GOD who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in times past unto the Fa­thers by the Prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son: Who (that our Religion and Manners, Faith and Worship, may be after the due Order) hath commanded us to search the Scriptures, containing Rules and Directions, Precepts and Examples, always evi­dent and perfect in their kind, though not al­ways alike express.

The Sadduces finding no express mention of the Resurrection in the Books of Moses, (which they emphatically called the Scriptures) not only denied the Resurrection, but framed Arguments from those Scriptures against it; One whereof they thought so un­answerable, Deut. 25.6. that they encountred Christ himself with it, Mat. 22. v. 23, 24, &c. Christ observing their Confidence, reproves them as plainly both of Error, and the Cause there­of, in these Words, ver. 29. Ye do err, not know­ing the Scriptures, nor the Power of God; and from the Scriptures proves the Resurrection.

Which Words of Christ, Ye do err, not know­ing the Scriptures, nor the Power of God, may have a double Aspect, one unto the Scripture, from whence they framed their Argument against the [Page 8] Resurrection, and another unto the Scripture which he brings to prove the Resurrection by.

That the Sadduces did not know the Scriptures literally, or the Power of God historically, can­not be the meaning of Christ; but take the Words as having an Eye to that Scripture brought by them, ( ver. 24.) from whence they raised their Argument against the Resurrection, and the Sense may be such as this:

Ye Sadduces say that there is no Resurrecti­on, and you seem very big of your Opinion, as if you were in the right, and had Scripture on your side, and could from the Scripture prove it impossible; but I tell you, Ye err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the Power of God; for though that be Scripture which ye have quoted, yet ye, not comparing it with other Passages of the same Sacred Writings, nor Spiritual Things with Spi­ritual, do not hold the Analogy of Faith con­tained in the Scriptures, but speak evil of those things which ye know not, whilst what you know naturally as brute Beasts, in those things you corrupt your selves. For that the Dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the Bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, for he is not the God of the Dead, but of the Living, for all live unto him. And though you pretend to know God, yet you glorify him not as God, nor consider that Power belongs unto him, else why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the Dead? Neither are your Notions of the future State, to which the Dead are raised by his Infinite and Almighty [Page 9] power, suitable to those high and excellent Ap­prehensions which you ought to have of it, for in the Resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in Marriage, neither do they die any more, but are as the Angels of God in Heaven. Ye therefore do greatly err.

But taking the Words of Christ, as having a respect to the Scripture which he brings to prove the Resurrection by, ( ver. 32.) and then the meaning may be this, or such like:

Ye deny that there is any Resurrection, and conclude that you must be in the right, because you find no express mention of it in the Scrip­tures, and as if the Incapacity of the Dead made it impossible with God; but do you not there­fore err, because you know not the Scriptures, nor the Power of God? For though it be not expresly said that the Dead are raised, yet know that there is sufficient Proof for it in Scripture, by good and warrantable Inference from Scripture: For as touching the Resurrection of the Dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, Mat. 22.31. and the God of Jacob? from whence you might have attained unto the know­ledg of the Resurrection as satisfyingly, as if it had been expresly said, that the Dead are rai­sed; for God is not a God of the Dead, but of the Living: which had you considered, you might have known that the Spirits of Men, though se­parate from their Bodies, are by the Power of God, (the God of the Spirits of all Flesh) still held in Life; and that therefore he can and will [Page 10] by the same Power, according to the working, whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself, raise their Bodies, and unite them to their own Spirits: which Inferences being agreeable to the Holy Scriptures, and a true and right asserting of the Power of God, are as Scripture, of which ye being willingly or wilfully ignorant, have er­red in this main Article.

Now though the Sadduces still persisted, after such Conviction, in their Error, saying that there is no Resurrection, and in opposition to the Doctrine of Christ, Luke 20.37, 38. that there is neither Angel nor Spirit, yet the way of pro­ving by Consequences is not less cogent or com­mendable.

And if the Resurrection might be thus pro­ved, why not other Points? why not the bapti­zing of Infants?

It is true, the Resurrection is not Worship, yet it is an Article of Faith, which if not believed, 1 Cor. 15.13, 14, &c. all our Worship is in vain: And though nothing is to be admitted into the Worship of God, as such, which is contrary to express Pre­cept and Command by Consequences, yet these rightly drawn from Scripture, are no less a Rule for our Practice, than they are for our Faith.

Now tho the baptizing of Infants hath been a­bundantly proved from time to time by many plain and undeniable Consequences, rightly infer­red from the Scriptures, which being Christ's way of proving, should satisfy us; yet since express Precept or Example are so much called for, let us a little enquire into that.

What the First Commission of Christ was a­bout baptizing, is not recorded, but must be ga­thered from his Second Commission, and from the Practice of his Disciples, and Acts of the Apostles.

The Second Commission of Christ for bapti­zing, is Mat. 28.19. Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Fa­ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, &c.

The Practice of the Disciples and Apostles was to baptize particular Persons, and with Pa­rents their House and Houshold; as Lydia and all her Houshold, Acts 16.14, 15. the Jailor and all his, ver. 33. and Crispus and all his House, Chap. 18.8.

Quest. The Question is, Whether these were only Adult, or Adult and Infants?

Answ. Adult and Infants. These words, Hous­hold, His, and House, when spoken of Persons, being an Hebraism for Children of the House, who are the Seed of the House, 1 Sam. 2.33. Deut. 25.5. Mat. 5.12, 19. whe­ther they be Infants or adult Children.

Thus Gen. 34.30. I and my House; and 41.13, 19. Pharaoh said, Take your Father, and your little ones, and your Wives, and come; and 46.31. My Brethren, and my Father's House are come. Numb. 16.32. And the Earth opened her Mouth, and swallowed them up, and their Houses, that is, their Sons and little Children, ver. 27. to wit, of Dathan and Abiram, Deut. 11.6. whereas of Korah it was all the Men that appertained unto him, as in the same 32d Verse, not his House, for chap. 26.11. the [Page 12] Children of Korah died not: Judg. 9.16. Now therefore if ye have done truly—and dealt well with Jerubbaal and his House: (for my Father fought for you, &c. and ye are risen up against my Fa­ther's House, and have slain his Sons) If ye have dealt truly and sincerely with Jerubbaal and his House, then rejoice, &c. 1 Sam. 3.12, 13, 14. In that day I will perform against Eli all which I have spoken concerning his House, &c. 2 Sam. 3.1, 6. Now there was long War betwixt the House of Saul, and the House of David, &c. And chap. 7.16, 18, 19, 23, 29. Thine House shall be established, &c. And chap. 9.3. And the King said, Is there not yet any of the House of Saul? And chap. 12.10. Now the Sword shall not depart from thy House. 1 Kings 13.34. And this thing became Sin to the House of Jeroboam. And chap. 21.21, 22. And will take away thy Posterity;— And will make thy House like the House of Jeroboam. 1 Chron. 13.14. The Lord blessed the House of Obed Edom; (that is, chap. 26.4, 5, 6. his Children.) And chap. 1.16, 43. David returned to bless his House. Psal. 114.1. When Israel went out of Egypt, the House of Jacob from a People of a strange Lan­guage. Micah 2.2. They oppress a Man and his House. Habbak. 2.10. Jer. 23.34. Thou hast consulted Shame to thine House. Luke 19.9. This day is Salvation come to this House. Titus 1.11. Who subvert whole Houses.

Add unto these Gen. 7.1. And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou, and all thy House. So chap. 18.19. I know Abraham, that he will com­mand his Children, and Houshold after him (that [Page 13] is, his Children who are his Houshold after him; for no others of the Family, tho' it exclude not them, were properly his Houshold after him, but his Children, called his Seed after him.) Thus ch. 30.30. And now when shall I (says Jacob) provide for mine own House also? So Exod. 12.27. It is the Sacri­fice of the Lord's Passover, who passed over the Hou­ses of the children of Israel, when he smote the Aegyp­tians, and delivered our Houses. Thus Deut. 25.9. So shall it be done unto the man that will not build up his brother's house. So 1 Tim. 3. v. 4, 5. One that rules well his own house, having his children in sub­jection with all gravity: for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God? And Chap. 5.8. But if any pro­vide not for his own, and especially for those of his own House, which according to the same Apostle, 2 Cor. 12.14. is his Children, For the Children ought not to lay up for the Parents, but the Parents for the Children.

Thus we see the Hebraism of these Words; Houshold, His, and House in Scripture, according un­to which these Words in these three first cited Ex­amples of Lydia, the Jaylor and Crispus, are by some very great Interpreters rendred, The Children of the House; and are necessarily to be so taken there, Infants not excepted, unless some sufficient rea­son be given to the contrary.

Now the main Reason to the contrary given, is, That these Houses and Housholds who are said to be Baptized, were such as to whom the Word of the Lord is said to be spoken, and who are said to believe in the Lord, which it is pretended they could not do if spoken of Infants; so that there were either [Page 14] no Infants there, or no Infants there Bapti­zed.

But this Reason is not sufficient, because it sup­poseth these Houses and Housholds to be said to have the Word of the Lord spoken to them, and to be said to Believe without the Parents, which ought not to be supposed.

First, it supposes these Houses and Housholds to be said to have the Word of the Lord spoken to them without the Parents, and so renders Infants incapa­ble; whereas, take House and Houshold with Parents, and Infants have been, and so may be, of them to whom the Word of the Lord hath been spoken. Thus Children were of them to whom Moses made that great and solemn Exhortation Deut. 29.2, 9, 10, 11. And Moses call'd unto all Israel, and said unto them,—Keep therefore the word of this Co­venant—.Ye stand all of you before the Lord your God,—your little Ones, your Wives,—that ye should enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his Oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day. And of them to whom Joshua made that famous repetition of the Law, Josh. 8.34, 35. And afterwards he read all the words of the Law, the blessings and cursings according to all that is written in the book of the Law. There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshuah read not before all the Congregation of Israel, with the Women and little Ones.

And tho' it be said in Nehem. 8.2, 3. Men and Women, and all that could hear with understanding, yet it is not said them only, as if Infants were ex­cepted, neither doth it follow that they were; for we know that whatsoever the Law saith, it saith to [Page 15] them that are under the Law, Rom. 3.19. And we are sure, that the Command of Moses, Deut. 31.11, 12, 13. was, that the Solemnity there appoin­ted, should be with the Women and Children. Also, when he call'd unto all Israel, Deut. 29. aforesaid, and made that Exhortation, They stood be­fore him with their little Ones, and their Wives. Likewise, when Joshua made that Rehearsal of the Law, Chap. 8. It was before the whole Congregation, with the Women and little Ones. So 2 Chron. 20.13. And all Israel stood before the Lord with their little Ones, their Wives and their Children. Still Women with their little Ones and Children, as if such little Ones, as by reason of their Infancy did yet hang upon the tender Breast: agreeable unto that Joel 2.12. Turn ye unto me—with weeping and mourning: 13. rent your hearts,— 15. Call a so­lemn Assembly. —16. Gather the People: sancti­fy the Congregation: assemble the Elders: gather the Children, and those that suck the Breast, &c.

Not that Parents ought therefore to bring their little Ones at all times to the reading, and preach­ing of the Word; but shews that it was done upon some great and solemn Occasions, when they en­tred into Covenant with God, or the like; and that little Ones may be part of those to whom the Word of the Lord is spoken, Act. 21.5.

It is granted, the Phrase and manner of speaking in Scripture is primarily accommodated to those who are adult, but not exclusively of Infants; for they, as Israelites, were of them to whom, saith the Apostle, appertaineth the giving of the Law, Rom. 3.19. And, as Jews, of them to whom were committed the Oracles of God, Rom. 3.1, 2. Acts 7.38.

Secondly, this supposeth these Houses and Housholds to be said to Believe without the Parents, and so though it had instead of House and Houshold, been said, their Children, little Ones, and Babes; yet ac­cording to this supposal the meaning would have been made still the same; that this could not be of such in Age, but onely of such in quality and dispo­sition; whereas, take it as it is, Parents and House together, and then Infants are not onely included, but chiefly intended, the Adult being for the most part at their own disposal, whilst the Infants were al­ways at the disposal of their Parents, who them­selves, whether Heathens, or Jews, being converted to the Faith of Christ, brought over theirs, all if possible, but be sure their Infants, to be of the same Faith with themselves; and it being Parent and House, and not House without the Parents, who are said to Believe; it shews it to be in a way of Covenant, which always includes the Infants: And thus as the Infants of Heathens were always repu­ted to be Heathens, and the Infants of Jews to be Jews, so the Infants of Christians to be Christians, (tho' not declaratively so, no more than the con­verted Adult until baptized) and may, as Infants of such, Mat. 18.6. Gal. 6.10. Eph. 2.19. as well be said to Believe, as the Infants of Circumcised Parents might be said, by being Cir­cumcised, to become debtors to do the whole Law, Gal. 5.2. Or, by not being Cir­cumcised, to break the Covenant, Gen. 17.14.

Object. But it is said, Faith comes by hearing, Rom. 10.17. How then can Infants be said to Be­lieve?

Answ. This goes upon the former mistake of [Page 17] putting Parents and Infants asunder, for so it is said, He that believeth not, shall be damned. Mark 16.16. and is condemned already, John 3.18. Shall not Infants therefore be saved? God forbid, for tho they cannot believe in all respects as the Adult do, yet they may be parties with their Parents in the covenanting part of their Parents Faith, as their Parents covenant for themselves and them; which is well illustrated by Parents making their Infants Par­ties with them in their own civil Contracts of Bonds and Leases, but is grounded only upon the Nature of the Covenant of God; and as this Faith comes to the Parents by hearing, so to their Infants in con­junction with them.

When therefore it is said such and such, as Name­ly, the Jailor, Crispus, and the Nobleman, John 4.53. believed with all their House: this relates not so much to the great success the Gospel had in those times, tho' that was very great, as it doth to the Covenant of God with Parents and their Children; because no House is said to believe without the Pa­rents, nor any Parents having House under their charge, without the House; which must therefore have a respect to Infants, Adult Persons sometimes believing, and not their Parents; and Parents, and not always the Adult.

An Husband might believe, and not the Wife; the Wife, and not the Husband: but tho' it be said, to a Husband, or a Wife, Believe, and thou shalt be saved, and thy House; yet it is not said to any Hus­band, Believe, and thou shalt be saved, and thy Wife; or to any Wife, Believe, and thou shalt be saved, and thy Husband; but only, What knowest thou O Wife, whether thou shalt save thy Husband? Or, how know­est [Page 18] thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy Wife? 1 Cor. 7.16.

Again, a Master might be Converted, and not the Servant; a Servant might be Called, and not the Master; but with considerable difference in respect to the House: for when the Master being a Parent, Believed, there Salvation came to the House, not so when only the Servant was Called, or did Believe; which is one Reason which the Apostle gives there, why a Brother or Sister being married, should not depart from, put away, or leave their Unbelieving Yoke-fellow, ver. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. Not why the Converted Servant should not leave his Uncon­verted Master, ver. 20, 21, 22, 23.

And this makes it more clear, That House in the Scripture must include Infants, in that an House is said to be saved, (that is to say, saved as to the outward means of Salvation; which to them who die in their Infancy may be to their Eternal Salva­tion; howsoever will be so to them who survive their Infancy, if they neglect not so great Salvation;) where the Parents are said to be saved, but not House said to be saved without the Parents. Thus when Peter was sent to Cornelius, Acts 11. it was to tell him words whereby He, and all his House should be saved: the same which Paul and Silas here said to the Jailor, Act. 16. And so to every Parent, Be­lieve in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be sa­ved, and thy House: which must be with respect to Infants; for as it would be hard to say, That In­fants could not be of the House which was to be saved; so it would have been needless to say, The House was it, not for the Infants sake. The Adult of every House, if they Believed being saved, whe­ther [Page 19] the Parents did Believe or not; so that exclude Infants from being of the House, and it makes all those grants of Salvation made to the House upon the Parents believing; such as that to Zacheus, Luke 19.9. This day Salvation is come to this House, forasmuch as he also is a Son of Abraham. And here to the Jailor, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy House, to be su­perfluous, and insignificant: for the Adult of every House, as is said before, were saved, if they did Be­lieve, though the Parents believed not, nor were saved; but no House is said to be saved without the Parents.

Object. But when it is said, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy House: The meaning is, Thou thy self believing, shalt be saved, and thy House, if they believe; and so respects only the Adult.

Answ. This cannot be the whole meaning, both because no House is said to be saved without the Parents; and because this excludes Infants from be­ing said here to be saved, as well as from being said to believe: When therefore it is said, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy House. It is meant of some benefit (that is, to be saved) that shall redound to the House by the Parents professing to believe; which would not have redounded to it, if the Parents did not make the profession, which must have respect prin­cipally to the Infant Children, which the Parents have, or shall have afterwards. Gen. 17.7, 8.

Add unto this, that the House was always bapti­zed, when the Parents were baptized, but not House without the Parents. Thus it is, Lydia, [Page 20] and her Houshold, the Jailor and all His, and Cris­pus with all his House.

Cesar and his Houshold were not baptized, be­cause some of his Servants were so, whereas Lydia and Stephanas standing in a nearer relation to theirs, they being baptized, their House and Houshold were baptized also, and so all other Houses said, or that may be said to be baptized; if the Parents, their Housholds, but no Houshold without the Parents, though Parent is sometimes mentioned, and not the House, and sometimes the House, and not the Parent, 1 Cor. 1.15, 16. Now if when any Parents were baptized, their House, Houshold, and all theirs were baptized, unless any of the Adult refused for them­selves; and no House or Houshold were baptized, where one or both the Parents were not so, it neces­sarily supposeth some Infants baptized in those bapti­zed Families, since they that were of Age therein, who were baptized, were baptized upon their own account.

Object. But some may object; First, that Hous­hold and House are not always said to be baptized with Parents; it is not expresly said, Acts 18.8. that the House of Crispus was baptized; nor doth the Apostle, 1 Cor. 1.15. reckon it amongst those whom he enumerates to have baptized there; so nei­ther is it expresly said of the House of Cornelius, that it was baptized.

Answ. Be it so; yet so long as it is said of Cor­nelius, that he feared God with all his House, Acts 10.2. and had Words sent unto him, whereby he and all his House should be saved, Acts 11.14. and of Crispus, That he believed in the Lord with all his House: And that Crispus and Cornelius them­selves [Page 21] were baptized; it is all one as if it had been expresly said, that all their House were baptized with them. Nay further, though it be not expresly said of Zaccheus, and that Noble-Man, John 4.53. that they were baptized, yet nothing can be more evident; for though Christ baptized not, yet his Disciples did, and that as a great part of their Im­ployment during Christ's Abode with them, for they baptized more than John, John 4.1. Now they baptizing so many, who should they baptize, if not them? and if them, why not their House and Housholds? For if others thus and so qualified were baptized, themselves and theirs, themselves and all their House, why not these, being qualified after the same manner, baptized, they, themselves and theirs, themselves and all their House?

Which that they were, is sufficiently confirmed by this, That though it be not expresly said in any of the Gospels, that the Disciples of Christ bapti­zed any particular Persons or Housholds; yet when we come to the Acts of the Apostles, by whose proceeding then we may see what was their Practice all along before then, as also 1 Cor. 1.15. we have a clear and particular account not only of the bap­tizing of single Persons, but also of the baptizing with Parents, their House and Housholds. And this was always taken for granted, else we can assign no reason why the Apostle instancing in the baptizing of Crispus in the aforecited 1 Cor. 1.15. names him singly, and mentions not his House; and may be one reason why the Apostle there saith, that he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the Gospel; name­ly, because that if he had baptized all that he had converted, especially where Parents and Housholds [Page 22] were concerned, it would have hindred his preach­ing: But as Christ taught, and his Disciples bapti­zed, so the Apostles might preach, and others under them sometimes baptize those whom they had con­verted. Thus it was at Corinth, when many of the Corinthians, hearing Paul, believed: and so we may suppose at Jerusalem upon Peter's Sermon, Acts 2.41.

And it is to be observed that when the Apostle Paul gives us the names but of three which he re­membred he had baptized of those many Corinthi­ans, who are said to believe, Acts 18.8. that of two of them, to wit, Crispus and Stephanas, it is expresly said, Them and their House; for though in the Corinthians it is singly Crispus, as is observed before, yet in the Acts it is Crispus with all his House; and if Gaius was Gaius the Host, which supposes an Houshold, and Gaius Paul's Host, which supposes a baptized Houshold, then the same may be said of him also.

Object. 2. But House and Houshold is not always an Hebraism, for Children, especially Infant-Chil­dren; for 1 Cor. 16.15. it is said, Ye know the House of Stephanas, that it is the first-Fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to to the Ministry of the Saints: Now Infants could not do this.

Answ. Put House and Parents here asunder, and then none of the House could be Infants; but as In­fants joined with Parents, are said, Jer. 35. to be the House, and to be spoken to, ver. 2. to answer, ver. 6. and to obey, perform and do, ver. 8, 10, 14, 16, 18. so Infants may be said to be of the [Page 23] House of Stephanas, who addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints.

Object. 3. But it is said, John 4.1. That Christ made and baptized more Disciples than John; now made seems to imply only Adult.

Answ. If by Disciples here be meant only those who did baptize, for Christ baptized not, but his Disciples, (that is, one another first, and then o­thers) then they could be none but Adult; but if by Disciples be meant also (as it must) those who were baptized, then it comprehends those all Men said to come unto Christ, John 3.26. such as those Multitudes, Mat. 14.13 to 22. amongst whom many were Children.

Object. 4. But it is said, Acts 8.12. They were baptized, both Men and Women.

Answ. None can restrain these words, Men and Women, to Persons of such an exact Age; neither because it is said, Men and Women, doth it hinder Infants from being understood also, any more than that saying, Nehem. 8.3. Ezra read the Law to the Men and Women, and to all that could hear with Ʋnderstanding, doth hinder that their little ones were some of the Assembly, which that it did not, is cleared before in page 14, 15. When therefore it is said Men and Women, the Sense is not, that none but of such an Age, were or may be baptized, but that there was no distinction of Sex in Baptism, Gal. 3.28. as there had been in Circum­cision; for this, and that the things concerning the Kingdom of God were preached to them, ver. 12. being Samaritans; and that there­by Salvation came to their Houses, and that of such was the Kingdom of God, it was that there was [Page 24] great Joy in the City, ver. 8. And it being Crispus singly in the Corinthians, which in the Acts is Cris­pus with all his House, it is a further Confirmation of this Sense, since Infants may as well be couch'd under the terms of Men and Women, as Crispus's Houshold under his Name.

Object. 5. But what if there were no Infant-Chil­dren in the Housholds of Lydia, of the Jailor, and of Crispus, how then could there be Infant-Chil­dren there baptized?

Answ. If there were no Infant-Children in the Housholds of Lydia, of the Jailor, and of Cris­pus, they could not be baptized: but then this Obje­ction seems to grant, that if there were, they were baptized: Now that there were Infant-Children in those Housholds, (and none dare say there were not) appears from these following Considerations.

1. That House, Houshold, and His, (which are the Words here used) are, as proved before, when spoken of Persons, an Hebraism, so common and familiar to express Children by, whether Infants or Adult, that there is none more frequent and or­dinary.

2. That suppose these Housholds to be without Infant-Children, and one may as well suppose all the Houses and Housholds, whose Parents were bapti­zed in those times, which could not be few, to be without Infant-Children, which is a thing not to be supposed.

3. That an House being said to believe, to be sa­ved, and to be baptized, where the Parents are said to believe, to be saved, and to be baptized, and no House said to believe, to be saved, and to be bapti­zed, but whose Parents are said to believe, to be sa­ved, [Page 25] and to be baptized, it must be with respect to their Children, especially their Infant-Children, the Adult being to make Profession for themselves.

And it being not only the Apostles Peter and Paul, but all the Disciples and Apostles of Christ who they baptized, that is to say, with Parents, their House and Houshold, and no House and Houshold without the Parents, there can be nothing more plain, than that it was the Apostolical Practice in baptizing Parents and their Housholds, to baptize their Babes and Infants.

Object. 6. But when Christ renewed his Commis­sion for baptizing, Mat. 28.19. he mentioned not Infants.

Answ. He then mentioned Infants as much as Adult, for he mentioned neither of them expres­ly.

Object. 7. But we have fresh Examples of Adult Persons being baptized, not so of Infants.

Answ. The express Examples of those whom the Disciples and Apostles of Christ baptized, are of two forts; the One of particular Adult Persons, the Other of Parents and their House, (for a Man and his House is Parent and House) which being not on­ly Parents and Adult, but Parent and Infants also, and as to Baptism especially Infants, as is made good all along before; the baptizing of Lydia, the Jailor, Crispus, and the like, and their House in conjunction with them, affords us as express Exam­ple of the baptizing of Infants, as of the baptizing of any Adult therein, and consequently as of the baptizing of any other adult Persons whatsoever.

Object. 8. But Christ was not baptized in his In­fancy, and he knew when rightly to be baptized.

Answ. This makes nothing against the baptizing of Infants; for as there were none then to baptize him; so his Baptism being in order to his Ministry, into which he was not to enter by the Law (which he came to fulfil, Matth. 5.17.) till his being a­bout thirty years of Age; he was not to be bapti­zed till he had accomplished that Age. Besides, it is a Question whether the Baptism by John the Bap­tist, and the Baptism of Christ by his Disciples and Apostles, were one and the same: for tho there be much said for it, and many Instances of Parallels drawn whereby they are made to seem so, yet if it belonged unto Christ ministerially to institute and ordain the Sacraments of the New Testament, and if he could not ministerially do that till he was duly ordained and admitted into the Function and Office of his publick Ministry, which was not till his Bap­tism by John, then John's Baptism could not be a Go­spel-Sacrament, and if not a Gospel-Sacrament, then his, and Christ's Baptism, though they might agree in many other things, could not be one and the same.

Now as Christ's not being baptized in his Infan­cy is no Argument against the baptizing of Infants: so his Baptism, and the Baptism of John not being one and the same, makes the Name of Baptist an improper distinction for such as profess the Baptism of Christ; as also that though the Disciples of Christ, who had Commission from him to baptize, baptized those among themselves into the Baptism of Christ, who before had been baptized into the Bap­tism of John, as appears clearly by comparing John 1.35, 37, 40, &c. with John 4.1, 2. and than which there is no clearer Proof of their being baptized at all; yet the rebaptizing of any now is altogether ground­less and unwarrantable.

Object. 9. But what benefit of Baptism are In­fants capable of more, than they are capable of the benefit of the Lord's-table? are they not as capable to receive a small quantity of Bread and Wine, as to be Baptized?

Answ. This is to arraign the Institutions of God, the profit of which, namely, That of Circumcisi­on, which included Infants, Gen. 17.12. The Apostle resolves to be much every way, chiefly, be­cause unto them were committed the Oracles of God, Rom. 3.1, 2. It arraigns also the Commands of God mentioned before, Deut. 31.11, 12, 13. Joel 2.12. And the express practice of the Apostles, who when they baptized Parents, baptized their House, and Houshold; not so when they administred to them the Lord's Supper, it being not there, a man and his House, but, let a Man examine Himself.

Object. 10. But Churches by means of Poedo­baptism become unholy, and unholiest.

If Churches become Unholy by means of Paedo­baptism, then by what means did the Primitive Churches become unholy, with all that unholiness that is charged upon them in the several Epistles directed to them before, and in the Revelations, if it was by means of Paedobaptism, then Paedo­baptism was in use in those times; if it was not by means of Paedobaptism, then Churches may be­come unholy by some other means. And if Histo­ry does not wrong the Churches of the Antipoedo­baptists, they have not been so holy as they should have been: Now by what means came they to be unholy, and unholiest? As for such who being bap­tized in their Infancy do not answer the Profession of Faith and of a good Conscience, whereinto they [Page 28] were baptized, but do afterwards make Shipwrack of that Profession, and persist therein: it had been better for them not to have known the Way of Righteousness, than after they have known it, to turn from the holy Commandment once delivered to them; but is no argument, why none but Adult Persons should be baptized, for these also may make defection, unless we will confute all experience; and then what way or course may, or ought to be taken with them upon this occasion, the same may be taken with others upon the like, and so Christi­anity and Holiness be preserved and secured in the Churches of God as much this way, as it is preten­ded it may be in the other.

But there remains two things yet to be resolved; in resolving of which it will be proved, That Pa­rents, and Parents only, where they may be had, have right to present their Children unto God in Baptism.

Quest. 1. The First, how do Infants covenant, and engage to be God's People, or take Christ to be their Lord in Baptism?

Answ. By their Parents, who having first given their own selves unto the Lord, are bound to give and dedicate their Children, both Infants and Adult, as their Seed unto him also: And for this cause it was, that no House was baptized without the Pa­rents; the Adult covenanting and engaging for themselves, and the Parents for the Infants; Parents doing of which for their Infants, being as Joshua, resolving that he and his House would serve the Lord, whilst the Infants promising by their Parents, is as we may so say, as Levies paying Tithes in the Loins of Abraham.

And tho' that may be verified of Infants, when their Parents covenant for them in Baptism, which Christ said to Peter, What I do thou knowest not now. Yet this can be no bar to this practice, that Pro­mise, (but thou shalt know hereafter) being as ap­plicable to them, as it was to him.

And truly, they who go about to dispute them­selves and others out of Infant-baptism by such like Arguments, saying, ‘How do Infants know that their Parents covenant for them? And how can any after Infancy tell what engagement lies upon them thereby?’ may as well say, How do we know who was the Father that begat us, or the Mo­ther that brought us forth? and so cast off that great Commandment with Promise, Honour thy Father, and thy Mother.

Quest. 2. The second is, Why then are not Pa­rents, but others required in their stead, to answer for their Children in Baptism?

Answ. Some have thought, that the requiring of Others, instead of the Parents, to answer for their Children in Baptism, was not brought into a Canon, till the Clergy was prohibited Marriage, and it may be so. But waving that the usual answer is, That however Parents might be chiefly concern'd in this at the first, yet because Parents might be ta­ken away by Death, driven away by Persecution, or by some other means necessarily detain'd, when their Children were to be baptized, the Church might require that Others should appear for them; by re­quiring of which, the Church doth not exclude any Title which the Children have by the right of the Parents: for the Sponsors may be supposed to ap­pear in a threefold capacity. First, as represent­ing [Page 30] the Parents in offering up the Children unto Baptism, and thereby challenging in their Right. Secondly, by representing the Children in the An­swers that are made in Baptism. Thirdly, in their own capacity, when they promise to take care of the good Education of the Children in the Principles of the Christian Faith.

But tho' this may be done in defect of the Pa­rents, yet that Parents when they may be had, should be quite justled out by these, who were taken in only to supply their defects, seems not only to un­dervalue, but oppose the Wisdom of the first times, and doth too much resemble the setting light by Father and Mother, complain'd of Ezek. 22.7.

And whereas it is fairly pretended, that tho' one of the reasons (to wit, the Persecution of those Times) which made Sureties more necessary in the first Ages of the Christian Church, hath long since ceased; yet that they are continued for good ends, as (not only to offer up, represent and promise, but) to covenant on the Childrens behalf, and se­cure the Church that they may be brought to Con­firmation, and own their Covenant hereafter.

These are Reasons why there should be some Sure­ties for Infants; but none at all, why Others ra­ther than the Parents, but altogether on the contra­ry; for Parents are not only much more responsi­ble for all those good ends, but are confessedly those who were chiefly made use of in the first Ages of the Christian Church, till the Persecution of those Times cut them off. Now if Persecution was one main thing that afterwards hindred Parents, and that it was a Persecution so to do; why it should be thought a thing expedient in it self to [Page 31] hinder them now, by still requiring Others in their stead, the reason ceasing, is very difficult to re­solve.

Nor is it so easy and small a matter to be Sponsor, or Surety in this Case, Eccl. 5.2. to the 8th. as many it may be make it to be; nor a Charge to be taken so rashly, and in­considerately, as we may fear is done by the most. What Parents may do for their own Children, who are taken into Covenant with them, is one thing; and what they may do for the Children of Others, who stand not in that relation with them, is ano­ther. Every Christian is obliged more or less, if not as a Witness, yet as a Monitor, to help each other in their Faith and Manners; but for any to Covenant with God, to Promise and Vow in the presence of God, and of his People solemnly assem­bled, to be such or such an one's particular Christian Monitor, and in their own capacity to promise as a Surety, to take care of their good Education in the Principles of the Christian Faith, not being their Parents, or where the Parents may be had, is a thing of an higher nature, and not without absolute ne­cessity, to be either required, or undertaken.

And though the use of Sureties should be so early in the Christian Church, as some pretend, that it is not easy to fix the time of its beginning; or, that it should be so ancient, as some think, among the Jews; as the time of Isaiah, who took unto himself Witnesses to record, Isaiah 8.2.

Yet what are Sureties? The time of whose be­ginning it is not easy to fix, to those made use of from the beginning. Or what are Witnesses to Sureties? Were Witnesses anciently Sureties? Or [Page 32] must we use Sureties, because the Prophet took un­to himself Witnesses?

And as to the Reason of the thing: Is it to offer up, dedicate, and devote Children unto God, (by their Ministry, whose Office it is) and repre­sent them in Answers to be made in Baptism? Who are more proper for these than the Parents, whose they are, who are Parties with them, and who must answer in some respects to God for them?

Is it to Promise, Vow, and Covenant on their be­half? Who are more fit for this than the Parents themselves, with whom the Covenant is made for themselves and theirs, and without which, Sureties, and all their promising, vowing, and covenanting would signify nothing; Children having no right to Baptism, from the promising, vowing, and co­venanting of Others; for so the Children of In­fidels might have right, but as the Parents them­selves promise, vow, and covenant for them: And if other Sureties do challenge but upon the Parents right, why may not the Parents themselves chal­lenge upon their own?

Is it to undertake for the Childrens good Educa­tion in the Principles of the Christian Faith? who are laid under such strict Commands, bound in such indispensible Obligati­ons, Psa. 78.5, 6. Prov. 19.18. and 29.27. charged with that care, and trust, and furnished with those fair and ad­vantagious opportunities for the dis­charge thereof, as the Parents? Doth not even Na­ture it self teach us? And unto whom hath God said at any time concerning the Children of Others, as unto Parents concerning theirs, Thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy Children, and shalt talk [Page 33] of them when thou sittest in thy House, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up, Deut. 6.7. And when the Apostle saith, Ye Fathers, provoke not your Chil­dren to wrath; but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, Eph. 6.4. Of whom prin­cipally saith he this, of the Fathers of their Flesh, or of some others?

And for the security of the Church, that the Children may be brought to Confirmation, and own their Covenant; Wherein are the Parents less re­sponsible, or more insufficient than the Sureties? It is the Parents that God looks after; and if they bring up their Children for him, do they not bring them up for the Church? What needs the Church then any other Sureties? Or, wherein is it better secu­red by them? As for Sureties, it is well known, that any are generally accepted of: besides, some do but stand for other Sureties; and some are Sureties for the Children of several Families: And what more common, than for the younger sort of Sureties, to be removed into other Habitations and Abodes? And for those of greater years, to have Char­ges of their own, sufficient to take up all their care and endeavours? Moreover, are not Families very often flitting, and changing their Dwellings? How then, it may be again asked, Is the Church more or better secured by Sureties, than it would be by Parents? whose Security, was it taken, would be something; whereas that of Sureities is, besides the uncertainty of it, usually but in complement, ha­ving a Form of Godliness, but little or nothing of the Power of it; so that if it should be demanded, What advantage, as to these things, hath the Church? [Page 34] Or, what profit is there by them unto the Parents, or their Children? Or, what Glory unto God? it would be hard to say, Much every way. Besides, is not Filthiness and Uncleanness hereby covered and masked? which it may be hoped would be shamed out, if Parents only were required personally to present their Infants.

To sum up All: Are any proper and compe­tent to represent the Children of others, to offer them up in Baptism unto God, to promise there­in for their vertuous and religious Education, to covenant with God for them, secure the Church, and receive the Charge and Exhortation given in their behalf? and must they not be much more proper and competent for their own? Or, if they be not proper and competent for their Own, how come they to be proper and competent for the Children of Others?

Yet this hinders not, but that Others may hand Children from the Parents to the Minister; or stand as Witnesses of their Baptism; so they proceed not to serve in things appertaining to the Parents.

For the Service and Worship of God requiring personal Attendance, and it not being in the power of any to require the performance of one Man's Re­ligious Duty of another; or of one Man, to per­form another Man's Religious Duty for him. So that if any should require One man to go to the Church, serve God, partake of the Lord's Supper for another; Or, if any should pretend that he doth all these things, by another's doing it for him, it would be nothing. Even so to offer up, devote, and dedicate Children unto God in Baptism, to Covenant for them, and therein solemnly to pro­mise [Page 35] and vow the Religious Education of them, all which are part of the Christian Religion, and Di­vine Worship, is no discharge to the Parents, whose Part and Duty it is, let them pretend what they will of doing it by others, unless they themselves do per­form it. And therefore that Parents should be re­quired and necessitated to do it by others, or it must not be done at all, when they themselves may do it, is a matter that deserves the most serious considerati­on of those who challenge not a dispensing or infalli­ble Power.

If any should think that Parents therefore may not answer, promise, vow or covenant for their Chil­dren in Baptism, because this would be to serve God for them.

It follows not: For when Parents answer, promise, vow and covenant in their Childrens Name, they do not perform their Childrens Duty for them, but thereby engage them to it, and perform their own: And so far as the Parents Act of giving up, and de­dicating their Children unto God in a way of Co­venant, and therein answering for them, is a Work of Necessity and Mercy, it is no more a performing of their Childrens Duty, or a serving of God for them, than praying to God for them, or being their Mouth to God in Praise, is.

To conclude; Since Suretiship, and making Vows for others, is no light and easy matter; that this for Children, being in things of the greatest moment, and unto God who will not be mocked, is none of the meanest; and that it is not in our Power to sub­stitute one for another, or others in our stead to serve God for us, nor safe to trifle with sacred things: how well would it be if that Suretiship, which is [Page 36] founded upon Covenant-Right, accommodated with the greatest Advantages, most expedient in it self, most competent for all the good Ends of Sure­tiship, most unquestionable, and which was from the beginning, to wit the Parental, was always re­quired; unto the discharge of which, if such, whose Ministerial Calling and Emploiment it is, would superadd their Endeavours by a frequent assisting of the Parents upon all convenient Occasions, remem­bring them always, that he is not a Christian which is one outwardly, (Rom. 2.28, 29.) neither is that Baptism which is outward in the Flesh; but he is a Christian which is one inwardly, and Baptism is that of the Heart in the Spirit, and not in the Let­ter, whose Praise is not of Men, but of God: How useful might this be, and more religious, than for them, waving the Parents, to bind heavy Burdens and grievous to be born, and lay them on other Mens Shoulders, and they themselves not move them with one of their Fingers?

Now the God of Patience and Consolation grant us to be like-minded one towards another, according to Christ Jesus; that we may with one Mind and one Mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Je­sus Christ; Rom. 15.5, 6.

Amen.