Infant baptism God's ordinance, or, Clear proof that all the children of believing parents are in the covenant of grace and have as much a right to baptism the now seal of the covenant, as the infant seed of the Jewes had to circumcision, the then seal of the covenant / by Michael Harrison ...

INFANT BAPTISM GOD'S Ordinance.

GEN. 17.7.

And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlast∣ing covenant, To be a God unto thee, and thy seed after thee.

GOD having in Gen. 12.3. pro∣mised Abraham, that in him all na∣tions should be blessed; comes now in this 17th Chapter in a more express and formal manner to establish his Covenant with Abraham: In which observe three things.

1. The Persons covenanting.

1. Ex parte Dei; God stands on the one side of the Covenant: O the Infinite Condes∣cention of the Great God, to take any notice of lost Sinners! that when we had broken

the First Covenant, that he should condescend to make a Second Covenant, a Covenant of Grace with lost Sinners!

2. Ex parte Abrahami; Abraham and his Seed stand on the other side of the Cove∣nant; with thee and thy seed after thee: This Seed of Abraham is to be limited according to Scripture; not in Ishmael, nor his Seed by Ketura, but in Isaac shall thy seed be called, Gen. 21.12.

Abraham had a two-fold Seed.

1. A Natural Seed by Generation, which are Abraham's Seed by promise; Rom. 9.7, 8. Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham, are they all Children, but in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

2. A Spiritual Seed; and these were ei∣ther the Proselited Gentiles under the Law, who did believe in, and worshipped the God of Abraham; and so were by Circumcision, the then Seal of the Covenant, taken into A∣braham's Family; or else all Believers under the Gospel; who though they are not of Abraham's Natural Posterity, are yet Abra∣ham's Spiritual Seed; Rom. 4.16. Therefore it is of faith, that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only that which is of the law (viz. the Jews) but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all; i. e. the Gentile Believers. So Gal. 3.29. By both which places the Apostle assureth the Gentiles, That if they are by faith transplanted into Christ, then were they Abraham's seed, and

might claim all the Promises and Priviledges of the Covenant made with Abraham, as if they had been Abraham's Natural Seed by Ge∣neration from Isaac.

2. Here is the duration of this Covenant; an everlasting, a perpetual, or an eternal Co∣venant; a Covenant to last for evermore; so the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gnolam proper∣ly signifies: This Covenant was not to be ta∣ken down by Moses, no nor by Christ, but was that everlasting Covenant which was ra∣tified and sealed with the Blood of Christ, Heb. 13.20.

3. Here are the Conditions of this Cove∣nant; on God's part, I will be to thee a God, which carries in it all manner of Temporal, Spiritual, and Eternal Blessings; as Pardon, Sanctification, and Eternal Life, Psal. 144.14, 15.

And on Abraham's part; he and his Seed were to be the Lord's peculiar People, to walk before God in holiness, and sincere obe∣dience, Gen. 15.1.17.8, 9, 10.

Doct. That Covenant of Grace which God made with Abraham, of which Circumcision then was, and Baptism now is the Seal; is a Covenant in which all Believers and their Children are com∣prehended.

In speaking to this Doctrine, I shall by Di∣vine assistance do these five things.

1. Briefly shew you the nature of the Co∣venant of Grace.

2. Prove this Covenant made with Abra∣ham to be a Covenant of Grace.

3. That Circumcision then was, and Bap∣tism now is, a Seal of this Covenant.

4. All Believers are in it.

5. That all the Infants of Believing Parents are in this Covenant, and have as much a right to the now Seal of the Covenant, which is Baptism, as the Infants of the Jews had to the then Seal of the Covenant, which was Circumcision.

1. The nature of the Covenant of Grace.

The Covenant of Grace is God's gracious Promise of delivering from a state of Sin and Death, and bringing into a state of Salvation by Jesus Christ, all that by faith fly to, and lay hold on him.

In which Covenant we may take notice,

1. The Parties in covenant; God is on the one part of the Covenant, and Believers and their Children on the other part, as has been proved.

2. That on our part Christ is the principal Head and Representative in this Covenant; for this Covenant was made with Christ as the Second Adam, and in him with all the Elect, as his Seed, Gal. 3.16. Rom. 5.15. to the end. Isa. 53.10, 11.

3. Jesus Christ is the Mediator of this Co∣venant, 2 Tim. 2.5.

4. Herein God promises Life and Salvation to all Believers, 1 John 5.11, 12.

5. The Condition of the Covenant on our part is Faith, Mark 16.16.

6. Herein the Holy Spirit is absolutely promised to work Faith and all other Graces in us, Prov. 1.22. Ezek. 36.27. and the first graces of Conversion is absolutely pro∣mised us without any respect to the will of man, Ezek. 36.25, 26.

This Covenant God made with Abraham was a Covenant of Grace; it must either be a Covenant of Works, or a Covenant of Grace; but a Covenant of Works it is not, for that requires personal perfect Obedience from all; and in case of sin lays the Sinner under an curse, Gal. 3.10, 12. Rom. 10.5.

It is a Covenant of Grace, as is evident.

1. This Phrase, I will be thy God, and you shall be my people, is never found but in a pro∣mise of the Covenant of Grace; as Gen. 15.1. Exod. 29.45. Jer. 24.7.31.33.32.37, 38, 39. Ezek. 11.18, 19, 20.34.22, 23, 24, 25.37.23. Zech. 8.8. 2 Cor. 6.16. Rev. 21.3.

2. It was the Covenant of Grace; for it's an Everlasting Covenant, which is a property of the Covenant of Grace, 2 Sam. 23.5. Heb. 13.20.

3. It's a Covenant of Grace; for we find that in all After-discoveries and Repetitions of the Covenant of Grace, the Spirit of God hath respect to this; as Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. Psal. 105.42. Acts 2.39.

4. It was a Covenant of Grace; for Cir∣cumcision, the Seal of it, was a Gospel-ordi∣nance;

Rom. 4.11. it was a Sign and Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, i. e. of Christ.

5. It's a Covenant of Grace; for that Phrase, I will be to thee a God, contains all Gospel-blessings in it, Heb. 11.9, 10, 13, 14. Gal. 3.18.

6. Many Scriptures testify it was so; Micha 7.19, 20. Luke 1.72, 73, 74.

3. That Circumcision then was, and Baptism now is, the Seal of this Covenant: That Cir∣cumcision then was a Seal, is evident, Gen. 17.10. Rom. 4.11. Whoever would be a visible Church-member must be circumcised.

Circumcision is now abolished by Christ, Eph. 2.15. 1 Cor. 7.19

And Baptism now serves to the same pur∣pose; whoever will be a Member of the Chri∣stian Church, must be baptised; there's no change in the Covenant, only the Rite of admitting Members is changed, Matth. 28.18, 19. Acts 2.41. Col. 2.10, 11, 12.

4. All Believers are in this Covenant; this is abundantly evident, Rom. 4.11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Gal. 3.29. The Covenant was made with Abraham as a Believer, and with all Be∣lievers as well as him. Persons may be said to be in covenant in a twofold respect.

1. Internally and invisibly; as united to Christ, living Branches, knit to Christ by a vital union; and thus only the Elect are in covenant: The Covenant thus considered is not the ground of Baptism; if we must bap∣tize

none but such as are vitally in Christ, then must we baptize none; because tho we see the outward profession, we do not know who belong to the Election of Grace.

2. Persons are externally and visibly in co∣venant, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12, 13. Thus all who profess Christ, Tares and Wheat, wise Vir∣gins and foolish, Matth. 25.1, 2, 3, 4. This is the ground of Baptism; we do not baptize persons as the Elect of God, or Infants as the Infants of the Elect, but as making a visible and credible profession of Religion; so the Apostles did presently baptize such as did profess repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ; Act. 2.41. Simon Magus, in barely professing to believe in Christ, was baptised.

Thus all those who visibly profess Christi∣anity, and are baptised in the name of Christ, and do not scandalous Sins, notoriously con∣tradict their Profession, are to be accounted Believers in Covenant, and their Children to be baptised, Ezek. 16.20, 21.

3. That all Infants of such believing Parents are in the Covenant of Grace, and have as much a right to Baptism, the now Seal of the Covenant, as the Infants of the Jews had to Circumcision, the then Seal of the Cove∣nant.

This is the principal thing designed from this Text.

There are, you know, a sort of restless people amongst us, who are perpetually let∣ting

fly, and with great indignation spurning at Infant Baptism; telling you, your Infants have no right to the Seal of the Covenant, and thereby tempt you to be cruel to the Chil∣dren of your own Bowels, setting them a∣mong Pagans and Infidels.

Therefore I hope it will be an acceptable service to plead the Cause of your poor In∣fants, who cannot yet speak a word for them∣selves; to assert and prove their right to the Covenant, and the initiating Seal thereof, which is Baptism. I hope to find very few amongst you who will join with the Enemy of Infants, but rather put to a helping hand to restore them those Priviledges God allows them. In speaking to this, I shall

1. Lay down some Conclusions to clear the Doctrine of Infant Baptism.

2. Prove the Doctrine by several Argu∣ments.

3. Shew the dangerous Consequence of denying Infant Baptism.

4. Answer Objections.

5. Prove that Dipping over head in bapti∣zing in these cold Countreys, is no Ordinance of God, but a grievous Sin.

CHAP. I. Containing five Introductory Considera∣tions, very needful for the right un∣derstanding the Controversy of In∣fant Baptism.

1. COnsider, that a Doctrine or Practice may be proved to be of God two ways.

1. By the express words of Scripture; as the Resurrection of the dead may be proved from such a Text as cannot be denied by any that own the Scripture to be God's Word; as John 5.28. All that are in the grave shall come forth.

2. Or from Evident Consequences drawn from Scripture; then have we the mind of Christ, when we have the right meaning of Scripture; thus Christ proves the Resurre∣ction to the Sadduces, Luke 20.37, 38. Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord, The God of Abra∣ham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Now this Scripture doth not prove the Re∣surrection in direct terms, but remotely, and by consequence. How little satisfaction would this Text have given our Modern Anabaptists, if they had been present at the Dispute be∣tween Christ and the Sadduces; would they not

have reprov'd Christ for his Impertinence? We will not believe the dead will rise, un∣less we have a plain Text; would not these men have reported abroad that Christ could could not prove the Resurrection?

Thus they deal with us at this day; We challenge you, say they, to prove Infant Baptism to be God's Ordinance; bring us a plain Text, and we will believe.

Now if we prove Infant Baptism as plainly as Christ proved the Resurrection, then it is certainly God's Ordinance; and we are bound to own it.

Most we believe nothing but what we have totidem verbis, in just so many words in Scrip∣ture? then how shall we prove the first day of the Week to be the Christian Sabbath? That a Woman may come to the Lord's Ta∣ble? That a Christian may be a Magistrate?

2. Observe, That a mind prepossessed with Error and Prejudice, that is, not seeking Truth, but only something to defend their pre∣sent Embraced Opinions, will not be satisfied, let the Text be never so clear, or the Argument never so firmly built upon Scripture; but will still be inventing some shift or other to ward off the force of any Text or Argument.

This is evident in the Example of the Sad∣duces beforementioned; we find indeed Christ silenced them, but we do not find so much as one of them convinced, and brought off to a sound mind.

Men are generally so fond of their Errors, that when they are beaten out of one hold, they fly to another.

3. Those Doctrines which were clearly re∣vealed, and fully confirmed in the Old Testa∣ment, though little or nothing be said of them in the New Testament, and were never repealed, are yet to be owned, received and believed, as if much had been said of them in the New Testament; the whole Scripture is God's Word, and what need of proving the same thing twice, unless the Authority of the Old Testament were questioned? this is evident in the lawfulness of a Christian Magistracy, in an Oath before a Magistrate, and making war upon a just occasion: There is so little said of these things in the New Testament, many of the Anabaptists have denied them; yet these being fully setled and confirmed by God in the Old Testament, are to be owned, though little be said of them in the New.

Now this is the case of Infant Baptism.

The Question is not by what Sign, but at what Age, persons are to be admitted into the visible Church?

Now this was fully determined in the Old Testament, That Infants at eight days old were to be admitted Members of the Visi∣ble Church; and suppose little be said of it in the New Testament, it is because there was no need of it; this truth having been once setled in the Old Testament, and never re∣pealed.

4. Those Doctrines which were once throughly setled in the Old Testament, and never called in question by any in the New, there was no occasion given to speak of them again.

We find, that what was but darkly hinted in the Old Testament, and much questioned in the New, is fully cleared; and much is said of it, as that glorious Doctrine of Justifi∣cation by the imputation of the Righteous∣ness of Christ: This was very darkly hinted in the Old Testament, and very much oppo∣sed by Legal Preachers in the New Testa∣ment, therefore much is said in the New Testament to clear it.

But Infants right to the Covenant, or to Church-membership, there was much said of it in the Old Testament, and it was neve•• denied or called in question by any in the Apostles days; they were setled, and had had peaceable possession of their Priviledges ever since Abraham's time.

Had any in the Apostles days scrupled in In∣fants Right, very much would have been said of it; for the Jews, who tenaciously adhe∣red to their old Priviledges, would never so silently have suffered their Children to be cast out of covenant, without taking notice of it.

A Doctrine may be very clear, the Scrip∣tures brought to prove, and the Argument thence deduced clear and convincing; and yet it may remain dark to one that is unca∣pable of discerning it. An Object may be

very obvious, and yet not well discerned, by reason the Eye is clouded. How plain are the Doctrines of the Trinity; the Divine Nature of Christ; Justification by Imputed Righte∣ousness, &c. and yet many are so blind as not to see these things?

So the matter in debate, viz. That the In∣fants of believing Parents have a right to Bap∣tism, is as clear to me as the other, yet ma∣ny will not see it. The generality of Chri∣stians are but Babes in knowledge, have but dark and confused apprehensions of the clearest Truths in Religion, and must needs be much more at a loss in what hath not that clearness and perspicuity in it.

CHAP. II Containing the First Argument for In∣fant Baptism.

IF God doth own the Infant Seed of Be∣lievers as his, then they ought to receive the Token of his so owning of them.

But God doth own the Infant Seed of Be∣lievers as his, therefore they ought to receive the Token of his so owning of them, which is Baptism.

Now that God doth own the Infant Seed of Believers as his, I prove by these Four Ar∣guments.

1. If the Children of believing Parents are God's Children, their Sons and Daughters his Sons and Daughters, then God owns them.

But the Children of believing Parents are God's Children, as is evident, Ezek. 16.20, 21. Moreover, thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast born unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed to be devoured: Thou hast slain my children and delivered them to pass through the fire for them. These Idolatrous Israelites were at this time much degenerated, but yet God had not given them a bill of Divorce, the Covenant was not dissolved; and there∣fore these Children born within the Cove∣nant, were God's Children; and his, not merely by right of Creation, so all are his but by right of Covenant. There was little reason to believe the Parents were gracious; but however, being visibly in covenant, God claims their Children as his own, as belong∣ing to his Church and Family by a Covenant-Right.

2. If the Children of such Parents, who are one or both of them Believers, are fe∣derally holy, then God owns them: but the former is true, 1 Cor: 7.14. therefore the latter, else were your children unclean; but now are they holy; the question was, Whe∣ther when the Husband was a Believer, and the Wife an Unbeliever; or the Wife a Be∣liever, and the Husband a Pagan, they might yet continue to live with the Unbeliever:

To this the Apostle answers, they might, and gives this reason for it, viz. The unbeliever is sanctified by the believer: Sanctified in Scripture usually signifies either

1. Savingly sanctified by Grace and Spi∣ritual Life infused into the Soul by the Spirit of God: or,

2. Setting Persons apart for some holy Use or Office; as the Priests, Sabbath, Ta∣bernacle, and all the Utensils thereof, and all the People of Israel who were circumcised; but the unbelieving Husband or Wise here were sanctified in neither of these respects; therefore it's otherwise to be understood. Candidatus est fidei, say some, they are in a fair way of being won over to the Faith of Christ, or prepared by God for such a use; so sanctified signifies in Isa. 13.3. but the meaning is plainly this: That in regard that all the Faithful are Heirs of the Covenant of Grace, Gen. 17.1. I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Acts 2.39. The promise is to you, and to your children: This Promise being to believing Pa∣rents, and their Infants, this Covenant the unbelieving Party cannot undo by his or her unbelief; hence their Children were holy.

1. Not merely legitimate; for so they would have been, had both the Parents been Pagans; to say as the Anabaptists do, they

are not Bastards; is, saith Doctor Featly, a Bastard Exposition.

2. Nor can it be meant, that they are sa∣ved, justified and sanctified by the Holy Ghost, (though if that were the sense, it would not contradict but confirm the Doctrine of In∣fant Baptism; for whoever hath Justificati∣on and Sanctification, the thing signified by Baptism, hath undoubtedly a right to the Sign and Seal.

3. Then by holy must unavoidably be meant federally holy; i. e. within the Cove∣nant; as the Infants of the Jews were a holy Seed, and had a right to Circumcision; so the Infants of Christian Parents, though but one of them a Believer, had a federal holiness and a right to be baptised, as if both the Pa∣rents had been Believers.

4. If the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to little Children, then Christ owns them; but the Kingdom of Heaven doth belong to them, Matth. 19.13, 14. Then were there brought little children unto him, that he should put his hands on them, and pray, and the disciples rebu∣ked them; But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven. Here Christ declares the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to them. By the Kingdom of Heaven is meant, either the Kingdom of Glory in the next World, or the Kingdom of Grace here; the latter is most probable, for so the Church is called, Matth. 22.1, 2.

Now be it the one, or the other, its evi∣dent Christ owned them as his.

5. If the promise of the Covenant of Grace may be made to the Infant Seed of Believers, then Christ owneth them; but the promise of the Covenant of Grace is to the Infant Seed of Believers, as well as to their believing Parents; Gen. 17.7. I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and thy seed af∣ter thee. And this Promise the Apostle recites as belonging to all Believers, Acts 2.39. The promise is to you, and to your children.

Now from all it's abundantly evident, that God doth own the Children of believing Pa∣rents as his: Therefore they ought to receive the Token of his so owning them, which is Baptism. The conclusion is unavoidably; If it be evident God owns a Person, that Person ought to be baptized; let him shew, that can, any reason why a Person so owned by God should not be admitted into the Church by Baptism.

CHAP. III. Containing the Second Argument for Infant Baptism.

IF the Infants of believing Parents ought to be received and admitted visible Church-members, then such Infants ought to be baptized; but the Infants of believing Parents ought to be received and admitted visible Church-members, therefore they ought to be baptized.

Now that such Infants ought to be received into the visible Church as visible Church-members, I prove by these Arguments.

Argument 1. If by the merciful Gift and Appointment of God, not yet repealed, some Infants were once to be admitted Members of the visible Church by vertue of the Covenant of Grace; then 'tis certain some Infants are still to be so admitted: but the former is true, therefore the latter.

Two things must here be done to shew,

1. That some Infants were once admitted Members of the visible Church.

2. That this Church-membership was ne∣ver repealed.

1. Some Infants were once so admitted by vertue of the Covenant of Grace. If any de∣ny this, thus it is proved.

1. Infants were part of them that entered into covenant with the Lord God, and into his Oath, that he might take them to be a pe∣culiar People to himself; Deut 29.10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders with your officers, with all the men of Israel. 11. Your little ones, your wives, &c. 12. That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day. 13. That he establish thee to day for a people unto himself; and that be may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee; and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abra∣ham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. 14. Neither with you only do I make this covenant, and this oath; but v. 15. with him that standeth here with us this day before the Lord your God; but with him that is not here with us this day.

This was not a new Covenant, but a re∣newing the Covenant made with Abraham, as v. 13. Into this Covenant their little ones pre∣sent were taken, and their little ones yet un∣born.

2. Infants were engaged to God by the Seal of the Covenant, which was Circumcision, Gen. 17.10. Circumcision was not a meer politick Rite, as some Frantick Anabaptists have dreamed; but a Seal of the Covenant of Grace, Rom. 4.11. He received the Sign of Circumcision as a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith: That is, Circumcision was 1. a Sign; of what? of the Circumcision of the

heart by the Spirit of Christ; of the mortify∣ing and killing the old man; of the sad effects of Sin, both original and actual; and the way of recovery by Jesus Christ. 2. It's a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith; that is, of the Righteousness of Christ imputed to the Believer, and received by faith; this is a Periphrasis of the Covenant of Grace, wherein righteousness is promised, and made over to us in a way of believing.

3. Infants were baptized to Moses in the Cloud, and in the Sea, 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, 3. And Stephen calls that Assembly, whereof they were Members, the Church in the Wilder∣ness.

From hence it is evident beyond rational contradiction, that Infants were sometimes taken into the visible Church, as visible Church-members, by vertue of the Covenant of Grace.

Secondly, That this Infant Church-mem∣bership was never repealed.

For if Infant Church-membership be repeal∣ed, then that repeal must be either in Mercy or Judgment; but it was in neither, therefore it was never repealed.

1. Infant Church-membership was never repealed in Judgment; for God never revokes his Covenant to any People, till first that People break covenant with him, which In∣fants never did; therefore being once taken into covenant, 'tis certain God did never cast them out.

Now it was a mercy to have Infants taken into covenant, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. therefore if this Privilege be revok'd, it must be in Judgment; for as it is a great Mercy to be in the visible Church, so 'tis a sore Judgment to be out of it, to be cast out of covenant.

Now if Infant Church-membership be re∣peal'd, then the Infants of Believers under the Gospel are in a much worse condition than before Christ's Incarnation; certainly Christ did not come to make our Children miserable, or to put them into a worse condi∣tion than they were in before; this would make Christ a Destroyer, who is the only Sa∣viour.

But certainly the Church is now in a much better condition, and her Privileges more ample and larger than they were before; she hath lost none of her Privileges, but gained many more, Heb. 8.6. A more excellent mini∣stry, better promises, Rom. 5.15, 16, 17. 'Tis certain Infants are not thrown out of cove∣nant, for that would much darken the Grace of God received in the Gospel.

2. Nor is Infant Church-membership re∣peal'd in Mercy; for it can be no Mercy to take away a Mercy, unless it means to give a greater Mercy in the room of it. Now let the Anabaptists shew what greater Mercy God hath given in the room of Infant Church-membership; there is none: Therefore it was never repealed.

2. If that Covenant, by vertue whereof Infants were received into the visible Church, was the Covenant of Grace, then 'tis certain it was never repeal'd.

But that Covenant, by vertue whereof they were taken in, was the Covenant of Grace, therefore it was never repealed. But that Covenant, by vertue whereof they were taken into the visible Church, was the Cove∣nant of Grace, as is most evident, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. And so the Covenant made with Abraham, whereof Circumcision was a Seal, Gen. 17.7, 10. as the Apostle clearly proves, Rom. 4.11. Now the Covenant of Grace is an everlasting Covenant, 2 Sam. 23.5. never was, nor ever will be repeal'd.

Infant Church-membership was no Cere∣mony, neither was it any part of the Cere∣monial Law; if any say it was, let them shew what it typified under the Gospel.

If it were a Ceremony, then the Materials of the Church would be a Ceremony, and so the Church it self, which would be very ab∣surb to affirm.

Neither was it part of the Moral Law, the Covenant of Works, whatever pains some of the opposite Persuasion have taken to prove it; for the Covenant of Works knows no Mercy; neither was it any part of the Judicial Law, for Church-membership was not a piece of meer Policy; the Church is one thing, and the Commonwealth ano∣ther.

3. If there be no mention or record of the Repeal of Infant Church-membership in any part of the New Testament, then it is most certain it was never repealed. But there is no record of any such Repeal in any part of the New Testament, therefore it was ne∣ver repealed; if any say it was, let them shew where that Repeal is recorded. 'Tis true Circumcision is ceased, because it was a Ceremonial Type; but Infant Church-membership being no Type or Ceremony, is not ceased.

Argument 2. If an Infant was Head of the visible Church, then an Infant may be a Mem∣ber of the visible Church. But an Infant was Head of the visible Church; for who will de∣ny, but that Jesus Christ was Head of the vi∣sible Church in his infancy? what honour was done to Christ in his infancy both by Angels and men? Hence it appears,

1. That the Nonage of Infants doth not make them uncapable of being Church-members, supposing God's will.

2. It shews, that it is the will of God that it should be so; because Christ passed through each Age to sanctify it to us. Thus Irenaeus, who lived about an hundred and fifty years after Christ, these are his words; Ideo per omnem venit etatem, & infantibus Infans factus, &c. Therefore Christ passed through every Age; for Infants he was made an Infant,

sanctifying Infants; in little Children, being a little Child, sanctifying them that have that very Age; here's clear proof from Antiquity of Infant Church-membership.

Argument 3. If Infants are federally holy, then they have a right to visible Church-membership; but Infants are federally holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. as we have before shewed, and all sound Interpreters tell us.

Argument 4. If Infants belong to the King∣dom of Heaven, then they belong to, and are Members of the visible Church; but Infants do belong to the Kingdom of Heaven, there∣fore they belong to the visible Church. Now some Infants do belong to the Kingdom of Heaven, Matth. 19.14. Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven. By the Kingdom of Heaven here, must needs be meant, either the Kingdom of Grace, that is, the Gospel-Church here; and then the meaning is, That the Gospel Church, which is Christ's King∣dom on Earth, is made up of Infants, as well as adult persons; and this is most likely to be the meaning: And so the thing in question is clearly proved. Or else by the Kingdom of Heaven must be meant the Kingdom of Glo∣ry: That is, Children shall go to Heaven as well as grown Persons. If so, still the con∣sequence is clear; if Infants are Members of the invisible Church, then have they an un∣doubted

right to be Members of the visible Church.

I grant a Person may be a Member of the invisible Church, and yet no Member of the Visible: Yet whoever is a Member of the in∣visible Church, hath a right to visible Church-membership.

Argument 5. If Infants are to be received in Christ's name, then they do undoubtedly belong to Christ's Church: But we are com∣manded to receive Infants in Christ's name, Mark 9.36, 37. —He that receiveth one such child in my name, receiveth me, &c. Doth Christ take them into his Arms, and would he have them cast out of his Church? Are we to re∣ceive them in Christ's name, and do they not belong to Christ, nor to his Church? See Mark 10.13, 14, 15. Did Christ say all this to deceive us? certainly they are visible Mem∣bers of the visible Church.

Now if this be so, that some Infants were sometimes admitted by God's own appoint∣ment, and that by vertue of the Covenant of Grace, visible Church-members;

Then undoubtedly they ought to be bapti∣zed; for Baptism is the only Rite that Jesus Christ, who is Head of the Church, hath appointed for the admitting Members into his Church, Matth. 28.18, 19. All that are, or will be Christ's Disciples, must be baptized in his name; if any know any other, let them shew it.

Now these two Arguments are abundantly sufficient to prove the Infants right to Bap∣tism, and it is needless to name any other: But yet because some think a thing never pro∣ved, unless much be said, and many Argu∣ments be brought; I shall therefore add some other Arguments; though I shall not dwell, nor enlarge on them, because the right un∣derstanding of these already mentioned, will give light to what remains.

CHAP. IV. Containing the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Arguments for Infant Baptism.

ARGUMENT III.

IF any Infants are Christ's Disciples, then those Infants ought to receive the Badg of a Disciple, which is Baptism; But some In∣fants are Disciples, Act. 15.10. Why lay you a yoke upon the necks of the disciples. Now this Yoke was Circumcision, as v. 1. and v. 5. There were some that would impose Circum∣cision on the Disciples of Christ. Now this must needs be understood of Infants as well as others, because that Circumcision was most commonly administred to Infants; Therefore if Infants are not only meant, they are chiefly intended; now that all Disciples of Christ

ought to be baptized; there is a plain com∣mand for it; and so a command for Infant Baptism, Matth. 28.19. Go therefore teach all nations; but in the Greek it is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Go disciple all nations, baptizing them; Infants are Disciples, as before, therefore ought to be baptized.

ARGUMENT IV.

If it hath been the constant custom of the Church of Christ all along from the Apostles days to baptize Infants, none never denying It till some hundreds of years after; Then we may rationally conclude it was the practice of the Apostles to baptize Infants; but the former is true, therefore the latter.

Now that Infant Baptism was practised in the Primitive Times by the whole Universal Catholick Church, is evident.

Irenaeus, who had seen Policarpus, St. John's Disciple, and therefore lived very near the Apostles days, saith, Christ came to save and sanctify all sorts; Qui per eum venascuntur in Deum Infantes, &c. All that are born to God, In∣fants, little ones, and Children— Born to God in the Ecclesiastical Phrase, is but the same with Infant Baptism.

Tertullian, who lived about the Year of Re∣demption 200. moved some Scruples about Baptism, yet never denied the lawfulness of it: And in case that the Infant was in danger of death, did vehemently urge it.

Origen, who lived but little after him, speaks again and again of the baptizing little Children, and saith, They received it by Tradi∣tion from the Apostles.

About 150 years after the death of St. John, there was one Fidus, who raised a doubt, Whether Infants might be baptized before they were eight days old, because Cir∣cumcision was not to be administred till then. Therefore Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and 66 more, met to consider this Case; and agreed, That Infants, recens nati, new born, might be baptized.

And thus we might cite Testimonies of Athanasius, Chrysostom, Augustin, and many o∣thers, that it was the constant custom of the Church to baptize Infants.

Which Custom is still continued in all the Churches of Christ all the world over; as ap∣pears in all the Confessions of all the Protestant Churches: As Helvetia, Bohemia, Belgia, Aus∣purg, Saxony, Wittenberg, Swedeland, France and Peidmont; and Histories tell us 'tis pra∣ctised by the Russians, Muscovites, and all the Christians in India, Syria, Cyprus, Mesopota∣mia, Babylon, Palastine; and in every part of the world where there be any Christian Churches planted.

ARGUMENT V.

The Fifth Argument for Infant Baptism is this:

If the Infants of believing Parents be in the Covenant of Grace, and the Promise of the Covenant do belong to them; then they may, and ought to be baptized.

But such Infants are in covenant, and the Promise of the Covenant doth belong to them, therefore they ought to be baptized.

That they are in covenant as well as their Parents, is undeniably evident from the te∣nure of that Covenant made with Abraham, which was a Gospel-covenant, Gen. 17.7 as we have abundantly proved; and that the Promise of the Covenant is to them, is as evident, Act. 2.39. The promise is to you, and to your children; he means the Promise of God to Abraham; the Promise of Salvation by Christ, which was promised both to Jews and Gentiles; but to the Jews in the first place: Or suppose the Apostle hath respect unto Jer. 31.33, 34. or to Joel 2.28. it al∣ters not the case, for those were all branches of the Covenant of Grace, and Explications of what was virtually contained in that first Promise to Abraham, Gen. 17.7.

ARGUMENT VI.

The Sixth Argument for Infant Baptism is this:

If the Infants of one or both of the belie∣ving Parents be federally holy, then they ought to be baptized; but the former is true, therefore the latter, 1 Cor. 7.14. By the ho∣liness of Children there, is not meant Legiti∣macy; i.e. not Bastards; so they would have been, if both the Parents had been Pagans.

Nor is it meant that they are savingly san∣ctified, but federally holy; that is, in the Covenant of Grace; and so had an undeni∣able right to the Seal of the Covenant, which is Baptism.

ARGUMENT VII.

The Seventh Argument for Infant-Baptism is this:

If the Kingdom of Heaven belong to In∣fants, then they ought to be baptized; but the Kingdom of Heaven doth belong to some Infants, Matth. 19.14. Suffer little children to come to me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

1. Suppose by the Kingdom of Heaven, is meant the Kingdom of Glory; little Chil∣dren when they die shall go to Heaven; this sense the Anabaptists cannot disallow; for they say, all Children dying in infancy, are

saved; the Infants of Turks, Pagans, Infidels, Papists, all sorts: Then if they are Heirs of Glory, this must be by vertue of their interest in, and union with Christ; for there's no other way to Heaven, but by Jesus Christ, John 14.6. I am the way, the truth, and the life; no coming unto the father but by me: There's no Name under Heaven, whereby we can be saved, but only Jesus Christ. Now if Infants have a right to Glory by vertue of their uni∣on with, and interest in Christ, then have they a right to be baptized; if they have a right to Heaven by Christ, then to receive the Badge of a Disciple of Christ, which is Bap∣tism; no person can have any plea for Hea∣ven, that had not a right to be baptized, Acts 2.47. The Lord added to the Church such as should be saved. This adding to the Church was by Baptism, v. 41. And let them shew that can, what right those have to Heaven, that are not, or at least have not a right to be so added to the visible Church.

2. But by the Kingdom of Heaven is oft understood the Gospel-Church: So Mat. 22.1.13.47.8.20, 21.11.12 and in most of our Saviour's Parables: And this is most likely to be the meaning of this Text, of such is the kingdom of heaven; that is, the Gospel-Church takes Infants as well as adult persons to be visible Members in it: And then the consequence is unavoidable, The visible Church and Kingdom of Christ is made up of Infants as well as adult persons; Baptism

is the Door into the visible Church, there∣fore they must needs be baptized.

ARGUMENT VIII.

The Eighth Argument for Infant Baptism is this:

If Infants are to be received in the name of Christ, they are to be baptized in the name of Christ; but Infants are to be received in the name of Christ, Mark 9.36. Whoso re∣ceiveth one such child in my name, receiveth me; to receive them in the name of Christ, is to receive them as the Disciples of Christ; or, because they belong to Christ: And if they ought to be thus received in Christ's Name, as the Friends and Disciples of Christ, then they ought to receive the Badge of a Disciple, to have the name of Christ named over them in Baptism.

ARGUMENT IX.

If in our Saviour's time the Head and Ma∣ster of a Family was never baptized, but his whole Family was baptized with him, then Children and Infants ought to be baptized, for they are a considerable part of Fa∣milies.

But we never read of any Head or Master of a Family baptized, but his or their whole Houshold were baptized with them; as is evident in Cornelius, Acts 10. and

Lydia, and the Jailer, Acts 16. So 1 Cor. 1.14. &c.

Object. But there's no mention of any In∣fants in any of these Families.

Answ. No more is there of any of riper years: And it's much more likely that there was Infants in those Families, than other∣wise; there is no mention in Scripture of Children of believing Parents baptized at a∣dult age.

I shall multiply no more Arguments; by these the unprejudiced Reader will be abun∣dantly satisfied, that Infant-Baptism is God's Ordinance.

CHAP. V. Shewing that the Doctrine of the Ana∣baptists, in excluding Infants from Baptism, and shutting them out of the visible Church, makes all Infants to be of the visible Kingdom of Satan, and so leaves us no well-grounded hope of the salvation of any dying in infancy; and is therefore to be justly abhorred as false Doctrine.

Argum. 1. THat Doctrine that makes all Infants to be of the visible Kingdom of the Devil, is false Doctrine.

But to deny Infants Baptism, is to deny them to be of the visible Church of Christ; and if they are not visibly in the Church of Christ, they are visibly out of it, and of the Kingdom of the Devil; there is no third or middle state on Earth between the visible Kingdom of Christ, which is his Church, and the Kingdom of the Devil; and all men and women, and Infants too, are visible Mem∣bers of the one or the other. If any know of any middle state, let them show it; Christ and Satan share the whole world between them; and if Infants are not visibly in the Kingdom of Christ, they are visibly in the Kingdom of the Devil; the consequence is

unavoidable: what barbarous usage is this to our poor Infants! Christ commands us to bring them to him, and tells us, of such is the kingdom of God; and the Anabaptists per∣versely thrust them away from Christ, and from the Church of Christ, set them among Pagans and Infidels, who are of the Visible Kingdom of the Devil.

Argument 2. That Doctrine that leaves us no well-grounded hope of the Salvation of any Infants dying in Infancy, is certainly false Doctrine: But the Anabaptists in de∣nying Infant Baptism to the Seed of Belie∣vers, leave us no well-grounded hope of the Salvation of any such dying in Infancy.

I do not say, That the Anabaptists do po∣sitively assert the Damnation of all Infants dying in Infancy, for they do the direct con∣trary, assert the certain Salvation of all In∣fants, even Turks, Pagans, and Jews.

But I say, they leave us no well-grounded hope of the Salvation of any such; for if Infants ought not to be Baptized, then are they out of the Visible Church; all who be∣long to the Visible Church, have a right to Baptism; therefore in denying Infants Bap∣tism, they throw them out of the Visible Church: And let him shew, that can tell how, what grounds there are to hope, or expect, the Salvation of any out of the Visi∣ble Church.

I grant a person may want the engaging Sign, and yet have a right to Church-mem∣bership, yea, to Salvation; so an Elect In∣fant dying unbaptized is saved; though it have not the Sign, yet it had a right to it.

Now without a promise we can neither be∣lieve nor hope, Rom. 15.4, 13. Eph. 1.18. Eph. 4.4. Col. 1.5, 23, 27. Heb. 6.18, 19.

Again, such as God intends to save, he adds to the Church, Acts 2.47. 'tis the Visible Church there spoken of; and such who are not so added, or have not a right to be so added, let them shew, that can, what ground there is to hope for their Salvation. And thus all well-grounded hope of the Salvation of any Infant dying in Infancy, is taken away by the Anabaptists.

For thus they argue from Mat. 28.18, 19. None but those who are Taught, are Disciples; Infants cannot be Taught, therefore are not Disciples; and that this is the only way to make Church-members; and may we not on the same ground say, they cannot be saved because they cannot believe? Mark 16.16. He that believes not, shall be damned. I appeal to all unbiassed persons, whether there is not on their own bottom, the same reason to say, they are uncapable of Salvation, as of Bap∣tism; but there is great reason to believe and hope for the Salvation of some Infants; for as we have shewed they are in the Covenant of Grace, Gen. 17.7. Acts 2.39. Deut. 29.10, 11, 12, 13. they are to be joined in

standing Church-ordinances, 2 Chron. 20.13. Joel 2.16. From all which, and much more might be said, it's evident some Infants are Saved, though the Anabaptists by their erro∣neous Doctrine take away all well-grounded hope of the Salvation of any Infants dying in Infancy.

CHAP. VI. Objections of Anabaptists Answered.

Obj. 1. IF it be God's Will Infants should be baptized, Why is there no Command for it, as there was for their Cir∣cumcision?

1. The general Command includes Chil∣dren, therefore there was no need of any par∣ticular mentioning of them.

2. The promise is as express to Children, as to Parents, Acts 2.39. The promise is to you and to your Children.

3. It had been absurd to have given a new Command for Children, seeing they were in the actual possession of their Priviledg, and had been so ever since Abraham's time, none had ever questioned their right and title to the Covenant. There was no Anabaptists in the Apostles days, nor of many hundred years after.

Obj. 2. But that Covenant, Gen. 17.7. was a Covenant of Works.

Indeed some weak Anabaptists have said so.

But it was not a Covenant of Works, for that knows no Mercy to fallen Sinners; but there is Mercy in that Covenant, that God will be a God to his People, and to their Seed: It was a Covenant of Grace, and that the Apostle proves, Rom. 4.11. as hath been abundantly proved before.

Obj. 3. Though Infants were then Church-members, it doth not follow they are so now; the Church is now built on another foundation. Thus a Preacher among the Anabaptists lately urged to me.

Ans. 1. If this be true, then the Church of Christ under the Old Testament, had a different foundation from the Church now under the New Testament: The Foundation is now Jesus Christ; but what was it then? What will not Proud and Ignorant men say to maintain an Errour!

2. The Foundation of the Church then was Christ, and the Covenant of Grace was the same then as now; only then was but the dawning of the day, the darker appearances of the Son of Righteousness; but now the Sun shines in his full strength. Heb. 10.1. Rom. 4.3, 11.

Obj. 4. But though Infants were then Visi∣ble Church-members, and had a right to the Sign of the Covenant, God has now cast off the Jews, and so Infant Church-membership is ceased.

Ans. The Apostle assures us, That Church-membership, and all other Priviledges, are as sure and ample now to the Believing Gentiles, as they were before to the Jews, Rom. 11.17. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou being a wild Olive tree, wert grafted in amongst them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the Olive tree.

Obj. 5. But Circumcision is abolished, therefore Infant Church-membership.

Ans. Circumcision and Infant Church-membership, were two things; Circumcisi∣on was but the Rite of admitting Visible Members; the Rite is changed, but not Church-membership; Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision, Col. 2.10, 11, 12.

Obj. 6. Infants are not capable of the ends of Baptism, for it's an engaging Sign, and signifies the washing away sin, both guilt and stain; Infants being uncapable of the use of Reason, must be so of Baptism.

Ans. Baptism hath more ends than one:

1. It's Christ's listing Sign for admitting Soldiers into his Service, or Disciples into his School, or Subjects into his Kingdom; and this is what Infants are capable of.

2. It's an engaging Sign, wherein they are by Parents, or other, engaged to God, and this they are capable of also.

3. The inward Grace thereby signified, as Pardon, Justification, Sanctification, Adop∣tion, these Infants are capable of, otherwise they could not be Saved, and if these are not, the Sacrament may be without them.

4. A lease for years, with a Covenant to a Child that understands it not, may be of great use: So Baptism, though at present the Child understands nothing of it, yet it may be, and to converted Believers is of great use afterwards, and Godly Parents at present have the comfort: For God herein hath pro∣vided for the comfort of Parents.

5. A Person may be Baptized that is not capable of all the ends of Baptism; one end of Baptism is to wash away Sin, &c. this was an end Jesus Christ was not capable of, and yet he was Baptized.

6. Those Infants Christ took into his Arms and Blessed, and those Circumcised at Eight days old, knew no more of the benefits they received, than ours do now; they were no more capable of Faith and Repentance, than ours are; and yet they entered into the Cove∣nant of Grace, Rom. 4.11.

Obj. 7. But we have no express Command in the New Testament to Baptize Infants.

Ans. I have shewn there needed none; their Priviledg had been setled many Ages before, and never questioned by any, nor repealed by Christ; their former Right continuing firm, Acts 2.39. the general Command includes them.

Obj. 8. But if they had a Right, we might expect to find some Examples of their Bap∣tizing.

Ans. 'Tis manifest that Believers housholds were Baptized with them, Acts 10. Acts 16.15, 16, 33. and if no Infants are mentioned, so neither any Children of Believing Parents Baptized at Age; and we have much more reason to believe there were Infants in all, or some of those Families, than any have to think there was none.

Obj. 9. The Baptism of Believers is come in the room of Infant Church-membership.

Ans. it hath been abundantly proved, that Infant Church-membership was no Ceremo∣ny, or Type; if any say it was, let them prove it: Therefore as it was never abolished, nor Infants never unchurched, nothing can be said to come in the room of it.

2. That Baptizing Adult Believers should exclude Infants, is as if the receiving and Circumcising the Gentile Proselytes into the Church of Israel, had been a means to have unchurched their Infants, which for any to affirm, would be extremely ridi∣culous.

Obj. 10. How can Infants covenant with God, or be engaged by this Sign? or where doth God engage Parents to promise any thing for their Children?

Answ. That Parents may, and ought to covenant for their Children, plainly appears,

1: From Nature, Lex naturae est, Lex Dei; may not Parents take a Lease for their Chil∣dren? who buyeth Lands, and not for him∣self and Heirs? are not Children bound by those Ties? and then much more to God.

2. From Scripture, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12, 13. here you may see the Parents Covenant, not only for their Children then present, but unborn, and they were by Circumcision to enter them into Covenant, so Deut. 26.17, 18. and hath the Gospel taken away the Parent's Right in his Child?

Obj. We promise what we cannot per∣form.

Ans. We promise to educate this Child for God, to instruct him in Gospel truths; leaving the renovation and sanctification of the Heart to God, who works when, on whom, and by what means he pleaseth.

May not a man covenant for himself and Heirs to pay a yearly Rent? and what fol∣lows in case it be not paid, but forfeiture of his Lease, and that from the person that should have paid it?

Obj. 11. If Infants must be baptized, why may they not as well receive the Lord's Supper?

1. If there were that Scripture-proof to administer the Lord's Supper to Infants, as there is for baptizing them, we would do it, when they have as clearly proved the one, as we have the other.

2. Baptism is the initiating Seal of enter∣ing into the Church, which Infants being Disciples of Christ, are capable of; the Lord's Supper is the confirming Seal to be admini∣stred only to grown Christians; therefore Infants have a right to the one, but not to the other.

Obj. 12. If Infants ought to be baptized, why is it left so dark in the New Testa∣ment?

Ans. 1. It's not dark, which admits of such clear proof as you see this doth.

2. That all Christ's Disciples ought to be baptized, is not dark, Matth. 28.19. Infants are Disciples; therefore 'tis plain they ought to be baptized.

Obj. 13. The baptizing persons before they know, occasions much gross Ignorance.

Ans. 1. Christ is the occasion of the ruin and damnation of thousands, for he was set for the fall, as well as the rising of many in Israel, Luke 2.3, 4. but had it been better the world had had no Christ?

2. The Gospel is the savour of death to many; had it been better then we had had no Gospel? What will not the wicked take hurt by?

3. Let them shew what in Baptism tends to breed Ignorance; Is the entring a Boy's name in the School the way to breed him in ignorance? if a Child's name be put into a Lease, is this like to hurt him? what harm is it to be in Christ's Family from our youth?

Nay, the contrary is the way to breed Ig∣norance and Prophaneness; for how many sad Examples have we among the Anabap∣tists, who refusing to dedicate their Infants to Christ, they are ignorantly and bruitishly brought up, live and die like Pagans.

Thus it hath been proved abundantly, that Infant Baptism is God's Ordinance; that the Infant Seed of Believers were once taken into the Church as visible Church-members; that Christ owns them, &c. there∣fore they ought to be baptized; that it's a false and dangerous Doctrine to deny them Church-membership and Baptism.

Enough hath been said for the satisfaction of those who are seeking Truth; such who wilfully shut their Eyes, it's in vain to set light before them, because seeing they see, but do not understand; and hearing they hear, but do not perceive.

There's one thing more remaining, viz. The right manner of baptizing; that shall next be dispatched.

CHAP. VII. Shewing that Washing, Pouring, or otherwise applying Water to the Bo∣dy, is the right way of Baptizing; and not Dipping, as now used by the Anabaptists.

WHEN the Anabaptists speak of Bap∣tizing, as 'tis now done generally by all the Reformed Churches, they do it with much scorn and contempt, and can scarcely do it in any other terms, than Sprinkling; They say we may as well sprinkle a Lamb, nay a Dog, or a Cat, as an Infant; what Christian Ear doth not abhor such Lan∣guage!

Our Protestant Divines usually define Bap∣tism thus; it is a washing in, or of water, or an applying water to the Baptized: Or by sprinkling the Baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. None, say the Anabaptists, are rightly baptized, but such as are dipped or plunged over head in the water.

To this I answer three things.

1. That which is a plain breach of the Sixth Commandment, Thou shalt not kill, is no Ordinance of God, but a most heinous Sin; but dipping over-head in cold water

in these cold Countreys, is a plain breach of the Sixth Commandment, Thou shalt not kill; which forbids the taking away of our own Life, or the Life of our Neighbour unjustly, or any thing that tends thereunto: Now dip∣ping in cold water tends to the taking away Life, as many have found by experience, who have contracted such Distempers in dipping as have hastened their Deaths: Therefore the so doing is a great Sin.

2. The Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, though it be derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to dip or plunge, yet it's taken for any kind of washing or cleansing, where there is no dipping, Mat. 3.11. Mark 7.4. and it sometimes signifies sprinkling, yea to baptize by sprinkling, 1 Cor. 10.2. They were all baptized unto Moses by the cloud in the sea; all the world knows a Cloud doth but sprinkle, Heb. 9.10. divers Washings or Baptisms, 'tis evident the Apostle means the sprinkling of Blood, Exod. 29.20, 21. and the Law of cleansing the Leper, Lev. 14.4, to 9.

3. Washing, sprinkling, or pouring water upon the Body , aptly represents the thing signified, and the Sign need not exceed the thing signified. The washing away Sin by the Blood of Christ is the thing signified in Baptism, and this the Holy Ghost delights to express by washing, sprinkling, or pour∣ing out water, Psal. 51.7. Ezek. 36.25. Zec. 12.10. 1 Cor. 6.11. Tit. 3.5. 1 Pet. 1.2. Heb. 9. and 12.24.

Quest. But did not the Apostles baptize by dipping? did not Philip and the Eunuch go down into the water?

Ans. 1. It was never yet proved that per∣sons were then dipped. As for Philip's Bap∣tism, Act. 8.38. the particular manner is not exprest, neither can it be collected; neither doth the Greek Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, necessarily sig∣nify going into, but rather unto the water, as it's frequently rendered in other places, Matt. 15.24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unto the lost sheep: So in all these and many other places, Matth. 26.10. John 6.9.13.1. 1 Cor. 10.2. 2 Pet. 4.7. So that into, and out of the water, seems to be no more than unto, and from the water. Travellers tell us it was in the Village Beth∣sara, where was a very small Fountain, not sufficient to dip in.

2. The Multitude John and the Apostles baptized, it's highly probable it was never done by dipping, Matth. 3.5, 6. nay almost impossible it should, for these two Reasons.

1. The extream scarcity of water; water was extream scarce in those hot Countreys, that there was not water to dip such multi∣tudes in; Enon, where John was baptizing, there was not much water; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is but Ocu∣lus, an Eye, a very little Fountain; none in probability to dip a multitude in. And so likewise Acts 2.41. when Three thousand

persons were baptized; St. Peter began to preach about the third Hour of the day, which was about Nine of the Clock; these Three thousand were converted by this Ser∣mon, and were all baptized the same day; it must needs be for on before they began to baptize, and there was no River near Je∣rusalem but the Brook Cedron, which Travel∣lers tell us, was in Summer but a dry Ditch, therefore 'tis highly improbable that either John or the Apostles baptized by dip∣ping.

2. From the multitude of people that were baptized: We do not find John had any to help him to baptize, and is it likely he could dip such multitudes? and is it to be imagin∣ed that Three thousand persons could be con∣verted; prepared for, and be baptized, by dipping, in a few hours.

3. If they were dipped, it must be either naked, or in their Cloaths.

1. It's very unlikely they were dipped na∣ked, for this would be very immodest for Mi∣nisters to baptize Women and Maids naked; a means to stir up lust and unclean Affecti∣ons, and so a breach of the Seventh Com∣mandment, Thou shalt not commit Adultery; which forbids all unchast thoughts, words and actions; now to look on a Woman's nakedness is an unchast action, expresly for∣bidden, Lev. 20.17. and for this reason God

would not have the Priest go up to the Altar by steps, Gen. 28.42.

Besides, there was a mixt multitude of men and women baptized together; and if they were naked, they must see one ano∣ther's nakedness, which would have been an horrible reproach to Religion.

2. If they were dipped in their Cloaths, it was either in all their Cloaths, or some provided for the purpose.

If in all their Cloaths, is it at all likely that they should go up and down in the wet Cloaths; and that would not be dip∣ping, to speak properly, but soaking.

Or was it in some Cloaths only? as some light Under garment, or something provi∣ded for the purpose? there would be much immodesty in it, and it would be little better than naked: Besides, Where must this mul∣titude have Cloaths for the purpose? must they go home and fetch them, and provide them? for they designed no such thing when they came together, nay, many of them lived at a very great distance.

Let mens Imaginations work which way soever, it will appear extreamly unlikely that there was any dipping in their bapti∣zing; that which is most probable, is, That John the Baptist, and the Apostle, went unto the water, or it may be, into it, with their Feet, wearing nothing but Sandals, and so with their Hands did take up water and

sprinkle, or pour on the persons to be bap∣tized.

And how much less probability is there, that in the baptizing of Housholds, as the Jailor's in the night, Lydia, Cornelius, and others, that there was any dipping?

4. If it were clearly demonstrated, which never was yet done, that persons were bap∣tized by dipping; yet would it be proved but occasional in those hot Countreys.

There is no Precept or Command for it; and therefore it would be no way binding to us, no more than our Lord's administring his Last Supper in an Inn, and in an upper Room, in the Evening, to none but men and Ministers, doth oblige us to do so; Christ having no-where appointed the quan∣tity of Water in Baptism, no more than the quantity of Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper. 'Tis neither the quantity of Water in the one, nor of Bread and Wine in the other, that gives efficacy to the Ordinance.

Obj. But if it be God's way, we must do it, whatever be said against it.

Ans. This is but to beg the question; moreover, we have proved it is not God's way.

Obj. But say they, The significancy is not sufficiently exprest, unless we are dipped in

the water, Rom. 6.4. We are buried with him by baptism into death; which place the Ana∣baptists produce to prove Baptism by dip∣ping, as also the necessity of it; whereas nei∣ther can be hence proved.

The Apostle's design there, is to engage Christians to forsake and put off Sin, as is evi∣dent, v. 1. the argument he uses to enforce this is, That in their baptism they were baptized into Christ, into the likeness of his death, and were so buried with him in baptism, v. 3, 4. so that as Christ dyed for sin, by their Cove∣nant-engagement they were to dye to sin, and rise to newness of life: So that what the Apostle here argues from, is our Baptismal Covenanting with God, which doth not ne∣cessarily suppose Dipping.

Obj. But the Apostle alludes to the Custom of going under the Water.

Ans. How doth that appear? they must prove the Custom, before they can prove this is an allusion to the Custom; so that this Text doth not prove the Custom; and the Apostle's discourse may be well understood without it: And if the Custom be owned, yet the necessity of Dipping doth not thence follow.

Other Scriptures allude to Sprinkling; we may as well thence infer, the absolute necessity of the Custom of Sprinkling, as 1 Cor. 10.2. where it's said, That the Chil∣dren

of Israel were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea, or as the words may be read together, with Moses by the cloud in the sea, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sometimes being so rendered, Luke 4.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the Spirit; so they were Baptized by Sprinkling (for a Cloud doth but sprinkle); by the cloud, i. e. by Christ who was this Cloud, or else appeared in this Cloud, as is evident from Exod. 13.21, 22. this was at least a figure and type of Baptism; and in several other Texts.

APPLICATION.

IS this so, That that Covenant of Grace made with Abraham, whereof Circumci∣sion then was, and Baptism now is the Seal, is a Covenant which comprehends all Belie∣vers, and all their Children?

Here is then a Fourfould use to be made of it:

• 1. Of Information.
• 2. Examination.
• 3. Exhortation.
• 4. Consolation.

1. Use shall be of Information in three things.

1. This informs us of the infinite Conde∣scention and Goodness of God, that when the first Covenant of Works was violated, and the way to Heaven for ever barr'd up a∣gainst the Sinner, there being no possibility

of ever getting to Heaven that way, it should please the Lord to make a new Covenant, a Covenant of Grace, a new and living way to the Father: O what love and grace is this! John 3.14, 15, 16. Now the infinite Grace of God in this second Covenant, appears in these two things.

1. That herein God doth not stand on the old terms, do this and live; the Law required perfect personal Obedience; but now in this new Covenant God is pleased to accept of the Obedience and Righteousness of another in our stead, even Jesus Christ, 2 Cor. 5.21. He hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

2. That God doth not only command few and easie things, as the condition of this New Covenant, viz. Repentance towards God, and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, Acts 20.21. but doth freely promise his holy Spirit to work these and all other Covenant-qualifications in us, Ezek. 36.25, 26, 27.

2. This informs us of the infinite Mercy of God to us, that we live under the New Covenant, that God should offer Christ and Salvation in a Covenant-way to us: O let us admire Grace! What are we that God should Reveal himself to us, and not to the world! Matt. 11.25, 26. I thank thee, O Father, — that thou hast hid these things from the wise and

prudent, and hast revealed them to babes: even so Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight.

3. This informs us what a fearful Con∣demnation will befall those who refuse to ac∣cept of Christ and Salvation on Covenant-terms, Heb. 10.28, 29. He that despised Moses law, dyed without mercy; of how much sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sancti∣fied, an unholy thing, and hath done despite to the spirit of grace.

2. Use of Examination, Is there a Covenant of Grace? Then examine your selves what interest you have in it; if you are in this Co∣venant, you are a happy People; then every Promise in the Covenant belongs to you; but if you are out of this Covenant, your case is dreadful.

Quest. How may I know whether I am in Covenant or no?

Ans. 1. Have you done all those things that are necessary to an external visible Cove∣nanting with Jesus Christ? And these are

1. Knowledg in, and acquaintance with the Gospel-covenant; you can never Cove∣nant with Jesus Christ, until you know the terms, John 17.3. This is life eternal, to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ.

2. Have you entered your selves into this Covenant by Baptism? Have you put your hand to the plow, and owned Christ in that Seal of the Covenant?

3. Do you live in an awful discharge of such external and visible Duties the Covenant requires, such as Prayer, Eph. 6.18. Sancti∣fying the Lord's day, Attendance on God in all Ordinances, &c.

2. Have you those internal Graces, and do you perform those internal invisible Duties the Covenant requires? If you have, then you are certainly in Covenant, and all the Promises in the Covenant belong to you, Isa. 57.15. To this man will I look, which is of an humble and contrite spirit, and trembles at my word. John 3.16. Matt. 11.28. Come to me you that labour and are heavy laden. Have you that new heart, promised Ezek. 36.26. those Graces mentioned Mat. 5.3, 4, 5, 6. if you have these in truth, then are you in Covenant.

3. Use of Exhortation, Is there a Cove∣nant of Grace in which Believers and their Chidren are comprehended? then be ex∣horted,

1. To bless and admire Free-grace that hath given you such a Covenant; O what Mercy is this to us and our Children! that God will call our Children his Children; and our Sons and Daughters, his Sons and Daughters, Ezek. 16.20, 21.

2. Live and act as those who are in Cove∣nant, Phil. 1.27. Only let your conversation be as becomes the Gospel of Christ.

3. Secure your interest in it, and be often calling your selves to an account whether or no you have an interest in it.

4. Learn to live upon this Covenant; fetch all your Comforts and Encourage∣ments from it in all distresses, Heb. 13.5. Be content with such things as you have, for he hath said, I will not leave thee nor forsake thee.

5. Are your Children in Covenant? then dedicate them to Christ in the Covenant, has God taken them in? Gen. 17.7. Acts 2.29. then do not you cast them out, but do as Hannah did, first beg a Child from the Lord, and Vow a Vow to dedicate this Child to God, 1 Sam. 1.10, 11. God calls them his, Ezek. 16.20, 21. And will you dare to with∣hold from God his own? How will you an∣swer it at his Tribunal another day?

6. O Pray down Covenant-mercy on your Children as Hannah did, and as Monica, Austin's Mother did: O Pray hard for your Children.

4th. Use of Consolation; is there a Co∣venant-grace which comprehends all Belie∣vers, and all their Actions; O Soul! art thou in this Covenant? then for thy eternal Comfort be it spoken,

1. Thou shalt never want any Temporal good thing, there is Food and and Raiment,

Provision and Protection in the Covenant, Heb. 13.5. Be content with such things as you have, for he hath said, I will never leave thee nor forsake thee.

2. Thou shalt never finally lose thy Grace, or be cast out of Covenant, Prov. 8.18. Phil. 1.6. 1 Pet. 1.23. Jer. 32.40. And I will make an everlasting Covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good, but I will put my fear into their hearts, that they may not depart from me.

3. Heaven and eternal Glory is thine as sure by this Covenant, as if thou wast alrea∣dy in it, 1 John 5.11, 12. This is the promise he hath promised us, eternal life.

THE END▪