THat which both busies the minds, and takes up much time among the servants of God in debates, is that question about Baptism, viz. Which Administrati­on is most agreeable to the mind of God? whether that which is made to Infants (especially such who are the children of believing Parents,) or whether that which is not made, but unto persons who either do indeed believe the Go­spel, or which make such a profession of Faith, which cannot rea­sonably be deemed to proceed from ought else then that which is Faith indeed?

The best way (I conceive) to come to satisfaction hereabout, wil be, to observe the footsteps of the flock of Christ in the first set­ing forth of this Ordinance of God into the World in the days of John Baptist, Christ, and the Apostles successively. For that now was the method of the Apostle Paul, when he found corruption crept into the administration of that other Ordinance, the Supper of the Lord; to reform the same, he brings those, to whom he writes here­about, back to the consideration of the original maner and usage of that Ordinance, 1 Cor. 11.23. So did our Savior likewise, in reform­ing [Page 2]some abuses about marriage, Mat. 19.4, 8. And that light, which upon impartial tryal of matters in the holy History, shall appear the most clear and least dubious, that light doubtless will it be most safe for us to follow.

Now that Baptism was administred to believing and repentant persons in those times, is no mans doubt that believes the Scrip­tures: but that it was administred to Infants in those days, is that which the divine History no where reports, nor, as is humbly con­ceived, can be duly collected from any part, member, or circum­stance thereof.

That therefore shall be the first Argument against Infant-Bap­tism, which is drawn from the matter of fact in the first Admini­stration of it; and it is this:

If Baptism were not administred to Infants in the days of John the Baptist, Argum. I nor of Christ, nor of the Apostles; then ought it not to be administred to Infants now. The reason of this Consequence is this; Because that which was a reason to them then to forbear baptizing Infants, and upon which they did forbear it, is, or ought to be, a reason to all men now to forbear it likewise. For if they did indeed forbear to baptize Infants, it cannot reasonably be ima­gined that they did forbear it meerly out of will and pleasure, but out of Reason and Judgment. And if there be any Reasons that may induce us to practice Infant-Baptism now, which were not obligatory to them then, they must arise, either, 1. From some new discovery of God to us in this behalf, of which they were then ignorant; Or, 2. From some greater necessity now lying upon Infants to be baptized, then Infants were under then: Or, 3. From some better capacity in which Infants now stand to re­ceive benefit by Baptism, then was enjoyed by Infants then: Or, 4. From some change or alteration of the Ordinance it self, by which it is better fitted and accommodated to the condition of In­fants now, then it was then: Or, 5. (and lastly) From some greater necessity and better capacity, which men and women are now in to receive benefit by the baptizing of Infants, then any they were then in formerly: for other then these cannot lightly be supposed or imagined ever to come up into the minds of men. But now there is no new discovery made to us touching the Will of God to have Infants baptized, of which John Baptist, Christ, [Page 3]or the Apostles were ignorant; nor are Infants themselves, or any others, in any greater necessity, or better capacity, to receive bene­fit by Infants Baptism now, then they were who lived in times before specified; nor is there any alteration or change indeed in the Ordinance it self, by which it's rendered more useful and bene­ficial to Infants now, then it could be then: And therefore, what ever the Reasons or Considerations were, upon which these primi­tive Baptists did forbear to baptize Infants, the same are obliga­tory and binding now, to all men in these days, so to forbear it likewise: Which might be backed (if needful) from Phil. 3.17. 1 Cor. 11.1, 2.

But Baptism was not administred to Infants, The Assump­tion. neither in the days of John the Baptist, nor of the Apostles. This I prove, first, 1 by the total silence of the Scripture herein, it no where directly or consequentially affirming or hinting, that it was. And in things of such a religious and divine consideration, as this is of which we speak, that which is called a Rule in the Civil Law ought to take place, viz. That which appears not, is not. The denyal or re­moval of which, what else would it be but an inlet to will-wor­ship, and many innovations in the service of God, as indeed it hath proved in the case in hand touching Infant-Baptism? But the Scripture is express against any mans intruding himself into those things which he hath not seen, or of being wise above that which is written, Col. 2.18. 1 Cor. 4.6. If we had no other proof, yet this Minor Proposition remains good, until it be proved, that Infants were baptized in the primitive Times. But besides this, there are other considerations, of a proper and potent tendency, to carry the minds of men that are at liberty, and not under the bands of prejudice and partiality, to think and to conceive, that no Infants were baptized in the days and times before men­tioned.

2. Therefore, secondly, When we find the Evangelist Luke, 2 setting himself to express and set forth the power and great suc­cess of the Gospel in Samaria, by that effect it wrought, in caus­ing multitudes to be baptized, he expresseth those great numbers by making mention of men and women, ( Acts 8.12. They were baptized both men and women,) whereas he should better have answered his own end in this behalf, if he had said, they were [Page 4]baptized both men, women, and children, if children indeed had been baptized as well as men and women. For, 1. By how many the more persons it appears are benefited by the Go­spel, by so much the more is the power and success of it discern­able: and therefore if the Evangelist, whilest he had gone a­bout to represent the glorious success of the Gospel in those great numbers of persons that were baptized upon its coming among them, should have made mention only of men and wo­men, as he did, and have said nothing of the children, though they had been baptized also, which probably might be more in number then the men and women were, he should then scarce­ly have done that to the one half, which he should have done totally and entirely in relation to his proposed end. And, 2. By how much the more zeal of obedience the Gospel doth produce in those persons that are wrought upon by it, by so much the more will the operative influence and success of it be visible and observable: and therefore if whilest the Evangelist had been going about to declare how mightily the Gospel prevailed a­mongst those Samaritans, in procuring their obedience to it in point of Baptism, he should have made mention of the obedience of the men and women, as reaching onely to their own per­sonal Baptism, when as indeed they were not onely baptized themselves, but in obedience to the Gospel had caused their children to be baptized likewise, he should have represented the zeal of these Samaritans raised by the Gospel, and so conse­quently the powerful influence and success of the Gospel in raising that zeal, upon terms of very great disadvantage, in com­parison of what he might have done by making known the Childrens Baptism as well as the Parents. Moses, when he would set forth what good effect the Word and Command of God touching Circumcision had upon Abrahams heart, he doth not onely and barely declare Abrahams obedience by his own personal Circumcision, when there was a further and better account thereof to be given in his circumcising his son, and ser­vants, together with himself: No; but, to make a true and clear representation of Abrahams obedience and zeal herein, he reports, first how he circumcised himself, after that his son, and then his servants; yea and that he did it the self-same day [Page 5]which God had said unto him, Gen. 17.23. In the Old Testament, when children were brought by their Parents before the Lord in any solemn Assembly, the Penmen of the Scriptures were as care­ful to set down that, as to re­cord the deportment of the Parents, Deut. 29.11. Josh. 8.35. 2 Chron. 20.13. Ezra 10.1. And why should we think the Penmen of the New Testament less punctual in a thing of as great or greater concernment? Yea it seems the Holy Ghost thought the noting of these circumstances so material in relation here­unto, that he repeats them over again, vers. 26, 27. And how this exactness should be so ne­cessary in Moses his Narrative about Circumci­sion, and yet superfluous in Lukes Narrative a­bout Baptism, especially considering that the thing is no where else reported, is, I confess, a thing, the reason whereof, as I do not under­stand, so I shall leave to them to make out, who do imagine any such thing. Therefore the only way to stand right in our thoughts towards these two amanu­ensis of the Spirit, and not to charge Moses with superfluity, nor Luke with deficiency in their respective Narratives, is to conclude, that as they were alike directed by the same Spirit, so they did with like faithfulness directly and plainly report the matters of fact in both cases; and consequently, that in as much as the Baptism of Infants is not recorded, as well as is the Bap­tism both of men and women, that therefore there was no such thing acted and done in those times, as that is, which is called the baptizing of Infants.

And that the not mentioning of Childrens Baptism doth not proceed from any omission, neglect or deficiency of this Evan­gelist in his said Narrative, but from the non-being of the thing it self, we have the greater reason to believe; not onely because it would be absurd to suppose this Penman of the Holy Ghost to be so partial & untrue to his own intended and propo­sed end, as such an omission would argue him to have been; but also, because we do find him to have been careful to report even what Children themselves did by means of their Parents, in a business of far less consequence then this would have been, had it been at all; and that is their accompanying of Paul out of Tyre; for so it is said, They all (to wit, the Disciples) brought us on our way, with wives and children, till we were out of the City, Acts 21.5. And why should we think that he should be faithful in the less, and not also in the greater? or that he would make himself in this, like unto those who tythed Mint and An­nise, [Page 6]and omitted the weightier matters of the Law?

If it should be doubted, whether it were the scope and in­tent of the Evangelist, in those words, Acts 8.12. They were baptized both men and women, to set forth the great success of the Gospel in Samaria; satisfaction herein may be received, 1. From the import of the phrase or manner of speaking here used, being compared with other places of like form of words; as for example, that of this very Evangelist, Acts 5.14. Be­lievers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women. Here the great numbers that were brought in un­to the Lord by the Gospel, are noted by this form of words, both of men and women: and in Acts 8.12. the great success of the same Gospel is noted by those great numbers that were prevailed withall by it to be baptized; which great numbers are likewise notified by the same manner of expression, used Acts 5.14. men and women being mentioned in both their sexes: But when they believed Philip preaching the things con­cerning the Kingdom of God, and the Name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and women. 2. From the scope of the place and Context: in the two precedent Verses 10.11. the generality of the people, before such time as Philip preach­ed the Gospel to them, are said to have given heed from the least unto the greatest unto one Simon who was a Sorcerer, as if he had been the great power of God: But in Vers. 12. speaking of the same persons, and generality of the people, shews the wonderful success the Gospel had among them, when it came to be preached by Philip: for as before they all gave heed to Simon from the least to the greatest; even so now, they all be­lieving the Gospel preached to Philip, were baptized both men and women.

3. 3 That passage of Scripture, Mark 10.13, 14, 15, 16. wherein some are said to have brought young Children (or In­fants, as Luke hath it, Luk. 18.15.) to Christ, that he might teach them; and wherein the Disciples are said to have rebuked those that brought them, and wherein also the carriage of Christ thereupon is reported, both towards the Disciples in re­proving them, and towards the Infants themselves, in taking them in his arms and blessing them, argues there was no such [Page 7]thing practised by Christ as the baptizing of Infants. For, 1. The end of those that brought them to Christ was, that he might touch them, or, as Matthew hath it, put his hands on them, and pray, Matt. 19.13. And doubtless those who did desire this of Christ, would have desired much more that he should have baptized them (in such a sence as Christ is said to have baptized those that came to him for that purpose, Joh. 3. vers. 22, 26. and Chap. 4. vers. 1.) if he practised any such thing as the Baptism of Infants is supposed to be: their non-desiring of it under such circumstances, argues the non­being of any such thing to be had. 2. In that the Disciples re­buked those that brought these Infants, it argues that it was an unusual thing for such Children to be brought to Christ, and that the Disciples thought it an impertinent thing to trouble him with them; which apprehension and carriage of theirs, could not lightly have taken place with them, if Children had been accustomed to have been brought to his Baptism. 3. In that Christ did so highly approve of this application of the Pa­rents of these Children to him, as is declared he did; and in that he did also embrace the Children and bless them, and yet so left them, without proceeding to baptize them; it argues, with strength of probability, that he did not use to baptize any other Infants: for it cannot lightly be thought but that these Infants were as capable of Baptism as any others. 4. Since three of the Evangelists do so carefully, punctually, and largely set down the History of the bringing of these Infants to Christ, and of his carriage towards them, and yet not any one of them giving the least hint of any Infants being brought to his Bap­tism, nor of any being baptized by him or his Disciples; why should we think, but that if there had been any such matter of fact, as the baptizing of Infants, that had come under their cog­nizance and observation, but that they would have been as care­ful, if not more careful, to have recorded that, as well as those things they did record touching them, in as much as such a thing as the baptizing of Infants, if it had been an Ordinance of God, the knowledg thereof would have been of as great or greater use unto the world, then the knowledg of those other things are touching Christs embracing and blessing [Page 8]Infants, which yet they have left on record for our learning.

4 That description which the Scripture everywhere makes, 4 of the persons and qualifications of such whose Baptism it records, argues them to be no Infants whose Baptism is so recorded, the qualifications of all such persons being incompetible to In­fants. For either they were such as attended to the Word, and received it gladly, ( Acts 2.41. & 16.14, 15.) or such as confessed their sins, ( Matth. 3.6. Mark 1.5.) or such as believed, ( Acts 18.8. & chap. 8. vers. 37.) or else such as were Disciples, Joh. 4.1. And as we cannot reasonably sup­pose, that Infants are by any of these or the like qualifications described; no more can we rationally suppose, that they were baptized in those times to which these descriptions relate. 5

5. Both the instructions given to those who were commissi­oned to baptize, and the practice of such persons who did baptize, argue the persons that were baptized by them to be no Infants. For, 1. The instruction which Christ gave those which he commissioned on this behalf, was, that they should first teach persons, or make them Disciples, and then baptize them, Matt. 28.19. 2. The practise of them who did bap­tize, was answerable to this commission; they first instructed persons in the things of the Gospel, and then baptized them: Joh. 4.1. Mark 1.4. Acts 2.41. & 8.12. & 16.32, 33. & 19.4, 5. But now in as much as Infants, whilest such, are not capable of receiving instruction in the things of the Gospel, or of being taught, therefore it cannot reasonably be supposed, that Infants, whilest such, should be of that sort or number of persons, who were by Christs commission to be baptized, or who were by any baptized in pursuance of that commission.

But against this first Argument, Object. in which we assert no Infants to be baptized in the Apostles times, it is objected; That when the Scripture declareth, that whole housholds were baptized, it may well be presumed that Infants were baptized, because they, in what house soever they are, are part of that houshold: Now it is said expresly, that Lydia was baptized, and her hous­hold, Acts 16.15. That the Jaylor was baptized, he and all his, Acts 16.33. and also, that Paul baptized the houshould of Ste­phanus, 1 Cor. 1.16.

To all which I answer, first, That it doth not at all appear, Answ. 1 that there were any Infants in any of those housholds mentioned in the Objection, and that therefore it is but a meer presumption to as­sert it, in as much as Experience teacheth, that it is a common thing for housholds and families to consist of such persons, among whom are no Infants: and there are no circumstances in the Texts alledged, that give the least hint or intimation, that those housholds were any other then such. Nay, the circumstances of that Text a­bout the Baptism of Lydia (which yet will be found the onely Text that can colourably be pretended, so much as in the least to countenance the thing objected) do much rather induce us to con­ceive, that there were no Infants in that family: Because she be­ing described as the head of that family, it is very questionable whether she were a maid, or a widow, and consequently so much the more questionable whether she had any children at all; or if she had, and was a widow, it is yet so much the more doubtful whether her children were Infants, or of riper age.

2. I answer yet further, Answ. 2 That though it should be granted for Arguments sake, that possibly there might be Infants in some or all those housholds which are said to be baptized, yet it no wise fol­lows, that therefore those Infants are said to be baptized, when those housholds are said so to be. For it is an usual thing in Scrip­ture, to attribute such things unto, or predicate such things of and concerning a house or whole houshold, which yet cannot reason­ably be understood as meant of every individual person in such an house, and specially not of Infants. But such attributions and pre­dications, in common sence and acceptation, must necessarily be understood to relate, 1. To such as are commonly and familiarly known to be capable of them, otherwise then Infants either are or can be, whilest such: Or, 2. To the major part for number in those families: Or else, 3. To so considerable a part thereof, which by a Synecdoche is frequently put for the whole. Instances of this nature that might be given are many, in which housholds are to be understood according to one or more of the three con­siderations now mentioned; as Genes. 35.2. & 50.4. 1 Sam. 1.21, 22. 2 Sam. 3.1. Jerem. 35.3, 18. Matth. 10.13. & 12.25. In some of which foresaid respects it is, I suppose, that whole housholds are sometimes said to believe, as Joh. 4.53. Acts [Page 10]16.34. & 18.8. sometimes to fear and serve the Lord, Act. 10.2. Josh. 24.15. and sometimes to be saluted as such, 2 Tim. 4.19. Rom. 16.10, 11. And as there is no reason to conceive, that Infants are intended in those things asserted concerning these housholds mentioned in these Scriptures, the things themselves being incom­petible to Infants; so likewise is there no more reason to imagine, that Infants are intended when housholds are said to be baptized, they being no more capable of that regularly, then they are of be­lieving. In 1 Sam. 1.21. it's said, That the man Elkanah and all his house, went up to offer to the Lord the yearly sacrifice, and his vow: and yet it is evident, Vers. 22. that Hannah, Elka­nah's wife, and Samuel his son, which were part of his hous­hold, did not then go up to the place of publique worship. And therefore when Lydia is said to be baptized, she and her houshold, it no more necessary hereby to understand her and her children, if she had any, then it is by Elkanah, and all his house, to understand both himself and his young son Samuel.

3. Answ. 3 I yet further answer, That as concerning two of the three housholds mentioned in the Objection, it is evident that they did believe before they were baptized; for as it is said of the Jaylor, that he was baptized, and all his, straightway, Act. 16.33. so also is it said, Vers. 32. that they spake unto him the Word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house: and in Vers. 34. that he rejoyced, believing in God with all his house. And whereas Paul is said to have baptized the houshold of Stephanus, 1 Cor. 1.16. in Chap. 16. of the same Epistle, Vers. 15. this houshold of Ste­phanus is said to consist of such persons as addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints: Ye know the houshold of Stephanus, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted them­selves to the ministry of the Saints. If then, it cannot reasonably be thought that Infants heard and understood the Word of the Lord, or believed in God, or addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints, as those of these housholds, which were baptized, did; no more can it, with any colour of reason, be supposed, that In­fants were baptized when those housholds were baptized. And though there be not the same particular account given of the like qualifications in those that were baptized of the family of Lydia; yet, according to that rule by which those Scriptures, that speak [Page 11]of things more generally and briefly, are to be interpreted, by or according to the tenor of those that treat of the same or like sub­ject more particularly and expresly, we are to reckon, that the same or like qualifications were found in the houshold of Lydia, which were in those of the housholds of the Jaylor and Stepha­nus, and upon which they were alike baptized. And thus much for the answering of this first Objection.

If it be further objected, That this first Argument, Object. 2 which as­serts Infant-Baptism unlawful, because it is no where said in the Scripture that Infants were baptized, is as well an Argument a­gainst womens having communion in the Supper of the Lord, as against Infant-Baptism, because it is no more said any where that women did participate of the Lords Supper, then it is that In­fants were baptized; To this likewise I answer briefly,

Though it be no where expresly and in so many words said, Answ. that women did break bread, or were partakers of the Table of the Lord, &c. yet there is that said, by which it may be as safely collected that they did so do, as if it had been asserted in so many words. For it is said, That those that were baptized, continued, as in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, so in breaking of bread and prayers, Acts 2.41, 42. But now women were baptized as well as men, Acts 8.12. therefore women, as well as men, con­tinued in breaking of bread and prayers. Again, Acts 20.7. it's said, that the Disciples came together to break bread: but now women were Disciples as well as men, and therefore we have every whit as much reason to understand that saying of them, as of men, Acts 9.36. Now then, if any thing were asserted in Scrip­ture concerning Infants, by which it might be as plainly collected and gathered, that they were baptized, as it may be inferred, that women did eat the Lords Supper, from what is asserted concern­ing them; then it might well be said indeed, that this first Argu­ment is as well against womens having communion with men in the Supper of the Lord, as it is against Infants Baptism; but till this appear, or something like it, this Objection is of no force to invalidate our Argument.

ARGUM. II.

MY second Argument shall be taken from the nature of Bap­tism, and from the declared ends and uses of it; and it is this:

If that Administration of Baptism, which is made to professed Beleevers, do more conduce to, and better answer the ends of Baptism, then that does which is made to Infants; then Baptism ought not to be administred to Infants, but to professed Beleevers. The reason hereof is clear; because it is the duty of men, to en­devor, as much as in them lies, to observe and keep the Laws of every Ordinance of God in the best manner they know how, and not to content themselves with a lower and meaner way of doing and performing the same, when there is an opportunity before them of rising up to that which is more excellent, and which doth more exactly answer the counsel and intendment of God in it. If this were any mans doubt, it might be confirmed from such Scriptures, which condemn such practices of men as most un­worthy and accursed, who having an opportunity of presenting God with a better sacrifice or service, do yet present him with that which is worse: Mal. 1.14. Cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth and sacrificeth to the Lord a corrupt thing. Those Scriptures likewise vote the same thing, which require, That men seek to excel, to the edifying of the Church, 1 Cor. 14.12. That hold forth ways that are more ex­cellent then others, as to be more desired and striven for then o­thers, 1 Cor. 12.31. Phil. 1.10.

But that Administration of Baptism, The Assump­tion. which is made to professed Believers, does more conduce to, and better answer the ends of Bap­tism, then that which is made to Infants. The truth of this will appear, by comparing Baptism as administred to the one and to the other, in relation to the several ends and uses of Bap­tism.

1. 1 One end of Baptism is, to declare Jesus Christ unto the World. Joh. 1.31. But that he (to wit Christ) should be made manifest unto Israel, therefore am I come, baptizing with water. For he who is rightly baptized into Christ, or Faith in his Name, [Page 13]doth thereby profess Jesus Christ to be a worthy person, meet to be believed in, and himself his servant and disciple. Besides, the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ being represent­ed in Baptism, ( Rom. 6.3, 4, 5. Col. 2.12.) it administers an occasion unto men, to enquire what an one Christ is, for what end he came into the World, dyed, was buried, and rose again; and so knowledg of him and salvation by him is here­by propagated.

This manifestation of Christ is better made by the Baptism of Believers, then by the Baptism of Infants, whether it re­spects the party who is baptized, or others who behold it.

1. This is true in respect of him who is baptized, because he is in a capacity, by reason of the use and exercise of his under­standing, to receive that information and knowledg concern­ing Christ, which is intended by God in that Ordinance, of which reception Infants, whilest such, are altogether uncapable, in as much as they have no knowledg between good and evil, as the Scripture saith, Deut. 1.39.

2. As this end of Baptism respects Spectators, it is more ef­fectual unto them when administred unto Believers, then when administred to Infants; because the example of such who are voluntarily and actually obedient, from sound principles of knowledg, unto the Will of God, in submitting to the Ordi­nance of Baptism, and whose Faith in Christ is visible in their being willingly and desirously baptized into his Name; I say, their example is much more apt, both to quicken men unto a serious consideration of what is held out in that Ordinance, as likewise unto the imitation of their Faith and Repentance visible in it, then is the Baptism of Infants, who are meerly passive therein, and who neither are or can be moved thereunto by any inward principle, nor at all religiously affected there­with, nor exhibit any example of Faith or Repentance for o­thers to imitate. As one Cock sets another on crowing, so the devout and religious carriage of one, in using an holy Ordi­nance, is apt to take upon the minds of others, and to kindle the same fire in them: Your zeal, saith the Apostle, hath pro­voked very many, 2 Cor. 9.2.

That the Baptism of Believers hath such an excellent ten­dency [Page 14]in it, appears from Matt. 21.32. with Luk. 7.29. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye beleeved him not; but the Publicans and Harlots beleeved him: And ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might beleeve. Here, 1. Our Saviour upbraids the Priests and Elders with their impenitency and unbelief. 2. That by which he aggravates their offence, is their neglect of that means and opportunity of Faith and Repentance which they had. 3. The means or mo­tive inducing them to Repentance and Faith, which they did neglect, it was that practice of the Publicans and Harlots, whereby they gave account of their Faith: For their Faith was such, in the effects of it, as was visible to the Priests and Elders: ( And ye, when ye had seen it, viz. the Publicans and Harlots beleeving of John, repented not, &c.) 4. That account which these Publicans and Harlots gave of their Faith, and that in which their Faith was visible to the Priests and Elders, and by which they ought to have been moved to Repentance and Faith, it was their being baptized upon their believing the Doctrine of John. For that which Matthew here calls their believing of John, Luke speaking of the same thing (as I conceive) calls it their justifying God, in being baptized ef John, Luke 7.29. In as much then, as the fight or beholding that ex­pression or declaration of the Faith of the Publicans and Har­lots, in their submitting to Baptism, was a great aggravation of the impenitency and unbelief of the Priests and Elders, in that they having such an example before them, and such a motive and provocation upon them to believe, and yet did not believe; evident it is, that there was in the deportment of the Publicans and Harlots, when they were baptized, something of the na­ture of a motive or means, that was apt to prevail with the Priests and Elders to follow their example; for otherwise it would never have been produced against them by our Saviour as an aggravation of their sin in not doing likewise: For it therefore became an aggravation of their sin being committed, because it was a means of preserving them from it before it was committed. From the whole this is most evident, viz. That the Baptism of the Publicans and Harlots, and yet not so much that neither, as that Faith and Repentance of theirs which [Page 15]was visible in their Baptism, was in it self a potent means and strong incitement to the Priests and Elders, and consequently unto others, to repent and believe, and to express the same in like manner as the Publicans had done, their sin in opposition hereunto being their rejecting the counsel of God against them­selves, in not being baptized, Luk. 7.30.

But now, there is no such example of Faith or Repentance that is visible in the Baptism of Infants, and consequently no such incitement unto, or means of working Faith, in by stand­ers and spectators; and therefore Baptism administred unto Infants, is no such means of propagating the knowledg of Christ, and Faith in him, as when it is administred unto pro­fessed Believers.

2. Another end and use of Baptism, is, 2 to serve the design of God touching the great business of Repentance for remission of sins; for it is called the Baptism of Repentance for the remis­sion of sins, Mark 1.4. Luk. 3.3. There are several considera­tions in respect of which, or some of which, I conceive, it is so called; all which are better answered in that Administration of it which is made to men and women who are Believers, then in that which is made to Infants.

1. If it shall be conceived, that it is therefore called the Baptism of Repentance for remission of sins, because such who are at any time duly baptized, do take up that Ordinance out of a principle of Repentance, upon which they look for remission of sins according to the promise of God in that be­half, (which if it be, the saying contains a metonymy of the cause for the effect, a thing not unusual in Scripture,) yet this denomination and use of it, is better served in mens Bap­tism, then in childrens; because Infants have no such principle or act in them as Repentance is, and therefore their Baptism can neither proceed from, or be declarative of such a cause; whereas the Baptism of repentant persons, does both flow from, and is expressive of, such a cause.

2. If it be called the Baptism of Repentance, because men, by taking up that Ordinance, do engage themselves to the practice of repentance and mortification, (as the Apostle sup­poses the believing Romans to have done, Rom. 6.2-6.) then [Page 16]this end is better provided for in the Baptism of men, then of Infants. The reason is, because an engagement to practise Re­pentance, supposes, 1. An end of Repentance, 2. A capacity of performing that to which they do engage; neither of which are to be found in Infants, and both which are to be found in men; therefore this end of Baptism cannot be attained in chil­drens Baptism, but in mens.

3. If it be called the Baptism of Repentance for remission of sins, because God thereby signifies and seals unto men the re­mission of their sins upon their Repentance; this end and use likewise is better answered in mens Baptism who do repent, then in Infants who do not. 1. Because men who have begun to repent, are in a good capacity to receive confirmation and establishment in their hope and confidence of receiving remis­sion of sins from God upon their Repentance, and consolation thereby; whereas Infants, whilest such, are altogether unca­pable of any such thing, in respect whereof this end is made frustrate when Baptism is given to them. 2. Because there is a greater appearance both of the wisdom and goodness of God in vouchsafing and applying such a means as Baptism is, to strengthen mens Faith in his promise of remission of sins upon their Repentance, unto such who, 1. Have need of this con­firmation, and, 2. Are capable of receiving it, then there is in that application of it which is made to Infants, who neither have need of it, nor yet are capable of receiv­ing it.

4. If it be called the Baptism of Repentance for remission of sins, because the persons who are baptized do thereby pro­fess and declare unto the world, that they look for remission of their sins from God upon their Repentance, yet this end also is better answered in mens Baptism, then in Infants: because men are capable of making such a profession and declaration of themselves to the world in and by their Baptism, when as In­fants are altogether uncapable of doing any such thing.

5. If it be called the Baptism of Repentance, &c. because it seals and confirms the Covenant or Promises of God made to men, touching the remission of their sins upon their Repent­ance, yet this end and use also is attained upon far better terms [Page 17]in the Administration of Baptism to Believers, and to men of understanding, then it is or can be when administred to Infants who have neither. For if this end and use should be the rea­son of this denomination of Baptism, yet this must be sup­posed; That the intent of God, in making Baptism a Seal of his Covenant and Promise, is not to make his Covenant more sure in it self, but to give it thereby a more sure, stable, and un­questionable Being in the minds and apprehensions of men: and if so, this end cannot be attained in Infants by their Bap­tism, because they want the use and exercise of their reason, judgment, and understanding, without which the Articles and terms of Gods Covenant will never take place, or have a Being in the minds of any, by way of belief.

3. Another end of Baptism seems to be this, viz. 3 That such who are baptized, might thereby signifie their acceptance of, and consent unto the terms of the Gospel or Covenant of Grace. For the Covenant of God with men does consist of certain Articles to be observed and kept by each party covenant­ing, as Covenants amongst men generally do. And as amongst men the parties covenanting are wont to signifie their mutual consent to their respective Articles, by some solemn act of theirs in the presence of witnesses; as by signing, sealing, deliver­ing, &c. So God, in the Covenant between him and men, will have something like unto this done by men publiquely, to sig­nifie their consent to the terms of it, as well as what is done by him to declare his readiness to do and perform what he hath undertaken on his part. Now Faith in Christ, and an obedi­ential subjection to all his Laws and Precepts, being the con­dition of this Covenant on mans part; at what time soever he enters into Covenant with God, and undertakes the perform­ance of the condition, he is to sign and seal the same in the pre­sence of witnesses by that solemn act of his in being baptized. In this respect especially I conceive it is, that Baptism is call­ed the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins, (Mark 1.4. Luk. 3.3.) because men are to take up that Ordinance upon their first beginning to repent, in order to the remission of their sins. For like reason I suppose it is called the washing of regeneration, Tit. 3.5. because men, upon their being born [Page 18]again, are to be baptized, according to what was practised in the Apostles times. Hence it is likewise, as may well be con­ceived, that mens being born of water, and of the Spirit, (Joh. 3.5.) the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, (Tit. 3.5.) are joyned together; not because the Spi­rit works Regeneration in and by Baptism, if we respect the beginning of it; but because the work of Regeneration by the Spirit, and the Baptism of water, which is declarative thereof, are neerly conjoyned in respect of time, if he who is regenerate by the Spirit do but what becomes him: And now why tarryest thou, arise and be baptized, Acts 22.16. — And was bapti­zed, he and all his, straightway, Acts 16.33. Finally, Beleeving, and being baptized, are conjoyned as relative to Salvation, ( Mark 16.16.) and Baptism hath its rank, place, or standing in Scripture next after Faith, ( Heb. 6.1, 2. Eph. 4.5. Mark 16.16.) be­cause it was one of the first fruits of Faith, by which they gave account to the world, that they did believe indeed, and was doubtless esteemed a proof of Faith, and without which they were not reckoned Disciples of Christ, notwithstanding any other overtures that ways made.

That both Repentance, and the declaration of it by Baptism, is required on mans part, to interess him in remission of sins, and sanctification of the Spirit, the things covenanted or promised on Gods part; is too evident to be denyed by any, but those that will not see, from Acts 2.38, 39. Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the remis­sion of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost: For the Promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And that God did not intend this way only for those to whom these words were then spoken, or for the men and women of that generation onely, but that it was to be his standing method through all generations, appears, in that the Apostle saith, that the Promise, to wit, of re­mission of sins, and gift of the Spirit, which was made on con­dition of Repentance and Baptism, was made, not onely to them then, and their children, but to those that were further remote, to those afar off, even to all whom the Lord our God shall call. And if this be one end and use of Baptism, as you see, for persons [Page 19]thereby to enter their publique assent and consent unto the terms of the Gospel upon their cordial embracing of it, then the Bap­tism of Infants is voyded as to this use also, in as much as they are uncapable of exerting any act of heart or mind by way of assent or consent to the terms of the Gospel, or to signifie any such thing by a voluntary submission to Baptism.

4. Another excellent effect and use of Baptism, is, 4 thereby to justifie God in the sight of the world, as touching the truth of his sayings in the Gospel; for so it's said, Luk. 7.29. That all the people that heard him, and the Publicans justified God, being bap­tized with the Baptism of John. When it's said, they justified God, the meaning is (I conceive) that they declared him, accord­ing to the tenor of their Faith, to be just and true in that Doctrine of Salvation which was preached to them by his appointment, and which they had embraced; for so to justifie God, is to de­clare him just and true in his sayings; Rom. 3.4. Let God be true, and every man a lyar, as it is written, that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, &c. They are said to justifie God in being baptized, because by their voluntary submission to that Ordi­nance, they did declare, that they judged the Doctrine and Precepts of the Gospel, of which Baptism is a part, most worthy belief and obedience, as coming from God.

But in as much as Infants are onely passive in Baptism, and not at all active or voluntary, they cannot contribute any thing to­wards the Justification of God, in their approbation of, and obe­diential subjection to his Gospel in their Baptism: and therefore this end of Baptism also suffers disappointment as oft as it is admi­nistred to Infants.

5. Lastly, Another great end of Baptism, 5 when taken up by persons under due qualifications, is, to distinguish and difference them from the world, and to characterize them as peculiarly rela­ting to God: In which respect, amongst others, all those that are baptized into Christ, are said to put on Christ, Gal. 3.27. they thereby declare themselves to belong to him, as the servants of great men are known to belong to them, by their badg and livery which they put on, when they enter themselves servants to them. The Apostle from Vers. 23. of that Gal. 3. to Vers. 27. shews the use of the Law during the time of that Administration, and [Page 20]the use of Faith and Baptism now under the Gospel. He saith vers. 23. that they were shut up under the Law until Faith came, meaning, I conceive, that by the Ceremonies and Mosaical Ob­servations, they were enclosed about, and distinguished from the rest of the Nations, as one mans ground is from anothers by an hedg or wall, or as a garden, by the wall that doth en­close it, is differenced from common ground, according to that Cant. 4.12. A garden enclosed is my sister, my Spouse, a spring shut up, a fountain sealed. Hereupon the Jewish Rites are called a middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles; Eph. 2.14.

During the time therefore of this legal Dispensation, that which did denominate them to be the people of God, was their observation and keeping of the Law of Moses; and uncircum­cision is frequently used to note such to be none of Gods people, but of the profane world, who were under that denomina­tion.

But now this way of differencing men lasted but till such time as Faith came, as the Apostle notes; But after Faith is come (saith he) we are no longer under a Schoolmaster, vers. 25. i. e. no longer known to be Disciples or Schollars, as formerly we were by our keeping of the Law. The Mosaical Dispensa­tion continued till Faith came, i. e. until the time of the Go­spel Dispensation; and then Faith became of the same use to denominate and distinguish who were the children of God, and who not; which the Law and Ceremonies were of before: for so the Apostle saith, Vers. 26. For ye are (i. e. now ye are) all the children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus. By faith (which here is said to have come when the Schoolmastership of the Law ended) is meant, I conceive, the confessing or acknow­ledging Christ Jesus to be come in the flesh, and to be the Son of God and Saviour of the world. That this is the Faith here spoken of, and that this Faith was it by which men were to be distinguished as the children of God, from those which were not, we have the greater reason to believe, not onely because this best agrees with the Apostles scope here, but also because it exactly agrees with other Scriptures, where this very Faith, or acknowledgment, is made the distinguishing character be­tween [Page 21]those that are of God, and those that are not; as 1 Joh. 4.2, 3. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that con­fesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God. Where the Apostle then, in the 26 Verse of this third Chapter of the Galatians, saith, Ye are all the children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus, and this by way of distinction from that thing by which men were reckoned to be the children of God under the Law; I conceive he doth not onely, if so much, speak of this Faith, as constituting or making those, in whom it is, the children of God; for so men were the children of God by Faith under the Law, as well as in times of the Gospel; they being then justified by Faith in him that was to come, as we are now justified by Faith in him as being come; so that the Apostle, differencing Faith from the Law, does not difference Faith under the Gospel from Faith under the Law; but when he says, Ye are all the children of God by Faith, &c. he means, that they were declared and known so to be now, by their acknowledgment of Christ; whereas they were wont to be deemed such by the use of the Law, to which they were then Schollars. And hereof he gives this reason or account, v. 27. For, saith he, as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ: So that the Faith, what ever it is, by which they were said to be the children of God, in Vers. 26. must be the same in effect with that which he calls the putting on of Christ in Baptism, Vers. 27. because he asserts the former up­on the taking place of the latter. And that this putting on of Christ by Baptism, is not to be understood strictly of the inter­nal act of their Faith, but of their profession of this Faith, is evident, not only from the nature of the service by which men publiquely list themselves the servants of Christ, but also from the import and signification of the phrase or expression here used, and that is the putting on of Christ, which is a Meta­phor borrowed from the putting on of apparel, or something which men visibly wear. Besides, their putting on of Christ in Baptism, would be no reason why they were the children of God by Faith in Christ, if we should understand their being the children of God constitutively, and not declaratively, un­less [Page 22]we will suppose, that man is the child of God in his account, notwithstanding his believing in Christ, until he be baptized into Christ. But if we understand the Apostle here to speak of Faith, that is, the profession of Faith, or the acknowledgment of Christ, as that which doth declare who are the children of God, then this saying of his, that because they had been baptized into Christ, that therefore they had put on Christ, was a good reason or proof of their being known to be the children of God, by their acknow­ledgment of Christ; because by their putting on of Christ in Bap­tism, and clothing themselves with his Name, they did declare whose children they were, and who it was they worshipped and resolved to serve, and from whom they expected remission of sin, and the Salvation of their Souls. For so to be baptized into Christ, what is it else, but to be baptized into the belief, profession, and ser­vice of Christ? and to resign up ones self to be his. If ye be Christs, says he, Vers. 29. (as he supposes them to be, upon that very account of their being baptized into him, as will appear, if you compare v. 27, 28, 29. together; If ye be Christs) then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs according to promise. The upshot or result then of this piece of the Apostles discourse is, That persons by Baptism do make such a profession of Christ, as by which they are characterized to be his. If this then be the characteristical mark to distinguish the children of God from the world, then it will follow, that no other acknowledgment of Christ without this, or with neglect of this, is to be looked upon as any other then a partial owning of Christ, and not a compleat putting him on, so as to be esteemed thereby visibly the children of God.

Which thing may be yet further confirmed by that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 12.13. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. That it is the Baptism by water that is here spoken of, is the general sence of Interpreters, so far as their judgment herein is come to any knowledg and observation. The body into which we are said to be baptized, is the mystical Body of Christ, made up of Christ as head, and of the Saints as members. In that by one Spirit they are said to be baptized hereinto, we are to understand, I conceive, that it is by the work of the Spirit upon their hearts, by which [Page 23]men are inclined to seek membership, or fellowship with Christ and his Saints, in this way of Baptism, as being the way of God to attain hereunto. But that which is principally for our purpose, is, that men and women are initiated and brought into this Body by Baptism: They are baptized into one Body. And if their en­trance thereinto be made by Baptism, then it's evident, that they are not to be reckoned to be of this Body till they be baptized, and consequently that Baptism is the visible door by which man enter into this spiritual corporation, and a wall of partition be­tween the world and the Saints.

Those Scriptures witness the same thing also, which speak of mens being baptized into Christ, and of their being planted to­gether with him, Rom. 6.3, 5. Gal. 3.27. For can we conclude less hence, then that mens visible being in Christ is to be reckoned from the time of their Baptism? that being, as it were, the im­mediate instrument or means of their visible ingression into him. For otherwise, if they were to be looked upon as having a visible Being in Christ, by any act, endowment, or qualification preceding Baptism, why should their ingression, their entrance into Christ, be attributed unto their Baptism? If mens owning of Christ, which still did precede their Baptism, had been sufficient, as God accounts sufficient, to have asserted or declared their visible or cog­nisible standing in Christ, doubtless the Holy Ghost would not have ascribed, or rather appropriated, the same unto their Baptism, as now he hath done. For, as Paul speaks in another case, Gal. 3.21. If there had been a Law given which could have given life, verily Righteousness should have been by the Law: If the Law had been sufficient to have given life, God would not have super-added the promise of the Gospel for the same end, for he makes nothing in vain: so we may say in this case, if any qualifi­cation, action or profession, preceding Baptism, could have ren­dered mens being in Christ knowable, upon terms agreeable to the wisdom of God, he would not have super-added Baptism for the same end.

But it should seem to be in this case, as it is amongst men; A Major or Sheriff receives that kind of Civil or Magistratical Being, by which he is distinguished from other men, from some solemn acts done at the time of his enstalment into his Office: and as a [Page 24]Husband and Wife receive that conjugal relation and matri­monial Being, proper to them, from some solemn act done at the time of their marriage: or as a man receives a relative Be­ing, as member of such a Corporation, by some solemn act done at the time of his enfranchisement: even so, according to the import of these Scriptures now insisted on, men and women receive that relative Being, which they have in Christ, and as visible members of that spiritual Corporation wherein Christ is head and chief, from that solemn act of their being baptized into him. And as a Major or Sheriff is not vested with his au­thority, or Husband and Wife with that power over the bodies of each other, of which the Apostle speaks, 1 Cor. 7.4. nor yet any member of a body corporate, with those immunities proper to him, by any prequalification or action preparatory thereunto, until first that be acted and done by way of solem­nity, which appropriately and immediately does invest them with their several and respective capacities; in like manner, none are to be esteemed to be in Christ, or capable of those spiritual priviledges which visibly do belong to the body of Christ, the Church, upon the account of any precedaneous qua­lification, profession, or action whatsoever, until first they have passed through those spiritual solemnities in Baptism, by and upon which they are invested with the denomination and vi­sible priviledges which do belong in common to the members of Christ mystical body.

By the way; I have insisted the more largely upon this par­ticular, to detect the repugnancy of that Opinion, against the plain current of the Scripture, which holds Baptism needless, useless amongst those that have long made profession of the Gospel, though they as yet never were baptized. But it may be I shall deal further with this conceit in a place by it self, and therefore shall come to bring home what hath been discoursed on this head to our present purpose.

If then that publique owning of Christ in Baptism, by which men put him on, and by and upon which they are in­corporated into Christ visibly, be another end and use of Bap­tism, as you see it is, most clear and evident it is, that this end and use is not to be found in the Baptism of Infants. And the [Page 25]reason hereof is, because Intants neither do not can put on Christ in their Baptism, i. e. make an actual declaration and profession unto the world, that they own and acknowledg Christ to be come in the flesh, to be the Son of God, and Savi­our of the World, to be their Lord and Lawgiver, as they do who put him on in Baptism. If the Apostle had intended to have expressed the incorporation of Infants into Christ by Baptism, sure he would have said, that Christ had put them on, or had put himself upon them, and not that they had put him on; or else, that they were thereby put into Christ by their Parents that offered them to Baptism, or by him who did baptize them, and not that they themselves had put him on (as now the words carry it) seeing they are onely passive in their Baptism. But now the words of the Apostle are express, that as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have (that is, you, even you your selves have) put on Christ. And therefore in as much as Infants cannot, with any propriety or truth of speaking, be said to put on Christ in Baptism, neither can they any whit more properly or truly be said to be baptized into Christ; because the Apostle makes the one, to wit, the putting on of Christ, as general and universal as the other, viz. the being baptized in­to Christ.

Against this whole Argument, Object. which concludes Infact-Baptism unlawful, because the ends of Baptism are better at­tained in the Baptism of Believers, &c. it is objected; That this might have been an Argument as well against the circumci­sing of Infants under the Law, as against the Baptism of In­fants under the Gospel; because there is the same reason to sup­pose, that Circumcision should have less answered the ends thereof when applyed to Infants, as there is to conceive, that Baptism should less answer its ends when it is applyed to In­fants; and yet we well know, that this was no bar to Infant-Circumcision then, and therefore why should it be any against their Baptism now?

To this I answer, by way of negation, Answ. 1 or denyal of that supposition upon which the Objection stands, and wherein the utmost strength of it lies, which is this, viz. That there is the same reason to suppose that Circumcision should less answer [Page 26]the ends thereof as administred to Infants, then it would have done in case it had been applyed to men of riper years, as there is to conceive the like thing in the Administration of Baptism to In­fants: I say, I do deny there is the like reason for the one as there is for the other; and that upon these grounds.

1. There is no such accommodation to, or correspondence be­tween Baptism in the letter of it, and its spiritual ends, when ap­plyed to Infants, as there was between Circumcision in the letter of it, and its more spiritual ends; because the proper end of Cir­cumcision being by Gods own appointment for a token or sign of the Covenant between God and that people to whom it was en­joyned, Gen. 17.11. this token or sign was not any transient thing (I mean, as touching the letter of it) that did pass away in the acting of it, but was permanent and lasting, so that the sign it self, and the Covenant to which it related, remained in the flesh of him who was circumcised, all the days of his life, as visible to him, and as capable of improvement to spiritual ends, many years after it was made, as if it had been but newly acted and done before his eyes. My Covenant (saith God) shall be in your flesh ( i.e. remain there) for an everlasting Covenant, Genes. 17.13. Whereas Baptism is a transient act, and leaves no such visible impression in the Infant, as matter of memorial, signification, or instruction to him when he comes to be a man, as that of Circumcision did: so that we see there is not the like reason, but an apparent difference in this respect.

Nor can it be truly said, That either the report of Parents or Neighbors, or any Parish, or other Register, is or can be equiva­lent unto the sign in the flesh before mentioned, as to the ascertain­ing of men and women of their being baptized in their Infancy: 1. Because there is not the like certainty nor satisfaction in reports and hear-says, as there is in seeing and beholding, which differ­ence notwithstanding we have in these two cases in hand. 2. Be­cause opportunity of such satisfaction, as these reports, &c. are capable of giving, may be cut off by the death or other removal of such from whom it is to be received, or else by the removal of such Infants themselves into places far remote, before ever they come to age; upon occasion whereof it may well fall out many times, that persons may be at a great loss as touching any knowledg [Page 27]they have, or can get, whether they were ever baptized or no: which inconveniency was not incident to Infants Circumcision. And therefore in as much as the spiritual influence and operation of such an Ordinance upon the heart of a man when he comes to age, which he received in his minority (as touching his personal interest in it) does depend upon his knowledg of the thing done, as to matter of fact; therefore by how much more evident and indubitable satisfaction hereabout was exhibited in and by that durable sign in the flesh, which was made by Circumcision, above what is to be had by any means to assure persons at age of their being baptized in their Infancy; by so much the more did Infant-Circumcision answer the ends of that Ordinance, above what In­fant-Baptism can be so much as supposed to answer the ends of this.

2. I answer yet further, That the end of Circumcision, 2 though administred to Infants, was better attained, then the end of Bap­tism can be when it is so applyed; because much of the benefit of Circumcision did accrue to the circumcised upon the work done, without respect to any inward qualification or endowment; whereas the benefit of Baptism does not accrue meerly upon the work done, but is suspended upon the knowledg, faith, &c. of him who is baptized. The Righteousness of the Law (of which Circumcision was a principal part) speaketh on this wise, The man that doth those things shal live by them, saith the Apostle, by way of contradistinction from the voyce of the Gospel, or the Righteous­ness of Faith, Rom. 10.5. And again, The Law is not of Faith, (i. e. the Promises, many of them at least, were not suspended on mens believing,) but the man that doth them, shall live in them, Gal. 3.12. Hereupon that Ministration is called the Mini­stration of the letter, 2 Cor. 3.6. the Ordinances thereof car­nal Ordinances, and such as did not make perfect, as pertaining to the Conscience, Heb. 9.9, 10. The Apostle, to shew wherein the Gospel or new Covenant exceeds the Law or old one, saith, that according to this God puts his Laws in the minds of men, and writes them in their hearts, Heb. 8.10. which implies, that he did not do so under the Old Testament; or at least but very little comparatively. Again, Joh. 4.23. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit [Page 28]and truth: implying, that thither-unto, or until then, they had not so worshipped him; or at least, that there was but little of that found under the Legal Dispensation. And, according to the nature of this Ministration, children voyd of understanding and faith, were capable of holy things, as Circumcision and Passover, and the like, and consequently of the ends and bene­fits of them in part, upon a literal administration and reception of them, Rom. 3.1, 2. Exod. 12.44, 48.

But the case is far otherwise now under the Gospel, which is the Ministration of the Spirit, (2 Cor. 3.6.) It is not the work done, but the manner of doing of it in knowledg faith, and fear of the Lord, that entitles men unto the benefit and bless­ing of Gospel-Ordinances: for so the Apostle affirms concern­ing Baptism it self, 1 Pet. 3.21. when he says, that it saves us now, as the Ark did some in the days of Noah: not (saith he) the putting away of the filth of the flesh, ( i. e. not by the external letter of the Ordinance,) but the answer of a good Conscience towards God: i.e. when accompanyed with such a frame of mind and conscience, as does answer God in his in­tendments of Grace in that Ordinance. So again, Col. 2.12. when the Apostle saith, that they were buryed with Christ in Baptism, and that they were therein also risen with him, yet he says that thus they were by the faith of the operation of God, who raised Christ from the dead: meaning, such a faith, as was produced by the operation of God, or else such as had the operation of God in raising up Christ for its object: however, it was by the interveniency of this Faith, that they became both buryed and risen with Christ in Baptism.

Now Infants, as they are not capable of acting this Faith, or making this answer of a good Conscience, so they are not ca­pable of those blessings and benefits intended by God in Bap­tism; in as much as he hath suspended the donation thereof upon these, in conjunction with Baptism. And where any ef­fect depends upon the taking place of more causes then one (as it does in the case in hand) it is not any one of those causes alone that will produce that effect.

3. 3 How ever the ends of Circumcision were attainable, though administred to Infants in those respects before menti­oned [Page 29]with their fellows, yet doubtless the Ordinance it self was so much the less spiritual, and so much the more weak, and savoring of the Legal Ministration, and suited to the then childish condition of the Church, because administration there­of was made to Infants. This, I conceive, might easily be made out from several of those rational principles consonant to the Scripture, upon and from which I have already evinced Bap­tism to be more spiritual, profitable, and edifying, when admi­nistred to men professing the Faith, then when applyed to chil­dren. Therefore doubtless, what the Apostle speaketh of the Commandment in general (meaning the Law, which, as he says, made nothing perfect) how that it is disanulled for the weakness and unprofitableness of it, Hebr. 7.18, 19. may well be under­stood to comprehend even this part of the Commandment also, which enjoyned an Ordinance, one or more, to be administred to little children. And how ever such a mean, low way and method of enjoying Ordinances, as was accommodated to the capacity of babes, was not uncomely whilest the Church was in the condition of children, as the Apostle speaks, ( Gal. 4.3.) no more then it is for a child, whilest he is a child, to speak and act as a child; yet to retain this poor, and low, and barren way of administring a Gospel-Ordinance to Infants, now the Church is raised, both in capacity and administration to its man­ly condition, is as incongruous and uncomely, as it is for one still to speak and act as a child, when he is become a man. By this time I hope it appears, that there is not the same reason why Baptism administred to Infants should reach the ends thereof, as there was why Circumcision, though applyed to Infants formerly, should attain its end. For the nature of the two Ordinances differ, the terms of their Administration dif­fer, and the respective capacities of the Church then, and the Church now, differ: and according to that rule in Logick. Where the things themselves differ, there the reasons of those things differ also.

ARGUM. III.

3. MY next Argument shall be taken from the different na­ture of the two Ministrations of the Old and New Testaments, as rendering Infant-Baptism, in that precise considera­tion of it as applyed to Infants, disagreeable to the Ministration of the Gospel, but withall more correspondent with the Mini­stration of the Law: Therefore I thus further argue.

If Infant-Baptism be disagreeable to the Ministration of the New Testament, then Infants ought not to be baptized: The reason hereof is, because so far as either this or any other way or practice does comply with the Legal Ministration, and disagree with the Evangelical, so far it does cross or oppose the design of God, in changing the Ministration of the Law, for that of the Go­spel; and consequently carries in it a spirit of antipathy against the very spirit of the Gospel Ministration. This, if it were not suffi­ciently evident of it self, might receive abundant confirmation from such Scriptures as these, and what might fairly and plainly be deduced from them: Joh. 4.23, 24. 2 Cor. 3.6. Gal. 4.9. Col. 2.8, 17. Heb. 7.18, 19. & 8.6, 7. & 9.9, 10, 11. & 10.1. But I presume of every mans plenary satisfaction as to this: There­fore I proceed.

But Infant-Baptism is disagreeable to the Ministration of the New Testament. Assumption.

1. 1 The truth hereof, in the first place, is conspicuous and per­ceptible by what hath been made good in our former Argument: For there we proved Baptism, as administred to Infants, less edify­ing, as to the several ends of it, then when administred unto Be­lievers: and if less edifying, then the more suitable and conform­able to the Ministration of the Law, which was a Ministration of less light and edification; and to the same proportion, dispropor­tionate to the Ministration of the Gospel, which is a Ministration of a greater light, and a more rich edification.

2. 2 I might, in the second place, well suppose Infant-Baptism to savor strongly of the Legal Ministration, because the principal Arguments, produced in defence thereof, are such as do arise out of, and are deducted from, the example of Infant-Circumcision, a [Page 31]principal part of the Legal Ministration, and from that analogy and proportion that is supposed to be between them: and not only so, but likewise because such Arguments and Pleas tend to draw down this part of the Gospel-Ministration, as applicable to Infants, unto the line and level of the Legal. For such Arguments, and the thing argued, what are they else but such which are after the rudiments of the World, and not after Christ, i. e. such as are according to the Ministration of the Law which was by Moses, and not ac­cording to that of the Gospel which is by Christ: of which the Apostle warns the Colossians to take heed, as such by which they were in danger of being deceived and spoyled: Col. 2.8. Beware lest any man spoyl you through Philosophy and vain deceit (i. e. through Philosophical and deceitful reasonings, which are) after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Now those reasonings may be said to be after the rudiments of the world, not only which tend to commend the observation and practise of those rudiments in all the particulars of the letter of them, but also when such Arguments and Pleas, for such or such a practice, be derived from, and grounded only up­on those rudiments, and not on the Gospel. And, 2. When they tend to promote a way or practice which answers the nature of those rudiments in some one or more particulars proper to them, though otherwise not the same literally and in all respects. For so Christ is said to be a Priest after the order of Melchisedec, though he were not specifically such another Priest in all respects, but such which held some similitude with him, Hebr. 7.15. Now that those Arguments for Infant-Baptism, which are as the Axletree upon which the Controversie on that side turns, and as the warp running all along that piece of discourse; that these Arguments may be said to be after the rudiments of the world, or one of the rudiments of the world, to wit, Circumcision of Infants, and that in both these respects before mentioned, is easie to conceive. For are not the principal Pleas for Infant-Baptism derived from, and founded on the Circumcision of Infants under the Law? And do they not tend to promote a way and practice now under the Gospel, of administering an holy Ordinance unto Infants? which for ought appears to the contrary, was proper and peculiar to that Administration of the Law?

Nor does that dissolve the strength of what I have now said, Object. which usually is objected in this case, viz. That both our Sa­viour and his Apostles vindicate and assert practices under the Gospel, from the examples of practices under the Law: as the Disciples gathering ears of corn on the Sabbath, from Davids eating the shewbread; and the Priests killing of Sacrifices in the Temple on the Sabbath, Matth. 12.3, 4, 5. The ministering in carnal things to Ministers of the Gospel, from the not muz­ling the mouth of the Ox treading out the corn under the Law, 1 Cor. 9.9 10.

For, Answ. 1 1. It does not appear, that men of private spirits, wanting that infallible guidance of the Holy Ghost which Christ and his Apostles had, may use like liberty as they did in this behalf. Nay, hath not the presumption thus to do, been the sluce through which very many Popish Superstitions have first entred into the World? as supposing them to hold an analogical and equitable proportion with many the Jewish Customs?

But, 2 2. I answer further, That things differ much in the cases produced and compared; For, 1. Though Christ and the Apostles did both back and illustrate their Doctrine and Precepts from instances and examples of things under the Law, yet they never made these examples the sole ground and foun­dation thereof, but these are still built upon that authority they had from God otherwise. As Christ, in that case now object­ed, over and above his allegation from the Law, interposes his own authority as more considerable; Matt. 12.6. But I say unto you, that in this place is one greater then the Temple: and more plainly, Vers. 8. For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day. And so Paul in the other case, he first and prin­cipally pleads his Apostolical Authority, 1 Cor. 9.1, 2. Am I not an Apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are you not my work in the Lord? If I be not an Apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you; for the seal of mine Apostle­ship are ye in the Lord: but after he hath done this, he then pro­ceeds to illustrate what he pleads, by that which he brings out of the Law, Vers. 8.9, 10. and in fine, does bottom the busi­ness on the appointment or ordination of God, for so he says [Page 33]Vers. 14. Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel. 2. The things which both Christ and the Apostle, in the cases objected, plead from examples out of the Law, were not meerly and barely institu­tive and positive, but of a moral consideration, and so of a more ready perception and deduction from those examples. The Disciples gathering of Corn on the Sabbath, could be sup­posed to be a breach but of a ceremonial precept, and yet it was in order to preserve their lives, health, and strength, a thing enjoyned by a moral precept, which is superior to that which is but ceremonial: in which case the Pharisees might easily have satisfied themselves from the examples produced by Christ; as he says, If ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless, Matth. 12.7. That there was also a moral equity in the nature of the thing, viz. that they who preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel, (another thing that was said to be pleaded from examples in the Law) appears plainly; because the Apostle supposes a like equity in this, as there is, that he that goeth a warfare should have his charges born by them for whom he fights; or as there is that he who planteth a vineyard should eat of the fruit thereof, or that feedeth a flock should eat of the milk thereof, or that the laborer should have his hire, 1 Cor. 9.7. 1 Tim. 5.18.

But now Infant-Baptism hath not any express authority of Christ or his Apostles to back it, or any moral equity in and of it self discernable to commend it; in both which respects it differs from the instances and examples objected, and fails of that confirmation it catched at by them. And such a differ­ence in the nature of things, cannot but make a like difference in those proper inferences that may be drawn from them. It's true indeed, it is ordinary to assert such things as are plain parts of the Gospel, from the prefigurations and predictions of the Law, ( Acts 26.22. Rom. 3.21. Epistle Heb. &c.) but to as­sert any thing from the Ceremonies of the Law, which hath no footing in the Gospel, is doubtless that which is after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ; which I suppose verily to be the case of Infant-Baptism, when [Page 34]it is pleaded from Infants Circumcision.

3. Another thing, by which it may appear that Infant-Baptism is not agreeable to the Gospel-Ministration, is, in that it differs from it in this property of it, viz. as it is a Ministration of the Spirit; for so it's called, 2 Cor. 3.6. It's the Ministration of the Spirit in two respects: 1. Because in and by this Ministration the Spirit is given unto men, Galat. 3.2, 5. 2. Because the worship and service which God receives from men under it, is, or ought to be more spiritual then that was under the Law; in both which respects Infant-Baptism will be found disagreeable to it.

1. That Baptism, as an Ordinance of the New Testament, and part of the Gospel. Ministration, when duly administred and re­ceived, does contribute towards their receiving of the Spirit, in respect of a greater presence and operation thereof, then till then ordinarily hath been enjoyed by them who are thus baptized, may appear from the promise of God made in that behalf, Acts 2.38. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost &c. And that this was not particular and peculiar to those persons unto whom Peter then spake these words, but that the same promise is made to all, in all ages, that shall repent and be baptized, is evident by that which follows in the next Verse, whereby the Apostle doth assure them of the remission of their sins, and their reception of the Holy Ghost, in case they did repent, and were baptized, upon this ground; because the promise of God, to wit, upon the terms before mentioned, was made to them, and to their children, and not to them only, but also to those afar off, viz. in respect of na­tion and generation, even as many of them or their children, or others afar off, as whom the Lord our God should so call, viz. by Repentance and Baptism. And it is very like, that it is be­cause of that proximity or neerness of relation that is between this Ordinance of Baptism by water, and this Baptism of the Spirit, that mens being born of water and of the Spirit, (Joh. 3.5.) and the washing of Regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, are coupled together in Scripture, Tit. 3.5. 1 Cor. 6.11. And it is not unlike neither, but that the Spirits descend­ing [Page 35]upon Christ immediately upon his being baptized ( Mat. 3.16.) might have this instruction in it, to teach all those that should re­gularly be baptized with water as he was, to expect a greater mea­sure and presence of the Spirit, then before had been vouchsafed to them.

But now that it is not reasonable to expect, that any such effect should be produced by Infants being baptized, is evident upon this ground, because the gift of the Spirit is still made in Scrip­ture to follow the act of mens beleving the Gospel, (of which act Infants are uncapable,) Joh. 7.39. Acts 15.7, 8. & 19.2. Gal. 3.14. Ephes. 1.13. And therefore when I affirm, as before, That the gift of the Spirit, or some greater measure of the Spirit, is promised upon Baptism duly received, I would not be under­stood, as if I meant, that this promise is made to any meerly and barely upon their being baptized, but to their Baptism in conjun­ction with their believing and repenting, for so it is in the fore­cited place, Acts 2.38. Repent, and be baptized, &c. and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost: The promise of the Spi­rit is not made, either to Repentance or Baptism singly, but to both in conjunction. So that although Baptism be to be received with an eye to the promise of the Spirit, and under an expectati­on of a greater presence thereof, yet by such only who are under that qualification of believing; for where things are promised upon several conditions, or upon condition of several things in conjunction, it is not the performance of one of those conditions alone, that can put a man into a due and well-grounded expecta­tion of the promise.

That Infants are in no present or actual capacity of believing whil'st such, is evident upon this ground, because they have not the use and exercise of understanding, knowledg, or reason, with­out which none can actually believe. For faith supposes an actual knowledg in him who does believe, of these two things; 1. A notion or knowledg of the thing, matter, record, or testimony, to be believed; and, 2. A notion or knowledg of him who is to be believed, or who is the Author of that doctrine or saying which is the subject matter of Faith; as namely, That he is such an one as may be credited in what he says. These things are clear from these and the like Scriptures, Romans 10.14, 17. Joh. 9 3, 6. [Page 36] Psal. 9.10. 2 Tim. 1.12. That Infants have no such knowledg as to make any Judgment upon either person or thing to be be­lieved, as touching either the goodness or badness of the one, or the probability or improbability of the other, appears Deut. 1.39. Your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children which in that day had no knowledg between good and evil, they shall go in, &c. Isai. 7.16. Jonah 4.11.

If Infants then be in no present capacity to believe, and without believing in no capacity to receive the Spirit, it fol­lows, That Infants, whilest such, are in no due capacity of re­ceiving Baptism in order to their receiving the Spirit, and con­sequently that Baptism administred to them, is disagreeable to the Gospel-Ministration, as it is the Ministration of the Spirit; where as the Baptism of Believers is most commodiously suit­able thereunto.

Nor can it reasonably be supposed here, that such a notion as this will salve this fore, viz. That Baptism may be received by Infants in order to their receiving the Spirit when they come to believe, and so their Baptism be agreeable to the Go­spel-Ministration as it is a Ministration of the Spirit, notwith­standing it be received in Infancy; Because Baptism hath no influence this way as it is a work done, in which respect only Infants are capable of it, but as it is done, submitted to, and taken up out of faith, and in obedience to God, as hath been already proved before in part, and will be further confirmed afterwards.

2. Infant-Baptism is disagreeable to the Gospel-Ministration as it is the Ministration of the Spirit, in this respect also, viz. as it requires all Worshippers, in all acts of worship, in all the Ordinances of this Ministration, to worship God in Spirit, with the mind, in faith and fear of the Lord. That these are the terms of the Gospel-Ministration, appears from Job. 4.23, 24. with other places cited formerly upon somewhat like oc­casion, upon which account I may spare further insisting on them here. He that makes use of a Gospel-Ordinance, and does not discern in some measure the nature, tendency and im­port of it, contracts sin and guilt to himself thereby, as is most clear in the case of the Supper of the Lord; he that in [Page 37]eating and drinking does not discern the Lords body, eats and drinks Judgment to himself, 1 Cor. 11.29. And because this qualification of discerning is not found in Children, there­fore they are not admitted to this Ordinance. And how they should be uncapable of this Ordinance in this respect, and yet capable of Baptism, I understand not, especially consider­ing that they both represent the death of Christ, Rom. 6.3. 1 Cor. 11.26. both relate to the great benefit of remission of sins by him, and tend to serve the important interest of men thereabout, Mark 1.4. Matt. 26.28. Since they both then travel with the same blessing in the main; how comes it to pass that the blessing of the one accrues not to the receiver but by his discerning the mind of God in it? and yet the bene­fit of the other does, without any such discerning, if that were true which some imagine? Certainly if plain Scriptures will satisfie hereabout, they do inform us, that it is by means of Faith, and the answer of a good Conscience, that Baptism be­comes beneficial as to its ends, as well as the Supper by a spiritual discerning as to its, Colos. 2.12. 1 Pet. 3.21. But I shall not insist again upon that which I have already dis­patched. In a word, the whole Ministration is denomina­ted by Faith, ( Galat. 3.23, 25.) because Faith, from first to last, from one end of it to the other, is to steer all af­fairs under it on mans part, to act every service, to ac­company every Ordinance, to receive every blessing, to ren­der all actions acceptable, and to make all parts of it be­neficial.

Where this qualification therefore is known to be want­ing, as it is in Infants, certainly there Baptism cannot be applyed without an apparent breach of the Laws and Rules of this spiritual Ministration. And thus also have I made good the premisses of this third Argument; the Conclusion will follow of it self without help, &c.

AROUM. IIII.

MY next Argument shall be this: If none ought to be bap­tized, but such who appear voluntarily willing to be bap­tized in obedience to God, then Infants ought not be baptized.

The reason hereof is, because Infants Baptism cannot reasonably be supposed to proceed from any willingness in them to obey God therein, they being no wise voluntary or active, but altoge­ther passive therein.

But none ought to be baptized, Assumption. but such who appear voluntari­ly willing to be baptized in obedience to God. The reason hereof is this, because without this obediential willingness, Baptism will be unprofitable and fruitless to them: and where we know the good of Baptism is not to be attained, there it is not to be admini­stred; for in case we should, it would be a profanation of the Or­dinance, a taking of Gods Name in vain: Though the sowing of seed be never so necessary, yet it would be no mans wisdom, but folly, to sow in such a ground, or at such a season, which he knows will render his seed fruitless.

That there is no reason to expect otherwise, but that Baptism should be unprofitable to all such who do not take it up volun­tarily, willingly, and in obedience to God, appears upon this account.

1. Because now under the Gospel, this is the standing Rule or Law between Duties and Rewards, between the using of holy Ordinances, and the benefit that comes by them, viz. That Du­ties be done, and Ordinances performed willingly, and in obedi­ence to God: 1 Cor. 9.17. where the Apostle, speaking of his preaching the Gospel, saith, If I do this thing willingly, I have a reward. This saying of the Apostle, though it were uttered upon one particular occasion, yet doubtless it reaches all persons and all duties; If any man do any duty willingly, as unto God, he shall have his reward. But as Affirmatives use to include their Nega­tives by way of implication, so it is here; If I do it not willing­ly, I have no reward: For so the particle IF, imports the con­dition upon which the reward is to be received or not received: and you will spoyl the sence of the place, if you suppose, that if [Page 39]the Apostle did the thing he there speaks of, he should receive a reward, whether he did it willingly or no. Again, 2 Cor. 8.12. If there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that which a man hath, and not according to that he hath not. This also, though it were spoken upon a particular occasion (as many the great Doctrines of the Scriptures were,) yet it is a general proposition, which reaches even all duties. If there be first a willing mind, that is, an obedientious disposition God ward; and this willingness of mind, and obediential disposition, is that, both which puts a man upon doing his duty according to that ability he hath, and which also renders the same acceptable and rewardable with God. Here again this conditional particle IF, If there be first a willing mind, must needs imply, that if this willing mind be wanting, the man is not accepted, his action not rewarded, though he do the thing: For so Paul, speaking of the same duty of giving, 1 Cor. 13.3. saith, Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned and have not Charity, it profiteth me nothing: Still teaching us, that if there be an inward principle of a willing compliance with the Will of God wanting in any action, which in it self is good, and commanded of God; yet for that very cause it becomes unpro­fitable to him that does it, in which respect we affirm Baptism of Infants unprofitable to them.

2. Promises made unto duty, or upon condition of duty, are rewards of that obedience which is yielded to God in discharge of duty, when they are fulfilled thereupon. Now it is no wise proper to say, or rational to suppose, that God rewards his crea­ture, man, for that wherein he is only passive, they being such actions which we call moral, and which proceed from the moti­on of the Will governed by a divine Law, that are rewardable by God. And therefore, unless Baptism be submitted unto willing­ly, and in obedience to God, which cannot be supposed in In­fants; the good things annexed thereto, by way of promisory re­compence of such obedience, cannot upon any good ground be expected.

3. I have proved before in another Argument, That now, under the Gospel-Ministration, there is no benefit comes, either by Baptism, or any other Ordinance, but by means of his Faith [Page 40]who partakes thereof; Without Faith it is impossible to please God, (Hebr. 11.6.) i. e. in any service to approve ones self ac­ceptable to him; For whatsoever is not of faith is sin, Rom. 14.23. It then the benefit we speak of comes not without Faith, then neither does it accrue without that willingness of mind and obe­dientious disposition God-ward we speak of, because it's impos­sible this should be separate from Faith; I mean, a living active Faith, which is the Faith of Gods acceptation: and therefore, to believe, and to obey, are in Scripture frequently put one for ano­ther, and accordingly indifferently so translated, as appears by the double readings.

I shall not here again answer the case of Infant-Circumcision, which possibly may again rise up in the minds of some against what hath been now layd down in this Argument also, but shall refer the Reader, for satisfaction herein, to what hath been already done about that subject in answer to a former Objection, as judg­ing it sufficient at this turn also.

I shall not proceed further to levy more Arguments to serve in this Controversie (unless occasionally) though many more, of like import with the former, might perhaps readily be formed and drawn up, as judging these already insisted on abundantly suffici­ent to detect the vanity of Infant-Baptism.

Nor shall I apply my self to answer those many contrary Argu­ments, which are wont to be mustered up in defence of Infant-Baptism; not because I count them, or any of them, either im­pregnable, or of hard or difficult attempt; but partly because in those Arguments I have produced, there is a ground or foundati­on layd of answering all contrary reasonings, and which is of easie application this way: and partly because some of the chiefest Ar­guments on that side, have been produced already Objection-wise, and received their answer: and partly likewise because this hath been sufficiently done by other hands: and lastly for brevity sake, as perceiving copious discourses hereabout to be burdensom.

But because there is one Argument which seems to be much taking with some, which as it is of a later invention then others, so perhaps hath not received such answer and refutation as others have; therefore as to this, I shall give in some what by way of an­swer.

The Argument is this:

If the love of God to persons be the first and original ground of their being capable of Baptism, then Infants are capable of Baptism: The reason of this consequence is, because Infants are in the love and favor of God, in as much as God hath par­doned that sin, of which they were guilty in and by Adam, and so put them into a condition of Salvation by Christ.

But the love of God to persons is the original or first ground of their being capable of Baptism. Assumption. To make good this minor Pro­position, two things are alledged, 1. That the reason why Faith is necessary in persons who have not been baptized in their Infancy, to render them capable of Baptism, is, because it is that mean by which those that are to administer Baptism come to know that they are in the love and favor of God: and if such a thing could be known without such a profession of Faith, as it may in the case of Infants, such a profession of Faith would not be necessary in order to such an admission. 2. That it was upon this ground that Christ himself was capa­ble of Baptism; for otherwise he had no such Faith as is re­quired of men to render them capable of Baptism, viz. a Faith in God touching the remission of sins through Christ; but as he was a person beloved of God, upon this account Bap­tism did belong to him, and accordingly was administred. And yet that Christ did not receive Baptism upon any terms extraordinary, though he himself was a person extraordinary, but upon the same terms upon which others do, and ought to receive it, appears by this, viz. in that even his Baptism was administred and received, in conformity to a standing Rule or Law of Righteousness, common to others as well as to him; for so he himself saith to John Baptist, speaking of his own Baptism; Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness, Matt. 3.15.

Before I come to answer particularly to this Argument, Answ. I shall desire these two things may be observed by the way: 1. That this Argument contradicts another that is wont to be employed in this service, to wit, that the promise of God be­longs to children of believing Parents, and therefore Baptism: by which Baptism is restrained to such Infants onely as are the [Page 42]children of believing Parents: But by this Argument, Bap­tism is made to appertain to all Infants whatsoever, whether they be children of believing or unbelieving Parents, because it supposes all Infants to be in the love of God in the fore­mentioned respect: and therefore if this be true, the other must be false in its restrained sence; and contrarily, if the other true, this false: so that you see the witnesses do no better agree in their evidence in this behalf, then the false wit­nesses did, that came against Christ, in their testimony. 2. This Argument, if it were good, would render, not onely all In­fants capable of Baptism, But all men likewise, whether Chri­stian or Pagan, because they are beloved of God in such a sence as it's said Infants are, to wit, in having that sin, of which they were guilty in Adam, remitted to them. For if that sin were remitted to them in their Infancy, surely that act of grace and pardon is not recalled when they come to be men, in as much as we no where find in Scripture, that any mens perish­ing is at all charged upon that sin which they were guilty of in Adam, but upon their own voluntary neglect of Grace, and on their actual transgression. And therefore if it be absurd (as I suppose it will be granted to be) to argue all mens capa­bility of Baptism from this ground, which yet is common to all men as well as Infants, why should it be thought any other then absurd likewise, to infer Infants capability of Baptism from the same ground? Since in things which are the same, or like, there is the same or like Reason and Judgment, as Logicians speak.

But to come closer to the Argument; I do deny the conse­quence of the major Proposition; I do deny that it therefore follows, that Infants are capable of Baptism, though it should be granted, that the love of God is the original ground of ren­dering persons capable thereof. And the reason of this denyal is taken from that difference which is between the original ground of persons capability of Baptism, and the next and im­mediate ground thereof: for however the love of God be the ground of all Dispensations of good to the Creature, yet it is not som the self same respect; but as it exhibits it self in one Dispensation of it in one respect, so in another Dispensation [Page 43]thereof it exhibits it self upon other terms and respects. And therefore we must distinguish of the love of God as it is the ground of Baptism. The love of God then is to be considered, either, 1. In the whole entire sum or body of it, generally and indefinitely considered, as comprehending and enclosing in it all particular Dispensations of Grace towards the Creature; or else, 2. As it exerts or puts forth it self in those particular Dispensations themselves. The love of God in the former sence, though it be the ground of all particular acts of Grace, and so of that also which appertains to Baptism, yet it is no sound way of reasoning, to conclude persons to be in an immediate capacity of Baptism, because they are in the love of God under this general considera­tion of it. For upon the same ground one might as well argue In­fants to be strong Christians, or fit to be chosen Pastors, Teachers, or Deacons, as to argue them capable of Baptism, because per­sons are in these capacities by vertue of the love of God to them. And yet who sees not how absurd it would be to reason thus?

If the love of God to persons be the original ground which renders them capable of being chosen into the office of Pastor, Teacher, or Deacon, then Infants are capable of being chosen into these Offices, because they are in the love of God: But the love of God is, &c. If the love of God to persons be the original ground of rendering them capable of the denomination of strong Christians, then Infants are capable of the denomination of strong Christians, because they are in the love and favor of God: But, &c.

Again, to put another case like unto these;

If life be the original ground or cause why persons are capable of speaking, then Infants are capable of speaking, because they have life: But life is the orignal ground or cause why persons are capable of speaking, Ergo.

By the light then of these instances, the invalidity, indeed ab­surdity of concluding Infants to be capable of Baptism, be cause they are in that love and favor of God, may you see be sufficient­ly discerned.

If then we would come to argue steadily, so as to conclude per­sons capability of Baptism from the love of God to them, we must consider the love of God under that particular and precise notion [Page 44]of it, by which persons are put into an immediate, not remote ca­pacity of Baptism. For though it is true, that that love of God, which is vouchsafed Infants in the pardon of that sin that devolved it self on them from Adam, does put them into a remote capa­city both of Baptism and all other consequential acts of grace, which are vouchsafed men upon their believing and diligent and faithful improvement of all means and opportunities of grace, &c. yet it does not put them into an immediate capacity of these, until they do believe, and have improved those means and opportuni­ties, upon condition of which such additional and progressionary acts of grace are promised and suspended; no more then a childs ability to read his Horn-book, or Primmer, puts him into a capa­city of understanding his Grammar.

That the Dispensation of Gods grace and love is made to In­fants in one respect, and to persons in an immediate capacity of Baptism in another; and that that act of grace which is vouchsafed Infants in the pardon of that first sin, &c. does not put them into an immediate capacity of Baptism, appears upon these grounds.

1. Because that act of grace, or dispensation of Gods love, un­to which Baptism does appropriately belong, is that which is ex­erted and put forth in the pardon of mens actual transgressions, and this too not without their repenting or believing; whereas that act of grace, of which Infants partake, is such as is vouch­safed them in the pardon of original sin only, and this too with­out their repenting and believing, meerly upon the account of the death of Christ. That that act, or those acts of grace, unto which Baptism appropriately does belong, is the pardon of sin upon re­pentance, and such other acts of grace as are concommitant and consequential thereunto, appears plainly by this, viz. in that Baptism is called (according to the nature of it, and the intent of God in its institution) the Baptism of Repentance for the remissi­on of sins, Mark 1.4. Luk. 3.3. That is, that Baptism which is to be received upon mens repentance for the remission of sins; or that Baptism, in and by which men profess they expect remissi­on of sins in the way of repentance: or because the reception of which Baptism proceeds from a principle of repentance; or else because God doth therein authentically assure men of the remissi­on [Page 45]of their sins upon their repentance. Take it which way you will, it proves this, That Baptism is conversant about, and sub­servient unto that act of Gods grace and love, which is vouch­safed men in the pardon of their sins upon their repentance: and if so, then is it irrelative to the grace of God in the pardon of Infants sin, which is vouchsafed them without, and before re­pentance takes place.

2. The love of God is the immediate ground of Baptism, so far only as it relates too, or is effective of the good of men in Baptism; for the reception of Baptism is not otherwise to be esteemed an effect of Gods love, then as the good and benefit of men is concerned therein: That which Christs speaks of the Sab­bath, how that it was made for man, Mark 2.27. i. e. for the good of man, is true of Baptism, and every other Ordinance and Institution of God. In as much then as Baptism is not otherwise beneficial unto any, but by means of their Faith, and answer of a good Conscience; and in as much also, as that Infants are not under this capacity of means, both which I have formerly evi­dently proved; therefore it follows undenyably, that God does not love Infants upon any such terms as he does those unto whom he commends and communicates his love in and by Baptism, and consequently, that the love which God bears to Infants, puts them into no immediate capacity of Baptism.

3. The extent of Gods love to Infants, so far as is pretended in the reason of the consequence of the major Proposition, con­sists onely in the pardon of original sin, and the putting them into a condition of Salvation by Christ; all which love of God they are invested with before ever Baptism can be applyed to them; be­cause the love of God in this respect, is not conditional, nor does depend upon the action of any creature, or application of any means, but solely upon the attonement which Christ hath made on that behalf: and therefore Baptism lies out of the verge, com­pass or circumference of the love of God as enjoyed by Infants, and contributes neither less nor more in that dispensation of Gods love to them; in which respect also Baptism is irrelative to the love of God in that precise consideration of it, in which it is commu­nicated to Infants.

Whereas it is alledged by way of proof of the minor Propo­sition. [Page 46]1. That the reason why Faith is necessary in persons who have not been baptized in their Infancy, to render them capable of Baptism, is, because it is that mean by which those that are to admit them to Baptism come to know that they are in the love of God; and that if such a thing could be known without such a profession of Faith, as it may in the case of In­fants, that then such a profession would not be necessary in or­der to such an admission.

To this I answer likewise; 1. That a profession of Faith in such persons, to render them admitable to Baptism, is not ne­cessary to inform those that admit them touching Gods love to them in any respect whatsoever, for this may be known with­out such a profession; but in relation to their knowing them to be in the love and favor of God in that particular respect and determinate consideration, which renders men immediately capable of Baptism; in this respect such a profession of Faith is necessary, because without it the love of God to them upon such terms is not knowable, and consequently they not admit­able to Baptism, as was before proved: by which Infants, as touching their capability of Baptism, are clearly excluded. 2. The profession of Faith is necessary in the case in hand, for other causes then meerly to inform those that admit persons to Baptism, of their being in the favor of God in general whom they do admit, and that is to let them know that such are ca­pable of the several ends and benefits of Baptism, and so meet for Baptism it self; because unless they have reason to conceive that they have Faith, they can have no reason to conceive them in a present capacity of the ends and benefits of Baptism, and so not of Baptism it self, in as much as these are suspended upon Faith, as hath already been evinced.

Whereas in the second place it is said, that it was upon this ground, viz. of Gods loving him, that Christ himself was ca­pable of Baptism, and not his Faith, in as much as he had no such Faith as is required of men to render them capable of Bap­tism, to wit, a Faith in God touching the remission of sins through Christ; and that yet Christ did not receive Baptism upon any terms extraordinary, but upon the same terms as o­thers do, in as much as it was in conformity to a standing [Page 47]Law of Righteousness common to others as well as him:

To this I answer; That this reason is built upon a mistaken ground, as supposing Christ to have no such Faith as might render him capable of Baptism, at least such as is required of other men in order thereunto. For Christ had the same Faith which is required of all other persons in that case. For what Faith was required of other men to render them capable of Baptism, save this? viz. To believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? For so when the Eunuch demanded of Philip, saying, See here is water, what hindreth me to be baptized? then Philip answered and said, If thou beleevest with all thine heart thou mayst: and he answered Philip again, and said, I beleeve that Jesus Christ is the Son of God: upon which confession Philip baptized him, as counting it summarily to contain the expression of that believing with all the heart, which he before had set as the condition of his admission thereunto; and in­deed was none other then the Faith of the Gospel, and the common form of Believers confession: Mat. 14.33. Joh. 1.49. & 6.69. & 11.27. & 20.31. 1 Joh. 5.5. Acts 9.20. And I hope none that own the Scriptures, will deny Christ him­self to have this Faith, in as much as it was his own doctrine which he taught, Joh. 10.36. & 19.7. Matt. 27.43. The truth is, Christ himself had a Faith in God his Father, ( Heb. 2.13. Psal. 22.8. with Mat. 27.43.) and did continue in his Fathers love in the way of obedience to his commands, as other the children of God do, Ioh. 15.10. And therefore well may it be said indeed, that Christ received Baptism upon the same terms as others did, at least in several respects, and that in conformity to the same standing Law of Righteousness (to wit, the institution of God) common to others as well as to him. For doubtless this was the Will of God hereabout, viz. That at what time men undertake publiquely to profess and assert the Gospel unto the World in word and deed, then and at that time they are to take up the Ordinance of Baptism; as the examples of persons, whose Baptism is recorded in the new Testament, do abundantly witness. And therefore Christ himself, when he also is coming forth into the world, to pro­fess and publish the Gospel which he had received from the [Page 48]Father, he also makes a dedication of himself unto this ser­vice by the solemnity of Baptism, as others did, and ought to do.

And we might hence well frame an Argument against In­fant-Baptism, in stead of wresting it, as a witness for it, thus:

If Christ Iesus his being baptized at that season, and upon that occasion, when he began to profess and publish the Gospel, and not before, was in conformity to a Law of Righteousness in this be­half; then those that are baptized, who yet make no such professi­on, as Infants are, are not baptized in conformity to that Law of Righteousness:

But Christ Iesus his being baptized at that season, and upon that occasion, when he began to profess and publish the Gospel, and not before, was in conformity to a Law of Righteousness in this behalf; therefore those that are baptized, as Infants are, who yet make no such profession, are not baptized in conformity to that Law of Righteousness.

That which adds weight to the minor Proposition in this Ar­gument (which I suppose is the only thing that will be questi­oned in it) is this, viz. That Christ his fulfilling a Law of Righteousness in his Baptism, did not consist simply in his be­ing baptized at any time, but in conjunction with his Baptism it self, in his being baptized at such a time and upon such an oc­casion as that was, when and wherein he began to profess and publish the Gospel. For otherwise it is not to be thought, but that Christ had an opportunity of being baptized long before, and much sooner then he was, in as much as Iohn had continu­ed baptizing a considerable space of time before Christ came to to be baptized of him. For Iohn had travelled much ground, even all the Country round about Iordan, both to preach and baptize, which must needs take up much time, especially con­sidering the great multitudes that were baptized of him, even Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, Luk. 3.3. Mat. 3.5. And as it should seem, after this, or at least after a large progress herein made, Jesus Christ was bap­tized also, as appears by the order of the History of the Evan­gelists: Now when all the people were baptized (saith Luke) [Page 49]it came to pass that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, &c. Luke 3.21. Now what may we conceive might be the reason why Christ was not baptized rather with the first then with the last of the people? Certainly, it is not reasonable to conceive, that it was because he had less zeal to fulfil this Law of righte­ousness, then was in the multitude that were baptized before him; and if not this, what else imaginable but this, viz. that his Iesus said unto them, My time is not yet come, but your time is alway ready. Joh. 7.6. appointed time and season of his appearing with the Gos­pel in the world, was not till then, and therefore not his time of being baptized, in as much as the one was in order to the other, and was to take its rise and beginning from the other. And this we have further reason the rather to conceive, because of that Particle NOW, emphatically here used, as it relates to the fulfil­ling of righteousness by that which was to be done: Suffer it to be so NOW (saith Christ to Joh. touching his being baptized) For thus it becometh us to fulfil allrighteousness, Mat. 3.15. Not only in be­ing baptized of him, but in being baptized of him NOW, to wit, at that juncture of time in which he was to be manifested to the world to be the Son of God, & to manifest to the world the Gos­pel of God: NOW to be baptized, viz. upon suchterms, it was a thing very comely, (though John seemed to think otherwise) in as much as that it was a fulfilling of righteousness, i.e. that righteous law or institution of God, given in that behalf. And thus we see, that the example of Christ's Personal Baptism, which was intreated to bless the opinion for Infant Baptism, hath con­tradicted it altogether.