove, That the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to any of us, since (tho' we have Scri­ptures that will prove it as to the Sub­stance, of it yet) I know no Scripture, which in so many plain Words doth affirm it, but perhaps some of the A­nabaptists will rather reject this as a Truth, than admit of Infant Baptism; and as to Doctrines, so in Point of Du­ty. There is no Necessity of an ex­press Command to make it a Duty; to illustrate this, if God command us to be Charitable to poor Saints, tho' the Command makes no mention of any expresly by Name, yet when we see such in Wants, we are bound to relieve them, and cannot omit it, (if able) without Sin; it will not excuse us to say, I am not commanded to re­lieve such by Name; so tho' Sinners are not called by Name to come to Christ, 'tis their Duty to come; so [Page 62]when God commands us to Baptize all such as we have good ground to hope are Believers, if some Infants are found in that number, we are as much bound to Baptize them as any others, as if mentioned by Name. God once commanded Circumcision to the Jews and their Infant Seed; but if in the New Testament he hath declared (as I have shown) that we come in the Jews room, and that Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision, that Com­mand of Circumcising Infants doth as much enjoin the Baptizing of Infants: And no wonder Infants are not menti­oned expresly in the New Testament, as the Subjects of Baptism; for since Baptism comes in the room of Cir­cumcision, the Subjects of that Ordi­nance were so well known, they need­ed not to be again mentioned; if an express Command is so necessary, I would know what Command the A­nabaptists can produce (or instance ei­ther) for to Baptize by Dipping. I am certain they can produce no such Command in Scripture; but they will reply, Tho' they have neither Precept or President, yet because the Word [Page 63]signifies so, therefore they do it so, say I, (to say nothing now, how variously that Word is used) as to Baptizing In­fants. Tho' we have no express Pre­cept in so many Words or President, yet because we have many Words, and great part of some Chapters too in Scripture, that signifie to us that some Infants have been, and ought to be Baptized, therefore I do it; and why Significations and Meanings in Scri­pture may not be allowed to us as well as them, I see not.

And thus, having produced plain Scripture for Infant Baptism, (since nothing less will do) or at least I con­ceive as plain as can be produced to Baptize Adult, I shall conclude this Point (touching the Subject) with a reasonable Request to my Christian Friend the Anabaptists, which is, that either they would receive the Do­ctrine laid down, or give some plain Scripture, to prove something of what I have laid down to be falfe; and if they will not comply with my Re­quest, that which I have often feared will too evidently appear to be a Truth, [Page 64]that it is Love to a Party (more than to the Truth) that hath made them so earnestly contend; I have often obser­ved, 'tis no easie Matter to convince some Men of Truth; when they have been accustomed to Error, they scorn to be informed by others; the Pride of their Hearts makes them shut their Eyes, that they will not see; (and we say none are so blind as they that will not see) and if this Spirit, or Igno­rance, do not prevail with my Reader, I hope he and I shall be both of one Mind for the time to come, which will be the Joy of my Heart; yet not so much, that I have gained the Cause I have been contending for, as that this unhappy Controversie is like to be ended, and my Friends, the Anabap­tists, brought to the Acknowledgment of the Truth, as it is in Jesus.

Having finished my Discourse as to the Subject of Baptism, I designed at first to proceed no further, but to the end that nothing may be wanting, for the full Satisfaction of such as desire it, about the whole of Baptism, I shall make some brief Enquiry as to [Page 65]the manner how this Ordinance ought to be Administred, whether by Dipping only, or otherwise; for I never expect that the Anabaptists should resignup their be­loved Errors, so long as they have any thing which looks like a Strong Hold to shelter them: And therefore knowing how earnestly they contend about the Manner how, as well as the Subject who, I shall a little insist on that al­so. And though perhaps my Reader may cry Victory before he read any further, yet I would desire him to for­bear Boasting, at least till he put off the Harness; lest all that hear him in the end Laugh at him. Now the Grand Plea of the Anabaptists for Dipping is, the word in the Original signifies so: But what if the only Re­ply to them in this Case, should be the same they give to us in other Cases? Give me a plain Scripture, since, Significations, and doubtful Mean­ings, are of no force with them: But re­ferring my Reader to the late Portsmouth Disputation about the Signification of the word, by Mr. Chandler, &c. not being willing to trouble my Reader with any thing of this Nature in my [Page 66]Book which he may read in another: I shall keep to plain Scripture, since that is most like to convince the com­mon sort of Readers, and shall con­sider, if the Greek word [...] as it is used by Christ and his Apostles, (whom we must suppose well knew how to use proper words to express their mean­ing) can with any shew of reason al­ways signifies Dipping under Water; but to prevent all mistakes, (and that the difference may not be by any sup­posed to be greater than it is) if it be enquired, whether it may not in some case be lawful to Baptize by Dipping? I grant it may; but the Question is, whether we may not as lawfully Bap­tize some other way? This the Anabap­tists deny, and I affirm; and hope I shall prove by these following Texts, Acts 1.5. John Baptized with Wa­ter. Now, while 'tis said with Water, not in Water, it seems to im­ply he did not Dip them, only made use of Water in that Ordinance; for how improper would it be to say, I Dipped such a thing with Water? But not at all to say I wash'd, such a thing with Water, when we only sprinkle it, [Page 67]or throw Water upon it: See another Text, Mark 7.4. And when they come from the Market, unless they wash they Eat not. Those words, unless they wash, are [...], unless they Bap­tize; and the Words of Tables in the end of the Verse is, [...] of Beds: Now it is scarce consistent with Rea­son to suppose that they should so fre­quently dip their Beds: If they did, we may suppose them very unfit to lye on for some time. The Pharisees had such a proud conceit of themselves, that they thought if they did but deal with others they are defiled by so doing; and therefore after they came from the Market, they were to wash their Hands with which they had delivered any thing to, or received any thing from others; but that they should on all such occasi­ons Dip themselves wholly under Wa­ter, seems to be both incredible and ridiculous; and yet this is in the Ori­ginal called a Baptizing, as you have heard. All I have found answered to this, is, that in washing they Dipped their Hands, and so it was Dipping still, though not the whole Body: To which I answer, In washing our Hands [Page 68]we are not wont to Dip them, unless some part of them: So that all they can from hence inferr, is, that some little part of the Body ought to be Dip­ped in Baptism, as much as the Hands or Fingers end; why then do the Ana­baptists impose Dipping the whole Bo­dy, and hazard the Life by so doing, when it might as well be some little Part of the Body only? If they love Peace, why do they not shew them­selves willing to comply with us as far as they can with a good Conscience, since they are forced from this Scrip­ture to own there is no necessity from the signification of the Word, to Dip or Plung the whole Body under Wa­ter.

Another Text to be considered, is 1 Cor. 10.2. And where all Baptized in­to Moses in the Clouds, and in the Sea. But can we suppose they were dipped in the Cloud? On the other hand, doth not the falling of the Rain from a Cloud most exactly answer to our manner of Baptizing? The chief Reply I have met with to this, is, That if the Cloud rained on them while they were going [Page 69]through the Sea, then they could not be said to go through on dry Ground, as the Text affirms. To which I An­swer, They that are so careful of the Sense of the Text in one thing, should also of another; for as it is said, They went through on dry Ground; so it is said, They were Baptized in the Cloud; and sure it must mean, some Water came from the Cloud, either to plunge them, or to wash them, or else how could it be called Baptism? Can any be Baptized without Water? I doubt not but if this Scripture would but have countenanced Dipping, as well as some other Washing, the Anabap­tists would never have stood on the dry Ground. But what a poor Reply is this, That the Rain could not fall on them; because 'tis said, They went on dry Ground? As if that Migh­ty God who made a Way for them through the Deep, that the Wa­ter (even to a Miracle) stood as a Wall to defend them, could not cause also that the Ground should be dry, notwithstanding some shower might Fall. As if he that dried up the Ocean, could not also dry up [Page 70]some Drops. Suppose the Rain from the Cloud did fall on the Ground, might they notwithstanding go on dry Ground? Yes sure, without a Miracle: We read Gen. 8.14. The Earth was Dried; where the Word Dry, is op­posed to the Flood, and not to all Moi­sture; for it is scarce credible, in an ordinary Way, that after the Earth had been so long soaked by such an un­heard of Flood, it should within so few Days be so dried, that it should not have so much Moisture as a small shower of Rain might occasion. When 'tis said the Earth was dryed, it shews that the Flood was so far gone that they might walk upon it. So the Israelites, though some Rain might fall on them, yet might pro­perly be said to go on dry Ground; be­cause no doubt but the dry Ground is opposed to the Sea, that was wont to overflow that place.

See what poor shifts the Ablest of the Anabaptists are forced to make use of to support their tottering Cause: Sure I am, it gives any rational Man cause to suppose they are at a loss, [Page 71]when they can make no better a Reply than thus: See on what slender Grounds they can oppose the plainest Scripture when it makes against them; as if they were resolved to follow their own Fan­cies, let the Scripture say what it will. Thus you see the Word will justifie our way of Baptizing; and if so, then the Anabaptists can never justifie their Separation from us, or Calum­nies against us on that Acount: But because there are some Scriptures which are urged as presidents of Per­sons Baptized by Dipping, I shall therefore weigh them in the Ballance, and see if they are not wanting, to that End for which they are brought. The first Text I shall mention is Rom. 6.4. where we are said to be buried with Christ in Baptism; and so they conclude, that as Persons when Buried are put under the Earth, so when Per­sons are Baptized, they should be put wholly under the Water. But here they would do well to consider this is but a Metaphor; and 'tis a known Maxim, Similitudes will not run on all four; but if this Metaphor must hold good in all things, then let the Anabaptists [Page 72]be careful that the Party Baptized lye as long under the Water, as the Dead do under the Earth, before they Rise again; but if you say the comparison will not hold good in that, then by your own Confession not in all; and so proves nothing to the point: But if a Bu­rial may serve to set forth Baptism, this makes for us; for as in Burying a Per­son, they throw the Earth upon him; so we in Baptism throw the Water on the Party Baptized. Another Text is, Acts 8.38. And they went both down into the Water; and so draw a Con­clusion, (such a one as it is) that be­cause he went down, therefore he was Dipped: But here I must remind my Friends this is not a plain Scrip­ture to prove Dipping; nor will it afford any more than a poor conse­quence, (such as I am sure they would reject with the greatest scorn and de­rision, if brought against them) to con­clude, because one went into the Water, therefore under the Water with their whole Bodies, when they might as truly be said to go into the Water, if their Feet were but in [...] as if under the Water with their whole Body; [Page 73]and no wonder that 'tis said, they went down, since Water usually lyes in some bottom; and they that will have it, must go down for it. But now that this going down was not a Dipping, is so clear even from the Text it self, that all that do not wilfully shut their Eyes, must needs see it. 'Tis said, They went both down; and what is said of the one is (in that respect) said of the other. So that if from hence it can be proved that the Eunuch was Dipped, it proves that Philip was Dipped also: From whence I frame an unanswerable Argument from the Words, that the Eunuch was not Dipped. Thus the Eunuch went down no more under Water than Phi­lip: But Philip was not Dipped, there­fore not the Eunuch. The Major is clear, for 'tis said, both went down; and if any Scripture can be produced to prove the Eunuch went lower into the Water than Philip, I will believe it: But sure I am this Text is silent, nay, it seems to speak the contrary; for 'tis said, both went down; which Words seem to imply, both went equally down. The Minor I conceive [Page 74]will by most readily be granted, that Philip was not Dipped: And before I would have the Anabaptists believe he was, I desire them to prove it; but though I doubt not but they can pro­duce many Instances of Baptized Per­sons Dipped among themselves; yet I am ready to believe should they search the World through, they could not produce one instance of an Administra­tor Dipped. If they think Philip was Dipped, why do not they then imi­tate him? That the Baptizer, as well as Baptized are Dipped. But do they thus? No, they bind heavy Burthens to lay on others Shoulders, but care not for bearing any part themselves. But I wonder how such as pretend to walk so exactly by Scripture Rule, dare thus mangle it, while they force it to speak in what Langnage they would have it; while they readily embrace what of it seems to make for them, and in the mean time trample under Foot what doth really make against them. They own that Philip was not Dipped: The Text says not one word of the Eunuch's going lower than he, into the Water, but much rather proves the contrary; [Page 75]and yet notwithstanding all that this, Scripture speaks against it. Such is the Love of the Anabaptists to Dipping, that the poor Eunuch, will he, nill he, down under VVater he must go, what­ever becomes of him. He went down into the Water for his own Profit and Pleasure, and they will force him down under the Water for theirs; but I'll soon bring him up again, if they will but have Patience to stand by till I open another Word in that Text. 'Tis said, Both went down. Mind, both were active in going down; from whence I form an Argument to prove this going down was not Dipp [...]g in Baptism; thus in Baptism the [...]a [...]y Baptized is passive; but in this the Eunuch was not passive; therefore in that Action of going down [...] was not Baptized: So that in Baptism the Party to be baptized is passive. I need not stand to prove, since I know none that do affirm that a Persen may in Baptism Dip himself: And if going down is not an Action, I know not what is; so that instead of Pr [...]ng from this Text that the Eunuch was Dipped, they have, I am sure, Plung­ed [Page 76]themselves deep enough into an Ocean of Nonsense, which perhaps may do them more harm (if they have not a care of themselves) than ever the Eunuch's going down is like to do them good. But now if we take this Text in its Genuine Sense; it seems to be this, That they both went down into the VVater, to the end that Philip might Baptize the Eunuch, but in what manner this Scripture is silent; but it seems most likely by throwing some Water upon him, as we do on those whom we Baptize: And now I leave it to my Reader to judge, whe­ther, this Text (they have so gloried in) will so infallibly prove Dipping; or ra­ther, whether it will not infallibly prove the contrary: But if this is not sufficient to prove it, perhaps some other may; and therefore I come to consider of the next, that so all their Ministers may be heard speak before their Cause is lost.

Another Text, much urged, to prove a Necessity of Dipping, is Mat. 3.16. And Jesus, when he was Baptized, went up straightway out of the Water; [Page 77]and so conclude, that because he went up, therefore he had been wholly un­der Water. But sure I am, if we ob­serve the Words, we shall see but lit­tle, if any Cause, to suppose, that in that coming up, it was a rising from under Water in Baptism; for 'tis said he went up, was still active. 'Tis not said he was taken up; and I have shewn you the Person is Passive in Baptism; and further, 'tis observable, 'tis said he went up when he was Ba­ptized: His going up was an After-Act; now the Anabaptist cannot deny but the coming up out of the Water, as well as going down into it, is a Part of Baptism; for in that Text they so urge; where it is said, We are bu­ried with him in Baptism. Then he mentions Christ's rising again: If then his going up was after Baptism, (as saith the Text) then it can never prove a Necessity for us to go down in Ba­ptism; it seems clear to me, that this going up was not a rising up from un­der the Water, but a going up from the Water, after he had been Bapti­zed; for we cannot suppose he could [Page 78]live always there; but how he was Baptized before he came up, we know not; if it was by Dipping, this Text will not prove it, no, not by Conse­quence. The last Text I shall menti­on, is John 3.23. And John also was Baptizing in Enon, for there was much Water there; and conclude, because there was much Water, therefore they were Dipped; but still I find my Friends, the Anabaptists, harping on the same String, (tho' exceedingly out of Tune) as if they were resolved to build their Faith on bare Consequences; a pretty Inference, there was much Water, therefore they were dipped; what may not a Man conclude at this rate? Even what he will, from what he will; as if it was not possible for to Dip our Hand where there is much Water, unless we tumble in over Head and Ears. If I cannot come where much Water is, unless I am dipped, I shall be more aware of it for the time to come; may not a Man as well conclude, be­cause he saw one lighting of a Candle at a good Fire, therefore he is undoubtedly burnt to Ashes? I think he may as well [Page 79]so conclude, and better, since it is cer­tain the Fire was hot enough to burn the one, if he went into it; but it may on good ground be question'd, whether that Water was deep enough to dip the other, had he gone into that. For tho' 'tis said there was much Water there, yet it is most certain, that Water which was counted much with them, would be counted but little with us; for 'tis reported by such as give us the best Account of those Countries, that Water is so scarce in those Parts, that a Man may go Seven Days Journey sometimes before he finds Water enough to drink; and therefore, al­most to a Miracle, those Inhabitants are able to live with little or no Drink: And sure I am, our late Wri­ters on this Subject have given good ground to believe, that Water was not so much as the Anabaptists suppose it to be. But if it was Deep enough to Dip, yet here is no mention made, that they were so; and our Enquiry is not, whether they might possibly have been Dipped, but whether they were so; and therefore till this or [Page 80]some other Scripture speaks more plainly of this Matter, I would de­sire the Anabaptists to be silent con­cerning it. All that this Text proves, is, that much Water was there, but how much they made use of in Ba­ptism, it mentions nothing of that.

And now I have consider'd such Texts as seem to make for Dipping, I desire my Reader to consider well of two Texts that seem to make a­gainst it, that so we may see how far the Scripture doth prove an ab­solute Necessity for Dipping in Ba­ptism: One is, Acts 16.33. And he took them the same Hour of the Night, (that is, at Midnight, Ver. 25.) and was Baptized, he and all his straight­way: For tho' we cannot infallibly conclude they were not Dipped, be­cause it might be possible; yet sure I am we may as well conclude from hence they were not Dipped, as they could conclude they were, because there was much VVater there. 'Tis said, at Midnight, he and all his were Baptized; now we cannot well [Page 81]suppose, that they should rise, and be plung'd in a River at Midnight. But suppose they were willing, yet (since Water was so scarce, as I have hin­ted) it may justly be questioned, whe­ther there was VVater enough near at Hand to Dip, for we cannot suppose them to go far at Midnight to seek for such a VVater; but there is one Text more, which seems as if it were given on Purpose to confute the Ne­cessity of Dipping, in Acts 8.36. See here is Water, what hinders me that I may not be Baptized? Observe he doth not say, here is deep VVater, or much VVater, but only VVater; supposing, that if there was but Wa­ter, be it more or less, there could be no Hindrance, why he should not be Baptized, on that Account, as to the Element. Had an Anabaptist been there, no doubt but he should have had a sharp Rebuke for his Ignorance, thus: VVhat hinders? VVhy, 'tis not deep enough; but Philip never in the least opposes him, but seems rather to answer by way of Concession, If thou believest, thou may'st; as if he [Page 82]had said, True indeed, if there is but VVater, there can be no Hindrance on that Account. But some may say, This was a deep VVater of which he spake. Answer, I desire the Ana­baptists to prove that. But suppose it was so, yet here is no mention made of that, as not at all material to his present Purpose. Now the Eunuch no doubt being inform'd by Philip, as well touching the Manner of the Or­dinance, as the Necessity of it, would in all Probability (had Dipping been the only way) have said, See, here is VVater enough to be Baptized in; but since he only mentions VVater, and Philip seems to consent to him, I frame an Argument thus; If nothing can hinder a Person being Baptized (as to the Element) where there is Water, then Dipping is not absolutely necessary; but nothing can hinder where there is Water, therefore Dip­ping is not absolutely necessary; the major is most evident, for there may be Water where there is not enough to Dip any one in. The minor is clear from express Scripture; See here is [Page 83]Water, what hinders? &c. Clearly holding forth, that the not being deep enough to Dip in, could not hinder; for tho' it is by way of Interrogation, yet it carries in it the Force of an Affir­mation. So that tho' we see from hence some Water is necessary, yet this Scripture gives us not the least Countenance to believe, or think, that much Water is necessary; but doth in Words next to most express Terms prove the contrary unto us.

Thus, I hope, I have not only pro­ved from Scripture, that some In­fants have a Right to Baptism, but also have given good Proof, that our Way of Baptizing, by throwing or pouring Water upon the Face, is ac­cording to the Mind of God; or at least have given as good Proof for that, as can be given for Dipping, and better; and since the Scripture doth as well approve (to say no more) of our Way of Baptizing as of Dip­ping, doth not the Law of God and Nature direct and excite us to use that Way, which may be least hurt­ful [Page 84]to our Bodies? For if God give us but equal Liberty to Baptize, by Dipping, or some other more safe Way, we ought to avoid Dipping, (especially in our cold Climate) since we cannot Dip in the Winter Season, especially without endanger­ing our Lives; so that of Necessity the Ordinance must sometimes be long deferred, and I am sure we have no President for that. Lydia and her Houshold, the Jaylor and all his, were immediately Baptized, when those two believed; but now if we were to imitate them (and should Baptize, by Dipping) we must ex­treamly hazard the Lives, even of A­dult in the Winter; and whether of these three we should chuse, to Ba­ptize by throwing Water on the Face, since the Word of God ap­proves that Way as well as any other, or Dip them in the Winter Season, (when we have no express Precept, or President in Scripture so to do) and so endanger the Life, or sinfully to deferr the Ordinance, I leave it to you to judge; by long deferring the [Page 85]Ordinance, we certainly Sin, by Dip­ping or Plunging the Party under Wa­ter, may, under some Circumstances, be in Danger to commit Sin (to say no more) but to Baptize, by pouring on of Water, carries no Appearance of Evil in it.

I have heretofore, for some time, preached occasionally in Burnham, in the Hundreds of Essex, where there were many Anabaptists, (tho' at great Variance among themselves, one Par­ty most vehemently accusing another, because one Party Baptized any that were Adult, if they desired it, whe­ther they were Believers or not; by reason of which, they, in a small Village, set up Meeting against Mee­ting, whereby I see they are fallible in some things, and so may be in o­thers) and there I was informed by one that well knew it, that some Women being perswaded to be Dip­ped soon after Childbearing, were immediately taken ill, and never re­covered.

[Page 86]I hope I have said enough as to the manner how this Ordinance may and ought, under our Circumstances, to be administred, and now desire my Christian Friends, the Anabaptists, to prove, that the Word is never used to any other End, than to signifie Dip­ping or Plunging the whole Body under Water; or because they went down into the Water, or were where much VVater was, that therefore of Necessity they must be dipped; but if none of these can be proved, (as I am most certain they cannot) I hope they will no more contend about this Point, but will see it their Duty to comply with us in our way of Bapti­zing, since they cannot thus hazard their Lives, by Dipping, without tempting of God; since we may as lawfully use some other way, less dangerous to the Body. But if I can­not prevail in this, (yet since we have so much to say, in Vindication of our Practice) I hope they will suspend their Uncharitable Censures, which I find them so prone unto; may I judge [Page 87]of some Mens Spirits by their Wri­tings; the Poyson of Asps seems to be under their Tongue. 'Tis not long since I saw a Book put out by one of the most eminent of the Anabaptists; who writing against one of ours, who for Piety, Gravity, and Ministerial Ability, deserved to be more Honour­ably treated by him, (however in that Point differing from him); and in that he charges his Antagonist with Railery and Unbecoming Language, telling him how unlike such a Spirit is to do good in Controverted Points; and Pro­mises by the Grace of God to discover no such Spirit in his Writing against him. But this Gentleman had either a Bad Head, or a Malicious Revenge­ful Heart, for within a few Pages, in­stead of Confusing him, (which he hath discovered himself in the Judg­ment of most to be unable to do) he falls into such Scurrilous, Filthy, Abo­minable Language, as for modesty sake I omit, rendring much more of that Nature than ever he had received. From whence I have cause to fear that Gentleman was not much influenced by [Page 88]the Grace of God, while he no sooner scarce resolves, by God's Grace, against a known Sin, which he pretends to abhor, but commits it again and again deliberately, and seemingly with the greatest delight; and rather than conceal his Wit in making a Jest, will commit a Sin to the Dishonour of God, and Wrong of his own Soul. It would have been well for that Gentle­man if he had never Promised by God's Grace, unless he had had more Grace to perform his Promise; while he, like that Disobedient Son, said, I go, but went not; it will be well for him, if such as are no more esteemed by him than Publicans, do not get into the Kingdom of God before him. I hope my Wri­ting doth not in the least savour of such a Spirit, and therefore desire my Friends, the Anabaptists, impartially to weigh what I have laid down; and if it will not hold weight in the Bal­lance of the Sanctuary, reject it; if it doth, let it not be rejected because of the weakness or unworthiness of the In­strument; but rather let it be received because it is the Mind of God. If you [Page 89]receive Light into any Truth herein, bless God for it: But if through my weakness I have laid down any thing Erroneous, then I desire that in as mild a Spirit they confute me with solid Arguments from Scripture; which Confutation shall not break my Head, or inrage my Heart, nor I hope, cause me to speak unadvisedly with my Tongue, but shall be as a precious Oint­ment to me. I long to see more clear­ly into the Truth (acknowledging I know but in part, and so can but Pro­phecy in part); and if God will make use of an Anabaptist to inform me, to the end I may know the Ways and Truths of God more perfectly, I hope I shall rejoice. I must confess, in the read­ing of some Authors of the Anabaptist Perswasion, I have been so far from be­ing convinced that I am in an Error, that I am the more confirmed in my present Sentiments, while I find that in their Endeavours to confute us, they wrest the Scripture, and most grosly abuse Authors they cite for them. Sometime since I read an Author on this Subject, supposed to be Mr. [Page 90] Danvers, whom upon Examination I find dexterous at abusing Authors, as if he was resolved to confirm his Opi­nion from Antiquity, per fas aut nefas, right or wrong; he there cites Calvin against Infant-Baptism, (I had almost said Calvin against himself) on his Exposition on Mat. 3.6. thus, That Men may rightly offer themselves in Baptism; Confession of Sins is requi­red, otherwise the whole Action would be nothing else but sport: But leaves out his words immediately fol­lowing, (no doubt on purpose, know­ing otherwise his Cause had been be­trayed, and his abuse of that worthy Author discovered) his Words are these, Porro notandum est de Adultis hic verba fieri; that is, Let it be no­ted, I am speaking here concerning Adult: And who differs from him in this? Not I. But as to Infant-Bap­tism, I could weary my reader to cite passages to that purpose; especially out of his common places; but his Judgment is so well known, I may spare my Labour: Had this Author had as much Honesty as Learning, I [Page 91]am perswaded he would have cited the whole passage of Calvin's. If no Body could have read Calvin in Latin, how miserably would this Author have beguiled his Ignorant Reader. The same Author hath filled his Book al­most with citations of Authors; but if he hath dealt no better with them, than he did with Calvin, (as 'tis cer­tain he did not with some of them) no wonder he concealed his Name, lest on this account it should be rendred hateful to the World. Why did he not cite that whole passage of Calvin's? May not Scripture it self be turned in­to Blasphemy at this rate? I do assure my Brethren, the Anabaptists, such Men as these will never strengthen their Cause were it never so good. 'Tis a poor shelter to make Lies our Re­fuge, and under Falshood to hide our selves; and no commendable practice to force Men to speak in Vindication of that when Dead, which they abhor­red, wrote against, and always spoke against while Living.

[Page 92]And therefore I would desire my Friends, the Anabaptists, that if they will again Write in Vindication of their Sentiments, that they would not always imploy the most Learned, but the most Gracious; and that they would fix on a Man of Good Report, a Man Fearing God, and Hating Wickedness; not a Slanderer, or a Reviler, but on such a one who La­bours to keep a Conscience void of Offence towards God and Man; for though for my own part I am perswaded many of the Anabaptist Perswasion are Persons dear to God, (I mean of those that are against the Doctrine of Free-Will) and that what some of them hold is out of Tenderness of Conscience; yet that wicked Spirit which hath disco­vered it self in some of their Writers, hath caused the rest to be the worse thought of, while in their Writings they seem liker unto Men acted by their own Spirit striving for a Party, than contending for Truth by the Spirit of God, I would in all Love to my Friends, the Anabaptists, caution them in one [Page 93]thing, and that is, to beware of put­ting too much Considence in their own Writers, especially in citing old Au­thors; for they oft cite this and the other of the Fathers, speaking for Be­liever's Baptism, and by this Means beguile their unwary Reader, with a strong Opinion, that they were against Infant Baptism; (one Instance of which I have cited out of Mr. Calvin, to prove this) as if he that was for Ba­ptizing Believers, who never were Baptized before, (which is as many of them do certainly mean) must needs be against Infant Baptism; which is as unnatural a Consequence, as to con­clude, if a Man loves his Wife, there­fore he must hate his Child; where­as his Love to his Wife is no Hindrance to his loving his Child. For my part I am for Infant Baptism; but withal, I am as much for the Baptism of grown Believers, if never Baptized before. So that these two do no ways contradict each other; I leave this as a Caution for my Friends for the time to come. I shall hasten to a Close, and sum up all in a Word of Exhortation to my [Page 94]Christian Friends, the Anabaptists; that if they see any weight in what I have said, or cannot from Scripture confute me; that then they would em­brace this Doctrine, and practice ac­cordingly; for 'tis dangerous living in Neglect of that which God in his Word reveals to be a Duty, as is clear from Exod. 4.24. There you read how God sought to slay Moses, be­cause he had but neglected to Cir­cumcise his Child, longer than the time appointed. Tho' Moses was dear to God; tho' the meekest Man on Earth; tho' intimately acquainted with God; yet he had died, if his Son had not been Circumcised; and what ground we have to think that God will more approve of our Neg­lect of Baptism as to the Subject now, than he did the Neglect of Circumcision, as to the time then, I see not; for as God appoints no Or­dinance in vain, so he cannot bear to see them neglected or despised, tho' by his own People.

And sure I am, such Parents not on­ly offend God by so doing, but seem [Page 95]to be without all natural Affection to their Seed. Even the Sea-Monsters will draw out the Breast to their young ones, Lam. 4.3. And they seem Monsters of Parents, that can deny such a Priviledge to their own Chil­dren, and so rob them of their Birth­right. Such may fitly be compared to the Ostridge, a filly Creature, Job 39.16. who is said to be hardned a­gainst her young Ones, as if they were none of hers. Suppose a wicked Pa­rent have godly Children grown up, and should confine them from the Or­dinances of God's House, (tho' he could not destroy their Souls thereby, yet because he did what he could in or­der thereunto) any godly Person would judge such a one an unmerciful Pa­rent; how much more may believing Parents be so counted, while they deny the Infant Seed the Ordinance of Ba­ptism, which God hath given them a Right unto, tho' they cannot destroy their Souls. So that as you would not be charged for not having natural Affection, as you would not contract Guilt upon your Souls, and pluck down [Page 96]Judgments upon your selves, by not walking in all the Ordinances of the Lord blameless, bring your Infant Seed to be Baptized, be found in God's Way, doing for them what you can, and then you may with the more Comfort ex­pect God should do for them that which you cannot; and that while you lay them at the Pool side, the Wa­ters may be made healing to their diseased Souls; for we can never, with­out Presumption, expect the Blessing of God, in Neglect or Contempt of those Means he hath appointed, in order to enjoy it.

Were your Children sick Corporal­ly, Nature would stir you up to use the Means which God hath ap­pointed in order to their Recovery; and if you believe your Infant Seed stand in need of Mercy, one would think Grace should excite you to use the Means which God hath appointed for the Good of their Souls, that so they may not curse you in Hell, for not doing what you might do, and ought to have done, in order to the bringing them to Heaven.

[Page 97] Obj. But against the Practice of this Duty I have heard some argue thus: Tho' they cannot answer the Argu­ments brought to prove it a Duty, yet they cannot see into it; and because whatever is not of Faith is Sin, hence conclude it would be Sin in them so to do.

Ans. Suppose it is so, I would ask such whether it may not be a far greater Sin, that it is not of Faith? Or do you think that your Sins of Igno­rance (when Light shines so clear) must not be accounted for? Paul hath declared, that once he was so ignorant, that he verily thought he ought to do many things contrary unto the Name of Jesus; as in Acts 26.9. And he did so, and made Havock of the Church, and Blasphemed. And here we will suppose it would have been his Sin, not so to have done, because he verily thought he ought; and so, had it been absolutely a Duty, he would have neg­lected it. But I would ask such Ob­jectors, if they think it was not his [Page 98]Sin, that he was so perswaded? Nay, was it not a far greater Sin than we can once suppose it to have been, had he in that Case acted con­trary to his Faith or Perswasion? If you deny it, you are guilty of as great Blasphemy as ever he was. Well then, it seems there is Danger of Sin on either Hand; thou may'st (we will suppose) sin in doing it, and thou may'st sin also in not doing it. Now in this Case there is a Rule for ever carefully to be observed, That when two Evils lye before us, and one of them cannot possibly be avoided, the least is to be chosen; and if this Rule is to be ob­served, then to me it seems far safest for such to Baptize their Infant Seed, since their doing that which they are not fully satisfied in, may be but acci­dentally a Sin, but their not doing that which God hath made known to be a Duty, (whether they, thro' Ignorance, see it to be so or no) is directly a Sin; and more especially is it safest for such as are Members in such Churches, where the Pastor and Majority of the Church are of that Judgment, because [Page 99]then by not doing it, they not only are in Danger (to say no more) of contra­cting Guilt to their Souls, by not be­ing found in their Duty, but hereby take the ready way to cause Strife and Contention in that Church, whose Peace they are obliged to seek, if our Perswasion touching the Lawfulness of a thing will make it Lawful; then this is to measure our selves by our selves, and to esteem our own Fancies above the Word of God. Since let the Word of God hold forth what it will, it no ways obliges (in those Per­son's Judgment) unless I am perswaded 'tis a Truth. Cursed Doctrine! What is this but grand Quakerism, to preferr the Light within before the Word of God in the Scripture? But if (as Christ saith) the Light within be Dark­ness, (as sure it is when it opposes the written Word) then how great is that Darkness?

Thus, Christian Reader, I have in all Plainness of Speech taken Liberty freely to express my Sentiments about the Doctrine of Infant Baptism; and [Page 100]whatever the Effects may be, if I know my Heart, I designed nothing in it but God's Glory, and thy Good, and to put an end to our unprofitable Dif­ferences; and should I miss my Aim in this latter Respect, yet I hope this will not indirectly cause our Differen­ces to be wider; for what if we can­not fully agree in this, yet since we agree many of us in Fundamentals, and hold one Lord, and one Faith, this Consideration should surely more unite us, than our Differences in smal­ler Matters should divide us; we cannot suppose, while so much Darkness re­mains upon our Understandings, that we should all be fully of one Mind in all things, any more than we can suppose we should all be of the same Complexion, or Stature of Body; but as it is enough, in order to bring us into a rational Converse, that we are all Men and Women, tho' we may vastly differ in Features, and Proporti­on of Body; so it should be enough to reconcile us in Love and Affection, that we are Christians, tho' not in all things of the same Mind, and same [Page 101]Judgment, and that we are all Fellow-Travellers to the New Jerusalem. Tho' we may not walk in the same Path, or tread exactly in each others Steps, sure I am, when we get to Heaven, we shall sweetly agree. O desirable Day! when Ephraim shall no more envy Judah, nor Judah vex Ephraim; when we who now know but in part, and see but darkly, shall then see Face to Face, and know even as we now are known; when all our dark and confused Conceptions about the My­steries of the Gospel shall all vanish and disappear, as the Mists and Fogs before the rising Sun. And when that time (much of which was spent in Striving and Contending) shall whol­ly be spent in Praising and Admiring him that loved us, and washed away our Sins in his own Blood; how shall we then all be imployed (who are Saints) in the same Work, sing all the same Song, all joined in the same Assembly, all behold and love the same Object? Yea, how shall we then hugg and embrace each other, as Fellow-Heirs of the same Kingdom, [Page 102]and Children of the same Father, and Members of the same Body. I am fully satisfied our Differences are not so great here, as our Love to one ano­ther will be there; we shall no more strive about the Way, when we enjoy the End.

And since we are so unlike fully to agree here, and so certain to agree there, how should it make all the sincere Lovers of Peace (who have been mourning for these Divisions which are among the People of God) cry out with the most Earnest and Longing Desires, come Lord Jesus, come quickly? Amen.