THE FIRST PART. On the NATURE of CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.

THE subject of our present inquiry, may be re­duced to these two points, viz. What is Christian Baptism? And, Who are the proper subjects of it? These I shall endeavour to resolve by the light of divine revelation.—And, as I claim no dominion over the faith of any, so I would speak as unto wise men: judge ye what I say.

The first thing to be considered, is, "What is Chri­stian Baptism?"

In our text, Christ commissions his ministers to bap­tize the nations. We borrow the word Baptism from [Page 2] the Greeks; among whom it was commonly used to sig­nify a wetting or washing in some mode, as I shall shew more particularly in the sequel. Among christians, bap­tism is that Religious and Sacramental washing with Water, which Christ has appointed as the token and sign of our admission into the visible church, and of our hav­ing an interest in the privileges, and coming under the obligations of the gospel covenant.

But there are some, who are not content to enjoy all the liberty in our churches that they can reasonably de­sire for themselves. With them there is no true baptism without dipping: nor will they have christian communi­on with any but those who have gone into the water. According to them, there are no gospel churches in the world, except of those who have been dipped. None are regularly called or sent of God to preach the word, and administer gospel ordinances, till they have been dipped. None may presume to come, or be admitted to the table of the Lord, till they have been dipped. And thus, as much as in them lies, they unchurch all the churches in the world, except those who agree with them in the mode of baptizing.—They deny the call and mission of their ministers; invalidate and nullify their ordinances, and excommunicate thousands, whom they cannot deny to be eminent for faith and holiness; and, in a word, make the door of the visible church so much narrower than Christ has made the gate of Heaven, that they reject far the greater part of those whom Christ receives.

Now, however willing we are to have Christian com­munion with all who, in a judgment of charity, are dis­ciples of Christ; yet if we cannot have it, unless we will discard the greater part of our christian brethren; deny the missions and call of those, whose ministry has been the means of our own conversion and edification, de­ny the validity of those ordinances, which have so often been breasts of nourishment and consolation to us, and renounce our baptism, which we are conscientiously per­suaded is both valid and regular; this we cannot consent to.—And if any make this a ground of separation from [Page 3] us, let all who have imbibed the spirit of christianity judge, whether it be our fault; and whether such ri­gidness in a matter so circumstantial, is agreeable to the meek and charitable spirit of the Gospel, or whether it does not rather look too much like Pharisaical supersti­tion, to say no worse.

Methinks they have more reason to question the va­lidity of their own administration, than to deny ours, upon the account of such irregularities as they charge upon us. For they cannot deny that the baptism which is administered in their communions was received at first by their predecessors, from the hands of such as, accord­ing to their principles, were unbaptized, and consequent­ly could not be regularly authorized to administer the ordinance. If they think sprinkling to be no true bap­tism, much more have they reason to doubt the validity of immersion, when performed by an unbaptized and un­authorized administrator. And, if the first baptisms of that sect, when they first sprung up, were invalid, how can those administrations be thought valid and regular, which depend upon them.

We must therefore conclude, that dipping cannot be essential to baptism and christian communion. The con­sequences are not to be endured.—The difficulties this principle will lead to, are inextricable.—We never can be satisfied that there is any true church, or valid bap­tism and ordinances in the world, upon these narrow principles.

These considerations are certainly of so much weight, that the necessity of dipping ought not to be insisted on, unless there be clear and cogent reasons for it. The sub­stance of what is pleaded in favour of this mode, is re­ducible to these four heads:

"That the proper meaning of the word Baptize, al­ways implies dipping.

"That the scriptural examples of baptism were ad­ministered in this way.

"That this mode of administration is plainly pointed out, when the Apostle says, ‘We are buried with Christ in baptism.’

[Page 4]"That dipping only answers to, and fitly represents the thing signified in baptism."

On the contrary, we think, that the necessity of dip­ping cannot be argued from any of these topics; but that they will furnish us with a good warrant in favour of the mode of affusion or sprinkling. Let us examine the matter distinctly.

And our first inquiry is, what is the true and proper meaning of the word Baptize, and whether it always implies dipping? We grant that the institution of Christ requires whatever is essential to a true Baptism; but more than this cannot be held necessary. Now, we have no sort of evidence, that the word Baptize always im­plies dipping; but it plainly appears to be of a larger and more general signification. It properly imports a wetting, washing, bathing, in any mode, either by dip­ping or sprinkling, or bleeding, or weeping, or other­wise. In proof of this we appeal,

In the first place, to those who are acknowledged to have been best skilled in the Greek language. All the Lexicons and critics, so far as I have found, agree, that the word signifies to wet, or wash, as well as to dip.

But, perhaps, it may be said, ‘That critics are not infallible, and it may be suspected that they are wrong, in saying, That washing or wetting in general, in whatever mode, is expressed and meant by the word Baptism.’

I answer; in questions concerning the true meaning of words, the judgment of the learned, though not infallible, is doubtless of very considerable weight; and especially when we find a general consent among them. And that there certainly is upon this point, that washing or wetting, without respect to the mode, is Baptism, according to the usage of the word by Greek writers. But if any are yet unsatisfied, we must examine the mat­ter further; whether it can certainly be made to appear that the word bears the sense which has been said.

They who have been at the pains to examine the Greek classics (Dr. Wall in particular) have proved by clear and manifold examples, that those ancient writers [Page 5] were wont to use the word Baptize to express a washing or wetting, even where there was no dipping at all, but only a sprinkling. But I think it will be needless to inquire, how the word was commonly understood by heathen writers: it is the scriptural sense alone that we are searching after. If this can be ascertained, we need no more.

The word baptize is used in scripture to express such washings as did not require, and were not effected by dipping. In Luke xi. 38, we read, that a Pharisee who had invited Jesus to dine with him, "marvelled that he had not first Washed." The Greek word is Baptized. Here observe, that Jesus omitted to wash before dinner according to the Jewish custom, which was the reason why the Pharisee wondered; and that this Washing was properly called a Baptism. But how were the Jews wont ordinarily to wash before their meals? Did they dip themselves under water? If not, here is a plain proof and example of a washing that is called a baptism, with­out such a dipping. Now, if we turn to Mark vii. we shall see what that washing was that was customary among the Jews before eating. ‘When the Pharisees and some of the Scribes saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled (that is to say, with unwashen) hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not. And when they come from the market, except they wash (the Greek is, except they are baptized) they eat not.’ This shews, that in the language of the New Testament a person is said to be baptized, when a small part of his body is washed.

Again, in Heb. ix. 10, the Apostle speaks of the Jew­ish ritual as standing in divers Washings; the Greek is, different Baptisms. And it appears that purifications by sprinkling are especially intended. For he adds, with a plain reference to, and as an illustration of, what he had just said: ‘If the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ,’ &c. which shews that these purifi­cations [Page 6] by sprinkling are instances of those washings or baptisms he had mentioned, and indeed some of the chief instances: otherwise it would not have been pertinent to his purpose to have noticed them on this occasion. A plain proof that sprinkling is a true baptism.

Further, the Apostle says of the Israelites who came out of Egypt, that ‘they were baptized unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea,’ 1 Cor. x. 2. How were they baptized? Certainly they were not dipped. For they went on dry ground through the sea, which stood as a wall on each hand. It was the Egyptians on­ly that were baptized by immersion. According to the account Moses gives, the Israelites could no otherwise be baptized in the cloud and sea, than by being sprinkled with rain from the one, and a spray from the other, as they passed along: to which Psal. lxviii. 7, 8, 9, is thought to refer. Here is then another instance of baptism by sprinkling; which was a token of the separation or sanc­tification of the people to God. This gives a natural and easy account of the matter. But how unnatural and strained is our opponents' way of explaining it: ‘That the people having the sea on each hand, and the cloud over their heads, seemed to be as it were dipped or enclosed in water.’ On which I would observe, that the Apostle says not that they seemed to be as it were baptized, but in plain terms that they were Bap­tized. But whatever resemblances of dipping, people may imagine, immersion without wetting is certainly no real baptism. For whether the mode of washing be es­sential or not, yet the washing or wetting itself is indeed essential to a true and proper baptism. If people may be baptized by having the water round them, though they were not wet by it at all, the dry hold of a ship upon the water would serve as well as Jordan: and, by going down into it, we shall be dipped in the sea in like man­ner as the Israelites were.—The fathers were baptized in the cloud and sea.—A true baptism necessarily implies wetting. They were not wet by immersion—they could not therefore be baptized by immersion—whatever wash­ing they received could be only by sprinkling.—It was [Page 7] therefore in this made undoubtedly that they were bap­tized. Which is another proof that sprinkling is a mode of baptism.

Let us now consider the words of Christ, Luke xii. 50, ‘I have a bap [...] to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished.’ Christ here calls his sufferings a baptism. The sacred body of the blessed Jesus was truly and literally baptized.—He was wet and bathed in his own tears, and sweat, and blood, in his agony in the garden, and when he was scourged, and nailed to the cross. He was baptized and sanctifi­ed by the blood of the covenant, Heb. x. 29, that is, by his own blood; even as the Jewish high priests were bap­tized, sanctified, and consecrated with water and the blood of beasts, as types of Christ. And accordingly it was a common expression of the ancient fathers, con­cerning the martyrs, who had shed their blood in bear­ing witness to the Christian faith, that they were bap­tized with their own blood.—Here is then, I think, an­other very good proof, that dipping is no ways essential to baptism.—For, Christ was not dipped, and his mar­tyrs are not dipped in their bloody baptism, but he was wet, and tinged, and bathed in his sweat, and blood issuing from his pores and veins.

Let us now make some remarks on the baptism with the Holy Ghost, which is often spoken of. This is indeed a spiritual baptism, by which the subjects of it were sanc­tified, consecrated, and separated to God, in a higher and more eminent sense, than those were who had only been consecrated by water baptism. But how is this spiritual baptism explained? There are several expressi­ons which are plainly of the same import; such as the "pouring out of the spirit" upon the subject. When the Apostles were baptized with the Holy Ghost, ac­cording to Christ's p [...]se, Acts i. 5, Peter observes, that this was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel, ‘It shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my spirit,’ Acts ii. 17, and again, verse 33, ‘That Christ being by the right hand of God ex­alted, and having received of the Father the promise [Page 8] of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed or poured forth those things which ye now see and hear.’ Here we see "that pouring upon," and baptizing, are synoni­mous expressions. The one explaine the other. Now, if the pouring out of the Spirit be the baptism of the Spi­rit, the pouring of water must also be [...] baptism of wa­ter.—It is to be well observed, that as the Holy Spirit is in scripture often signified by water, as a fit emblem of his sanctifying and comforting influences; so the confer­ring of the spirit upon us, which is undoubtedly the true intendment of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, is not re­presented by the similitude of dipping into water, but as a pouring or sprinkling of water upon us.—Isa. xliv. 3, ‘I will pour waters on the thirsty, and floods on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit on thy seed, and my blessing on thine offspring.’ See also Ezek. xxxvi. 27, ‘I will sprinkle clean water on you, and ye shall be clean. A new heart will I give you,’ &c. All which I think proves plainly, that sprinkling is in scripture considered as a mode of baptism.—I will add one remark more. The baptism with the Holy Ghost is termed, an unction or anointing, 1 John ii. 20, 27. The holy oil, with which persons were anointed in their consecration, was a sign or emblem of the Holy Spirit given to them, to fit them for the offices to which they were called. The same is also signified by Christian bap­tism. Now, it is by pouring on of oil that persons are anointed; and it is by pouring out of the Spirit upon us, that our anointing or baptism with the Holy Ghost is expressed. As therefore baptism answers in signification to anointing, we may well conclude, that it may pro­perly be administered in the same way, that is, by affu­sion. Can we doubt whether affusion be a true baptism, when we find that in scripture, Baptizing, Pouring, Sprinkling, and Anointing, are parallel, and signify the same thing?

One remark more I will add. In all the different translations of the New Testament that I have seen, I have not found that the word baptize in the original is ever rendered by a word signifying or implying immer­sion. [Page 9] But they either retain the original word, or ren­der i [...] washing or ablution; which we cannot think they would have done, if the authors had not been satisfied that this is the true scriptural sense.

To find and ascertain the signification of the word, will, I think, determine the dispute concerning the mode of Baptism. For which reason, I have examined the matter more carefully. And the conclusion in which this inquiry has issued, will not be at all weakened, but rather much confirmed by the account we have in the scriptures of the administration of this ordinance. And this leads us to consider,

Secondly, Whether the necessity of dipping can be ar­gued from these scriptural precedents. Some suppose, that ‘John Baptist and the Apostles baptized by im­mersion only: And that we are bound herein strictly to follow their example.’ On the contrary, we can find no certainty that immersion was ever practised in the apostolic age. It is morally certain that this was not the constant mode of administration.

It is true, we read that Jesus was baptized by John in Jordan; and then came up out of the water, Mark i. 9, 10. ‘That the Jews were also baptized of John in Jordan," Mat. iii. 6. "That John baptized in Enon, because there was much water," John iii. 23. That the Eunuch went down into the water with Phi­lip, and when he was baptized they came up out of the water,’ Acts viii. 38, 39. But whether any of these were dipped is uncertain. It is not even certain whether in any of these instances they went into and were baptized, in the water; though the texts are so rendered in our English Bible. But the Greek, which is the authentic standard, will fairly admit of this sense, as critics have often observed, viz. That they went down to, were baptized at, and went up from the water. ^* [Page 10] But, waving this remark, supposing they did go into the water, and were there baptized; it does not follow that they were plunged. It is nothing strange or improba­ble if they stepped into the water, that they might be baptized by affusion. Though there was much water, or many waters (as the phrase properly signifies) at Enon, where John was baptizing. This is no proof that he dipped, or made use of much water in baptism, or that there was even a convenient depth of water for such a purpose. Travellers have reported that there are only springs and small rivulets to be found in this place. As multitudes resorted to John, a place that was well sup­plied with water, for their use and refreshment, would be most convenient, suppose none of them were dipped, as I find no certainty that they were. And if any should think that the administration of baptism at rivers, and in places where there was plenty of water, is a circum­stance that favours immersion, though it is needless to contest this point, yet we might easily mention several things as probable arguments that immersion was not practised in these instances. It seems unlikely that mix­ed multitudes of both sexes should be dipped naked. And it was contrary to the Jewish custom to bathe with any of their clothes on; in which respect they were so strict, that they held a person to be unclean, if but the top of one of his fingers were covered, when he bathed him­self for his cleansing.—Or if immersion were received with the clothes on, this would require a shifting of ap­parel, which we have no hint of. Nor can we easily conceive how strangers, who came from home without any design of being baptized, as was the case with some, [Page 11] should be furnished with necessary change of raiment for this purpose. Or how John should be able, without a miracle, to bear the hardship of standing in the water up to his waist, a great part of his time, to dip the mul­titudes that came to him. These circumstances must surely weaken, if not overbalance, all probabilities or pre­sumptions that can be pleaded in favour of immersion, in these instances.

But be this as it may, we have accounts of several in­stances, so circumstanced, that the supposition of their being dipped is most incredible. Particularly the 3000 baptized on the day of Pentecost. For it was at least nine o'clock when Peter began his sermon. After this he had a long conference, and with many words coun­selled, testified, and exhorted them. Then the Apo­stles had to receive a confession of faith from each of them distinctly: and then baptize them severally: which, though done in the quickest manner, would require the whole remainder of the day. But in the slower way of immersion, we cannot conceive how it could be done by the Apostles without a miracle. Nor may we suppose that the Apostles were assisted in this work by the se­venty disciples, who appear not to have been authorized to administer the ordinances. Besides, how incredible is it, that they should on a sudden find conveniences for dipping so many, in the midst of a city, among zealous opposers: or that so many strangers should either be baptized naked, or have change of raiment. We can­not rationally think, that they could be baptized other­wise than by affusion. Nor is it probable that Paul was baptized by immersion: for, upon Ananias coming in to him, putting his hands upon him, &c. we read, that he immediately received his sight, arose and was baptized; that is, in the house where he was: there being no hint of his going out to any water, weak as he was with long fasting and agitation of mind. ^* It is not probable that [Page 12] those were dipped who were baptized at the house of Cornelius, Acts x. 47. Peter seeing them filled with the Holy Ghost, said, ‘Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized.’ The natural sense is, Can any forbid water, to be brought or provided to baptize these: not, whether any could forbid their go­ing to the water. And, in the account of their baptism, there is no hint of their going from the house. It is highly improbable, that the jailer and his house were baptized by immersion; for, this was done in the night, and in the prison, where there was no river nor pool to be imagined. Can it be thought, that the jailer, with his whole family, and his prisoners, whom he was charg­ed to keep at his peril, should at such an hour, grope away in the dark, or go with a lanthorn or torch to a river or pool, no one knows where, and that through a city, just waked up with a great earthquake, and the streets, it is probable, filled with the frighted citizens? They might all well expect to be taken up and punish­ed for helping the prisoners to make their escape. Nor is it credible that the Apostles would have done such a thing, who would not leave the prison till the magistrates took them out. The administration of baptism would, doubtless, have been deferred, if it could not then have been attended to without all this difficulty and danger. Besides, there is no account of their going out to the water or leaving the prison. The house of the jailer, into which he brought the Apostles, seems to have been a separate apartment of the building, where the keeper dwelt, that he might conveniently attend his charge. And we may here make this general remark; that among all the instances of baptism mentioned in the New Testament, it is never said or intimated, that they went from the place where they happened to be, to any river or stream, that they might be baptized in or at it. But all who are said to have been baptized in any [Page 13] stream, were by it, [...] themselves to baptism.

Thirdly, The necessity of immersion is argued [...] the Apostle's word [...], Rom. vi. 4. ‘We are buried [...] Christ in baptism.’ Which words have been supposed to refer to this [...]ode of burying the subject is [...]ter. But it does not appear that any such reference or allu­sion is here intended. The Apostle is here shewing, that ‘Christians may not live any longer in sin, inasmuch as they are dead to it.’ To prove and illustrate this, he reminds us of our being "baptized into Christ." By baptism, we are not only dedicated to Christ, and brought into a special relation to him as his disciples; but, our baptism is the outward sign of our ingrafting into Christ, and so of our spiritual union to him, and communion with him, in the benefits obtained for the members of his body, by his crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection; and also of our obligation to a spiritu­al conformity to his crucifixion, death, burial, and re­surrection, as is noted and illustrated in what follows. Being th [...] ‘baptized into Christ, we are baptized in­to his death.’ We not only participate of the bene­fits obtained by his death, but are bound to a spiritual conformity to him in his crucifixion and death; by the crucifixion and death of our old man, with its affecti­ons and lusts. ‘Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.’ Baptism signifies our union and communion with Christ; and our profession and obliga­tion to a conformity to him, "in his burial," as well as his crucifixion and death. The old man, with his deeds, must be put off, utterly rejected and buried. We must, in respect of our former lusts and conversation, be as if we were "dead and buried." We, by our baptism, are obliged to have done with these things; to endea­vour, that the body of sin may be quite mortified and dest [...]ed. But this work of mortification, in which "we are made conformable to Christ's death," is in or­der to a spiritual resurrection; in conformity to the ex­a [...]p [...], and by the quickening virtue of Christ's resur­ [...]ion: ‘That like as Christ was raised from the dead [Page 14] by the glory of [...] we also should walk in newness of [...].’ [...] [...]cording to the Apo­stle, baptism imp [...]s our union and conformity to Christ in his crucifixion, death, and resurrection, as well as in his burial. And why baptism should be supposed to b [...]r an outward resemblance of his burial, rather than of his crucifixion and death, or why any should fancy [...]n allu­sion to the mode of immersion, I can see no reason.

I might further observe, that dipping a person in water does not resemble the burial of Christ, who was not laid in a common grave, but in a tomb hewn out of the side of a rock, into which they entered by a door. Nor does it resemble a common burial, which is not so properly the letting down the body into the grave, as the casting in the earth upon it; of which the sprinkling or pouring of water on a person is no unfit representa­tion; but dipping bears no resemblance to it. It is not an outward, but a spiritual conformity to Christ's death and burial that is intended by our being buried with him in baptism.

Let us now inquire, Fourthly, Whether dipping an­swers to, and represents the thing signified in Baptism better than sprinkling. It has just been observed, that Baptism is the outward sign and taken of the applica­tion of the benefits of redemption to believers, in their justification and sanctification. ‘Christ washes us from our sins in his own blood.’ And Baptism, as the outward sign of the application of Christ's blood, is, "for the washing away of sins." But how is the ap­plication of Christ's blood for our cleansing represented? It is called, "the blood of sprinkling." And the Apo­stle speaks of the ‘sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.’ But we are never said to be cleansed from sin by being dipped into the blood of Christ.—Again, Baptism is the instituted sign of our having the gift of the Holy Ghost bestowed upon us. "Be baptized," says Peter, ‘and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.’ Now, the donation of the Holy Ghost is never expressed by our being dipped into the Holy Ghost; but by his being poured out, and our being [Page 15] sprinkled thereby; which [...]lled our being baptized with the Spirit. Sprink [...]ing [...] a [...] not re­presentation of the application of the blo [...] [...] Christ, and the influences of the Spirit, for the cli [...]ng of our souls from sin. The argument, therefore, from the [...] ­logy of the sign with the thing signified, is plainly [...] fa­vour of sprinkling rather than dipping. It is true, our spiritual conformity to Christ in his death and resurrec­tion is not unfitly signified by immersion. But sprink­ling more aptly represents the application of the bene­fits of redemption to us; which is the main thing signi­fied by baptism.

THE SECOND PART. On the SUBJECTS of BAPTISM.

THE second part of the argument in hand, was to consider who are the proper subjects of bap­tism, or to whom this ordinance is to be administered.

Our present inquiry, concerning the subjects of bap­tism, is, Who they are that, according to the gospel rule, are to be admitted by the church? In answer to which, we say, that all who make a credible profession of faith, are proper subjects, together with infants, or children in minority. It is agreed, that professed believers are subjects of baptism. And that this ordi­nance is not to be administered to one of adult age, un­less he has in some manner made a credible profession of (at least, penitential) faith. But that the infants of members of the visible church are to be received as mem­bers also, and as the proper subjects of baptism, has [...]n denied by some; and the administering the ordi­nance to infants, has been censured as irregular, un­warrantable, of no validity or advantage.

[Page 16]I shall [...]fore [...] to prove and vindicate the "di [...] [...] baptism," as briefly and plainly as I [...]

[...] [...]ce of this design, I shall, first, represent the [...] and plainest reason, upon which I believe in [...] [...] to be a divine ordinance.—Then I will consider [...]e principal objections that are made to it.

But before I enter on the proof of the point be [...] us, let it be observed and remembered—That there i [...] nothing positive in the New Testament against infant baptism. It is no where said or hinted, that the Apo­stles forbid or refused, or declined to baptize infants; or that any child of a believer was, after he was grown up, baptized upon a profession of faith. It must also be ac­knowledged, that infants are capable not only of the outward sign of baptism, but also of having an interest in the blessings and Grace of the New Covenant, and coming under its bonds, which is the thing signified in the ordinance, and that they need those New Covenant blessings. Further, it is no where declared in scripture, either in express, or equivalent terms, that "adult per­sons only," or that "none but those who believe," or profess faith, are to be baptized. In short, there is absolutely and perfectly nothing that stands in the way of our embracing the doctrine of infant baptism, if we can find any kind of evidence in favour of it, either ex­press or consequential.—This then is what we have now to inquire into, viz. Whether any such evidence ap­pears? And I think enough may be collected from the scriptures to put the matter beyond all reasonable doubt.

And my first argument is taken from the church mem­bership of infants:

All those who are to be received as mem­bers of the visible church are the subjects of baptism.—But infants are to be received as members of the visible church. They are therefore subjects of Baptism.

[Page 17]First, I say that all who [...] mem­bers of the visible church, are [...] [...]ism. This is granted by our opponents, particularly [...] Dr. Gill, most expresly. "Let it be proved," [...] he, "that in [...]nts are or ought to be members of [...]pel churches—and we shall readily admit them," i. e. to [...]sm.—Answer to Dickins [...], p. 89.

Some have pretended "that it is inconsistent to say, that a right to baptism is grounded upon church mem­bership, and yet that we are admitted into the church by baptism." But this is a mere cavil. The right of church membership is one thing; and admission into the visible church is another. They who are qualified for admission into the church, according to the rule of the gospel, are members by right, before they are members by admission. And they are accordingly to be received as rightful members by baptism, an so admitted in an orderly way to those subsequent privileges of christian commu­nion, to which baptism is a regular and solemn intro­duction. For the right of church membership, though it give [...] immediate claim to admission into the church by baptism, yet it does not give an immediate and or­ [...]ly claim to any, while [...] all the privi­leges of admitted and baptized mem [...] But be this as it will, whether the right of church membership be [...] to baptism, or baptism be antecedent to church membership, it cannot be denied that all those are the proper subjects of baptism, who are, [...] ought to be ad [...] members of the gospel church.

N [...] [...] be made to appear, that infants are, or ought to [...] acknowledged and admitted as members of the visible church, we must una [...]dably conclude that they are subjects of baptism. And this is what I un­dertake to prove. And there is a remarkable passage re­c [...]ed by three of the Evangelists which seems to be sufficient to determine the point. I will recite it at [...], collecting all the particulars mentioned in the se­veral accounts. Mat. xix. 13, 15, Mark x. 13, 16, Luke xviii. 15, 16,— ‘And they brought unto him lit­tle children, infants, that he should touch them, put [Page 18] his [...] th [...] [...]d pray: and his Disciples re­b [...] th [...], i. e. those who brought them. But when Jesus saw it he was much displeased, and called them to him, and said unto them, suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, f [...]r of such is the kingdom of Heaven. Verily I say un­to you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put or laid his hands up­on them, and blessed them.’

These were young "infant" children which were brought to Christ, whom he took up in his arms, as we are expressly told. They who brought them gave evi­dence of their faith in him; for they brought them that he might put his hands on them and pray. We may al­so observe, that it was agreeable to the mind of Christ that they should be brought to him; for when the dis­ciples rebuked those that brought them, Jesus seeing it, was much displeased. The disposition they manifested on this occasion to despise little ones, and set themselves above them, as if young children were not fit to be in­troduced into their company, Christ did much dislike. And he was also displeased, as it seems, to find they were so dull of understanding, and so mistaken in their apprehensions. They might reasonably have concluded, that as little children always had been received as mem­bers of the church of God, as Christ had not intimated any de [...] cut them off from this their right, as they needed his blessing, and were capable of [...] ▪ on these grounds they ought to have concluded, that it was fit and proper that they should be presented to the Messiah, the king of Israel, as his disciples and subjects, that they might receive his blessing.—But the disciples seem to have reasoned in a quite different manner, as some others have done since. ‘To what purpose is it to bring these little children hither? They are not capable of be­ing taught. They do not understand what is in [...]ad­ed to be done with them. It will be of no advantage to them. We cannot look upon them to be believers, [Page 19] o [...] [...] to belong to our soci [...]’ [...]uch [...] as the [...] they seem to have had. [...] are as plain and pointed as po [...] [...]st [...]—Their mistake at this time gave our [...] a [...] to declare his mind fully and expressly upon the [...]se of infants; that they are of the kingdom of [...]; and therefore none should forbid, or discourage [...] bringing and presenting them to him. ‘Suf­ [...] little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.’

From these words it appears, in the first place, that [...] are the children of the covenant, belong to the [...]urch of God: for this is what we are here to under­stand by the kingdom of heaven, as I shall shew present­ly. Such as these, properly and naturally signifies, per­sons of this sort or class, and that come under this deno­mination.—They were included among that sort of persons; even as the woman taken in adultery was one of those condemned by that law, ‘which commanded that such should be [...]ed.’

[...] would fain have the meaning of this expression [...] ‘That those who resemble little children in hu­ [...]ty belong to the kingdom of heaven.’ But how [...] and unnatural is this? Christians are to resem­semble lambs and doves for meekness, as well as infants. But what should we think of a man that should say to his servant: ‘Suffer the sheep and lambs to come to me, and hinder them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven?’—Would not this be highly improper, and worse than ridiculous? And yet this would be just as proper as the words of Christ are, according to the meaning that these would force upon them.—The rea­son Christ gives why the little children should be brought to him, is, because of such is the kingdom of God. And a very plain and pertinent reason it is, as we under­stand it. For if children belong to the kingdom of Christ, we can see a manifest fitness that they should be presented to him as his subjects and people, that he might own them, and give them his blessing. But what [Page 20] weight [...] there in such a reason as our ad­ver [...] [...] for bringing these children to [...] ‘ [...]uffer little children to come to me, for [...]gh it is true they belong not to my kingdom, yet [...] subjects of my kingdom are somewhat like them. There is that in little children which looks like meek­ness and humility, and is a fit emblem of it.’ Must every thing then that any ways resembles true christians, be brought to Christ, for him to lay his hand upon it, and pray over it? What an uncouth, unintelligible rea­son is this for bringing children to Christ? Which will serve as well for a reason why lambs and doves should be brought and presented to him, as Mr. Henry well observes. Because the kingdom of God consists of grown persons, meek and harmless like children, is it a just and plain consequence, that children should be brought and presented to Christ; though they belong not to his kingdom? Surely no one has any cause to be displeased with another (as Christ was with his disci­ples) for not apprehending weight in such a reason as this. Indeed there is no weight in it.

Again, the reception which Christ gave those children, and his actions towards them, may put it out of all doubt that he acknowledged them as the subjects of his kingdom. For he took them in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them. Christ never pronounced a solemn blessing upon any but those whom he owned as the subjects of his kingdom. By laying his hands on these children and blessing them, he recognized them as his own people, and put upon them the [...]me token of acknowledgment which he gave his disciples immediate­ly before his ascension. The blessing was always look­ed upon as a sacred thing, which belonged only to the professed worshippers and people of God; especially that solemn religious blessing in the name of God, with imposition of hands, which had been practised in the church in all ages. None were the subjects of this, upon any occasion that we read of, but they that belong­ed to the church. When we read that God blessed [Page 21] Noah, and Abraham, and the other [...] no doubt but that hereby he owned them, in [...] solemn manner, as his people. And shall any be [...] reasonable as to deny or call in question the church [...] ­bership of infants, after Christ himself has not only de­clared that of such is the kingdom of heaven, but has given this further token and testimony of the same, even laying on his hands, and pronouncing a blessing upon them: which is as distinguishing a token of church membership as baptism itself, or any other ordinance whatever.

Infants then must be allowed to belong to the king­dom of heaven. Christ has declared them so by words and actions as significant as possible. But, it may be inquired, What are we to understand by the kingdom of heaven? I answer, it is plainly the church that is here meant.—It will be needless to confirm this by particular quotations; they are so many, and so well known to all who have read the New Testament with any attention. Nor is it denied by any that I know of: and, I think, it is the Visible Church that is to be understood.

Christ declares, that these children were then mem­bers of the kingdom of heaven. ‘Of such is the kingdom of heaven.’ But, will any say, that the kingdom of glory consists of those who are have upon earth? They were upon earth, and were in the kingdom of heaven upon earth, if they were in it at all; that is, in the kingdom of grace or visible church.

But, if it were supposed, that these words are to be understood as affirming, that children belong to the in­visible church, and as such, are heirs of the kingdom of glory; yet this will prove that they ought to be ac­knowledged and received as members of the visible church. For, can they be reasonably refused a place in the church on earth, whom Christ affirms to be heirs of heaven? If we have evidence that they belong to Christ, as his peculiar people, there needs no more to [...]ime any one a clear and undoubted [...]ht, in the account [...]f the church, to be received as belonging to him, or as [Page 22] [...] of the church on earth. And what better evi­ [...] [...] there be that any are subjects of the kingdom of [...]ven, than the testimony of the king himself? Is [...] any profession of faith that ought to have more [...] in the church? Though infants are not able to sp [...]k for themselves, yet Christ has spoken for them, de­claring, that "of such is the kingdom of heaven." And, is not the testimony of Christ a sufficient creden­tial to warrant our receiving them? Our Lord subjoins the following memorable words, in which he strikes at the very root of his disciples' error, which their conduct discovered. ‘Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter therein.’ The disciples were much disposed to stand upon their distinctions. They seemed to think that they had a clearer and better title to the privileges of the Messiah's kingdom than infants. They were actual believers and followers of Christ; which could not be said of babes. If these are admitted to have a part in this kingdom, it must be considered as a special indulgence and favour to them, who have done nothing to give them any claim to such a privilege. Whereas, thought they, we have left all for the kingdom of heaven's sake. And, shal [...] these be allowed to have as good a title as we? "Yea says Christ, their title is as good as yours in all re­spects." It is, indeed, an act of mere grace and favour, that infants are admitted. They have done nothing to merit it. And, do you imagine, that any thin [...] that you have done gives you any peculiar claim to the [...] privileges? Do you consider the kingdom of heave [...] as the due reward for any doings of yours? No, be [...] known to you, that your title arises entirely from th [...] free grace and gift of God, as well as theirs. If y [...] will not receive the kingdom of God, and hold it [...] the same title that little children do (viz. as the free g [...] of God made over to them by his covenant and promi [...] as his adopted children) you shall not enter therein. ^*

[Page 23]The common exception, "That those [...] not baptized by Christ, nor were brought to [...] any such purpose," is altogether impertinent. [...] not argue, that infants are the subjects of baptism, [...] cause we suppose that these infants were bap [...] by Christ; but that infants belong to the church, is here plainly asserted; and that all such as belong to the church, are the subjects of baptism, cannot be de [...], [...]t is further asked, "Why Christ did not th [...] bap­ti [...] them, if they were proper subjects? Before men urge such questions, they should make it appear, that those infants had not been baptized before. However, whether they were baptized or not, is of no importance to us. If they were not baptized, it is not incumbent on us to give the reason. But it is incumbent on those who ask such questions, to shew, Why it should be thought necessary, that all members of the gospel church should then be baptized before baptism was fully settled as the ordinary right of admission, which was not till after Christ's resurrection. But, if Christ did not baptize these children, yet he gave them as sure a token of church membership as baptism itself, when he laid his hands upon them and blessed them. It is further object­ed, "Christ's entire silence about instant baptism at this time, has no favourable aspect on such a practice." An­swer, Christ having asserted the church membership of infants, and solemnly blessed them with imposition of hands, and having said nothing against the baptism of them, more than of a [...], these things have a very fa­vourable aspect on the practice of infant baptism, and imply a good warrant for it. After having thus owned them as his people, both by words and actions, if it had been his will that the sacrament of ind [...]ction should not henceforth be administered to infants, as heretofore, but only to adults, he would not have failed to have given [Page 24] [...] intimation on this occasion, that notwithstanding [...] [...]e had said and done, infants were not to be bap­ [...] Christ's saying nothing against infant baptism o [...] [...] occasion, when it appears so necessary to prevent [...]kes, had infant baptism been contrary to his will, has no favourable aspect on the practice of those who re­fuse to admit them.

I have enlarged the more upon this proof of th [...] church membership of infants, because I take it to b [...] very decisive and unanswerable. And, I shall lay before you another passage, which will fairly lead us to the same conclusion. Mark ix. 36, 37, ‘Jesus took a child, and set him in the midst of them, and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them; whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiv­eth me.’

Now observe, Christ says, "Whosoever shall receive one of such children" (or, "this child," as it is in Luke ix. 48) "in my name, receiveth me." To re­ceive one in the name of Christ, is to receive him as be­longing to him. So the words are clearly explained i [...] the 41st verse of this chapter, ‘Whosoever shall giv [...] you to drink a cup of water in my name, because y [...] belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall no [...] lose his reward.’ Since then Christ would have [...] receive little children in his name, as belonging to him and declares, that in so doing we receive him; we may assuredly conclude, that they are to be reputed as belonging to him, as the members of his church. When therefore, a believer offers his child to the church, to b [...] received by baptism, as belonging to Christ, and admit­ted as a member of the same body; shall they refuse to receive it in his name? Shall they thus despise Christ's little ones, as to shut the doors of his house upon them and, as much as in them lies, ‘cast them out of the in­heritance of the Lord, and declare that they have n [...] part in the Lord, and lay such a stumbling block before our children, to make them cease from fearing the Lord?’ Josh. xxii. 25. God forbid! Take he [...] [Page 25] that ye despise not, and offend not one of these little ones.

Let us now consider more particularly the words of our text, containing the Apostolic commission. ‘Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teach­ing them to observe all things whatsoever I have com­manded you.’ It has been observed, that the words properly signify, ‘Go make or admit all nations Disci­ples, baptizing them—teaching them,’ &c. This, our opposers do not deny. But, they say, that no one can be made a disciple but by teaching; which is true, only with respect to adults: because no "such persons," are to be admitted into the school of Christ, but by their own consent, and a previous profession of their faith in him, and obedience to him; and this necessa­rily pre-requires teaching. But to argue from hence, that infants are not to be admitted as disciples, because not in a present capacity of being taught, and professing their faith, is no better than begging the question, talk­ing at random, and without proof. Though adults are not made disciples, till they are first taught, and are not admitted but upon a profession of faith, yet with infants the case is otherwise. They are to be admitted by the order of Jesus Christ, without a personal ‘profes­sion and consent,’ of which they are not capable. But this may be further considered afterwards.

Let us now see whether any thing can be argued from the words, in favour of infant discipleship and bap­tism.—When the Apostles received an order to disciple all nations, they would naturally understand, that they had it in charge to make all nations proselytes, to intro­duce and admit them into the church of Christ, as a school, in which they were to be taught and trained up in the knowledge and observance of christianity, in order to their being meet for heaven. It is true neither infants nor adults are expressly named. But the Apostles were sent to disciple and baptize "the nations," which none can deny, include persons of every age. And the [Page 26] Apostles must needs have understood that it was their business to make Disciples of the infants, and baptize [...] them as well as others. For, let it be remembered that the Apostles had been educated in the Jewish church, of which infants had all along been undoubted members▪ They understood that the membership of such had ne­ver been called in question, since there had been a church in the world. They knew that the infants of proselyte [...] from among the Gentiles were constantly admitted and circumcised, together with their parents. Not only so, but such infants were baptized; as the ancient Jews report. They knew that Christ had taught them that little children belonged to the kingdom of Heaven; that he had accordingly laid his hands, and pronounced a solemn blessing upon them; and signified his will that they be received in his name, as belonging to him; and that themselves had been reproved by him for forbidding infants to be brought to receive his blessing. They knew, that the admission of the children into the church, with the parents, was always reckoned a great privilege; that Christ never said or intimated that it was his will that infants should be cut off, or not admitted still as members of the gospel church. They understood that the privileges of the church were to be enlarged, and not abridged in any respect.—Now, the Apostles, whose views and apprehensions may have been such as has been represented, would, without doubt, have understood that they were instructed by their commission, to admit the children with the parents into the number of proselytes by the initiating rite, as had been the constant practice of the church.—They must have understood the matter as a minister who had never heard that infant baptism was ever objected to, would understand his charge, if he was ordained and sent out to preach to the heathen, and gather churches among them, baptizing them. It would be unnatural, and highly unreasonable for them to un­derstand the matter otherwise. This then must be re­ceived as the just interpretation of the commission. It is the natural and true meaning: which is so far from [Page 27] cutting off infants from the gospel church, that it fur­nishes us with a good warrant for admitting them.

We have another unanswerable proof, that the children of believers are fit to be members of the visible church, and subjects of baptism, in 1 Cor. vii. 14, ‘The unbeliev­ing husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbe­lieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.’ The Apostle had just said, that a believer ought not to sepa­rate from an unbelieving wife, who was willing to con­tinue in the marriage relation. And in these words he removes a doubt which might be apt to arise in their minds, viz. Whether the children born in such a marri­age were to be reckoned as fit to be of the church, with the believing parents; or were to be ranked with the unbelieving parent, and so reckoned among heathens that were without?—Though infants had always been received as members of the Old Testament church, yet when the Jews had, in the time of Ezia married strange wives which had born them children, these children were not received; but it was ordered that they be put away, together with their heathen parents, as unclean. It might therefore be a scruple, whether a believer, and member of the Christian church, were obliged or allow­ed to live in the state of marriage with an unbeliever; and whether their children were not to be excluded from the church, as the unclean offspring of a heathen parent; as had been determined among the Jews in the case just mentioned. This point, the Apostle plainly resolves, de­claring, that a believer is not defiled by having conjugal society with an unbeliever. On the contrary, says he, "The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife," or rather is sanctified in or to the wife, ‘and the unbe­lieving wife is sanctified in or to the husband.’ That is, the believer, has a lawful and sanctified enjoyment of an unbelieving yoke-fellow. For, as the Apostle else­where teaches us, ‘All things are pure to him that is pure. And every creature of God is good, and no­thing to be refused. For, it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.’ Thus the unbelieving husband [Page 28] or wife is sanctified to the believer, as every creature of God is, which we may have occasion to use. Formerly, all that were out of the pale of the church were account­ed unclean; and a Jew would have been defiled by liv­ing with a heathen wife. But now there is no defile­ment in the lawful use of any of God's creatures. They are all sanctified to a believer. Or we may take the meaning of these words thus: a believer and unbeliever being married together, are one flesh; they are one prin­ciple or source of offspring. But though an unbeliever, considered in himself personally, is unholy, and has no claim to church privileges; yet the children are entitled to these privileges, as fully and perfectly in all respects, as if both the parents were believers. For the unbe­lieving husband being one flesh with the believing wife, is sanctified in or by her, so far as respects the church privileges of children. The husband, though an unbe­liever, is, in consequence of his union in marriage with a believer, in some sort sanctified. The unbeliever, in this relation is capable of transmitting church privileges to his offspring, to as good advantage as any believer.

The Apostle goes on— ‘Else were your children un­clean,’ as the heathen were termed and accounted. All those who were aliens from the commonwealth of Is­rael, and strangers to the covenant of the promise, and not members of the church of God, were commonly reputed uncircumcised and unclean. They were not admitted into the holy place, or to attend on holy ordinances. Now, if the unbelieving wife were not sanctified to and by the believer, as has been said, the children must have been unclean, and so not be received as members of the church, and subjects of holy ordinances.— ‘But now they are holy’—and are to be admitted into the vi­sible church, into the society and fellowship of those who are visibly separated from the rest of the world, and de­voted to God as his holy people. The word, Holy, as it is used in scripture, is applied to persons and things that are devoted and d [...]cated to God. Men are term­ed holy either as being separated from the rest of man­kind, and standing in a peculiar relation to God, as his [Page 29] visible professing people; or as being conformed to the will and moral image of God in temper and practice. The one is called a relative, the other an inherent holi­ness. The first is attributed to all those who belong to the visible church. Thus the people of Israel are all spoken of as an holy people. And, upon the same ac­count, gospel churches are considered as consisting of faints, or holy persons. For, though it is not supposed that they are all really and inherently holy, or partakers of a divine nature, yet they are visibly the people of God, separated and devoted to him. But let it be par­ticularly noted, that no person is ever stiled holy, from the beginning to the end of the bible, except he be of the church of God. And in the New Testament, a Saint, or Holy Person, a Disciple of Christ, a Member of the Church, and a Subject of the Kingdom of Heaven, are of the same signification. Now, since we find that the title or appellation of Holy is never given to any person in the world, except he be of the church; and since the Apostle declares, that the children of believers are holy; it is a plain and undeniable consequence, that such chil­dren are of the church, and are the proper subjects of baptism, as was to be proved.

The Antipedobaptists have endeavoured, in vain, to wring and wrest these words of the Apostle to a com­pliance with their tenets.—But, in the first place they would persuade us, ‘That the Holiness which the Apo­stle here intends, cannot be that which is implied in, and connected with church membership.—For, they say, the same Holiness which is ascribed to the chil­dren, is also attributed to the unbelieving parent.— If the children are Holy, the unbelieving husband and wife are also said to be sanctified.’ But, I answer, the Apostle's words plainly shew, that the unbelieving yoke-fellow is only sanctified to the believer, as all the creatures of God are said to be sanctified to the Saints, so as that they may have a holy use and enjoyment of them. He is not sanctified in respect to God, but only in respect to his wife and offspring, who derive no more defilement either by conjugal cohabitation with or by [Page 30] natural generation from him, than if he were a be­liever.—In a word, the unbelieving husband is only sanc­tified in that particular respect, and unto the particu­lar purpose there pointed at, as has been said.—But the Children are declared to be not unclean, but "holy." A title which is never given to any but those that are of the church. Unbelievers who belong not to the church may be sanctified, or prepared as instruments to answer the purposes of divine goodness to the saints. But this respective sanctification does never give them the deno­mination of "Holy ones." The words of the text, and the reason of the thing therefore plainly shew, that the sanctification of the unbelieving husband or wife is a different thing from the holiness of the children.— This gives a good, pertinent, and instructive sense to the Apostle's words, which are taken and explained in the scriptural sense, as no doubt they ought to be.

And hence we see, there is no just foundation for that objection, ‘That the unbelieving parent being sancti­fied by a believing yoke-fellow, may as well be con­cluded to be a member of the church and subject of baptism, as the children whose holiness depends upon this sanctification of the parents.’ For a person's being sanctified in some certain respect, does not give him the denomination of a holy one, in the language of the scriptures; which is a peculiar and appropriate title of those who belong to the church, and is never given to any others of the children of men. And, since the children are Holy, which is not said of the unbelieving parent, though in some respect sanctified, the children are to be acknowledged as of the church, but not the unbelieving parent.

Let us now consider how this passage is expounded by those on the other side. And here they would per­suade us, ‘that the Apostle means, what they call, a matrimonial holiness.’ And that the meaning of the text is, ‘The unbelieving husband is married or espoused to the wife, and the unbelieving wife mar­ried to the husband: else were your children bastards, but now are they legitimate.’ I do not think it will [Page 31] be needful to say much to expose the unreasonableness of this interpretation. It is so strained and unnatural, it so sinks and spoils the sense, and is so utterly without foundation, that I think it may pass for one of the most improbable, unhandsome, and incredible glosses, that we shall readily meet with upon any text whatever. Neither the Corinthians, nor any one else doubted, or had need to be told, that the unbelieving husband had been and was married to the wife, and the unbelieving wife to the husband. For, how could they be husband and wife, if they had not been married together? And, can any one believe in sober earnest, that the inspired Apostle filled up his epistle with such a trifling ridicu­lous business, as telling his converts, that if they had children without being married, the children would be bastards, but now as they had been married, they were legitimate? Far be it from any christian to burlesque the sacred scriptures, at this rate.—A profane infidel, who would ridicule the Apostle, could scarce give his words a meaner, and more ludicrous turn.

THAT the infant seed of believers are members of the church, and subjects of baptism, further appears from their interest in that gracious covenant, by which the church is constituted. To state and clear up this argu­ment at full length, would require a large discourse. I must only give a brief sketch.

I think it is granted, that all who are visibly interest­ed in the new covenant, are to be received as members of the visible church; and that the outward token of an interest in the covenant, and of admission into the visi­ble church belongs to them. After the fall of man, by the breach of the first covenant, God was pleased to re­veal a new and gracious covenant, of which Christ was the Mediator; which was to be the rule of intercourse and communion between God and his people, and the great charter by which the church was formed. All who were taken into this covenant were thereby sepa­rated [Page 32] from the rest of mankind, and brought into a pe­culiar relation to God, as his people and subjects, to be ruled by the special laws, and observe the special ordi­nances, and enjoy the special privileges of his kingdom. This kingdom of grace was to make an outward ap­pearance upon earth, and have an outward administra­tion in the visible church, according to the rules which God ordained. And according to these rules, all who were visibly in the covenant, were to be admitted as members of the visible church. They were to have the appointed token of the covenant put upon them, and were visible subjects of the outward ordinances and pri­vileges of the church. For, a visible interest in the co­venant, a right of membership in the visible church, a right to the token of the covenant and of church mem­bership, and to the outward ordinances and privileges, which, according to the covenant, belong to the church; these things are inseparably connected together, and mu­tually infer each other. Many, it is true, who are in the covenant visibly, and in the acceptation of the church, have not a real and saving interest in new cove­nant blessings. They will not at last be owned by God as his peculiar people; nor is there a spiritual, effectual, and saving application of the grace of the new covenant to them. Hence arises the common distinction between the visible, and the invisible church.

Now, if this covenant, by which the church is formed and constituted, includes the children with the parents, then the token of the covenant, and of admission into the church, belongs regularly and visibly to them. This then is the point we have to prove.

Let it be remembered, in the first place, that the sup­position of infants being comprehended in the covenant, and being the subjects of its outward administration in the visible church, is no ways incredible, on account of any incapacity in them. For, they are certainly capa­ble of coming under its bonds, and having the grace of it secured and applied to them; and they greatly need new covenant blessings. It is an important privilege to [Page 33] them to belong to the visible church, that they may, under its watch, instructions, and discipline, be trained up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. They are also capable of having the outward token of the co­venant put upon them; which may afterwards be im­proved by them for their excitement and encouragement in the service of God. In short, infants are, for ought that appears, as capable subjects as any, of the obligati­ons, the privileges, and token of the covenant; and they stand in like need thereof with others. The presump­tion, therefore, is not at all against, but rather in favour of their being comprehended in the covenant, as well as others.

We may further observe, that it has always been cu­stomary for children to be included in covenants with the parents; to come under the bonds, and receive the pri­vileges therein stipulated. That this is common in co­venants which take place among mankind, is known to all; and no one imagines there is any thing unreasonable and improper in it, if the covenant be in itself good and reasonable. It is also certain, that when God has been pleased to covenant with mankind, the children as well as the parents have been comprehended. This appears to have been the case in the covenant with Adam, with Noah, with Abraham, and with the Israelites at Horeb. Indeed, this seems to have been the case in all God's fe­deral transactions with the children of men. It is, there­fore, altogether agreeable to the common sense of man­kind, and the method of God's government of his peo­ple, that his covenant with them should respect and take in both them and their seed. And this consideration may, I think, render it quite credible and probable that the new covenant, by which the church is constituted, may be, in this respect, similar to God's covenant trans­actions with mankind, which, so far as appears, have con­stantly comprehended the children with the parents.

But, having premised these observations, I shall pro­ceed to the direct and positive proof, that the children of God's covenant people, have also an interest in the covenant. The new covenant, which, I have said, is [Page 34] the great charter by which the church is formed, do [...] most plainly and expressly take them in. It was, in­deed, this new covenant I am speaking of, that was re­vealed to our first parents the very day that they fell, and by the proposal of it to them, they were constituted th [...] visible church and people of God, before they were ex­pelled from paradise.—It was again revealed to Noah af­ter the flood, whereby he, with his children, were again recognized by God as his church and people. The same covenant was afterwards more clearly and distinctly re­vealed to Abraham, and the ordinance of circumcision was annexed, as an outward sign and token. And though there are sufficient intimations, that the seed of God's visible and professed people, had always, from the beginning, been considered as in the covenant, and church of God; yet as this is most expressly declared in the revelation which God made of his gracious cove­nant to Abraham, I shall take this more especially as the ground of the present argument.

The Abrahamic covenant, I say, was but a plainer ex­hibition of that same new and gracious covenant, which had been all along the foundation and charter of the church. The addition of a new ordinance, and the grant of a particular country to him and his natural posterity, made no alteration in its substantial duties, or privileges, but only pointed out a different external ad­ministration, which was to take place in the church. Hitherto the external administration of the church seems to have been domestic; the ordinances of worship being distinctly and separately administered in the several fami­lies of the Patriarchs: nor do we read of solemn assem­blies, for the purpose of attending public worship. But, as God had a design of forming a national church, of the posterity of Abraham, all the members of which were to join and have an external communion with each other in the same ordinances, and acts of worship; this different mode of administration was provided for in the grant of the land of Canaan to the posterity of Abra­ham; that so they might be formed into a political bo­dy, and live together, for their convenient attendance [Page 35] on holy ordinances. But this provision, which was made for a different external administration in the church, is no argument but that the covenant which was revealed to Abraham was, for substance, the very same with that by which the church had at first been formed, and had all along subsisted.

This may shew how unreasonably some would insinu­ate, that we would make several covenants of grace. As if the same covenant could not be revealed ‘at sun­dry times, and in divers manners,’ and, as if there might not be a different external administration of ordi­nances in the church at different times, and yet the co­venant by which the church is constituted remain sub­stantially the same.

Now, that we may distinctly state this argument, grounded on the covenant with Abraham, let us take a view of it as we have it recorded in Gen. xvii. ‘I am the Almighty God, walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. As for me, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be Abram, but thy name shall be Abra­ham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and Kings shall come out of thee.—And 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. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land in which thou art a stranger; all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God. Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee: Every man child among you shall be cir­cumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a token of the covenant be­twixt me and you. And he that is eight days old [Page 36] shall be circumcised among you, every man child i [...] your generations; he that is born in the [...] bought with money of any stranger [...] thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlast­ing covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people: he hath broken my covenant.’

From this memorable passage, which I have recited at large, we see that the Abrahamic covenant compre­hended the children with the parents, in their successive generations; and that the outward token of an interest in the covenant was to be applied to infants. We may further observe, that all who were included in this co­venant were by it constituted a visible church, separated from the rest of the world to be the people of God. That grand article of the covenant, ‘I will be a God to thee and thy seed,’ implies, that they were to stand in a peculiar relation to God, as his church; who were to be subject to peculiar laws and ordinances, by observ­ing which, they declared on their part, That they were his People. This promise contains also the sum of new covenant blessings. The promises and ordinances did ap­pertain only to the church; of which all who had an in­terest in the covenant were members. Infants, therefore, being expressly included in the covenant, were always looked upon as of the people of God; and were to re­ceive the distinguishing token of a covenant dedication to him.

Nor was this covenant, with its ordinances and privi­eges, ever limited to Abraham, and his natural posteri­ty, and particularly that article which takes the infant seed into the church with the parents, was not any pecu­liar privilege of the native Hebrews: nor was circumci­sion appointed as the token of a peculiar interest in those temporal blessings, which were granted exclusively to the natural seed of Abraham, as some would pretend. For it appears that by the express direction of God some [Page 37] were to have the token of the covenant and of church membership for themselves and their children, who were neither the natural descendants of Abraham, nor were with them to inherit the land of Canaan. When cir­cumcision was first instituted, not only Abraham, with his son Ishmael, but all the males of his family were or­dered to have this token of admission into the visible church. And it was a standing rule, that bought ser­vants, and children born in the house, should be circum­cised. And the Old Testament church did receive pro­selytes from the Gentiles; and this token of their interest in the covenant of Abraham was accordingly administer­ed to them and their children; who were thereupon sub­jects of Church ordinances and privileges. But this their interest in the covenant of Abraham gave them no right of inheritance with the native Israelites in the land of Canaan. Which I think is a clear proof, that the covenant with Abraham, to which circumcision was an­nexed, was not any mere national covenant, conveying peculiar temporal privileges to him and his posterity, but it could be no other than God's new and gracious covenant; by the revelation of which, those who pro­fessedly consented to it, with their children, were consti­tuted his visible church and people, and were the regular subjects of the ordinances appertaining to its outward administration.

The Abrahamic covenant, we see, did comprehend both parents and their infant children, constituting them members of the visible church. And not only the na­tural children of Abraham, but many among the Gen­tiles, upon their becoming proselytes, professing the faith and religion of the church, they and their infant children had an interest in the covenant of Abraham, and were to be received into the visible church by the initiating rite. They were adopted into the family of Abraham, and, ‘the blessing of Abraham came upon the Gentiles," and he was "made the father of ma­ny nations,’ long before the gospel dispensation took place, and before the dissolution of the national hierar­chy of the Jews, which was a middle wall of partition [Page 38] between them and the Gentiles. Even before this wall was taken away, there was a door left open in it, to re­ceive all of every nation, who would join themselves to the God of Abraham, and take hold of his covenant.

The church having been constituted, according to the covenant with Abraham, it must be allowed, that during its continuance, the children are as evidently in cove­nant, and of the church, and subjects of the initiating ordinance, as any others. If then it shall appear, that this covenant stands now in force, and that the gospel church is in and under it, and enjoys all its privileges without any abridgement; the right of infants to church membership will stand upon the same firm basis that it did under the Old T [...]stament.

But our opponents deny, ‘that baptism comes in the room of circumcision.’ And if we should suppose with them, that it does not, it would be no proof but that the covenant itself may remain, though the out­ward token be laid aside, as it is certain that the same covenant for substance had been revealed to, and admi­nistered in the church, long before circumcision was in­stituted. And if the covenant remain, infants are still fit to be church members, and consequently are the subjects of baptism. But, indeed, it is no better than wrangling, to deny that baptism comes in the room of circumcision: what we mean by the asser­tion is, that circumcision being abrogated under the gospel dispensation, baptism was instituted to be an outward token of an interest in the new covenant, the sacramental rite of admission into the visible church, the sign and badge of membership, even as circumcision had been to the fathers; and in a word, that it answers the like purposes in the gospel church, and is of like my­stical and spiritual significancy, as circumcision was under the former dispensation. And this I should think our adversaries can scarcely deny.

Indeed, as circumcision was afterwards annexed to the Horeb covenant, and so became an ordinance of the na­tional church, and worldly sanctuary of the Jews, bind­ing the subjects to the observance of the whole of the [Page 39] Mosaic law, in this relation and respect, it must of course have ceased with the other Jewish ordinances, when that old covenant was abrogated.—And if our op­ponents only mean to deny, that baptism comes in the room of circumcision, considered as a Mosaic ordinance, we shall not contend with them. But it should be re­membered, that circumcision had been appointed as a token of the Abrahamic covenant, long before the Ho­reb covenant and national constitution of the church had a being. And I shall shew, that the Abrahamic cove­nant was the very same that the gospel church is now un­der; and that it never was annulled.

It is objected, ‘That the Apostle has declared, that the covenant, which was the foundation of the Jew­ish church, of which infants were members, is waxed old, and vanished away,’ Heb. viii. 8, 9. I answer, The covenant which the Apostle says was ready to va­nish, was that which God made with the Fathers, in the day that he took them by the hand, to lead them out of Egypt; that is, the covenant at Horeb. But that co­venant, which is the foundation of infant church mem­bership, had been revealed to Abraham hundreds of years before; and the Apostle does not say, that this had waxed old, or was annulled; but the contrary. In­fants were indeed members of the national hierarchy of the Jews, which is abolished. But they had been church members long before this national church was formed; nor was the foundation of their membership shaken, when that dispensation was taken away.

Let it then be considered, that the covenant of Abra­ham, containing a charter of privileges for the church, and the right of membership for infant children, being an undoubted privilege granted in this covenant; it must be presumptuous and injurious for any to deny that this covenant stands in force, or to pretend that infants are now cut off from this right and privilege, unless they can prove, that God has taken away this covenant, or at least has cancelled that article, which is the foundation of infant church membership. But there is no intima­tion in the scriptures that this covenant is annulled, or [Page 40] that infants are cut off from their interest in it. The old covenant which the Apostle says was vanishing, was the covenant made with the Israelites, when God led them out of Egypt. But of the abolishing that cove­nant which constitutes infants, church members, there is nothing to be found in the whole Bible. And, till it can be proved to be abolished, it must be considered and held as valid as ever.

The Apostles are so far from teaching, that Christ has annulled God's gracious covenant with the fathers, or taken away any of the privileges therein granted to them or their children, that Paul asserts the contrary, in Rom. xv. 8, ‘Jesus Christ was a minister of the circum­cision, for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers.’ These promises are summarily contained in the covenant with Abraham, that the Lord would be a God to him and his seed; that he should be a father of many nations; and that all the nations of the earth should be blessed in him. These promises are all confirmed by Christ. Abraham is the patriarch of the church. He is constitated the father of all them that believe; of all the people of God, of every nation; who are adopted into his family. Even the Gentiles, who were not his natural descendants, are received into the number, and entitled to the privileges of his children. He is made the father of more nations, than are derived from his blood. All the nations of the earth derive blessings from him, and hold their church privileges un­der him, as his children and heirs. The covenant with Abraham has, indeed, been accomplished more eminent­ly since Christ confirmed it, than ever before. His fa­mily has been larger, and he has been made a father of more nations than ever. This article of the covenant, which receives the children with the parents into the church, is confirmed, as well as the rest. It would be most unreasonable to think otherwise, when the scrip­tures never hint that this article is rescinded.—And we have, besides, good evidence, that the christian church has not lost this privilege, but their children are still chil­dren of the covenant, to greater advantage than ever.

[Page 41]The Apostle tells us again, ‘That the covenant with Abraham was confirmed of God in Christ, and that the law which was four hundred and thirty years af­ter, could not disannul it,’ Gal. iii. 17. And will any yet insinuate, that Christ has annulled this covenant, which God confirmed in him? This would overthrow the Apostle's argument; who confutes the error of the Judaizing teachers about justification, by the stability of the Abrahamic covenant; which would be inconclusive, if that covenant was not in force.

Indeed, the third chapter to the Galatians, and fourth to the Romans are a proof, that the covenant with Abraham abides in force, under the gospel dispen­sation, and that the Gentile believers, with their chil­dren, have an interest in it which can never be evaded. The Apostle says, that ‘They who are of faith, are the children of Abraham, and are blessed with faithful Abraham. ^*’ And being his adopted children, they are heirs. They inherit the blessings of his covenant; and all those privileges of church membership, which were granted to Abraham and his seed, belong to be­lievers. And as it was one covenant privilege of the children of Abraham, to have their infant children taken into the covenant and church with them: this privilege is transmitted by the covenant, to all who are adopted into the family of Abraham; otherwise they are cut off from a part of that inheritance of church privileges which was entailed upon the children of Abraham. The Apostle adds, ‘The blessing of Abraham is come upon the Gentiles, through Jesus Christ. ^†’ Which is, [...]s if he had said, the blessings and privileges granted in the covenant with Abraham belong and are conveyed to the Gentile church. The very same privileges without any diminution, both for them and their children. ‘If ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. ^‡’ Whatever privileges were by the covenant and promise of God granted to the children and heirs of Abraham, whether for them­selves [Page 42] and their seed, the christian Gentiles are entitled to. For they are also declared to be the children and heirs of Abraham. To the same purpose the Apostle writes in the fourth chapter to the Romans, quoting those words of the covenant, ‘I have made thee a fa­ther of many nations, ^*’ as a proof, that Gentile be­lievers are the children of Abraham; and consequently are comprehended in the covenant and church, together with their offspring.

Again, in Eph. iii. 6, we read, ‘That the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ, by the gospel.’ That is, they are fellow-heirs with the Jews of the blessing and covenant of Abraham, they are admitted to that inheri­tance of spiritual privileges, which God's covenant and promise conveyed to his descendants; they are of the same body the church, which was formed by this cove­nant; and partakers of the promise; that same promise of the covenant which had been the great privilege of the church all along, and was expressly to them and their children.

But, let us once more hear what the scripture says.— When those, who were pricked in their hearts, on the day of Pentecost, said to Peter and the rest of the Apo­stles, ‘Men and brethren, what shall we do? Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call,’ Acts ii. 37, 38, 39. That it was the covenant with Abraham, that is here called the pro­mise, will appear from the following considerations.— 1. This covenant is commonly in the New Testament called the Promise, by way of distinction and eminency. See Rom. iv. 13, 14, ‘For the promise, that he should be heir of the world, was not to Abraham or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness [Page 43] of faith. For, if they which are of the law, be heirs, faith is made void, and the Promise of none effect. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end that the Promise might be sure to all the seed, not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the fa­ther of us all." Gal. iii. 17, &c. "The covenant which was before confirmed of God in Christ, the law which was 430 years after cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise, but God gave it to Abraham by Promise. If ye are Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs ac­cording to the Promise." Once more. Gal. iv. 28, We, as Isaac, are children of the Promise.’

In all these places, and in divers others, the covenant with Abraham is called the Promise; which shews that it was commonly so stiled. 2. If we compare this text with Acts iii. 25, we shall find the promise there ex­plained, to mean the covenant with Abraham. For the Apostle, there addressing the Jews, to persuade them to repent and be converted, in like manner as he had done on the day of Pentecost, proposes the very same encou­ragement to them in these words: ‘Ye are the chil­dren of the covenant which God made with our fa­thers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.’ His telling them that ‘they were the children of Abraham's cove­nant,’ is to the same purpose exactly, as if he had told them, that the Promise was to them and their chil­dren. For this covenant was undoubtedly to the parents and their infant children. And their being declared children of the covenant, signified that they were heirs to the privileges of the covenant. So that these texts are exactly parallel, and explain each other. The same Apostle, preaching to the same sort of hearers (that is, the Jews) proposes the same argument in different words, even their interest in the promise, or covenant with Abraham, in order to enforce the same exhorta­tion, viz. Repentance and conversion for the remission [Page 44] of sins. So that we cannot reasonably doubt, whether the promise here spoken of, be not the covenant with Abraham, if we will allow the Apostle to explain his own words. 3. What the Apostle here says of the pro­mise, agrees exactly in every particular, with the Abra­hamic covenant, which had all along included the po­sterity of Abraham and their infant children, together with the Gentiles that were afar off, even as many of them, as the Lord did from time to time call into his church, and who, in obedience to his call, became pro­selytes, or Comers, as the word properly signifies.— All who, upon the divine call, came from afar to join themselves to the Lord, and his people, were received, together with their children, into the church and cove­nant by circumcision; and the promise was to them and their children also, as has been observed. The covenant of Abraham did belong to all those who were in, and of the church. Peter's hearers, with their children, be­ing actual members in the church, did not need a new call into the church, in order to their being the children of the covenant and promise. But, with the Gentiles who were afar off, and out of the church, the case was otherwise. They must first be called in, and become proselytes, before the promise would be to them and theirs. But so many as were thus called, and admitted into the family of Abraham, had an interest in the covenant and promise, as well as the Jews. Thus the case had stood all along according to the Abrahamic co­venant; and thus the case stood upon the day of Pente­cost, as Peter says. Which shews that it was this cove­nant that Peter had in his eye, when he said, ‘The promise is to you and your children:’ that his words are therefore to be explained according to the tenor of the Abrahamic covenant. That this covenant, which is the foundation of infant church membership, was not then abolished: but stood in force: and I presume no one will say it has been abolished since.

In this manner Peter's hearers must have understood his words. They had been born and bred in that church and covenant, which included both parents and [Page 45] children. They knew that infants had always been ac­knowledged as church members, ever since a church had been formed in the world. The idea of a church which should not admit the children with the parents, would have been as new and strange to them, as a church that would not admit females, would be to us. A pro­mise, or covenant, conveying privileges to them and their children, would be naturally understood by them in the same manner as those promises in the Old Testa­ment, which so often occur in the same form of expressi­on, had constantly been taken; and particularly the pro­mise to Abraham, which was the most eminent and fun­damental. They would as naturally conclude that their young children are immediately respected, as we should conclude ours to be in an instrument, conveying privi­leges to us and our heirs; and they would have no doubt, that a grant of privileges was here asserted to the chil­dren of those who were in the covenant and church, more than to the children of heathens. Now as the words of the Apostle would carry this meaning most na­turally and obviously to the understanding of his hear­ers, and as the same form of expression elsewhere is con­stantly to be thus understood, and no reason appears why it may not be taken here in the same sense: this must in all reason be received as the true intrepretation. And if this promise belonged to the infant children of the inchurched and covenanted Jews, at the day of Pente­cost, none will deny that it still belongs to the children of the Gentiles, who were afar off; even as many as it pleases the Lord to call into his gospel church.

This promise Peter holds up to the Jews, as a war­rant or reason why they should be baptized in the name of Christ. Repent and be baptized; for the promise is to you, &c. Now if their interest in the promise was a good reason why they should be baptized, as the Apo­stle asserts; then their children's having an interest in the promise with them (as is also asserted) is as good a reason for their being baptized; even as an interest in the covenant was a reason for circumcision to Abraham and his children.

[Page 46]This text is then a substantial proof that the covenant of Abraham stood in force, after the gospel dispensation took place: since this appears to be that very promise which Peter addresses to his hearers. And we see that that particular clause, which contains a grant of the privilege of church membership to the children of God's people was not taken out, when ‘Christ the minister of the circumcision confirmed by his death the pro­mises made to the fathers.’ We then, and all others, whom God shall call into his church, together with our children, as the adopted children and heirs of Abraham, have an interest in this promise; are members of the gos­pel church; and the proper subjects of christian bap­tism.

Some say, ‘that the Promise here spoken of, was not the covenant with Abraham, but the promise of the pouring out of the Spirit, in Joel.’ But how can this be, when the Apostle says that the prophecy of Joel foretold those miraculous gifts of the Spirit, speak­ing with tongues, and prophesying, which appeared on the day of Pentecost? Are these gifts promised to, and conferred upon all, whom the Lord shall call? Be­sides, I have proved, that the promise here mentioned, was the covenant with Abraham; and till the reasons adduced are shewn to be without weight, it is folly to set up an unproved assertion in opposition to them. But whatever the promise may be supposed to be, it belong­ed to Peter's hearers, and their children, as he says; and he holds it up to them as a reason for their being bap­tized. It must therefore be a reason for the baptism of their children also. If the gift of the Holy Ghost was promised to them, it was to their children. And they were to be considered as subjects of baptism on ac­count of the promise; not because the gifts of the spi­rit were manifest in them, but in order to their receiv­ing the gift of the Holy Ghost. For it is to be observ­ed, that the gift of the Holy Ghost is proposed as the consequence, and not the pre-requisite of baptism. ‘Be baptized, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.’

[Page 47]But to give this plea the greatest advantage, let us suppose that the pouring out of the Spirit in his ordi­nary sanctifying influences is the matter of that promise in Joel, though Peter explains it otherwise: and that this is the promise, which he, in this text proposes to his hearers, as respecting them and their children, though we have seen him explain himself otherwise.— Our argument from these words, would yet stand good. For the promise of the sanctifying Spirit being includ­ed in the blessing, we may hence infer, that they to whom this promise belongs, are interested in the cove­nant and blessing of Abraham, and may properly be re­cognized as of the church and people of God.

It is further said, ‘That the children to whom the promise belongs, are not infants, but adults—the po­sterity of the Jews.’ But though adults are the children of their parents, yet infants too are doubtless children. What warrant then have any to deny that they have an interest in that promise, which is to the children indefinitely, without any exception of infants?

But the evasion which is most insisted on, is, ‘That the promise is restrained to those only whom the Lord shall call: and infants give no evidence of their being called.’ But this will not bear examination. I have already shewn, that this promise was the cove­nant with Abraham, and is therefore to be explained ac­cording to the tenor of that covenant, which included him and his children, and so many of the Gentiles as God should from time to time call into his church. The calling of Abraham was a sufficient call to all his poste­rity, to give them a visible interest in the covenant, and standing in the church, till they forfeited and were cut off from this privilege. The restraining clause, therefore, only respected those who were not yet called into the church of God, and not those Jews and their children who were then actual members and children of the covenant. Repentance and baptism in the name of Christ, were required to prevent their being cut off from the covenant and family of Abraham; but the promise was th [...] to them and their children. There is a plain [Page 48] reason why the promise should respect only so many of those who are without, as the Lord should call into his church. But how absurdly would the Apostle speak, according to the interpretation which the Antipedobap­tists put upon his words.— ‘The promise is to you and your children. But neither you nor your children, appear at present to have any interest in it; and no one knows, that they ever will have. You are not to imagine that either you or your children are entitled to any privilege by it, more than belongs to every man and child in the world. All that I mean is, that the promise will belong to those who shall be called. If this should prove to be the case with any of you, or of your children, or any other person, then, and not till then, the promise will be to you and them.’ If this be all that is intended, it had been much more plain­ly expressed by only saying, ‘The promise will be to those whom the Lord shall call.’ To what purpose is all this flourish of words, without meaning? What end can this particular mention of them, and their chil­dren, as interested in the promise, serve, unless to per­suade them, that some special privilege belonged to them, while there was nothing at all in it? It is either insig­nificant or fallacious; and would convey to the under­standing of the hearers either no meaning, or a false one.

Suppose it were declared, that all the privileges con­tained in our frame of government belonged to the na­tive subjects and their children, and also to foreigners, even as many as the government should naturalize: and some one pretending to give the sense of this declarati­on should contend, that according to it, neither the na­tive subjects, nor their children, had a right to any of these privileges, unless they should be first naturalized by an act of the government; would he not be thought ri­dicuously absurd? The adversaries of infant church membership are equally absurd and unreasonable, in their way of explaining the Apostle's words.

The argument from this text we have so long been considering, cannot be evaded. And we may further [Page 49] add, that since it is on all hands allowed to have been a great privilege of the Jewish infants, that they were in the covenant and church of God; if the infants of chri­stians are left out of the church, as some teach, then the gospel church is deprived of an important privilege, which the Jewish church enjoyed: and its constitution is less favourable to infants. But can we believe, that the gospel dispensation has diminished the privileges of the church in any instance; or that it has put any class of mankind, whether infants or adults, in a more disad­vantageous state than before; depriving them, without any fault of theirs, of their standing in the church of God, which is acknowledged to have been an import­ant privilege? This ought not to be supposed, unless clear and positive proof of it could be produced. But no such proof has been or can be found. Wherefore, to bring this argument to a point: the privilege of church membership has certainly been granted to the infant chil­dren of God's professing people; which grant stands in force till it be revoked. Our opponents have often been called upon to produce an authentic act of revocation, and the demand is reasonable. This they cannot do. On the contrary, we demonstrate, that this grant has not been revoked, but is renewed, confirmed, and rati­fied in the gospel.

As a proper appendix to what has thus far been dis­coursed of the interest of infants in the visible church covenant, I shall just mention that common argument from baptism succeeding in the room of circumcision; but shall not enlarge upon it. As infants were the sub­jects of circumcision, and were recognized and marked as the people of God by this rite, the conclusion is very natural and reasonable, that if baptism comes in the place of circumcision, as the token of admission into the church, infants are the proper subjects of this ordinance; unless God has declared to the contrary, which can ne­ver be made to appear. It is indeed denied by our op­ponents, that baptism does come in the place of circum­cision. But I cannot find that they have explained them­selves distinctly, how far, and in what respect, they mean to deny it. I own that baptism does not answer [Page 50] all the same purposes under the gospel dispensation, that circumcision did under the Mosaic. It does not intro­duce the subjects into a national church, and worldly sanctuary. It has not a typical respect to the Saviour to come. It is not a yoke of bondage, obliging to the observance of the carnal ordinances of the law of Moses. And our opponents, if they will be ingenuous and rea­sonable, must allow that baptism does, in many respects, come in the place of circumcision. It answers similar ends in the gospel church; and is of the same general signification; and is to be applied to the same subjects; and has even the same name given to it; and upon the institution of baptism, as an ordinance, of standing and universal obligation, circumcision was no longer the token of admission into the visible church, as it had been before. And this is all we mean, when we assert, that baptism succeeds to circumcision.

As circumcision was the outward token of the cove­nant, and of admission into the church; so baptism is the outward token of church membership, and of an in­terest in the new covenant; which I have proved, is substantially the same with that of Abraham, to which circumcision was annexed. They are both the appoint­ed outward sign and badge of the people of God. As circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham, so is baptism to christians.

Again, circumcision and baptism though different in external rites, are alike in their spiritual signification. They both pointed out our native corruption, and need of purification, by an inward and spiritual renovation. They both signified cleansing from the guilt and defile­ment of sin by the blood of Christ, an admission into the church, a dedication to God, an obligation to walk in his commandments and ordinances, and a right to co­venant privileges.

It is further to be observed, that the Apostle calls christians the Circumcision, under the gospel; which was the common appellation of those who had, under the former dispensation, received the token of induction in­to [Page 51] the church. A sufficient intimation that the one takes the place of the other.

Accordingly, circumcision ceased to be longer the token of church membership, after Christ sent out his Apostles to preach and baptize in his name, when bap­tism was made the standing rite of admission into the gospel church.

For these reasons, we cannot but consider baptism as taking that place in the gospel oeconomy, in which cir­cumcision stood under the old dispensation; though we readily allow that each of these ordinances had some pe­culiar ends and significations, suited to the different states of the church, in which they were respectively in force; in respect of which peculiarities, they may not properly be parallel. And hence we argue, that since circumcisi­on and baptism are manifestly similar in their main ends, uses, and significancies; infants are as proper subjects of baptism, as they were of circumcision; and that the divine order for administering the one ordinance to them, warrants our administering that other ordinance that comes in its room. And the argument is not only po­pular, but of real weight; though I do not lay the greatest stress upon it.

It is objected, ‘That the outward rites are very un­like.’ But I can see no weight in this. The dif­ferent states of the church under the Old and New Testament might require this difference of outward ad­ministration respecting the initiating rite.

It is further objected, ‘That the subjects of bap­tism and circumcision were different. Circumcision was to be administered only to males, baptism to both sexes.’ I answer, The circumcision of the males was the appointed token of church membership to the peo­ple of God of both sexes. The females were account­ed of the circumcision; and were admitted to the holy ordinances which were interdicted to the uncircumcised and unclean.

It is objected again, ‘That baptism was in use and force before circumcision was abolished.’ I answer, Though baptism was administered by John, and the [Page 52] disciples of Christ, a short time before circumcision was abolished, yet this no more proves that the former suc­ceeds not in the room of the latter, than Solomon's reigning with his father a short time, is a proof that he did not succeed and reign in his stead. But though bap­tism was in use before, it was not fully established as the rite of induction into the church, till the mission of the Apostles; after which, circumcision was no longer re­quired for that purpose, as it had been before; though for other reasons it continued in use among the believ­ing Jews some years longer.

It is further inquired, ‘What need there was that those who had been circumcised should be baptized, if they are both ordinances of the same use and sig­nificancy?’ I answer, It was the will of Christ, that all his disciples should receive the new token and badge of church membership, although they had been ad­mitted members of the Old Testament church. And such as would not recognize themselves as his disciples, were to be rejected, and unchurched, and be as branches bro­ken off by their unbelief. Their circumcision became uncircumcision, and the token of their being the people of God became null and void.

To these scriptural arguments in favour of infant church membership, I shall add another consideration, which seems to me to have great weight.

The Jews certainly knew that their infants had an interest in the covenant of Abraham, and had always been acknowledged, received, and recognized by cir­cumcision, as being of the church and people of God. If the Apostles had taught that infants were no longer to have an interest in God's covenant, or be members of the church, or receive any token of their being the people of God; the doctrine must have been new, strange, very shocking and offensive to the Jews. They must certainly have taken notice of it, and been greatly displeased at it. They opposed the Apostles with all their might, and did all in their power to render them odious, and set the people against them and their new doctrine. They were ready to take offence, and wanted [Page 53] neither wit nor will to lay hold of and exaggerate a plausible and popular objection. Such an objection they would have had, if the Apostles had denied that their children were to be church members any longer. They would not have borne such a doctrine, which declared all their children excommunicated and cut off from the church and people of the Lord, and to have no part in him; but would certainly have urged the objection with a vehemence. And the Apostles must have seen, that it highly concerned them to answer the objection, and take up so dangerous a stumbling block, if their doc­trine had given so obvious and fair a handle to their enemies against them. But we have no hint in the New Testament, or any author, Jewish, Christian, or Heathen, that ever I could find or learn, that the Jews ever made any such objection to the Apostles, or their doctrine; or that the Apostles ever attempted either to obviate or silence it, or said one word about it: which is certainly a most violent presumption, and may almost pass for plenary evidence, that the Apostles did not, by denying the right of church membership of infants, fur­nish an obvious occasion and ground for any such objec­tion.

I shall mention but one argument more, grounded up­on the History of Infant Baptism, and the practice of the church from the apostolic age, according to the testimony of the earliest writers. The fact, in short, is found to stand thus: 1. That the validity and lawfulness of infant baptism appears not to have ever been denied by any christians till about the year 1130; and then on­ly by one Peter de Bruis in France, with his followers, a small sect, which held withal, that no infants were saved, and divers other gross errors, as historians report. It soon dwindled to nothing. After which, there can­not be found a single instance, well vouched, of a per­son opposing infant baptism (except such as denied wa­ter baptism) till the Anabaptists sprang up in Germany about 250 years ago. To this purpose we have the testimony of Doctor Wall, a learned, diligent and faith­ful writer on the subject, in his History of Infant Bap­tism. [Page 54] These are his words, ‘For the first 400 years there appears only one man, Tertullian, that advised the delay of infant baptism in some cases, and one Gregory that did perhaps practise such delay in the case of his children; but no society so thinking, or so prac­tising, nor any one man saying that it was unlawful to baptize infants. In the next 700 years, there in not so much as one man to be found, that either spoke for, or practised such delay, but all the contrary. And when about the year 1130, one sect among the Waldenses declared against the baptizing of infants, as being incapable of salvation, the main body of that people rejected their opinion; and they of them that held that opinion, quickly dwindled away, and dis­appeared; there being no more heard of holding that tenet, till the rising of the German Antipedobaptists, in the year 1522.’ Thus far Dr. Wall. To this our opponents have hitherto found nothing to oppose, worthy of credit, except some testimonies to the prac­tice of baptizing adults; which are nothing to the pur­pose; since no one doubts that unbaptized adults, as well as infants, are the subjects of baptism. Or if any have been found speaking against the baptism of infants, they have appeared to be such as were against all water baptism.

2. On the other hand, we have the express testimony of the learned Christian writers, who lived within one, two, and three hundred years of the Apostles, that in­fant baptism was not only then commonly practised in the church, but had been received and practised from the Apostles; and that none were known of, among all the numerous sects of Christians, pretending to deny it.

The testimonies of the fathers to this purpose, are commonly known by those who are moderately versed in this controversy. Justin Martyr, who wrote about 40 years after the Apostles, mentions expressly some aged Christians, who were made disciples in, or from their in­fancy. And though he mentions not their infant bap­tism, his words fairly imply it. For if they were made disciples in infancy, they were doubtless the subjects of [Page 55] baptism. Irenaeus, who is said to have been born in the apostolic age, mentions the baptism of infants. He calls it, indeed, their regeneration;—but so baptism was commonly termed by the ancient fathers, as all who are versed in their writings know and acknowledge. Ter­tullian, who lived within 100 years of the Apostles, speaks of the baptizing of infants as a practice of the church; but advises to the delay of it, except in cases of necessity; though he has nothing to say against the validity and lawfulness of it. He advises also the delay of baptism to adults, till they were married, or confirm­ed in continency. Though he was singular and whimfi­cal in his opinion, yet he may well be admitted as a cre­dible witness that infant baptism was a common practice in the church at that time. And this is all the use we mean to make of any of the testimonies we shall pro­duce.

Origen, who also lived within 100 years after the Apostles, and was one of the most learned and knowing men of the age, declares, that infants are, by the usage of the church, baptized. And that an order for the baptizing infants, had been delivered to the church, from the Apostles, who knew that the pollution of sin is in all.

Cyprian, who lived but little more than 100 years af­ter the Apostles, gives as full a testimony as possible to the practice of infant baptism at the time he lived. At a council of 66 ministers, held about 150 years after the Apostles, it was debated, whether it would not be proper to delay the baptizing of infants, till the eighth day, according to the law of circumcision. [Note, it appears they considered baptism as coming in the room of circumcision.] They were unanimously of opinion▪ that there was no reason for any such delay.

WE are now to consider the objections.

And the first is, ‘that there is no command in scrip­ture for baptizing infants, nor can it be proved, that the Apostles baptized any such. We have express ac­counts of the baptism of men and women; but that [Page 56] infants were, or ought to be admitted as subjects of this ordinance, the scripture saith not. How can this be a divine ordinance, when there is neither precept nor precedent for it?’

I answer, If it any way appears from the scripture, that infants are subjects of baptism, it matters not whe­ther this doctrine be grounded on an express precept or example, or whether it be taught in some other way. Is it not presumption for us to say, that we will not be­lieve this to be the mind of Christ, unless he has re­vealed it in the particular way that we may pitch upon? The question should be, whether we can find, or ga­ther from the scriptures any Sufficient evidence, that infants are to be baptized. If the reasons on which our doctrine and practice is grounded, be good and conclu­sive, we ought to acquiesce in them. It never can be proved, either by scripture or reason, that consequential evidence is insufficient to determine our judgment and practice, in matters of religion; or that every part of God's revealed will is delivered in express propositions.

Since the scriptures plainly acknowledge and assert the right of membership of infants in the gospel church, that they are of the number of Christ's disciples, that they are holy, and have an interest in God's gracious cove­nant; and since it is owned by all, that, according to the order and rule of the gospel, all those who are dis­ciples, holy, and in the covenant, are the proper sub­jects of baptism: the consequence is clear, that infants are to be baptized. And this is equivalent to an ex­press order for it. It is as plain and valid a warrant, though it be consequential, as an express order would be.

We have also such precedents in favour of our prac­tice, as, though they may be cavilled at, must, I think, be of great weight w [...] every unbiassed man; precedents which seem to render it morally certain, that infant bap­tism was practised by the Apostles. Three whole fami­lies we read of, who were baptized. If there were any children under the age of discretion, in any of these fa­milies, they were certainly admitted. Now, though it [Page 57] be not said whether there were any such children, yet is can scarce be doubted that there were, when the follow­ing circumstances are well considered. 1. If we should take three families among us, promiscuously, I suppose the probability would be, at least, fifty to one, that there would be young children in some of them. 2. It is not said, or intimated, that there were no such chil­dren in these families. But if it had been the case that there were no children in these houses, and if children ought not to be baptized, there was great reason and necessity that so important and uncommon a circum­stance should be mentioned, to prevent a dangerous mis­take, which these accounts, left as they stand, would naturally lead men into. For the baptism of these fa­milies would naturally be considered as precedents for baptizing other families, in which there were infants. And as the constant and known practice of the church for thousands of years, and the declarations of Christ and his Apostles, were in favour of infant church mem­bership; how reasonable must it needs appear to prac­tise household baptism, unless it were plainly testified and guarded against? In short, we have express prece­dents, or examples, if not of infant baptism, yet of household baptism, infants not excepted; and that too upon the faith or profession of the head of the family. For it is to be carefully noted, that in these accounts it is not said, or intimated, that all in these families were baptized on a personal profession of faith; but only, that the head of the family believed, and thereupon was baptized with all the house. And upon the authority of these precedents of family baptism, in conjunction with the other grounds which have been mentioned, we assert and claim the right of household baptism, on be­half of the families of believers, infants not excepted. And we challenge those who will not admit them, to produce an authentic order or precedent for this their refusal.

As the gospel, though it has changed the initiating sacrament, continues infants in the same standing in the church, which it was well known they had had all [Page 58] along; it is nothing strange that we have not more ex­press orders and precedents touching infant baptism. What need of new precepts and examples to ascertain a point, which had in effect been long since settled; which all understood, and all agreed in? But how infinitely strange would it be, if infants, who had from the begin­ning been of the church, by the appointment of God, and the subjects of the initiating ordinance, should be cast out of the church, and cut off from the people of God, without any order or precedent for it in scripture? And yet this we must believe, if we deny their right to church membership and baptism. For certainly there is neither order no [...] precedent for excluding them from the church, or from the initiating rite.

If the Apostles had refused to admit infants into the gospel church by baptism, we should, without all per­adventure, have had a plain order not to receive them. The case was such as must, in all reason, have required it. Such a great and important change in the constitu­tion of the church, as would cut off a great part of those who had always been acknowledged to be in the church and covenant of God, must have seemed strange to the Jewish converts; who would naturally have ex­pected that their children were still to be received with them, as heretofore; and would, accordingly, have moved to have them baptized; as the ancient Jewish writers attest was commonly practised at the admission of proselytes. At least, they would have inquired, whether the gospel church admitted infants as well as adult be­lievers; which must have given occasion for a plain and express determination of the point, if so great and strik­ing an innovation was to be established. And it would be of great necessity that such a decree should be pro­mulgated and recorded, as a standing rule or canon, to be observed by all the churches. But nothing like this appears in any writings, sacred or profane. We may therefore retort the argument upon our adversaries thus: since infants had always been received as church mem­bers, by the initiating rite, they who refuse still to re­ceive them, ought to be able to produce plain orders or [Page 59] precedents for this their refusal: which since they can­not do, we conclude that the right of church member­ship still belongs to them, and that they are subjects of baptism.

There was not that occasion for an express mention of the baptism of infants, as of women; for as women had hitherto been admitted to the privileges of church mem­bership, without being circumcised, it might well be doubted, whether baptism, the sacrament of admission into the gospel church, was to be administered to fe­males. To remove this scruple, we have express prece­dents of female baptism; shewing that persons of ei­ther sex are alike proper subjects of this ordinance. But there was no room to doubt, whether the token of church membership were to be applied to infants; nor had it ever been called in question.—And yet the New Testament furnishes clear proofs that they are members of the gospel church; and express precedents of house­hold baptism, without exception of infants; as has been shewn; nor is there any thing of weight to be urged against it.

If, after all that has been said, the want of more ex­press orders or precedents for infant baptism stick as a scruple in the minds of any, let the following considera­tions be added to what has been said. 1. Is it not as strange, and more so, that we have but one express ex­ample of infant circumcision, in all the Old Testament, and not one among the Israelites? And yet, no doubt, it was practised every day. Is it not strange, that there is neither express precept nor example, in the New Tes­tament of women's coming to the Lord's supper? And yet, no doubt, they did so commonly. Jesus, it seems, baptized more disciples than John, John iv. 1. Is it not strange that none of the writers of the New Testament, except John, give the least hint that he baptized at all, though John's baptizing is often mentioned by almost all of them? These instances may shew, how little such a negative argument is to be depended on in the present case. 2. Is it not a manifest sign of prejudice, and an unfair mind, to think there is no sufficient war­rant [Page 60] for infant baptism, unless there be express orders or precedents for it; and yet refuse to receive infants into the church, though there be neither precept nor prece­dent to warrant or justify our refusing them that privi­lege, with which they were invested by God, and held it without dispute thousands of years? Is not this to strain at a g [...]at, and swallow a camel? 3. Does it be­come us to disregard, and refuse to admit such evidence as must be acknowledged to be of weight, and stand ca­villing, that the case might have been made plainer? I grant it might, if God had pleased. And so might many other truths, which yet we have sufficient reason to be­lieve. Our opponents must own, that if infant bap­tism be contrary to the mind of Christ, this would have been much plainer, had there been an express order against it; and much dispute and trouble would have been prevented. The case is left just as plain as Christ has thought fit it should be. And it belongs not to us to object, that the evidence is not such as we should like best; but to inquire seriously, humbly, and prayerfully, what is truth; and thankfully to close with it, upon any good evidence of it that we can find. 4. Let me ask the objector, What he would have? What proof would satisfy him? Would it give satisfaction, if the or­der had run thus: ‘Go teach all nations, baptizing them, and their children?’ You could as easily and fairly evade this, as you do the express proofs we bring of infant church membership. Christ says expressly, that the kingdom of heaven is, or consists of little children; and it is not denied, that the kingdom of heaven is the church; yet we are told, that these little children, which are of the church, are not infants, but adults, resembling little children in humility. The Apostle says expressly, that the children of believers are Holy. A character never once given in scripture to any but church members: yet this avails nothing. A new sense, unknown in the scriptures, is invented, and put upon the word, though it makes nonsense of the text. We bring express scripture to prove, that the promise is to the children, as well as the parents; that believers are [Page 61] accounted the children and heirs of Abraham, accord­ing to the promise; and that his blessing is come upon the Gentiles: and the right of church membership for his natural posterity, was certainly one article of this blessing. Yet our opponents go on against all this evi­dence, upon no better foundation than their own arbi­trary conjectures and hypothesis. While men are in this humour, what confidence can we have, that, if there had been an express order for infant baptism, they would not set their inventions to work to explain it away? And we might be told, that the children to be baptized are such as are capable of professing faith; or that they are such as resemble infants in humility; or that they are spiritual children, who imitate the faith of the first con­verts; or that they are to be baptized after they have been first taught, and have given evidence of their effec­tual calling, &c. In short, a fair and honest mind will embrace the truth upon any sufficient proof, whether direct or consequential. But when the integrity of the mind is corrupted and distorted, by prejudices, and fondness for particular schemes, the light that is in men becomes darkness; and ways will be found to ward off conviction, for the most part, by any arguments what­ever. I have considered this objection the more largely, because, though it has really no weight in it, yet it is apt enough to amuse and puzzle weak and simple minds, and to breed scruples, which sometimes prove very trou­blesome and hurtful.

It is said by some, ‘That it is not being in the co­venant, or church, that gives a right to baptism; but a divine order to that purpose.’

But to what purpose is this said, except to raise a dust, and keep up a fruitless altercation? You acknow­ledge that it is according to the order and rule of the gospel, that all those be received as the subjects of bap­tism, who have visibly an interest in the covenant and ap­pear to be such as are to be received into the gospel church. Whether, therefore, their being visibly in co­venant or of the church gives them the right to bap­tism or not; yet, by your own acknowledgment it [Page 62] proves, or evidences an unquestionable right thereto. The allegation in the objection is, indeed, most unrea­sonable: but if we should admit it, for argument sake, the right of church membership of infants being proved, their right to baptism is undeniable, as long as it is al­lowed that all such are the proper subjects of baptism.

Another principal objection is, that ‘according to the gospel order, faith and repentance, or at least a credible profession thereof, are required of all previ­ously or in order to their being baptized. The Apo­stles were first to teach those whom they baptized, Matt. xxviii. 19. Christ puts believing before bap­tism, when he says, He that believeth, and is bap­tized, shall be saved," Mark xvi. 16. And Peter says to the Jews, who being pricked in their hearts, asked, what they should do; "Repent and be bap­tized," Acts ii. 38. And when the eunuch moved, that he might be baptized, Philip said to him, "If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest," Acts viii. 37. We read also of several, who, agreeably to this rule, were baptized, professing their faith and re­pentance. If repentance and faith are the necessary conditions of baptism, infants cannot be admitted: for they make no profession, and give no evidence of these qualifications.’

Answer. To shew that this objection is without any weight, we need only open our Bibles, and read the se­veral texts that are brought to support it. Let us take them in their order.

The first is Matt. xxviii. 19. I have before observed, that the proper signification of the Greek is, ‘Go make all nations disciples (or proselytes) baptizing them— teaching them,’ &c. as our opponents grant: and this is a good warrant for the baptism of infants, as well as the parents; and they are therefore to be admitted by the same outward rite. And to say that infants can no otherwise become disciples than by being taught, is no better than a mean begging of the very point to be proved. Whenever the Apostles made a disciple of the parent, the right and privilege of disciples was given to [Page 63] the children; who were as such to be baptized, together with the parents, according to the Apostles' orders, to disciple and baptize all nations.

And if we should understand the word here used as signifying to instruct or indoctrinate, there would be no reason for any one to conclude, that infants may not be baptized till they are first taught.—No such thing is said, or in the least implied. Christ's disciples are in­deed to be taught, as well as baptized; children as well as adults; as far, and as soon as they are capable of it. But that they may not be baptized till after they have been first taught, there is not one word, not iota in the whole paragraph. And to argue from the bare order of the words, that indoctrination is a necessary pre-requi­site to baptism in all cases, is to build upon quick-sand indeed. For it is well known, that things are often mentioned in scripture, in a promiscuous or inverted or­der.—Nay, if the order of the words were any solid foundation to argue upon, we might, in this way, prove that it was the will of Christ, that the Apostles should make disciples, by first baptizing them, and then teach­ing them. For the instructions Christ gave them when he sent them forth, stand in this order; ‘Go disciple all nations, baptizing them—teaching them,’ &c. But we lay no stress at all upon such precarious argu­ments. The truth is, some are to be taught before, and in order to their being baptized. Others are by bap­tism to be introduced into the school of Christ, and put under the discipline of the church before, and in order to their being taught. Adults we grant, are to be first taught, and to make a profession of faith, in order to their being baptized; and that for two reasons. 1. They are immediately capable of it. 2. They have no visible right or meetness to be received as members of the church of Christ, till they profess their faith in him. And we may add, that it is not the will of Christ that any such should be taken into his school, without their free consent. On the contrary, there are two reasons why infants should by baptism be received into the church, without their being first taught, and professing [Page 64] their faith. 1. They are not at present capable of it. 2. Their church membership and right to baptism is manifest without it from the scriptures; as has been shewn. And it is the will of Christ, that they be en­tered into his school immediately, previous to their ac­tual consent. A profession of faith, does not more evi­dence the right of a believer to baptism, than his infant child's right to the same is evidenced by the scriptures, which declare that, ‘of such is the kingdom of hea­ven, that the promise is to them, and that they are holy.’

This text then contains nothing against infant bap­tism, and I have elsewhere shewn, that it furnishes a good argument in favour of it. The next passage we have to consider is Mark xvi. 15, 16, ‘Preach the gos­pel to every creature. He that believeth and is bap­tized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.’ If this text does not contain so much in favour of infant baptism as the other, yet certainly there is nothing against it. It is true faith and baptism are here required in order to salvation. But whether in order to salvation, faith be required before baptism in all cases, or in any case, is not said; nor can it be proved from this text; which only contains a promise of salva­tion to those who believe and are baptized. And I pre­sume it will be allowed, that if any one should first be baptized, and afterwards should believe; this promise would belong to him, as really as if he had first believed, and then was baptized.—If any one should be baptized upon a hypocritical profession of faith, and afterwards should become a true believer, he would no doubt be saved; nor would it be required of him that he be again baptized. And though we grant that a profession of faith is required of an unbaptized adult, in order to his being baptized; yet it is an abuse of scripture, to ar­gue that infants are not to be baptized till they believe, because believing is mentioned before baptism in this place, which, by the acknowledgment of our opponents, "Speaks only of those who are capable of attending to the preaching of the gospel, and of actual believing." [Page 65] They do not apply to infants the damnatory sentence against unbelievers; and it is equally unreasonable, to urge their want of faith, as an objection to their being admitted to baptism.—In short, I can find nothing in these words, that makes the least difficulty in the mat­ter; unless we will be so ridiculously absurd as to ima­gine, that infants and adult believers cannot both be the subjects of baptism; or that the mention of the one alone, implies the denial of the other.

In Acts ii. 38, Peter exhorts his hearers to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Those whom he thus exhorts were all adults. For no one preaches to young infants. It is also observable in these words that they were only required to repent in order to be baptiz­ed; which is contrary to the opinion of those who re­nounce infant baptism. They say we must believe as well as repent. We grant that repentance is required of unbaptized adults, in order to their being baptized. But does he so much as hint, that infants are not to be admitted? No. But in the next words asserts, that the same promise which belonged to them, and which he holds up as a warrant and encouragement to them, to repent and be baptized, did also belong to their chil­dren. But these words have been before considered.

The same remark is to be made on the words of Phi­lip to the Eunuch, ‘If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest be baptized.’ Any Pedobaptist, must, upon his own principles, have said the same, upon the like occasion.

The examples of those who were baptized upon a pro­fession of faith, are sometimes brought as an objection against infant baptism. These, we grant, are a proof that believers are the subjects of baptism. We grant further, that they are no proof that infants are subjects. But it is strange it should ever be thought that these ex­amples make any thing against the baptism of infants. Cannot adult believers be admitted, unless infants be re­jected? Is there not room enough in the church for both? A thousand instances of one sort, are no argu­ment against the admission of the other. The truth is, [Page 66] we have not many certain instances of adult baptism mentioned particularly in the New Testament. Several of these were persons of note, who had no children. Of others, it appears, that if there were children in their families, as is highly probable, they were baptized with them. And some that are confidently supposed to have been adults, might a great part of them have been in­fants, for any thing that appears to the contrary; parti­cularly the three thousand added to the church on the day of Pentecost. But among all those, who are said to have been baptized upon a profession of faith, it is remarkable that we find not one that was born of Chri­stian parents, or was, on our principles, a fit subject of baptism in infancy. We have, in the New Testament, the history of the church for thirty years after Christ's ascension, in all which there is not one instance that in the least countenances their practice, who are against the baptism of the children of believers, till they are of age to profess their faith. Wherein they differ from us, they have most certainly neither precept nor example in scripture to support them.

Upon the whole, this objection, which has often been held up with so much parade, is like a vapour; which, beheld at a distance, may look as if there might be some­thing in it; but upon a nearer view, is found to be as light and unsubstantial as the air, while we endeavour to handle it, we can find nothing in it.

It is objected by some, that ‘Christ was baptized in adult age; and we ought herein to follow his ex­ample.’

Answer. John's baptism, with which Christ was bap­tized, was not instituted till Christ was of adult age. How could it be expected that he should have the ordi­nance administered to him, before it was a divine ordi­nance? We might as well argue against infant circum­cision, because Abraham was circumcised in adult age. But Christ in his infancy was dedicated to God, and re­ceived into the number of his people, according to the ordinances then in use: which may serve as a precedent and pattern to christians to dedicate their children to [Page 67] God in baptism, the rite of induction to the Christian Church. Christ's baptism was the token of his solemn consecration to his public ministry; signifying his anoint­ing with the Holy Ghost to the offices of prophet, priest, and king (and especially as the high priest of his church) which he was to execute, and was accord­ingly inaugurated at his entering on the public discharge of these his offices, when he was about thirty years of age. There were many peculiar circumstances attend­ing Christ's baptism, which are not imitable by us.

As many people have mistaken the nature and end of Christ's baptism, and have therefore thought it their du­ty to follow him by being baptized in adult age. For their sake, I shall also make the following remarks.

1. The baptism with which Christ was baptized was not the christian baptism, as it plainly appears from Acts xix. 3, 4, 5. There we find the Apostles baptiz­ed some persons over again, who had been before baptiz­ed by John; which they never would have done, if John's baptism had been that of the christian dispensa­tion.

2. We must observe, when Christ was baptized, he was just then about to enter into his priestly and ministe­rial office, as the great high priest of his church; and as such he was typified by Aaron and his successors. Now God had positively commanded that Aaron should be admitted into his office by washing or baptism, see Exod. xxix 4. &c. We also find that this was accord­ingly done, see Levit. vii. 6. Therefore when our blessed Lord was about to take this office upon him, he went to John to be baptized; and though John was sen­sible that he had more need to be baptized of Christ, and therefore seemed to draw back from the duty; yet Christ said (in allusion, no doubt, to the command for initiating the high priest by washing or baptism) ‘Suf­fer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness,’ all that was typical of me as the high priest of the church. And "then he suffered him," Matt. iii. 13, 14, 15. It is also very remarkable that Jesus Christ at that time, was about thirty years of age, [Page 68] under which the priests were not to enter on their office. Compare Levit. iv. 3 and Matt. iii. 23.

It is objected, ‘That infant baptism is a part of popery, the basis of national churches, and worldly establishments; that it unites the church and world, and keeps them together.’

Answer. Infant baptism is grounded on the scrip­tures; and is commonly practised in those churches that are not, nor ever were subject to the Pope; therefore, it is not a part of Popery though practised, as divers other ordinances are, in the Roman church.

Infant baptism is not the basis of national churches, and worldly establishments. Infants were church mem­bers long before there was a national church in the world; which was not till the Horeb covenant. That particular constitution of a church, and form of admini­stration, whereby it becomes national, has no connection with, or dependance upon infant baptism. A national church may as well be formed upon the principle of An­tipedobaptism as any other. If the church of England should renounce infant baptism, and yet retain its pre­sent constitution in other respects, it would still be, and might as well continue, a national church as ever. There may be a national church, though not one half of the nation are of it. And there would be no national church, though all the individuals of the nation were members of congregational churches. And as for worldly esta­blishments of religion, it is too plain to need insisting on, that infant baptism no way affects them. Infant bap­tism stands as well without, as with human establish­ments; and human establishments can stand as well with­out, as with infant baptism.

Infant baptism does not unite the church and the world, and keep them together. If by the world we mean those that are not of the visible church; how can the baptizing the infants of church members unite the church with those that do not belong to it? If by the world be meant professed christians, who are manifestly unmeet and unworthy of christian communion, infant baptism neither u [...]tes the church, nor keeps it united [Page 69] with any such. It is owing to the neglect or abuse of discipline, when such remain united with the church. Or if any should mean by the world, visible Christians, who are secretly hypocritical; it is not the will of Christ that the church should be separated from these, till their hypocrisy becomes manifest. Nor would the abolishing of infant baptism make such a separation.

It is objected, ‘That the answer of a good consci­ence is required in baptism, in order to its being of saving advantage, 1 Pet. iii. 21. And as infants are incapable of this, they are not subjects of baptism.’ I answer, Though the answer or engagement of a good conscience must be joined with the outward washing with water, when the subject is capable of it, yet this makes nothing against infant baptism. For if the answer of a good conscience be afterwards annexed to the sacra­mental washing received in infancy, such a baptism is as valid, and as available to salvation, as if the washing with water, and the answer of a good conscience, had been at the same time. And infants are by their bap­tism bound to the answer of a good conscience; which they are to recognize and perform, when they are capa­ble of it. Indeed this passage speaks plainly in our fa­vour. For the Apostle compares baptism to the ark of Noah, as being the figure or antitype of it, bearing a resemblance to it. Noah by faith prepared the ark, for the saving of himself and his house. As his children were received with him into the ark, so the children of believers have a right to the church, and are the subjects of baptism, together with their parents; which bears in this respect, the figure and resemblance of the ark.

It is also objected, that, ‘if infants are to be mem­bers of the church, and subjects of baptism, they ought also to be admitted to partake of the Lord's supper, which is an ordinance to which all the mem­bers of the Christian church have a right. And ac­cordingly it was customary with the ancient christians, who practised infant baptism, to administer the Lord's supper also to them. And they who disapprove the [Page 70] communicating of infants, should, if they would be consistent, disallow the baptizing of them.’

Answer. We grant that infants, as church members, have an external right to all the ordinances of the visible church, as far, and soon as they are actually capable of, and meet for them. As they are immediately capable and meet subjects of baptism, they are to be admitted thereto without delay. As soon as they are capable of receiving instruction from the word, they should be brought to give their attendance to it; and when they can so far understand the nature and design of the Lord's supper, and have such a measure of knowledge and faith, that they can discern the Lord's body, and examine themselves, and so eat of that bread, and drink of that cup; it is not only their right, but their duty, to do so, without delay. Though an infant may have a right to an estate, of which he is an heir, yet he is not admitted to possess, occupy, and improve it, till he is of capacity for it. And such is the nature and design of the Lord's supper, that a right attendance on it, requires an actu­al capacity and present meetness for it; which infants have not. And it is this want of capacity and meetness, and not a want of right to church privileges, that is the reason why we do not admit them. But this reason does not exclude them from baptism; of which they are as capable and meet subjects now, as they were of circum­cision formerly. They are capable of the sign, and the thing signified; of coming under the obligations, and having the grace and privileges of the covenant secured and conveyed to them; of being solemnly dedicated to God; recognized and admitted, as his visible church and people. These things they are capable of in infancy. And to signify and effect these, is the design and use of baptism, as has been observed.

It appears, I trust, that our opponents have no reason to say, as they are wont to do with great confidence, that there is nothing in the scriptures in favour of in­fant baptism, but they plainly declare against it. We have searched the scriptures, and find nothing at all con­trary to infant baptism; and plain proofs that infants are [Page 71] the subjects of baptism. Whether this does not amount to a fair and full proof, let every one who has the reason of a man consider and judge.

We learn also, the error of rebaptizing those, who have been baptized in their infancy. This practice can­not be justified either by precept or example, or any good reasons. Infant baptism administered by sprinkling, we have examined by the scriptures, and find it to be well warranted. To renounce it therefore, and be baptized over again, is utterly wrong. And though we charita­bly believe that those who have gone into this practice, have done it conscientiously, yet their consciences were therein misguided, and they have entangled themselves by the wrong step they have taken, and given Satan an advantage against them. Having openly renounced communion with all christians, but those of their own party, they too often appear to be exceedingly hardened against all means that can be used for convincing them of their error; and take it with great scorn and impati­ence, to have it suggested to them that perhaps they are in a mistake. And if any such suspicions should ever arise in their minds, yet what a strong temptation will they have to wink hard against the light, when it begins to enter into their minds, and to discover to them, what they cannot bear the thoughts of, that in the height of their confidence they have been wrong. It is very un­happy when christians run themselves into such sad entan­glements, and get their scruples and prejudices fixed and rivetted.