or 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 C 
 
 A 
 
 : 
 
 
 c 
 
 c ? 
 
 
 J 
 
 r 
 
 g, ! 
 
 A.CCC 
 
 C- 
 
 :c c* 
 
 v<^£_ 
 
 
 '*fc^ 
 
 <£- 
 
 '<8SL 
 
 
 *r 
 
 &J9 
 
 
 
/ 
 
 CL 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 1c 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 
 
 v 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 <1> 
 03 
 
 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 IE 
 
 
 
 
 *s hi 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 
 
 # w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *S> & 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 • § 
 
 5 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 w O 
 
 tu) 
 
 
 
 
 «*» ^ 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 es g 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 ■3 « 
 
 E 
 to 
 
 1 
 
 
 V 
 
 6 
 
 ^ Ph 
 
 C 
 
 q 
 
 
 S 
 
 Mi 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 -o 
 
 ■♦-» 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 V* 
 
 0) 
 
 
 
 
 e- 
 
 2? 
 
 
 
 
 «i> 
 
 CL 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
^ 
 
 jxx{ Vv 54*, 
 

 P^DOBAPTISM: 
 
 THE 
 
 Second PART. 
 
 OR, A 
 
 DEFENCE, tfc. 
 
P^EDO-BAPTISM 
 
 THE 
 
 Second PAR T. 
 
 O R, A 
 
 DEFENCE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Authority of Infant -Baptifm. 
 
 In ANSWER to the 
 
 Common Objections againft it. 
 
 / 
 
 Suffer little Children to come unto me, and forbid them 
 not: for of fuch is the Kingdom of God. Luke xviii. 16. 
 
 Nam Deus ut perfonam non accipit, fie nee <etatem, cum fe 
 omnibus ad coeleftis gratiae confecutionem sequalitate li- 
 brata praebeat Patrem. Cyprian. Ep. ad Fidum. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed and fold by J. Wauch and W. Fenner, at the 
 Turk's Head, in Lombard-Street. 
 
 M. o C C, LV. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 LTHOUGH the authority of 
 Infant-baptifm doth not formally 
 depend upon it's antiquity, yet 
 a due confideration of the latter 
 may be fubfervient to the former, fo far as 
 to difpofe an enquirer after truth, to examine 
 the Queftion with more freedom and candor, 
 than could be expected from any perfons al- 
 ready prepoffeiTed with a groundlefs notion 
 of the novelty of the thing. Such a notion, 
 built upon a few miflaken paffages in fome 
 of the antient writers, feems to have laid the 
 foundation of this whole controverfy at the 
 firft, and ever fince determined fome con- 
 fcientious people, who had a laudable zeal 
 for the Bible, as the rule of faith and prac- 
 tice, to difpute every inch of ground with 
 fo much pertinacity, and to try all the 
 methods of evafion to elude the force of e- 
 
 very 
 
( iv ) 
 
 very Jcripture-argumcnt Therefore a former 
 attempt having been made to remove . this 
 unhappy prejudice by maintaining the anti- 
 quity of Infant- baptifm [a] % we fhall now 
 endeavor to defend it's authority againft the 
 
 chief and common objections. By the 
 
 authority of Infant-baptifm every P rot eft ant 
 reader will underitand fuch ground and 
 reafon for it in the Scriptures, as is fufficient 
 to juftify the thing, and fo render any 
 further baptifm unneceffary and fuperfluous, 
 in a regular adminiftration of gofpel-ordi- 
 nances, to thofe, who were baptized in their 
 Infancy. The point, then, which we now 7 
 propofe to maintain, is this, viz. the law- 
 fulnefs, or validity of Infant-baptifm. For. 
 though baptifm, in the general, is a pofi- 
 tive and plain inflitution of Chrift ; yet, as 
 the particular time of adminiftring it is no 
 where precifely fixed : when therefore, or at 
 what age perfons ordinarily fhall be bap- 
 tized, thiSy we prefume, is a circum fiance 
 left undetermined. Confequently, they may 
 be rightly baptized at any age, even in their 
 earlieft infancy, and the children, fo bapti- 
 zed, 
 
 [a] See Psedo-baptifm, and Psedo-baptifm defended in. 
 anftver tQ Dr. Gill's Reply. 
 
( v ) 
 
 zed, have lawful and valid baptifm : Be 
 caufe they are admitted to baptifm accord 
 ing to the liberty and latitude allowed in the 
 
 Gofpel. As this appears to have been 
 
 the general fenfe of antiquity [6] ; fo, this 
 view of die Queftion eafily accounts for the 
 different opinions, that occafionally arofe in 
 the primitive church, about the moll pro- 
 per and convenient time of adminiftring 
 baptifm : Some fuppofing, that children 
 ought not to be baptized before the eighth 
 day, e.g. Fidus, an African bifhop (though 
 he had no doubt whether they mould be 
 baptized at all) [c]-, others, that they migrn 
 be baptized on any day after their birth, e. g. 
 Cyprian, and a whole council of bifhops [d] ; 
 and others, that their baptifm might be 
 more conveniently deferred till they were 
 three years old, e. g. Gregory Nazianzen [e], 
 and perhaps Tcrtullian [/]. However, it 
 was the prevailing opinion, that baptifm 
 was fo neceflary for all, as that none mould 
 be fuffered to die without it. And upon 
 this ground it is no difficult talk, to recon- 
 cile the two laffc named writers with them- 
 
 felves, 
 
 [£] See Blake, anfwer to Tombes, Sec. 2. 
 [c] Cyprian. Ep. ad Fidum. (VJ Ibid. 
 
 0] Orat. 40, [/] Lib. de Baptifmc. 
 
( vi ) 
 
 felves, when they advife the delay of chil- 
 dren's baptifm, and yet allow, yea required, 
 them to be baptized in cafe of danger [g ]. 
 Thus, it appears, they fuppofed, that a dis- 
 cretionary power was left with chriftians, to 
 order and determine the time of baptifm, as 
 they faw occafion. So that, if they did not 
 look upon the baptifm of children in their 
 earliefl infancy to be neceffdry, or expedient, 
 in ordinary cafes ; yet they held it lawful-, 
 and valid; nor, N. B. did they ever per- 
 fuade any perfons to be re baptized, who, 
 ( or becaufe they ) had been baptized in 
 their infancy. Tertidlian himfelf fays, that 
 baptifm is to be but once adminiftred [b]. 
 
 It 
 
 [j] Uhifupra. This plainly is the meaning of that ex- 
 ceptive claufe in Tertidlian, fi non tarn (or tamen) necefle. 
 The not obferving with a critical exa&nefs how the word, 
 necejfe, varies it's fignification in this part of the fentence, 
 hath led fome perfons to make nonfenfe of the paffage. 
 But, to fay, " what necefiity is there, except in cafe of 
 " danger," (/. e. of death) is very intelligible. 
 
 [b~\ Denud ablui ncn licet. Tertullian de Pudecitia. In 
 the fame book, he difcovers it to be his opinion, that fins, 
 committed after baptifm, are unpardonable. Which, by 
 the way, eafily accounts for his advifing the delay of 
 baptifm, not only in children, but in virgins, and widows, 
 without fuppofing the baptifm of any fuch perfons to be 
 a novelty in his days : and indeed there is as much reafon 
 to fuppofe it of the one as the other* 
 
( vii ) 
 
 —It may poffibly be allcdged that, if In- 
 fant- baptifm is commanded, it muft be necef- 
 fary ; and if it is not commanded, it mud be 
 unlawful. But this dilemma can give us no 
 pain ; for it is a mere fopbifm. And the 
 argument would prove too much, if any 
 thing at all, viz. that every thing, every 
 circumfiance in religion mud: be either necef- 
 fary, or unlawful. For a folution, we judge 
 it fufficient to fay, That the particular and 
 precife time of baptifm is not the matter of 
 any divine precept or appointment, (though 
 baptifm itfelf is fo) but a circumjlance left 
 undetermined in the chriftian code. Should 
 auy one apply this reafoning to the ordi- 
 nance of the Lord's Supper, the confequence 
 will not affect our argument, 'till the reafons 
 for Infant- communion are difproved [/]. But 
 the two cafes do not feem to us exactly 
 parallel : Becaufe the nature of the folem- 
 nities is different. For in the adminiftra- 
 tion of baptifm the baptizer is the agent, 
 and the party baptized is pajfrce. But, in 
 the celebration of the Lord's Supper, not 
 only the adminiftrator, but the recipient alfo 
 
 is 
 
 p] See Mr. James Peirce's Eflay on this fubjeft. 
 
( vi " ) 
 
 is afiive. For, as he eats and drinks, what 
 Infants cannot digeft -> fo, according to 
 the very nature and defign of that comme- 
 morative Rite, he is to exercife his under- 
 Jlanding, and memory, in difcerning the 
 Lords body, &c. [k] actions, which Infants 
 cannot perform. As to the Jewifli paffbver, 
 which was alfo a memorial of another kind, 
 if Infants partook of it (though this is mat- 
 ter of difpute) no argument can be urged 
 from thence in favour of Infant- communion, 
 but what will conclude more ftrongly for 
 Infant- baptifm. 
 
 [/£] i Cor. xi. 29. See Mr. Baxter. Plain Scripture- 
 proof, fcfr. P. 2. ch. 4. 
 
 Section 
 
P^EDO-BAPTISM: 
 
 THE 
 
 SECOND PART. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 'The previous !$ueftion y concerning the perpetui- 
 ty of Chrijlian-baptifm, confidered. 
 
 [HOUGH Pado baptijls and 
 Antipado- bapiijh both are 
 generally agreed, that bap- 
 tifm is a ftanaing ordinance 
 of Chrift ; yet, becaufe fome 
 perfons have raifed a fcruple 
 upon this head, it is not foreign to the fub- 
 jedl: in hand, to take that matter into confi- 
 deration. " For, if baptifrn, that is to fay, 
 f < water-baptifm be ceafed, then furely bap- 
 JJ " tizing 
 
( io ) 
 
 iC tizing of Infants is unwarrantable y fays 
 Mr. Barclay [/]. 
 
 It is the opinion of thefe people, called 
 Quakers, that water -baptifm only typified the 
 baptifm of the Spirit, and fo, as they will 
 have it, was fuperfeded by it. But accord- 
 ing to this notion (for which there is not the 
 leaft foundation, in fcripture, reafon, or fadt) 
 water-baptifm, which is plainly intended in 
 the commifion [m] } ceafed in the Chriftian 
 church before it began, which is very abfurd. 
 For, as the Chriftian church did net com- 
 mence till after the death &c. of Chrift [ri] ; 
 fo his Apoftles were not to execute their com- 
 miffion, before they had received the Holy 
 Ghojly which was the baptifm of the Spirit [0]. 
 Nor could they with any propriety baptize 
 perfons in the name of — the Holy Ghoft 9 be- 
 fore the Holy Ghoft was actually given. For, 
 this form of baptifm was a plain and public 
 acknowledgment of that divine donation [f] m 
 Hence that queftion, which St. Paul put to 
 certain perfons, who faid " they had not 
 " heard that there was a Holy Ghoft ; " [q] 
 " unto what then were ye baptized f" [r] Im- 
 plying, 
 
 [/] Apology. Prop. 12. fub fin. 
 
 O] Mat. xxviii. 19, 20. This mull fignify baptizing 
 wi h water, not with the Holy Ghoft. 
 
 VJ Vid. Pearfon. Led. i. in Aft. Apoft. Op. Pofthum. 
 
 0] See Luk.xxiv. 49. Ads i. 8. Mat. iii. 11. Adls i. £. 
 
 */>] in quern enim tingeret ? in fpiritum fan&um ? 
 
 qui nondum a Patre defcenderat in ecclefiara. lertullian de 
 haptifmo. 
 
 [?] A&sxix, 2. [r] ibid. ver. 3. 
 
( " ) 
 
 plying, that they mud have heard, that 
 there was a Holy Gboft, (viz. " poured forth 
 <e in his extraordinary gifts,") [j] if they had 
 received Chriftian baptifm : becaufe in the 
 very form of this baptifm the gift of the Ho- 
 ly Ghoft was recognized by the naming oi Him. 
 When therefore it is afterwards faid of the 
 fame perfons, " that they were baptized in the 
 " name of the Lord Jefus ;" [t] the plain 
 meaning is, that they received Cbrift's bap. 
 tifm, as contradiftinguifhed from John's bap- 
 tifm, which they had received before \u]. 
 But, it feems reafonable to fuppofe, that 
 they were baptized according to the folemn 
 form of baptifm, prefcribed by Our Saviour, 
 and referred to in the Apoftle's queftion a- 
 forefaid ; the fame form of baptifm, that 
 Jujtin Martyr alfo defcribes in his account of 
 the primitive worfhip \w\ However, 'tis 
 very evident, that the baptifm of the Spirit 
 was actually received, before water-baptifm 
 really began in the Chriftian church: and 
 therefore the former could not fuperfede the 
 latter, as is pretended. — Befides, did not St. 
 Peter exprefsly order and direct thofe very 
 perfons themfelves to be baptized with water, 
 B 2, who 
 
 p] Vid. Dr. J. Owen. Theolog. lib. 6. cap. 6. Recs. 
 anfwer to Walker, p. 1 04. 
 
 [/] A&sxix. 5. 
 
 [»] Of the difference betwixt John's baptifm, and the 
 baptifm of Chriit, fee Bp. Burnet on article 27. 
 
 O] W Wo/JL»ro^ yap TQVwalfa k t a. J. Martyr. Apol. 2. 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 who had received the Holy Ghoft already [x"y 
 Nay, did he not openly appeal to the com- 
 mon fenfe and reafon of all men for the juft- 
 nefs and propriety of the thing? 4< Can any 
 " man (fays he [y],) forbid water, that thefe 
 te Jhould not be baptized, who have received 
 " the Hcly Ghoft, as well as we?" Thus 
 then, the having received the baptifm of the 
 Spirit, was fo far from being thought any ob- 
 jection again ft the ufe or application of water- 
 baptifm, that, on the contrary, it is urged 
 as an unanfwerable argument for it, particu- 
 larly in the cafe of certain gentiles, and fo (to 
 obviate that pretence) not in compliance with 
 any Jewifo prejudices. Therefore, watcr- 
 baptifm was not fuperfeded by the baptifm 
 of the Spirit, in the courfe and order of gof- 
 pel miniftrations. For, we fee, the Apoftle 
 Peter, (who had the honour to receive the 
 keys of the kingdom of heaven [z\ or of the 
 Gofpel ftate of the church, that he might 
 firft open the door of faith, both to Jews and 
 Gentiles) admitted (ome perfons to baptifm, 
 who were already baptized with the Holy 
 Ghoft ; as upon a former occafion alfo he 
 had directed others to be baptized, in order 
 that they might receive the Holy Ghoft [a]. 
 All which things are fo clear and convincing 
 to men of candor and fenfe, that it is need- 
 
 • lefs 
 
 [*] Aft. x. 44.48. [y] ibid. ver. 47. 
 
 [*] Mat.xvi. 19. Confer. Luk.xi. 52. Mat. xx-iii. ij» 
 A&. xiv. 27. (V) Aft. ii. 38. 
 
( '3 ) 
 
 Ids to trouble the Reader with a particular 
 confutation of the (hallow and fuperficial 
 reafons, with which Mr. Barclay vainly en- 
 deavours to fupport his groundless hypo- 
 thefis. 
 
 This herefy of the Antiwater-baptifts ap- 
 pears to be more antient, than the Apologift 
 himfelf fuppofed. For, befides the perfon?, 
 u who (as he fays [b]) teftified againft wa- 
 u ter-baptifm in the darkeft times of popery ? 
 Tertullian mentions [c] one ^uintilla, who 
 declared againft it in his time. — But, there is 
 another hypothefis, of a much later date and 
 Handing, fet up by Socinus, and efpoufed by 
 fome others, that feem fond of novelties. 
 (though novelties in religion are the word 
 kind of rarities, and feldom attended with 
 the beft coniequences.) Thefe men fuppofe, 
 that Chrift took the rite of baptifm from the 
 jfews y who are faid to have had a cuftom of 
 baptizing Profelytes, with their children al- 
 ready born, at their admiffion into the Jew- 
 ifh church, as being unclean Gentiles: but 
 their children, born afterwards, were not 
 baptized -, becaufe they were looked upon as 
 holy, like native Jews themfelves. Now, 
 upon this ground it is concluded, that though 
 Chrift inftituted baptifm, as the rite of ini- 
 tiation into his church for all Chrijtian Pro- 
 felvtes and their children at the beginning; yec 
 he did not intend it for the ufe of their pofte- 
 
 rity, 
 
 [b] Barclay Apol. Prop, it, Seel. 10. [r] Debaptifmo. 
 
( H ) 
 
 fity, as a ftanding ordinance. — To which it 
 may be replied, (i) In relation to Projelyte- 
 baptifm among the Jews ; this is a point a- 
 bout which the learned are not agreed, at 
 lead as to the antiquity of it. Not only Pce- 
 do-baptifts, but Antipado-baptifts differ a- 
 mongft themfelves, and are divided in their 
 opinions upon this head \d\ It feerns there- 
 fore improper and imprudent, to lay fomuch 
 ftrefs, as to build an hypothefis upon fo un- 
 certain a foundation. (2.) Granting, there 
 was fuch a pra&ice among the Jews ; it does 
 not certainly follow, that Chrift took the 
 Rite of baptifm from them. For, the Gen- 
 tiles alfo had their initiatory Rites, and forms 
 of Luftration, both for children and others [e~\. 
 And, as the Chriftian religion was framed and 
 calculated for all nations, in it's original con- 
 ftitution and defign ; It feems a more ration- 
 al preemption, that he would adopt his 
 inftitutions to the rites and ufages of the bulk 
 of mankind, than to fuppofe that he fuited 
 them to the cuftoms of the one, fmall, and 
 defpifed nation of the Jews alone. But (3.) 
 fuppofe, Chrift did take the rite of baptifm 
 from the Jews ; it follows not, that he ex- 
 actly 
 
 00 Mr. Totnbes, a learned Antipaedo-baptift, contended 
 for it. Examen. p. 80. But others on the fame fide of the 
 queftion have flrongly oppofed it. See Gale's Refte&ions, 
 &c. Let. 9. 
 
 [e~] Vid. Clem. Alexand. Strom. 5. Tertullian. de bap- 
 tifmo. Macrob Saturnal. lib. 1. cap. 16. Alex, ab Alex. 
 Genial. Dier. lib. 2. cap. 25. 
 
( '5 ) 
 
 aftly conformed to their ufe of baptifm in all 
 points [f ]. On the contrary, it is manifeft, 
 that he varied from it in one material circum- 
 ftance, viz. by ordering native Jews them- 
 felves, as well as Gentiles, to be baptized at 
 their admiflion into the Chriftian church [g]. 
 Thus, Chrift clearly took away the ground 
 of that partial diftin&ion, which the Jews 
 made in their manner of adminiftring bap- 
 tifm ; as mentioned before. And is it rati- 
 onal to think, that what he difcountenanced 
 in them> he would make a pattern, or prece- 
 dent to his own church in the admin iftration 
 of baptifm ? Were not the Jews formerly an 
 holy people , and the true church of God, as 
 well as the Chriftians are now, under a diffe- 
 rent difpenfation ? If then no prerogative of 
 birth, or defcent, exempted the former from 
 Chriftian baptifm ; what ground can there be to 
 pi ead fuch an exemption for the posterity of the 
 latter; Chrift having plainly fixed this ordi- 
 nance upon fuch a footing as is common to per- 
 sons of all pedigrees and defcents, even all the 
 children of Adam ? (4>)Thcugh the after-born 
 children of Jewijh profelytes were not baptiz- 
 ed, they were circumciied after the manner 
 of the Jews; conformably whereunto the 
 children of Chriftian parents are to be baptiz- 
 ed 
 
 [/] See Dr. Benfon's Anfwer to Mr. Emlyn. Eflay on 
 the public worfhip of Chriftians, chap. 5. feci, z edit. 2d. 
 
 [g~\ See Wall's hiftory of lnfant-baptifm, Introduction, 
 Sett, 5. 
 
( 16 ) 
 
 ed through all generations. For, in the or* 
 der of the divine oeconomy, where the Jew- 
 ifh circumcifion ended, Chriftian baptifm 
 began as the facred rite of initiation into God's 
 {reformed) [h] Church : but with this Diffe- 
 rence in the Sub/eels, that baptifm is of a lar- 
 ger extent in its ufe and application : For, 
 c * in Chrift Jefus there is neither male norfe- 
 " male [/]." (5.) There is not the leaft inti- 
 mation given, that baptifm was only a tempo- 
 rary inftitution ; nor is there any ground to 
 fuppofe it from the nature and reafon of the 
 thing, fince the moral ends of baptifm ftill 
 remain \_k\ no lefs than thofe of the Lord's 
 Supper, which is acknowledged to be a (land- 
 ing ordinance in the church of Chrift [/]„ 
 The pretence, that baptifm was only a tem- 
 porary inftitution, becaufe the commiffion to 
 baptize was given by Chrift to his Apoftles, 
 at the firft di/cipling of the nations, is without 
 any foundation. For the fame Commiflion 
 had been given to them, who were to be em- 
 ployed in firft planting the Chriftian church, 
 even fuppofing that baptizing as well as teach- 
 tng, was to be a (landing ordinance. And 
 indeed there is the fame reafon to pretend, 
 that teaching alfo was a temporary inftitution; 
 becaufe it is included in the fame commifli- 
 on 
 
 [£] Heb. ix. 10. [<] Gal. iii. ?8. 
 
 [k] Vid. Limborch. Theolog. Chrift. lib. 5. cap. 68. 
 Seel. 5. 
 
 [0 1 Cor. xi. 23. — 26. 
 
( '7 ) 
 
 on [m] : But the Apoftles, who received this 
 commiffion, did not underftand, that the full 
 and final execution of it was confined to them- 
 selves. For, as in the clofe of it Chrift pro- 
 mi fed to be with them alway, even to the end 
 of the world [n] ; (a promiie which could 
 not be verified in their own perfons abftract- 
 ly) fo, they provided for a fucceffion of gof- 
 pel-minifters, by fixing ftated paftors in every 
 church [0]. (6.) In the mod primitive times 
 none were admitted to the Lord's Supper, but 
 thofe that were baptized [p]. But, furely, 
 trie defcendents of Chriftians were admitted 
 to the Lord's Supper, aud confequently were 
 baptized [q]. (7.) The novelty of this noti- 
 on is no fmall prejudice again ft it in a juft and 
 reafonable account. For, fo far as we can 
 learn, it was never heard of in the Chrift ian 
 world before the time of Socinus, that is, above 
 1500 years after Chrift, and appears to be a 
 fond invention of his own. Whatever it was, 
 that fwayed hirn into this new opinion, and 
 fome others after him ; whether it was a de- 
 fire of abolifhing the do&rine of the Trinity, 
 as Dr. Wall guefled [r] : or, fome diflike to 
 the doctrine of original Sin, as others may 
 fufpectj we (hall not take upon us to detcr- 
 C mine. 
 
 [«j] Mat. xxviii. 19, 20. [«] Ibid. 
 
 0] Ad. xiv. 23. ("/>] Vid. j. Martyr, apol. 2. 
 
 [q] See Wall's Ar.fvver to Emhn, Defence, Sec. p. 34. antf 
 Penlon, ubi fupra. 
 
 [r] Hift. of Infant -Uptifm, Introduction, fed. 5. 
 
 J 
 
( i8 ) 
 
 mine. But this we prefume to fay, that for 
 any perfons to be prejudiced again ft the conti- 
 nuance of baptifm on any luch accounts is 
 verv abfurd -, whether baptifm, which is ac- 
 knowledged an inftituticn ©f Chriif, hath, or 
 hath not, any real connexion with the faid 
 doctrines. For, in the latter cafe, they be* 
 tray great weaknefs ; and in the former, they 
 convict themfelves of herefy. — Upon the 
 whole then, the authority of baptifm, and 
 eonfequently of Infant- baptifm (fuppofing it 
 was praftifed at the beginning, which thefe 
 writers allow according to their own hypo- 
 thefis) as a perpetual and {landing rite in the 
 Chriftian church, apparently refts upon a fuf- 
 ficiently firm and folid foundation* 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 No juft objection againjl Infant -baptifm from 
 the nature of the thing, but the contrary. 
 
 BY the contemptuous names and epithets, 
 which are fometimes given to Infant- 
 baptifm, {v. g. baby -baptifm, childijh baptfm % 
 childijh bu/infs, Sec.) it fliould feem that cer- 
 tain perfons fuppofe, and would infinuate, 
 that the thing is too ridiculous, and abfurd in 
 itfelf 'to have any place in a religious inilituti- 
 on. But why Infant- baptifm mould be more 
 unworthy of this honour than Infant- cir cum- 
 
 afim, 
 
( i9 ) 
 
 t'ifion, we cannot imagine. And yet the lat- 
 ter mud be allowed to be a divine ordi- 
 nance [j]. Will they fay, (as they have fome- 
 times unadviiedly done [/], that Infant- 
 C 2 church- 
 
 [j] Gen. xvii. 10, &c. A&.vii. 8. N. B. It docs not ap- 
 pear, that God appointed circumcifion in compliance with any 
 fuch cuftom a mongit the nations 'Tis true; the Pagan writ- 
 ers pretend th.it the Jews derived it from the Egyptians. ( V'id. 
 Heiodot. lib i. Diodor. Sicul. lib. i. Strabo, no. 17. Ccifus, 
 in Origen, lib. 1 .) And this notion is fo far favoured by fome 
 modern authors, as that they fuppofe Circumcifion was prac- 
 tiied in £gyp( before it wa« ufed m Abraham's family. (Vid. 
 Marfham, Canon, chronic, p. 72,207. Jidit Lipf. J Cleric, 
 comment, in Gen. xvii. Bp. Cumberland Sanchoniatho, 
 p. 150.) But other learned men think with more reafon that 
 Abraham was the fird perlon in the world that was circumcifed. 
 (Vid Eufeb. de Prsep. evangelic, lib. 7. cap. 8 G. J. Voif. 
 Hiit.idolat. lib, 1. cap. 30. Huet Quaeft. Alnetan. lib. 1. 
 cap. n.fedt. 17. Bp. Patrick's Comment, in Gen. xvii. 11, 
 &c.) For, it is eafy to conceive that the Egyptians themfelves 
 might derive circumcifion from one brancn or other of his fa- 
 mily. (See Revelation examined with candour) Nor is it hard ■ 
 to guefs from what branch it was fo derived, if the Egyptians 
 circumcifed their children at 14 years of ago, according to the 
 teftimony of St. Ambrofe, (de Abrahamo, Jib 2.) allcdged by 
 fundry authors, and not controverted by any, fo far as wc have 
 feen. (Vid.Mariham. can. chronic, p. 175, &c. Bochart op. 
 vol. III. col. 1 122. Spencer de legib. Hebr. p. 59 edit, fol.) 
 For this was near the Age, that the pofterity of Ijhmaelzw- 
 cumcifed their children. (Vid. Jofeph. J. Antiq. lib. i. Ori- 
 gen. Ph:iocalia, cap. 23.) And as they fettled upon the borders 
 of Egypt, Gen. xxv. 18. this might give them an opportunity 
 to introduce circumcifion amongit the Egyptians, especially if 
 they were the famous Shepherds th.it invaded them : \ ;d. 
 Jofeph. cont. Apion, lib. I ) and fome took them far Arabians* 
 This hint may be of fome ufe in chronology. But the chief dc 
 fign of this note is to fupport the dignity of circumcifion, 2s 
 originally from heaven; which will excufe the length of it 
 with every curiou* and candid reader. 
 
 [/] SeeKeach.anfwer to Owen, p. 84. Burroughs^ two 
 difcourfes relating to pofitive inititutions, p. 42. 
 
( 20 ) 
 
 church-member JJ:ip, and confequently Infant- 
 baptifm, is too carnal a thing, to fuit the fpi* 
 ritual nature of the Chriftian church ? Then, 
 according to their principles, either the church 
 of Chrift upon earth is more fpiritual, pure, 
 and perfect, in its frame and conftitution, 
 than the church in heaven ; or infants are no 
 members of the latter ! — Circumcifion indeed 
 left a mark in the fiefli of an infant, which 
 baptifm does not ; and good reafon there is 
 why it mould not. For, iC as circumcifion 
 c< was a mark in the fiejh t it appears to have 
 cc been of a political nature, and defigned as 
 cc a token to mark and ditlinguifli the yews 
 " from all other nations. But under the 
 * c gofpel fuch a national diftinction is remov- 
 u ed, and therefore it is neither neceffary, 
 cl nor proper that there mould be any lafting 
 €t mark in the fleflh to diftinguifh a peculiar 
 <c people, when the gofpel is to be preached 
 cc unto all nations, &c" Accordingly, nei- 
 ther doth Adult-baptifm leave any mark in the 
 flem ; and yet who will cenfure or revile it on 
 this account? — Befides, when the Ifraelites 
 grew up 5 that the mark of circumcifion was 
 not natural but artificial, and applied as 
 a religious rite, how did they know ? By the 
 information of others only, confirmed by 
 their own obfervation in feeing infants circum- 
 kifed every day. ' Now, the fame fatisfacti on 
 may any Chriftian-man have of his own bap-r 
 
 tifm, 
 
( 21 ) 
 
 tifm, though adminiftred in his infancy [v]. — 
 Moreover, is baptifm a fignificant rite ? So 
 was circumcifion [_w\ n And yet a Jewi(h in- 
 fant knew no more of its fignification, than 
 any Chriftian infant underftands of his baptifm. 
 — Further yet ; is baptifm a profeffion of the 
 Chriftian religion, or a rite of initiation into 
 it ? So was circumcifion a rite of initiation 
 into the Jev/ifh religion : and yet it was ad- 
 miniftred not only to the adult, but to infants 
 by divine appointment. If baptifm be, as 
 fome reprefent it, an engaging fign ; there 
 can be no abfurdity in applying it to infants : 
 for fuch a fign alio was circumcifion \x\ . 
 Therefore the baptifm of infants, confidered 
 abftra&ly in itfelf, appears noways unworthy 
 to have a place in a religious inftitution. — If 
 it be faid, the fame thing may be urged in 
 behalf of Chrifm y &c. the anfwer is, that it 
 is not fair to put thefe things upon a level-, 
 for the cafes are not parallel. <c In the one 
 " cafe, only ihsfubjeff is the matter in quef- 
 6C tion ; in the other the very things them- 
 u felves[y]." The ufe of baptifm is allowed 
 to be a divine appointment. And when it 
 mall be proved that the ufe of Cbrifm, &c. 
 alfo is appointed, v. g. for the adult, as the 
 
 Anti- 
 
 [■v] See Hollingworth, Catechift catechized, p. 43. Will?. 
 Anfwer to Danverfe, chap. 3. p. 240. 
 [ov] Rom. ii. 28. 29. iv. it. 
 |V] Gal. v. 3 See Keach, ubi fupra, p. 83. 85. 
 [y] See Paedo baptifm, p. 52, 53. 
 
( 22 ) 
 
 And paedo-baptifls acknowledge baptifm to 
 be ; then, and not before, may they argue 
 from the one to the other. 
 
 Thus far we have reafoned the cafe from 
 the nature of the two religious rites, c'trcum- 
 cifion and baptifm, compared together ; with- 
 out infifting at prefent, that, or enquiring 
 bow, the one fuccecded in the room of the 
 other. But, laying afide this comparifon, let 
 us now take a view of Chriftian- baptifm by 
 itfelf ; and fee whether there is any thing in 
 its true and proper notion, which can render 
 it u:iapplicable to infants. What then is bap- 
 tifm as to \htfubjeft but an ordinance of de- 
 dication f as Mr. David Rees, an eminent an- 
 ti-pa?do-baptift, acknowledges [z]. This 
 notion of Cbriftian- baptifm (which is the mat- 
 ter under consideration) naturally arifes from 
 the manner of St. Paul's putting that queftion 
 to the factious Corinthians, fplit into different 
 parties [a] Were ye baptized in the name of 
 Paul'? The fame notion is confirmed by his 
 faying \b\ 1 thank God that I baptized none oj 
 you; but Crifpus, andG^wis, left any Jlmddfay 
 that I had baptized in my own name. This 
 be faid, not in difparagement of baptifm, but 
 becaufe they had accidentally made fuch an ill 
 ufecf it \ and fome amongft them had fet him 
 up for the head of a party. Since therefore 
 things had fallen out fo perverfely ; St. Paul 
 
 was 
 
 [*] Anfwer to Walker, &c. p- 226. 
 
 O] 1 Cor. i. 1 2, 1 3. [£] Ibid. ver. 15. 
 
( «3 ) 
 
 was very glad, and thankful, that he had 
 given his enemies fo little handle to accufe him 
 of making a party to himfelf, and devoted to 
 his own intereft. This he calls baptizing in 
 his own name. And thus his words plainly 
 reprefent baptifm, as an ordinance of dedica- 
 tion. This notion of Chriftian- baptifm he 
 fuggefts alfo upon another occafion [c] ; when 
 he fpeaks of Chrift w fandtifying his church 
 " by the waflnng cf water, &c." For, fane- 
 tification commonly fignifies, in fcripture, a 
 dedication, or confecration ofperfonsor things 
 to a facred ufe. Thus, v.g. the altar is faid 
 tofanBify the gift [d] : Becaufe the gift, by 
 being laid upon the altar, became a facred 
 oblation, and fo was a thing dedicated to God. 
 In like manner baptized perfons arc properly 
 faid to be fanclified by the water of baptifm, 
 in as much as they are dedicated to God by this 
 facred and folemn rite, Now, according to 
 this notion of baptifm, and confidering it as 
 an ordinance of dedication \e\ there is nothing 
 in the nature of the thing to render the baptifm 
 of infants an unreafonable fervice, much left 
 ridiculous and ablurd ; if infants are capable 
 of being dedicated to God, which, we pre- 
 fume, none will deny. And in truth, what 
 is the proper meaning and import of that fo- 
 lemn 
 
 [r] Eph. v. 26. [/] Mat. xxiii. 19. 
 
 (/] This notion of baptifm is fixed on, as being not only 
 fcriptural, but applicable to ail forts of perfons, whether the 
 dependents of ChrilHans, or new converts. 
 
( 24 ) 
 iemn form of baptifm prefcribed byChrift \J\ 
 (and praclifed in the primitive church, as was 
 noted before) viz. " Baptizing them in the 
 " name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 « of the Holy Ghoft?" What doth this 
 mean or fignify, according to St. Paul's no- 
 tion of being baptized in the name of any one ? 
 but a folemn dedication of the party baptized 
 to the fervice of God, under that religious in- 
 flitution, which God the Father publifhed to 
 the world by Chrift his Son, and which was 
 divinely confirmed by the Holy Ghoji. There- 
 fore, as baptifm is a facred rite of dedication, 
 and infants are capable of being dedicated to 
 God, there is nothing in the nature of the 
 thing to render it improper for infants ; efpe- 
 cially if Infant baptifm hath an apt tendency 
 to anfwer any valuable ends and purpofes of 
 religion. 
 
 It is taken for granted, that in the nature 
 and reafon of things there is juft ground for di- 
 ftinguiiliing betwixt pofitime and moral dunes. 
 For, even thofe, that would refolve all moral 
 obligation into the will of God, add this re- 
 Unction, as determined by his moral perfecli-> 
 ons[g~]. Thus, they fuppofe moral pe> fecli- 
 ons, and moral properties, dijlint~l from the 
 will of God, independent on it; what deter- 
 mine it, and fo are not determined by it. 
 
 But 
 
 [/] Mat. xxviii. 19. 
 
 If) See Dr. Gill's reflexions on Mr. S. Chandler's Refor- 
 mation Sermon. 
 
( 2 5 ) 
 
 But then, as all divine inftitutions are the ap- 
 pointments of divine wifdom; it is mod ra- 
 tional to think, that they are well chofen, and 
 wifely calculated, to an fwer fome excellent 
 and ufeful ends. Therefore Chriftian-baptifm 
 itfelf, though a pofithe rite, mufr. be fuppof- 
 ed to have its moral ends and ufes. Let us 
 then modeftly enquire whether baptifm, as 
 applied to infants, hath not an apparent fit- 
 nefs, aptitude and tendency to ferve fome 
 worthy purpofes of religion. Now, that it 
 hath fo, feems very eafy to conceive in the 
 following views, without indulging an extra- 
 vagant fancy. 
 
 (r.) With refpect to God himfelf ;. as an 
 aptly expreffive fign and token, not only of his 
 claim , but of his favour to infants. And con- 
 fidering the human race, as related to a firjl x 
 and a fecond Adam, according to St. Pauls 
 account [£], which we cannot but prefer to 
 any modern hypothefes ; fuch a token and 
 fignification of the divine regards to poor in- 
 fants, and of their concern with a Redeemer, 
 appears very worthy the Father of mercies, 
 who hath made the mod ample difcoveries 
 of his love and grace to the children of men 
 under the Chriftian difpenfation. 
 
 (2.) With relation to Chriftian parents. 
 Doth it not minifter great comfort to them, 
 when they fee fo much notice taken of their 
 dear infants, living or dying, in a difpenfa- 
 
 D tion 
 
 \b] Rom.v. iz— *i£, 1 Cor. Xv. u, tt: 
 
( 26 ) 
 
 tion of mercy to a lapfed world ? Befides, by 
 confenting to their children's baptifm, and con- 
 curring in it, they make that iblemn profef- 
 fion of Chriflianity, and lay themfelves un- 
 der thofe voluntary engagements, which have 
 a happy tendency to imprefs their own fouls 
 with a more lively fenfe of religion, and there- 
 by excite them to act a part worthy of the 
 Chriftian name and character, particularly 
 towards their children. 
 
 (3.) In reference to their children, who 
 may be benefited by their baptifm. That 
 Chrift hath a blejfing for infants, we may af- 
 furedly conclude from his taking them up in 
 his arms, and bleffing them, upon a certain 
 occafion [*]. And if it is rational to recom- 
 mend infants to God by prayer; why is it im* 
 proper, in the nature of the thing, to dedi- 
 cate them to God by baptifm ? And why may 
 not a divine bleffing be as likely to attend the 
 one action, as the other; though the infants 
 themfelves are equally ignorant of both ; and 
 can no more join in the pious recommendation, 
 than concur in the baptifmal dedication ? Be_ 
 fides, the part, which the parents are fup- 
 pofed to act in this affair, hath a tenden- 
 cy to fecure their be ft affections and regards 
 to their children, ftrongly prompting them to 
 bring them up in the nurture and admonition cf 
 the Lord. For after fuch a folemn tran fac- 
 tion, they muft look upon the young crea- 
 tures, 
 
 [*] Mark x. 1 \ t 1 6. Luke xviii. 15. 
 
( 27 ) 
 
 tures, as devoted things, as confecrated things, 
 whom they themfelves, by defiring their 
 baptifm, have given up to God And there- 
 fore, (not to mention here the particular en- 
 gagements which the fponfors enter into up- 
 on the occafion,) they can no more neglect 
 the religious education of their children, 
 than a perfon could alienate a facred ob- 
 lation from God, without being guilty of 
 facriledge. — To which add, as children grow 
 up, the frequent feeing of other Infants bap- 
 tized, hath an apt tendency to affect their 
 tender minds, in the reflection, with the 
 folemnity of their own baptifmal dedication 
 to God, and fo infpire them with an early 
 fenfe of religion, and a proper concern to 
 act fuitably to the divine deftination in cart- 
 ing their lot under the facred miniftrations 
 of the Gofpel. 
 
 (4.) With regard to the honour and credit 
 of chriftianity. It is the glory of the Gof- 
 pel, that it is a full and final revelation of 
 the grace of God. If then the grace of 
 God at all extends to Infants; it feems very 
 congruous and agreeable to the nature and 
 genius of this falutary dilpenfation, that there 
 fhould be fome appointed jign and token of 
 it in the chriftian church. And what fo 
 proper as baptifm ? Befides, as other re- 
 ligions had their facred rites for Infants ; 
 would not the chriftian religion, without 
 ibme thing of that kind, have appeared in 
 D 2 the 
 
( 28 ) 
 
 the eyes of the world an imperfedl inftitu- 
 tion ? Nay, would not chriflianity have 
 been thought an unnatural religion, if it had 
 caufed fo great a feparation betwixt parents 
 and children, as only to admit the former 
 into, and excommunicate the latter from, 
 the vifible church of God? u Nature, (fays 
 " Mr. Baxter [k] ) hath aclually taught moft 
 cc people on earth, fo far as I can learn, to 
 cc repute their Infants in the fame religoits 
 " fociety with themfelves, as well as in the 
 cc fame civil fociety. " — There is one circwn- 
 Jlance which may deferve fome little notice, 
 viz. That as the Jews named their children 
 at the time of their circnmcijion [/] ; fo the 
 Heathens gave nmes to their children at 
 the time of their lujlration [m] ; in like 
 manner as it is ufual with chriftians to men- 
 tion the names of their children at the time 
 of baptifm. This conformity of cuftoms is 
 fomewhat remarkable, and feems to have a 
 language, that fpeaks in favour of the com- 
 mon 
 
 \_k] More proofs of Infants church-memberfhip, &c. 
 
 P. 112. 
 
 [/] See Luk. i. 59, — 63. ii. 21. 
 
 [«] Eft nutem dies lujlricus, quo infantes luftrantur, et 
 nomcu accipiu?it. Macrob. Saturnal, lib. 1. cap. 16. Mari- 
 bus qui nono die poftquam in lucem editi fuiffent, feminis 
 vert) octavo, mmtna imponcrent, n.onnunquam feptimo, qui 
 dies lufiricus nomen habet. — Ab Atkcnienjibus vero, et omni 
 fere Grsrcia y decimo a natali die infanti no?nen imponere fer- 
 vatum eft. Alex ab. Alex. Genial, Dier. lib. 2. cap. 25. 
 Jn primo infantum baptifmate imponitur nomen. Hyde. 
 Helig. Vet. Per/arum. Cap. 28. Confer, cap, 34. 
 
( 29 ) 
 
 mon practice in baptizing Infants, as a thing 
 agreeable to the common notions and appre- 
 henfions of mankind ; fince there is fuch 
 a general agreement in a circumftance fo 
 minute. 
 
 Upon the whole then it is manifeft, that 
 no reafonable objection lieth againft Infant- 
 baptifm from the nature of the thing itfelf ; 
 but the contrary. For, it plainly is fuch a 
 Rite as Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans, even 
 all the world, would naturally approve, as 
 a proper religious ceremony. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 'The Objection from want of an Example 
 conjidered, 
 
 TH I S is one popular plea of the Anti- 
 paedo-baptifts, viz. " That there is 
 ct no inftance, or example, in Scripture, of 
 c< baptizing Infants ; but frequent mention 
 tf is made of baptizing Believers, or the 
 (i Adult." To which the anfvver is as 
 follows. 
 
 (i.) Believers, or Adult perfons were of 
 courfe to be baptized at the firft adminiftra- 
 tion of baptifm, as a rite of the chriftian 
 church ; fuppofing, that Infants alfo were 
 to be, and actually were admitted to bap- 
 tifm. For, as circumcifion was introduced 
 into Abraham's family upon the ground of 
 
 his 
 
( 3° ) 
 
 his faith [n] : fo chriftian-baptifm could not 
 be regularly introduced into any families 
 without being firft adminiftred to their be- 
 lieving heads and governors ; at the time of 
 the firft institution and admin iftration of 
 thefe different rites refpe&ively. Therefore 
 how numerous foever the examples of Be- 
 lievers, or Adult- baptifm, are in the hiftory 
 of the firft planting of the chriftian church, 
 when chriftian-baptifm was a new thing -, 
 this is no difproof at all of Infant-baptifm 
 in thofe days, (though it may look very 
 plaufible in the eyes of the vulgar, and is 
 apt enough to impofe upon their weak un- 
 derstandings from a partial view of things, 
 and not attending to all the circumftances of 
 the cafe). For, thofe examples of Adult- 
 baptifm had been as numerous, as they are, 
 for the reafon aforefaid, even upon the fup- 
 pofition, that Infants alfo were baptized at 
 that time ; and fo can be no proof of the 
 contrary. And though fome people would 
 lay fo much ftrefs upon that circumftance, 
 as if it was little lefs than demonstration ; it 
 fhould be considered, that not one of all thofe 
 instances relates to perfons, whofe parents 
 were chrtftians, or members of the chriftian 
 church, at the time of their birth. Con- 
 fequently their being baptized at Adult- age 
 is no argument, that the Infants of baptized 
 chriftians were not baptized themfelves. But 
 
 of 
 
 [»] See PaDdo-baptifm, p. i. 
 
( P ) 
 
 of all the exarriplesof Adult-baptifm record- 
 ed in the New Teftament, none is common- 
 ly produced with greater pomp, nor yet any 
 one urged with more impertincncy, than 
 that of the Eunuch [o]. As if the baptizing 
 not only of a new, but a childlefs convert, an 
 Eunuch, was any proof that the Infants of 
 chriftian converts and believers were not 
 baptized in thofe days ! 
 
 (2.) The Scripture fpeaks of whole houfe- 
 holds being baptized together [/>]. Therefore 
 the children, Infants and others, were bap- 
 tized along with the reft, if any fuch were 
 in thofe families ; and the contrary cannot 
 be proved. But, we are told by a dignified 
 writer [q], " They ought not to put it upon 
 " us to prove the negative, to prove that 
 " there were none, this is unfair/' Well, 
 we will then be fo fair, as only to put it up- 
 on them to prove, if they can, this affirma- 
 tive, viz. That all the members of thofe 
 baptized houfeholds were Adult- perfons. 
 And this we may demand, without any un- 
 fairnefs, from them, who lay the whole 
 ftrefs of their argument upon it; and there- 
 fore ought not to take the thing for granted 
 without proof; fuch plain proof, as they are 
 wont to infift upon themfelves In thefe 
 baptized houfeholds it is pqfible, there might 
 
 be 
 
 [0] A&. viii. 27—39. 
 
 [^] A£t. xvi. 15, 34. xviii. 8, &c. 
 
 \q] Dr. Gill. Divine Right of Infant -baptifm examined, 
 &c. p. 83. 
 
( 32) 
 
 be fome Infants, or young children ; and 
 therefore no man can be certain of the con- 
 trary. Nay, more ; it feems highly probable^ 
 as to fome of thefe families ; as well as in 
 the families of the Sbecbemites, when all 
 their males were circumcifed [r], and con- 
 fequently their male-infants ; although In- 
 fants are exprefsly named in neither cafe. 
 For it is obfervable, that in fome of the in- 
 ftances referred to, the whole houfe is faid 
 to believe [s]. But in others, nothing is faid, 
 or hinted, that the whole houfe believed, 
 but that the head of the family believing y 
 they were all baptized [t]. This diftinction 
 deferves fome attention in an argument, 
 formed upon plain fcripture language. For, 
 as it is very fuppofable, that there might be 
 young children and minors in fome families, 
 and none but grown perfons in others ; fo, if 
 there was not this difference in thofe bap- 
 tized houfeholds ; let them, that fay fo, ac- 
 count for the different manner of expreffion, 
 ufed by the facred Hiflorian in fpeaking of 
 them. Will they affirm, that all the mem- 
 bers, e. g. of Lydids family were Adult- 
 perfons, and believers 3 though the hiftory 
 is filent about it ? Let them judge then of 
 the force of their own argument from the 
 flence of Scripture concerning the baptifm 
 
 of 
 
 fr] Gen. xxxiv. 22—24. 
 [j] Aft. xvi. 34. xviii. 8. 
 [/] Aft. xvi. 15. 
 
( 33 ) 
 
 of Infants, particularly in the inflances un- 
 der consideration. Have not we as much 
 right to affert this fact, as they can have to 
 maintain the other, without any exprefs 
 mention of it in Scripture [v] ? But, it is 
 urged [w], £t As for Lydia, it is not certain, 
 M in what flare of life (lie was, £?<;." Now, 
 if fo, (to join iffue here) then (lie might be 
 a wife, or a widow, and (he might have 
 children, yea little children. Nor is it rational 
 to think, that me would have kept houfe, as- 
 me did, at Philippi [x\ where (lie had her 
 family with her [y] -, and leave her children 
 at Thyatira, from whence (he came ; but 
 not as a travelling pedlar to fell her purple 
 at the fair, which is all fiction ; for, could 
 flie not be a feller of purple > and yet a fliop- 
 keeper, as (he plainly was an houfe- keeper ? 
 It is faid indeed, that (he was a woman of 
 Tbyatira. But, to argue and conclude from 
 hence, " that this city, and not Philippic 
 <c was now the place of her ufual refidence, 
 <c and ftated abode j" This way of reafon- 
 ing, which many have ufed [z~], is falfe 
 criticifm. For, perfons are faid in Scripture 
 to be oifuch, or fuch a place, to denote the. 
 place where they were born, or brought up 
 
 >] See Walker's modeft Plea, &c. ch. 30. §. 27. 
 'w] Dr. Gill, ubi fupra. 
 ~x] Ad. xvi. 15. [jy] Ibid, 
 
 jz] See Keach, anfwer to Burkit, p. 12$. Stennef, 
 anfwer to Ruflen, p. 31. Rees, anfwer to Walker, p. 
 
 E the 
 
( 34 ) 
 the place from whence they came, and to 
 which they originally belonged y though 
 they had removed their habitation from 
 thence, and fettled in fome other town or 
 country. Thus e . g. Mnajon, an old Dif- 
 ciple., is faid to be of Cyprus ; and yet he 
 lived, and kept houfe at Jerufakm [a]. And 
 thus again, (to mention a mod illuftrious 
 inftance) our bleffed Saviour himfelf is com- 
 monly called jefus of Nazareth y (the very 
 infcription upon his crofs [b] !) though, leav- 
 ing Nazareth, where he had been brought up 
 [c], he came and dwelt at Capernaum [d]. 
 Therefore, laying all circumftances together, 
 there is not the lead: ground to conclude any 
 other, but that Philippi was the place of 
 her fettled habitation, at the time of Lydias 
 embracing the Chriftian faith in that city; 
 in confequence of which not only (he her- 
 felf, but her houfehold alfo was baptized^ 
 though not a fyllable is faid of her houfehold 
 believi?2g. As {he is called a worfiipper oj 
 God [e] 9 me appears to have been a devout 
 Gentik , and, knowing it to be the cuftom 
 of the Jewifh church to receive Profelytes. 
 together with their children, this eafily ac- 
 counts for it, that fhe defired her houfehold 
 might be baptized with herfelf, and had her 
 defire granted. After all, though we infift 
 
 upon 
 ■ 
 
 £m\ Aft.xxK 1 6. Vid, Knatchbull. in loc. 
 [b] Joh. xix. 19. [c] Luk. iv. 16. 
 
 [d] Mat. iv. 1 $. [ej Aft.xvi. 14. 
 
( 35 ) 
 upon it, that there is no evidence, and juftly 
 demand a proof, that all the members of 
 her family were Adult-peilbns, or believers ; 
 yet, that there were none fuch befides herfelf, 
 we neither pre fume to fay, nor are obliged 
 by our argument to maintain. 
 
 (3.) There are fome texts of Scripture, 
 that feefti to prove, dire&ly or confequential- 
 ly, that Infants were baptized in the ApoMles 
 days. St. Paul was blamed for <{ teaching 
 <c the yews, which were among tbe Gentiles, 
 Si that they ought not to circumcife their chil- 
 ** dren" [/]. And would he not have been 
 blamed ftill more, if he had not ordered their 
 children to be baptized, but left them entire- 
 ly deftitute of any thing to fupply the room 
 of circumcifion ? As t( circumcifion ceafed to 
 * be an ordinance of God at the death of 
 " Chrift," according to Mr. Rees [g] ; So, 
 Chriftian baptifm (that is, baptifm as admi- 
 niftered in the Chriftian church, which com- 
 menced after the death of Chrifl) fucceeded 
 the yewijh circumcifion in the order of the 
 divine oeconomy. And it is matter of fpecial 
 obfervation, that one main ground of St. Paul's 
 oppofing the continuance of circumcifion was 
 the fufficiency of baptilrn without it. For, 
 fpeaking of Chrifl:, he tells the ColoJJians [£], 
 c< And ye are complete in him, which is the 
 " head of all principality and power. In 
 E 2 " whom 
 
 [/] A&. xxi. 21. [g] Anfwer to Walker, p. 70. 
 
 [b] Coloff. li. 10,-12.. 
 
(36 ) 
 
 <e whom aifoye are circumcifed with the cir- 
 V cumcifeon made without hands, in putting off 
 " the body of the fins of the Jle/h by the circum- 
 i{ cifion of Chrift: Buried with him in bap- 
 " tifm, Sec." In thefe words, He is the 
 head of all principality and power , there is a 
 plain allufion, or at lead an apt correfpenden- 
 cy to that declaration of Chrift, which he 
 made at the very time, when he inftituted the 
 ordinance of Chriftian-baptifm [/.]: " Allpow- 
 " er is given unto me in heaven, and in earth" 
 And thus, the Apoftle's difcourie implies, that 
 fince Chrift by the fulnefs of his authority did 
 not appoint circumcifion, but baptijm to be ufed 
 in his church ; therefore, by having the lat- 
 ter Chriftians were complete, without the for- 
 titer. It is plain then, that St, Paul oppofed 
 the continuance of circumcifion upon this 
 ground and foundation, viz. That baptifm 
 was fufficient without it, as was hinted before ; 
 and fo rendered it unneceflary for the difciples 
 of Chrift to be circumcifed after the manner 
 cf Mofes [k]. Therefore thofe, whom St. 
 Paul was not for having circumcifed, were 
 baptized. But, it is faid, he was not for hav- 
 ing the children of the convert Jews among 
 the Gentiles circumcifed : Therefore fuch 
 children (and by parity of reafon others alfo) 
 were baptized ; and baptized in their infancy : 
 Otherwife, they had nothing to fupply the 
 want of circumcifion, nothing to render it 
 
 fuperfluous 
 
 [*] Mat. xxviii. 18. [£] Afts xv. 1. 
 
( 37 ) 
 
 fuperflueus to them, or to make them complete 
 without it, according to his own argument. 
 — Again. In order to perfuade Chriftian men 
 and women to cohabit with their unbelieving 
 husbands and wives, the Apoftle makes ufe of 
 this argument [/ j ; <c For, the unbelieving 
 ct husband is fanBtfied by the wife, and the unbe- 
 cc lieving wife is fanSltfied by the husband ; elje 
 cc were your children unclean, but now are they 
 " holy" " An invincible argument (lays 
 <: a worthy man [;/;], for Pcedo-bapttfn" 
 And fuch probably it would appear upon fight 
 to any one, that viewed it with an unprejudiced 
 eye. For, what can be more natural, than 
 the learned KnatchbulN account of this paf- 
 fage ? {{ Elfe, unlefs one of the parents were 
 " a believer, your children were unclean, 
 <c that is, remain heathen, as the children of 
 45 that parent, that was xXvjro.s ciytoq, called a 
 ** faint, or reputed a believer, were reputed 
 ci faints, and holy alio, and confequently 
 " admitted to the participation of baptifm, as 
 <c the ion of a profelyte was capable of cir- 
 " cumcifion, &c. [«]•" Thus, their children 
 were holy not merely in a civil, but in an ec- 
 clefiajlical fenfe ; and if by this term the Apo- 
 ftle had meant the fame with legitimate, he 
 might have ufed a more proper word to ex- 
 
 prefs 
 
 [/] i Cor. vii. 14. 
 
 O] Increafe Mather. Difcourfe concerning the fubjeel of 
 baptifm. p. 1 8. 
 
 [»] Sir N. Knatchbull in loc. confer. Dr. HammonJ 
 Quaere 4. fee. 31 37. 
 
< 3« ) 
 
 prefs that Idea [o]. Indeed by underftanding 
 this holinels of believers children to denote 
 their legitimacy, the Antipcedo baptifls involve 
 themfelves in inextricable difficulties; as fun- 
 dry writers have fhewed [p). As for that 
 Rabbinical phrafe of a woman sfanflifying her- 
 felf to a man, to fignify her becoming his 
 wife [q] y this is not parallel to the Apoftle's 
 expreffion, when he fpeaks of an unbeliever 
 being fanclified by (or in) the believer. For, 
 he plainly intends fuch a fancliflcation, as doth 
 not refulc from the relation betwixt husband 
 and wife as fuch ; but only as the one is a be- 
 liever, and fo the inflrument oi fan&ifying the 
 other, to the end of producing an holy feed. 
 Befides, if the word, fanclified, here fignifies 
 the being efpoufed or married \ St. Paul told 
 them nothing, but what they knew before. 
 For, this is the very cafe fuppofed in calling 
 them husband and wife jand fo they could have 
 no doubt about it, nor therefore cou Id they quef- 
 tion the legitimacy of their iffue. On the other 
 hand, if they were fatisfied of the legitimacy of 
 their children(as ihe form of the Apoftle's argu- 
 ment would imply, according to this conftruc- 
 tion of his words) how could they doubt, or 
 want to be refolved about (the rm/)lawfulnefs 
 of their own marriage or cohabitation? In fhortj 
 
 if 
 
 [o] See Whitby in loc. 
 
 lp] See Marshall's Anfwer to Tombes, p. 14$, &c. Blake's 
 ditto, chap. 7. Wills. Anfwer to Danverie, P. 2. 162, &c. 
 Dr. Featley's Dippers dipped, p. 36, 57. 
 
 [(f\ See Dr. Gill, comment, in loc. 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 if the marriage-union, whereby twain became 
 oneflep, be fuppofed the remote ground of 
 this fa?2C~liJication y the Apoftle fpeaks of; yet 
 the proximate caufe, and the formal reafon of 
 it manifeftly is, one of the parcies being a 
 chrijiian believzr. For, \i lawful wedlock were 
 all that is intended by it; the believer might 
 as well have been faid to be fan&ified by the 
 unbeliever, as vice vcrjdx as hath been often 
 alledged, but to no purpofe, for the convicti- 
 on of thofe good men, who having once im- 
 bibed a falfe notion of the novelty of Infant- 
 baptifm, think themfelves obliged (as they 
 certainly are, fo long' as that is their notion) 
 to ftrain any text to any fenfe, and to embrace 
 any interpretation, however forced and unna- 
 tural, rather than admit fuch a conftruction, 
 as militates with their own preconceived opi- 
 nion. But to us, who labour under no fuch 
 prejudice, and can with an unbiafTed mind 
 attend to the current fenfe, and the native 
 force of fcripture-language, the words of St. 
 Paul before us appear to imply the church- 
 member/hip, and confequently the baptifm of 
 believers children fo ftrongly, as that we are 
 entirely fatisfied with this proof of the fa cl 9 
 without further enquiry [r], 
 
 (4.) The 
 
 [r] By the holinefs of believers children fome think the 
 Apoltle meant their baptifm itfclf. ^ertullian gloffing upon 
 his words underftands, a holinefs by the prerogative of birth, 
 and by the difcipline of inJHtution, He reprefents the children 
 
 of 
 
( 40 ) 
 (4.) The moll: farigutne oppofers of Infant- 
 baptifm arc called upon to produce an example 
 from Scripture of theif own practice in waving 
 the baptiim of believers children, 'till they are 
 of age ; or a (ingle inftance of any fuch children 
 being baptized at riper years upon a perfonal 
 profeffion of their own faith. If they can 
 produce fuch an example ; why have they ne- 
 ver yet done it? And if they cannot; then 
 they mull be obliged either to grant them- 
 felves, that the children of believers were not 
 baptized at all, and fo yield the point to the 
 Socinians y or take it for granted that they were 
 baptized feme time, though the Scripture is 
 Jilent about it. Now, if they fuppofe the 
 filence of fcripture to be no di (proof of their 
 own way ; with what conuftency can they ar- 
 gue from the iilence of Scripture again ft our 
 way? And with what prudence can they infill 
 upon an argument, which, if it had a better 
 foundation than it really hath, maybefoea- 
 fily retorted upon them ? Poflibly, fome 
 
 injudicious 
 
 of believers as candidates for holinefs by birth ; and made holy 
 by baptifniy as he explains hftnfelf afterwards, faying, '* He 
 •* (viz. St. Paul) icrneinbcrcd our Lord's definition, Except 
 •' a man be born of 'water and of 'the Spirit, he jbail not enter 
 *' into the kingdom of God ; that is, he fhall not be ho/y." 
 This baptifmal holinefs plainly is what he refers to by the dif- 
 cipliue ofinflitution, which he oppofes to the jtc./erfiiious rites 
 ufed about the children of heathens ; in like manner as he 
 makes the chiliivn Qi believers candidates for holinefs by birth , 
 by way of contraft to the children of Infidels, whom he (tiles 
 candidates of dc?nons t to which they were early dedicated, lib„ 
 de aiiima, C3p. 39. 
 
( 4* ) 
 
 injudicious people may imagine, that the adult* 
 perfons, baptized by the Apoftles, were deni- 
 ed baptifm in their infancy; otherwife they 
 had been baptized before. But, they widely 
 miftake the cafes : for, in the infancy of thofe 
 perfons, their parents were not Cbri/lians, that 
 is, members of the Chriftian church ; but Jews 
 or heathens. The Chriftian church was not 
 then in being, nor consequently was baptifm, 
 as a Chrifiian ordinance, adminiftred at that 
 time. — Here, by the way, one may juftly 
 wonder what a certain anonymous writer (for 
 
 Jbme fuch have appeared on the other fide of 
 the queftion, it is likely without being a/Jjamed 
 of their name or caafe) had in his head, when 
 he asked that wife queftion ; " If any might 
 " be baptized in infancy, why not Chriji him- 
 " felfj whofe example was to be a pattern to 
 ct his followers, even to the end of the 
 11 world [i] ?" Alas ! when Chrift was born, 
 John Baptifiy his immediate forerunner, and 
 the perfon appointed to adminifter baptifm to 
 the Jews (not to Cbriftians) was himfelf but 
 
 fix months old [/]. How then could Chrift, 
 according to that difpenfation, have been bap- 
 tized in his infancy ; unlefs an infant was to 
 be his baptizer ? But it is certain, that (as he 
 was baptized without a confefion, fo) he was 
 circumcifed in his infancy \y\\ and in this 
 
 view, 
 
 [j] Plain account of the facred ordinance of baptifm, p. 5 2, 
 confer. Kench Anfwerto Owen, p. 23 2. 
 f/] Lukei.36. \y\ Lukeii, 21, 
 
( 42 ) 
 
 view, mutatis mutandis ; his example may bet 
 confidered as a pattern to his followers. Be- 
 fides, Jchn's baptifm was only preparatory, 
 not initiatory : for, if Chrift him (elf cl did 
 " net fet up in his own days on earth a vi~ 
 u fible church, difcipline, and worfhip di- 
 < e k\n&. from the Jewi/h" as Mr. Tombes 
 confefleth [w] -, much lefs did John enter per- 
 fons into any new church-relation. And tho* 
 " he was the greateft of prophets ; yet he, 
 * c that is the lead in the kingdom of heaven 
 " is greater than he [#]." Therefore, if it 
 fhould be allowed that John baptized none 
 but adult perfons ; this is nothing to the pre- 
 fent purpofe, nor any way affects our argu- 
 ment; efpecially, when the oppofers of In- 
 fant-baptifm reafon in fuch a manner from 
 his adminiftration, as would equally exclude 
 infants from baptifm and fahation. An ab- 
 furdity, that flicks fo clofe to their hypothefis, 
 as that they can fcare avoid falling into it almoft 
 upon all occafions [y]. — But to proceed. It 
 is faid of the Samaritans [js], " When they 
 «' believed Philip, preaching the things con- 
 €< cerning the kingdom of God, and the name 
 <c of Jefus Chrift, they were baptized both 
 <c men and women' 1 Now, as this was the 
 jirj't planting of the Chriftian church in Sama- 
 ria, that believers, both men and women, were 
 
 baptized,, 
 
 [w] Examen. p. 88. [#] Mat. xi. u. 
 
 [y] See Dr. Gill'a comment, in Mat. iii. <?. 
 [z] Aft. viii. 12. 
 
(43 ) 
 
 baptized, was a thing of courfe, and what 
 muft have happened, even fuppofing that 
 their children alio were baptized. But there- 
 fore neither this y nor any other inftance of the 
 like nature, can be any difproof of Infant- 
 baptifm; as is commonly pretended by its 
 oppofers. For, as thefe men and women 
 were not boxn of Cbrifti an parents themfelves; 
 fo, nothing at all being faid of their children, 
 whether they were, or were not then, or ever 
 after baptized ; no conclusion can be drawn 
 from the hiftory to prove the negative; be- 
 caufe, it fays not, that none but men and wo- 
 men, or that men and women only, were 
 baptized. Befides, thefe terms, men and 
 women, may chiefly denote here males, and 
 females, without refpecl of age [a], Cl And 
 4< there was a more fpecial reafon for men- 
 cc tioning the baptifm of females, than of 
 " children, as circamcifion had been limited 
 u to the males under the former difpenfati- 
 " on [£]." In fhort ; neither this, nor any 
 other paflfage of Scripture, exhibits any inftance 
 or example of the practice followed by thofe, 
 who deny baptifm to believers children 'till 
 they are of age, and capable to make a pro- 
 feffion of their faith. Thus, their own objec- 
 tion returns home upon themfelves. 
 
 F 2 SEC- 
 
 [a] Vid. Levit. xiii. 29 — 38. Num. v. 2, 3. 
 [6] See Blake, anfwsr to Blackwood, p. 28. Hufley. an- 
 fwer to Tornbes, p. 5, 
 
( 44 ) 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 The Objection from the ' want of a Com- 
 mand confidered. 
 
 IT is further obje&ed againft Infant-bap- 
 tifm that, There is no command for it 
 in Scripture. Now, to this it is replied, 
 
 (i.) There was no occafion for a particular 
 and exprefs command to baptize Infants, 
 even fuppcfing, that they alfo, as well as 
 others, were to be baptized ; but a general 
 command to baptize was a fufficient rule of 
 direction, to introduce and authorife this 
 practice. For, the Apoftles of Chrift, to 
 whom the great commiffion of difcip/ing i or 
 profelyting, all nations by baptizing them, 
 &c. was immediately given, were members 
 of the Jewifh church and nation, and fo 
 muft have been well acquainted with the 
 Jewifh rites and cuftoms. Now (not to in- 
 fift upon what many learned men have faid 
 of a cuftom among the Jews to baptize the 
 children of Gentile profelytes together with 
 their parents) it is certain that the profelytes, 
 of right eoujhefsy and their children were m*- 
 cumcifcd after the manner of the Jews [c]- y 
 a cuftom, which the judaizing chriftians 
 were for maintaining in the chriftian church 
 [dl This matter, perhaps, is not confidered 
 
 with- 
 
 [<•] Vid. Corn. Tacit, hift. lib, 5. [d] Aft, xv. 1. 
 
C451 
 
 with proper attention. Thofe that would 
 Aijllnguijh away the right and title of be- 
 lievers children to the Abrahamic, or Gof- 
 pel-covenant \e\ both fign and thing, al- 
 ledge, that they are in no fenfe the feed of 
 Abraham \ not his natural feed ; becaufe not 
 lineally defcended from him : nor his fpiri- 
 tual feed ; becaufe they want jaith % though 
 their believing parents, like Abraham, have 
 it. But, in what clafs, will they rank the 
 JcwiJJ: profelytes ? if in either, doubtlefs, 
 in that of his fpiritual feed ; to whom there- 
 fore the fpiritual part of the covenant be- 
 longed. And yet circumcifion was applied 
 to the children of thofe believers, as well as 
 to themfelves. And thus, the Apoftles had 
 a plain rule of direction to proceed by in 
 admin iftring baptifm to chrijiian profelytes 
 and their children, when this ordinance, as 
 the rite of initiation, came in the room of 
 circumcifion. For, had Chrift commanded 
 his Apoftles to go and profclyte all nations 
 by circumcifvng them, &c. What could they 
 have underfrood by fuch a command, with- 
 out any other explication ; but that parents 
 and their children were both a like to be 
 received into the christian church by cir- 
 cumcifion, according to the ufage of the 
 Jewifh church ? In like manner, when 
 circumcifion was laid afide, and that wall of 
 partition removed [f], as the very order to 
 
 difcipk 
 
 . [/] See GzL Hi. 17. [/] Fph. 11. 14* »5- 
 
(46) 
 
 ciifciple all nations [g] implied • when, upon 
 the abolition of this initiatory rite, baptifm 
 was appointed as the rite of initiation in the 
 chriftian church ; the Apoftles would na- 
 turally, and even neceffarily conclude, that 
 parents and their children were to be equally 
 received into the chriftian church by bap- 
 tifm , efpecially having been told before 
 with refpecT: to Infants themfelves, that of 
 fuch is the kingdom cf heaven [h]. Therefore, 
 a general command to baptize, which is not 
 denied, was fufficient to direct, and authorife 
 the practice of baptizing Infants. Confe- 
 quently, there was no eccafion for a parti- 
 cular and exprefs command to baptize them, 
 even fuppofing that Infants, as well as others, 
 were to be baptized. So that the want of 
 fuch a command is weakly urged as an ob- 
 jection againft Infant-baptifm : efpecially, if 
 it be confidered on the other hand ; 
 
 (2.) There was a real neceffity for a plain, 
 and exprefs prohibition of Infant-baptifm^ at 
 the repeal of Infant- circumcifton y if Infants 
 were not to be baptized : but no fuch prohi- 
 bition appears, nor can be produced. This 
 is a matter of the utmoft confequence in the 
 prefent debate; and, as our writers think, is 
 the very hinge % on which the controverfy 
 
 turns. 
 
 [g~\ Mat. xxviii. 19. 
 
 [/.>] Mat. xix. 14. Luk. xviii. 15,16. " —The literal 
 " meaning of thefe words is, that little children may be ad- 
 " mitted into the difpenfation of the Mefiiah, and by con- 
 " fequence may be baptized." Bp. Burnet, on Artie. 27. 
 
( 47 ) 
 turns. For why ? Children, infants and 
 others, had been admitted to the initiatory 
 rite before, at the reception of profelytes in- 
 to the church of God under the Jewifi dif- 
 penfationj as hath been already obferved. 
 If then, at the time of reformatio?! [/] under 
 the Gofpel, when the church of God was 
 new modelled, fo great an alteration was 
 intended in it's constitution, as that Infants 
 mould be wholly excommunicated, like aliens 
 and Jirangers, without any facrament or flgn 
 of falvation ; had this been the cafe, there 
 was a plain neceffity for a politive and ex- 
 prefs prohibition of their baptifm. But, we 
 fay it again, no fuch prohibition can be 
 found. Here the Scripture is profoundly 
 filent, where one might rationally have ex- 
 pected it to fpeak clearly out -, if Infant- 
 baptifm had not been agreeable to the mind 
 of Cbrifl) and as fuitable to the nature of the 
 Chriftian-inflitution, as Infant-circumcifion 
 was to the Jewifh difpenfation ! Says the 
 great Stilling fleet [k]> " It is an evidence, 
 " that Infants are not to be excluded from 
 " baptifm, becaufe there is no divine law, 
 <c which doth prohibit their admiffion into 
 <c the church by it; for, this is the negative 
 c< of a law ; and if it had been ChrihYs in- 
 " tention to have excluded any from ad- 
 " miffion into the church, who were ad- 
 
 " initted 
 
 [/] Heb. ix. 10. 
 
 [i] Irenicum, p. 7, 8. Edit. 2d. 
 
(48 ) 
 • f mittcd before, as Ihfahff were, there muft 
 * ( have been fome pofnive law, whereby 
 •* fuch an intention of Chrift (hould have 
 " been expreffed : For, nothing can make 
 " that unlawful, which was a duty before, 
 w but a direcl and exprefs prohibition from 
 ct the legiflator himfelf, who alone hath 
 u power to refcind, as well as to make 
 * c laws. And therefore Antipedo baptifts 
 * c muft, inftead of requiring a poiitive com- 
 * c mand for baptizing Infants, themfelves 
 <c produce an exprefs prohibition exluding 
 « c them, &c. [/]" To all which add j when 
 Chrift, upon a certain occafion, fpake fo 
 favourably of Infants, and children in arms y 
 as to declare publickly, that of fuch is the 
 kingdom of Go J [m] ; it had been highly pro- 
 per, in order to prevent any miftake upon 
 this head, to forbid the baptifm of Infants, 
 if Infants were not to have been baptized in 
 his church. Therefore, the remark, which 
 hath been made upon that cafe by fome 
 noted writers on the other fide [n], may 
 be ftrongly retorted thus; " ChrifVs intire- 
 " filence about the exclufion of Infants from 
 " baptifm at this time, when he had fuch 
 " an opportunity of fpeaking of it to his 
 
 " difciples, 
 
 [/] See this point well argued by Mr. Baxter. Plain 
 Scripture-proof of Infants church-memberfhip, &V. P. I, 
 ch. 5, &c. 
 
 [m] Mark x. Luk. xviii. ubi fupra. 
 
 [/?] Dr. Gill. Comment in Mat. xix. 14. Rees, an- 
 fwer to Walker, p. 86. 
 
(49) 
 
 « difciples, had it been his will, hath no 
 <c favourable afpect on fuch a practice." 
 But, if the flenei of Chrift upon that oc- 
 cafion difcountenances fuch a practice - y how 
 much more his Jpeech? when he faid, " Suf- 
 c< fir little children to come unto me [o], and 
 " forbid them not : for of fuch is the kingdom 
 <c of heaven : n c that kingdom, which q. d. 
 c you are all expecting under the MeJJiab, 
 c purfuant to the antient prophecies [/>], and 
 c into which kingdom baptifm is to be the 
 c folemn rite of admiffion [q].' 
 
 (3.) After all- we feem to have a plain 
 command for baptizing children^ without any 
 limitation of age. And this command oc- 
 curs, where one might naturally expect it, 
 viz. at the frjl opening of the Cbrijlian dif- 
 penfation on the day of Pentecoft by St. 
 Peter ; who upon that great and folemn oc- 
 cafion delivered, in the audience of a van: 
 afTembly, the following words, amongft 
 others [r]. cc Repent, and be baptized, every 
 <c one of you, in the name oiJeJusChrifl, for 
 " the remiffion of Sins, and ye fhall receive 
 u the Holy Ghoft. For, the promife is unto 
 <£ you, and to your children, and to all that 
 <c are afar off, even as many as the Lord 
 < f our God (hall call/' — ^-" It is obfervable 
 
 [<?] 'EXSstv rrfa pi, i.e. is to be prtfelyted to me. See 
 Joh. iii. 26. And Walker's mocjeft plea, p. 13,---! 5. 
 [p] Daniel ii. 44. vii. 13, \\, &c. 
 [q\ Joh. iii. 3, 5. [r] Aft. ii. 3S, 39- 
 
 G (fays 
 
cc 
 
 <c 
 
 ( 50) 
 
 u (fays a learned, and judicious friend) that 
 " when God made his covenant, or grant of 
 u bleffings, with Abraham^ he made him, 
 u with refpecl: to that covenant, the father 
 <c of many nations [s], even of us, and of as 
 cc many among the nations, who (hould be- 
 <c lieve in Chrift, who were to be juftified, 
 cc or interefted in the bleffings of the cove- 
 " nant ; in the fame manner as Abraham 
 cc was, namely by faith. Thus, the blef- 
 fing of Abraham came on us Gentiles 
 through Jefus Chrift [/], in whom that 
 c( Covenant, or Deed of gift was eftablifli- 
 ** ed, when made with Abraham [1;]. And 
 cc it is certain from St. Paul's reafoning in 
 the third chapter to the Galatians, that the 
 Gofpel-covenant, which cur Lord came 
 into the world to publifh and explain in 
 it's extenfive grace, was no other than 
 the Covenant with Abraham , which was 
 originally eftablifhed in Chrift. Therefore 
 our Lord, when he gave his full and final 
 commiffion to his Apoftles [w], Go ye 
 and teach, or difciple, all nations, bap- 
 tizing them, &c. plainly commands them 
 to publifh the Abrahamic Covenant, which 
 alone included ail nations y and to baptize 
 according to the tenor, rule and conftitu- 
 tion of that, which exprefsly takes in 
 
 " Abraham 
 
 \i\ Gen. xvii. 4. Rom. iv. 16, 17. 
 
 [/] Gal. iii. 14. \y\ Ibid. ver. 17, 
 
 fav] Mat. xxviii. 19, 
 
 cc 
 
( Ji ) 
 
 KC Abraham and his children in the line of 
 c< ele&ion 5 or which defcended from him 
 <c by his fon Ifaac, or under the Golpel be- 
 " came his children by faith in Chrift [#]. 
 " And that our Lord intended baptifm 
 <c fhould be adminhh-cd according to this 
 <c particular conftitution of the Covenant, 
 " I will be a God to thee, and to thy feed after 
 " thee, (which certainly included the chil- 
 <c dren of thofe who mould betaken into the 
 cc Covenant,) appears from what the Holy 
 u Ghoji in St. Peter faith, at the admini- 
 C| ftration of the ordinance to the firfl chri- 
 w ftian converts [y~\. Repent, and be baptized 
 u every one of you, &c. For the promife ts 
 c ' imto you, arid to your children, and to all 
 " that are afar off, even as many as the Lord 
 « our Godjhall call." How narrow and im- 
 €i perfect foever St. Peters notions might be 
 " (at prefent) concerning the calling of the 
 " Gentiles, or nations, it is certain, that 
 u according to the fenfe of the Spirit, who 
 cc fpake by him, by thofe that are afar off, 
 u is meant the nations or Gentiles, whom 
 * God fhould call into his church or king- 
 " dom under the Mefjiah. Therefore the 
 " promife, both here, and in Joel referred 
 « to by St. Peter [z], is plainly by this cha- 
 " racier afcertained to be the Abrahamic 
 " covenant, or promife, and the Apoftle in 
 G 2 " the 
 
 [*] Gal. iii. 29. \j\ Aft. ii. 38, 39. 
 
 [3] Joel. ii. 28,-32. Aft. ii. 16, &c. 
 
(52 ) 
 
 <c the Spirit, with the greateft juftnefs and 
 c< propriety, exhorts every one of them, even 
 " them and their children, to be baptized, ac- 
 c< cording to the conftitution of that promife 
 <c or covenant. And thus it appears, that 
 cc our Lord did commiflion his difciples, 
 " both to preach and baptize according to 
 <c the conftitution of the Abrahamic cove- 
 " nant ; becaufe at the fir ft folemn open- 
 u ing of the church of God to the firft 
 ct Chrijiian converts, the Holy Ghofi did di- 
 cc red; them fo to preach, and fo to bap- 
 " tize. ,, 
 
 Now, if we view the matter in this light; 
 one may clearly difcern the meaning and 
 connexion of St. Peters words, when he 
 faith, " Te fiall receive the Holy Ghoji : For 
 " the promife is unto you, and to your children, 
 cc &c." For, the gift of the HolyGhoJl was 
 a feal of their adoption into God's church 
 and family under the chriftian difpenfation 
 [a], and fo a plain fign or token, that the 
 promife of Gofpel-blefiings belonged to them. 
 And thus, becaufe the promife was to them 
 and to their children ; therefore, as an evi- 
 dence thereof, they fhould receive the Holy 
 Ghoji. — But this text will bear a more criti- 
 cal examination. Let it then be obferved. 
 (i.) In this claufe, " Repent and be baptized 
 ** every one of you" There is a remarkable 
 
 change 
 
 [a] Rom. viii. 15. Eph. i. 13, 14. 
 
( 53 ) 
 
 change of number and perfon in the original 
 [b], which literally runs thus, <£ Repent 
 <c ye, and let every one of (or among) you be 
 <c baptized." So that this command con- 
 cerning baptifm agrees in form with the 
 command that was given about circum- 
 cifion. There the command was [c], Every 
 male among you Jhall be circumctfed. And 
 here the commmand is, Let every one of, or 
 among, you (/. e. you and all your's with- 
 out diftinction of fex, or age) be baptized. 
 This construction of the Apoftle's words 
 agrees to what follows. " For the promife 
 " is unto you, and to your children, &c." For, 
 where was the pertinency or propriety of 
 naming their children in the reafon of the 
 command, if the command itfelf had no im- 
 mediate reference to their children ? (though 
 * the command was not directed to the 
 children, but to the parents in relation to 
 
 their 
 
 [^] \lZTa.vo')<JaJ7*, Aai fioc7rt<&r<~ej ZKetso<; Z[J.ecv. 
 
 [f] Gen. xvii. 10. UzptTy.ri-d-ria'irat Cy.ccv vrc/.v J.paw.cv. 
 N. B. The difference of the two phrafes. C/xccv 7ruv, and 
 zkoctos vy.av, is not material, as aclg and 'inx^oi are fcvcral 
 times joined together, vid. 2 Chron. xxiii. 10. 
 
 * Note : There is no impropriety in the notion of chil- 
 dren being fubjecls of a pofitive rite, without being fubje&s 
 of a pofitive command enjoining it, as we fee in the cafe of 
 circumcifion. And if it became the Jews, who pra&ifed In- 
 fant-circumcifion, to fulfil all right 'eufnefs ; the like obligation 
 upon Chriftians may very well comport with the practice 
 of {nfant-baptifm. Nor can that obligation be urged, as 
 an argument to the contrary, without taking the thing for 
 granted, which ought to be proved, viz, that Chriilian- 
 
 baptifm 
 
( 54) 
 
 their children, as well as to themfelves ; in 
 anfvver to that queflion [d], What Jh all we 
 do? Which, by the way, naturally accounts 
 for the varied manner of the Apoftle's ex- 
 preffion taken notice of before). (2.) Thefe 
 words, u And to all that are afar off, even as 
 u many as the Lord our God Jhall call, " evi- 
 dently refer to the Gentiles, or Heathens [e] ; 
 without excluding their children : for, it is 
 agreeable to the fcripture ftile to fpeak of 
 children as called, when the call is dire&ly 
 given to their parents, to thofe that bring 
 them, or have the command over them[/']. 
 But then, St. Peter himfelf can hardly be 
 fuppofed to have any reference here to the 
 general calling of the Gentiles : for it feems, 
 that this my fiery had not yet been revealed 
 to him [g] : though the words of the pro- 
 phet, 
 
 baptifm is defigned only for the Adult : a point, which can- 
 not be proved from the nature, or peculiar fignif cation of 
 baptifm, as a fymbolical rite. For, circumcifion had a 
 peculiar fignification, as it was a token of the covenant: and 
 yet the Jewifh infants knew nothing of the matter, much 
 lefs could they profefs any knov/ledge, or faith, about it; 
 though others did in applying that rite to them. In fhort, 
 if any primary ends of baptifm are not anfwered in the 
 baptifm of infants ; even this is no valid objection againft 
 it. For fome primary ends of John's baptifm were not 
 answered in the baptifm of Chrift : and yet baptifm was 
 rightly adminiftred to him. By th?s the reader may judge 
 of the weight of Mr. Burroughs's argument. See Two Dij- 
 courjes relating to pofitive hiflitutiom, and the Defence, 
 
 [d] Aft. ii. 37. 0] Eph. ii. 13, 17. 
 
 [/] Mat. ii. 13,-15, Luk. xviii. 16. Vid. Beza. 
 in loc. 
 
 [g] See Act. Chap. 10. Pearfon. leftiones in Aft. 
 Apoft. p. 33. 
 
( 55) 
 phet, Joel, to which he alludes, are thought 
 to look that way. Therefore, it is humbly 
 offered to consideration, whether, in this 
 laft claufe, the Apoftle had not a direct 
 view to thofe Gentile fervent s, which were 
 incorporated into Jewifh families according 
 to the law [A]. This notion fcems to be 
 favoured by his manner of quoting the 
 words of Joel, where, together with Sons 
 and Daughters, mention is made of Servants 
 and hand-maidens [i] : And if allowed, we 
 have here a plain command, given at the 
 firft foundation of the chriftian-church, to 
 believing parents and heads of families, to 
 get all the members of their houfe without 
 diftin&ion baptized, in like manner as Abra- 
 ham was commanded to have all the males 
 of his houfe. of a certain age, cirenmcifed at 
 once [k]. Thus, the words of St. Peter be- 
 fore us, w 7 ill admit of this eafy paraphrafe, 
 " Repent ye, and let every one among you 
 c£ be baptized without delay, &c. For, the 
 - fc promife is unto you, therefore be ye bap- 
 " tized ; and to your children, therefore let 
 " them be baptized along with you ; and to 
 " all that are afar off, even as many as the 
 " Lord our God {hall call amongft the 
 ci Heathens, therefore let your Gentile fer- 
 <c vants alio be baptized." The words view- 
 ed in this light appear with the greateft pro- 
 priety, 
 
 [/&] Levit. xxv. 44. [/] Ad, ii. 1;, 18. 
 
 [k] Gen. xvii. 12, 27. 
 
( 56) 
 priety and force; and at the fame time 
 difcover the ground of the fubfequent 
 practice of the Apoftles in baptizing whole 
 houfehclds. 
 
 But, as fome writers fuppofe, that the 
 prcmife mentioned by St. Peter is the pro- 
 mife of the Holy Ghojl himfelf; which, they 
 think, invalidates the argument for Infant- 
 baptifm from this text : we will therefore 
 argue the point with them upon their own 
 
 fuppofition. Now, fc When it is faid, 
 
 " you Jhall receive the Holy Gbofl, 'tis not in- 
 <c tended, that every one of diem, upon their 
 cc baptifm, (hould be endued with the ex- 
 c< traordinary gifts of tongues and prophecy, 
 cc — But the meaning of St. Peter is, that 
 £t he fhould fall upon fome of all ranks of 
 cc them, according to the true purport of 
 < c the words of Joel:" fays Dr. Whitby. 
 And if he had attended to the force of his 
 own obfervation, the following note might 
 have been i pared, viz. " That thefe words 
 " will not prove the right of infants to re- 
 " ceive baptifm [/]. For, it follows from 
 his own remark, that fome perfcns might 
 have a right to receive baptifm, and yet not 
 receive the extraordinary gifts. If Infants 
 therefore did not receive the faid gifts, which 
 is the ground of the objection, they might 
 neverthelefs have a right to receive baptifm. 
 And, as thofe divine gifts were not ordinarily 
 
 conferred 
 
 [/] See Whitby, Comment, in loc. 
 
( 57 ) 
 conferred before baptifm ; as they were a 
 free donation, given to fome, and not to 
 others ; ( e. g. fome parents, ibme children, 
 &c.) and as the command for baptifm is 
 itniverfal, " Let every one of you be bap- 
 <c tized;" fo the reafon given to enforce this 
 command, cc for the promife is unto you, and 
 cc to your children, &;c." feems plainly to 
 prove the right of children indefinitely, that 
 is, children of any age, and confequently 
 Infants, to receive baptifm. For, where 
 none are excluded, all muft be included, 
 and fo vice verjd. And, as the parents could 
 not tell, wA/VA of them, or of their children, 
 fhould receive the Holy Ghojl -, or in what 
 degree they mould receive it -, or at what 
 particular time, whether immediately, upon 
 their baptifm, or fome time after it : So, 
 they had here an expref9 order and direction 
 to lay themf elves and all theirs in the way of 
 the promifed bleffing, by being baptized 
 with the baptifm of Chrifi. Had it not 
 been high prefumption in them to limit 
 the mofl High by making any diflindion 
 in their children on account of age? efpecially 
 confidering the promife that was given with 
 relation to John Baptijl, viz. that he Jhould 
 be filled with the Holy Ghofi from his mother s 
 womb{ni~]. Language, which, doubtlefs, his 
 father, Zacharias, to whom it was fpoken, 
 very well underftood. Seeing then the Jews 
 H had 
 
 [m\ Luk. i. 15* 
 
( 5§ ) 
 had a notion of perfons being filled with the 
 Holy Ghojiy even from their mother's womb, 
 they could have no ground to queftion their 
 Infants right to baptifm, from any fafpicion, 
 that the promife of the Holy Ghoji did in no 
 wife extend unto them, becaufe they were 
 Infants. Befidcs, though the promife of the 
 Holy Ghojl in it's full extent comprehended 
 the extraordinary gifts ; what neceffity is 
 there iot confining that promife to thefe gifts, 
 the Antipado-bapiifis themfelves being judges. 
 For, when any of them pray over the bap- 
 tized perfon, that he may receive the Holy 
 Ghq/l, as fome of them are fuppofed to do 
 upon the foot of this very promife, furely 
 they do not expect him to receive the extra- 
 ordinary gifts of tongues and prophecy ! 
 
 After all ; it may poffibly remain a diffi- 
 culty with fome perfons, how the words of 
 St. Peter , " Let every one of you be bap- 
 " tized in the name of Jefus Chrift for the 
 cc reinijjion of fins, can be applicable to the 
 <c cafe of Infants." It may be faid upon this 
 occafion, why Jhould the innocent age make 
 fuch hafle to the remifjion of fins ? In anfwer 
 to which let it be obferved. (i.) As tha 
 baptifm of water is a fymbolical reprefenta- 
 tion of wafking away Jin [n] ; fo, that im- 
 precation of the Jews [0], his Bloud be on us, 
 and on our children (meaning, no doubt, all 
 their children, old and young) difcovers a 
 
 fignificant 
 [;/] Aft. xxii. 16. [0] Mat, xxvii. 25. 
 
( 59 ) 
 
 fignificant propriety in the Apofile's exhort- 
 ing thefe Crucifiers of Chrift \p] y to repent 
 themfehes, and to get both them and their 
 children baptized for the remiffion of fins. 
 Accordingly, Mr. Tombes, that learned and 
 zealous Antipcedo-baptiff, fuppofcd (q), that 
 St. Peter might have an eye, in this place, 
 to that horrid imprecation. (2.) Befides this 
 confideration peculiar to the Jews, there is 
 another ground and reafon of the thing, 
 common both to Jews and Gentiles. For, 
 if all mankind, as defcended from Adam by 
 ordinary generation, are reputed Sinner s y at 
 leaft as being fubject to death, the penalty of 
 fin (r), (and as Job fays (s), who can bring 
 a clean thing out of an unclean) then muft 
 Infants alfo be considered under this charac- 
 ter. Therefore, fince Chrift is the fecond 
 Adam, and the Redeemer of a loft world ; 
 it feems no ways improper, but rather very 
 fit and congruous, that Infants mould be 
 baptized with Cbri/t's baptifm for the re- 
 miffion of fin : in token that, " as by one 
 <£ man's difobedience many were made fin- 
 " ners ; fo by the obedience of one fhould 
 <c many be made righteous (t) : and that, 
 <c as in Adam all die 5 fo in Chrift (hall all 
 (c be made alive (v) " Hence that remark 
 of Cyprian (w)> ft If remiffion of fins be 
 
 " granted 
 
 [p] A£fc. ii. 36, 37. [q\ Examen p. 60. [/•] Rom. v. 
 I *,'&*. [s] Job., xiv 4. {/jKom. v. 19. [<v] i Corinth. 
 xv. 22. V.id. Limborch. Theol. Ch. lib. [5. cap. 68. 
 Sec. 23. [w] Ep. ad Fidum. 
 
<< 
 
 ( 60 ) 
 
 granted to thefe mod heinous offenders, 
 who have long ago finned againft G d • 
 and if none of them be denied accefs to 
 the grace of baptifm ; how much lefs 
 reafon is there for denying it to Infants ? 
 who being but newly born can be guilty 
 <c of no fin, except that being derived from 
 li Mam, according to the fle£h, their birth 
 c< hath communicated to them the infection 
 " and punifhment of his offence; who 
 £C therefore are the more eafily admitted 
 " to the pardon of their fin, becaufe it is 
 " not fo properly their ewm t as another sT 
 
 Upon the whole then, it fcems very plain 
 to us, that the words of St. Peter under 
 consideration, exhibit a proper command to 
 chriftian believers to get all the members of 
 their refpective families, and particularly, moft 
 exprefsly their children, together with them- 
 felves, baptized. And the true meaning of 
 this command, like that of any other law, 
 rauft be fixed by the proper fignification of 
 the terms, in which it is conceived and ex- 
 prefled, without any dependence upon what 
 follows in the facred hiftory. For, if not a 
 finglc perfon had been baptized on that oc- 
 cafion, this would not have altered the fen fe, 
 or deftroyed the authority of the command. 
 However, there is nothing in the context, 
 that in the leaft militates with the given 
 fenfe of the Apoftle's words. For, as this 
 was the Jirjl opening of the Chriftian dif- 
 
 penfation, 
 
( 6i ) 
 
 penfatton, and fo the fir ft adminift ration of 
 Chriftian haptifm; it was of courfe to be ad- 
 miniffred firit of all to Chriftian believers. 
 But this could be no impediment, it was in- 
 deed a neceffary leading Hep, to the baptizing 
 of their houfebohh ; becaufe, no perfons could 
 regularly have their families baptized, with- 
 out being fir ft baptized themfeives, in confe- 
 q lie nee of their receiving the word gladly : ac- 
 cording to what is faid of the firft converts \x\ 
 When we read that fuch and fuch perfons 
 believed, and wen added to the church [v]. 
 This language is by no means exclusive of 
 their children : fer, it is no more than what 
 might be laid of any Jewifh Profelytes, when 
 they were received into the Jewifh church, 
 witnout the exclufion of their children from 
 the rite of initiation. Thus, e. g. it is faid of 
 Achior, v He believed in God greatly, and 
 " circumcifed the flefh of his foreskin, and 
 cs was joined to the boufe of Ifrael \z\ " that 
 is, to the church of the Jews. We conclude 
 therefore, that St.Peter hath laid down a plain 
 command for baptizing children without timi- 
 tation of age. And though, as Mr. Stennet 
 remarks [a], " there feems no neceftity to 
 <c rejlrain the term [children] to infants :" 
 there appears to be no nafon for limiting it fo 
 as to exclude infants 5 which is all we contend 
 for [*]. SEC 
 
 [x] A&. ii. 41. [y] vpomiSviffav. ibid. 
 
 [_z) Tp<?<7m£tf its rotf otzov Lj-faiiA. Judith xiv. 10. 
 \a] Anfwer to Rutfen. p. 33. 
 [£] See Cragge's reply to Tombes. p. 208. 
 
( <3* ) 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 The pretence of a virtual Prohibition examined. 
 
 THIS examination we fhall begin with 
 that text which perhaps is the Jirjl, 
 that was ever directly alledged againft the 
 pradlice of baptizing infants by certain per- 
 fons, who lived above a thoufand years after 
 Chrift [c\ ; cc He that believetb, and is bap- 
 " tized y fia!lbefaved;&cc.[d]" From hence 
 it is inferred, that all perfons muft believe 
 before they are baptized ; and therefore in- 
 fants are not to be baptized, becaufe they do 
 not believe. In anfwer to which argument 
 it is replied (i.) Thefe words were fpoken by 
 Chrift to his Apoftles with an immediate view 
 to the firft planting of the Chriftian church, 
 and confequently to the firft adminiftration 
 of Chriftian baptifm to convert Jews and 
 Heathens. For thus the words are introdu- 
 ced ; " Go ye unto all the world \ and preach 
 <c the Gofpel to every creature. He that be- 
 " lievetb and is baptized, JJjall be faved, 6cc." 
 Now, in this cafe it is plain, that adult per- 
 fons of either fort (at leaft thofe, that were 
 /hi juris) were to be firft inftrudted in the 
 
 Chriftian 
 
 [<-] See Dr. Allix. on the Piedmont churches^ p. 14.3. and 
 Wall on the Waldenfes. 
 [0 Markxvi. 16, 
 
( 63 ) 
 
 Chriftian faith, before they were by baptifm 
 received into the Chriftian church. Accord- 
 ingly (2.) we grant that all perfons in the fame 
 circumftances with thofe firft converts ought 
 to believe before they are baptized. Thus, 
 e. g. if a Jew, a Mahommedan, or an Indian 
 fhould now embrace the Chriftian religion, 
 we are not againft his being inftrufied in it, 
 before he is baptized. For, as the thing ap- 
 pears to be rational in itfelf ; fo it is conform- 
 able to the practice of the Jewifh church in 
 making Profelytes [e]. But (3.) the confe- 
 quence is denied with refpect to infants. For, 
 though the Jews inftru&ed new Profelytes in 
 the principles of their religion, before they 
 were admitted to circumcifion, (not to men- 
 tion the baptifm of Profelytes amongft them) 
 yet their children alfo were circumcifed toge- 
 ther with themfelves. In like manner, if 
 new converts to Chriftianity w r ere firft in- 
 {trudted in it before their admiffion to bap- 
 tifm 5 yet, for all that, their children might 
 be baptized along with them : and certain it 
 is, the contrary can never be proved by fuch 
 an argument, as is here alledged. For (4.) 
 the text fays not, all perfons whatever muft 
 believe before they are baptized. On the 
 contrary, if one might argue from the order 
 of words, (w T hich is the way the Antipaedo- 
 baptifts take here) it would follow even from 
 this paflage of Scripture, that infants ought 
 
 by 
 
 [*] See Bi&op Patrick, comment, in Levit. xix. 10. 
 
( H ) 
 
 by all means to be baptized ; as hath been 
 frequently urged by the writers on our 
 fide [f]. For, if from this circumftance, 
 that beheveth is fet before baptized in the or- 
 der of words, it follows, that all perfcns muft 
 believe before they are baptized j by the fame 
 rule all perfons mufl: be baptized before they 
 can be faved : beeaufe baptized is fet before 
 faved in the fame order cf words. Again ; 
 in the latter claufe of the text it is added, 
 * He, that believeth not, pall be damned y 
 And thus, by the words of Chrifl, believing 
 is made as neceflary at leaft to falvation, as 
 it is to baptifm, Therefore, the argument, 
 from this text againfl the baptifm of infants, 
 concludes as ftrongly againfl their falvation; 
 which is reducing it to a plain and {hocking 
 abfurdity. Mr. Rees would evade all this, by 
 asking [g], <c Why they (/. e. infants) may 
 cc not be faved without baptifm ?" A ques- 
 tion little to the purpofe. For, if infants may 
 be faved at all ; why will he and his friends 
 infill upon fuch an argument againfl their 
 baptifm, as would equally conclude againfl 
 their falvation ? 
 
 Again 5 it is pretended [h] that the words of 
 the commijfon [i], " Go ye, and teach all na- 
 
 " tions, 
 
 [/] Marfhall, Serm. on baptizing Inf. p. 45. Wills. 
 anfwer to Danverf. p. 10. W r alker. Modeit Plea, &c. chap, 
 xxiii. fee. 14. 
 
 [#] Anfwer to Walker, p. 36. 
 
 [b] See Gale. Reflexions, &c. Let. j. 
 
 [/] Mat. xxviii. 19, 20. 
 
( (>$ ) 
 
 ci tions, baptizing them, &c." contain a vir- 
 tual prohibition of Infant-baptifm. For, fay 
 they, teaching is fet before baptizing, ergo, 
 &c. And fo indeed it may fecm to an Eng- 
 lijh reader ; but baptizing is fet before teach- 
 ing in the exprefs order of the words accord- 
 ing to the original, which ought to be render- 
 ed thus, " Go ye, and dijciple all nations, 
 " baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
 cc &c. teaching them, &c." Obferve here 
 (i.) The general matter of the commifiion is 
 expreffed by difcipling; which is a compre- 
 henfive term, including both teaching and 
 baptizing, by the confeflion of ibme of our 
 mod learned oppofers [k], (2.) Then fol- 
 lows the particular method of executing this 
 commifiion laid down in two directions, viz. 
 by baptizing, and by teaching, agreeably to 
 the Greek idiom of fpeech [/]. It is plain 
 therefore, that in the exprefs order and feries 
 of the words in the commifiion, teaching is 
 not fet before, but after baptizing. But, 
 fuppofe the contrary were true; this .would 
 prove no more againft Infant baptifm, than 
 the text in St. Mark, already confidered ; a f )d 
 how much that proves againft it, is left to the 
 judgment of common ienfe. 
 
 Again ; St. Paul makes mention of one bap* 
 tifm [m]. Now, by this one baptifm Mr.* 
 
 I Barclay 
 
 [£] Dr. Gill, comment, in Aft. ix. I, 2. 
 
 [/] See PjEdo-baptifm, p. $9, &c. 
 
 [w] Eph. iv. 5. confer. 1 Cor. i. 12 — 15. 
 
( 66 ) 
 
 Barclay under (lands the baptifm of the Spirit, 
 in oppofition to water -baptifm [«]. On the 
 other hand Mr. Keach underftands it of adult - 
 baptifm in exclufion of Infant-baptifmfo]. But 
 both accounts are wide enough of the Apof- 
 tle's meaning. St. Paul is there recommend- 
 ing unity, peace and love to fellow-chrifti- 
 ans. And fo, by one baptifm, he plainly in- 
 tends one moral end and defign of baptifm, 
 as it is a facred rite of dedication to one and 
 the fame religious fervice, the fervice of one 
 common Lord, who is the head of one fpiri- 
 tual fociety. cc One Lord, one faith, one baptifm, 
 <( one God and Father of all, one body, one Spirit, 
 c< one hope, one heaven:" And what! are infants 
 excluded from all thefe? God forbid. — Be- 
 fides ; Chriftian baptifm may be one baptifm, 
 and yet of a complex nature in relation to the 
 fubjecfs of it. For, was not circumcifioji un- 
 der the law one circumcifton, as a rite of dedi- 
 cation, or engagement to the fervice of God 
 [/>] ? And yet it was adminiftred to different 
 fubjedts, particularly to adult-profelytes and 
 their children. 
 
 Again ; St. Paul fays [q], " Henceforth 
 <c know we no man after the fleft> &c." q. d. 
 " I have no regard to any one, according to 
 <l the fiem, &c. for being circumcifed, or a 
 <l Jew [r]." The diftinction of Jew and 
 
 Gentile 
 
 [»] Apology, prop. 12. 
 [0] Anfwer to Owen. p. 241, Sec. 
 [p] Gal. v. 3. [f] ! Cor. v. 16. 
 
 [r] Mr. Locke in log. 
 
( 67 ) 
 
 Gentile was fet afide under the Gofpel, by 
 the wall of partition being removed, and 
 broken down [.<]. Surely thofe perfons arc at 
 a lofs for arguments, who alledge this text as 
 a difproof of Infant- baptifm [/]. Tacitus fays 
 a much flronger thing of the Jewifh Profe- 
 lytes [v] y viz, (c That they were taught to 
 <c dfipife their parents, children, brethren." 
 And would any one conclude from hence,that 
 no infants of Profelytes were circumcifed ? It 
 is abufing the reader's patience to take notice 
 of fuch fimple <ind trifling cavils 3 we (hall 
 therefore only mention one text more, which 
 may feem to be urged with a little better 
 grace. 
 
 St. Peter fays[w], " The like figure where- 
 ic unto baptifm doth alfofave u$ y (not the put- 
 " ting away the filth of tbefifJj, but the an- 
 c< ' fwer of a good conference towards God) by 
 " the refurreflion of Chrift" — Btit infants 
 cannot make this anfwer of a good confeience. 
 Ergo, &c. To which argument it will be 
 fufficient to reply in the words of Dr. Whit- 
 by [x], viz. " That St. Paul alfo fays, that 
 44 the true circumcifion before God is not the 
 " outward circumcifion of the fief:, but the 
 u internal circumcifion of the heart and fpi- 
 " rit [y]. But will any one here argue, 
 I 2 " That 
 
 [/) Rom. x. 12. Eph. ii. 14. Col. iii. 11. 
 
 [/J See Keach. ubi fupra, p. 208. 
 
 fry] Corn. Tacit, hift. lib 5. [w] 1 Pet. iii. 21, 
 
 [*] Comment, in loc. |j] Rom. ii. 29. 
 
( 63 ) 
 
 cc That the Jewi(h infants for want of this 
 <c were not to be admitted into covenant with 
 " God by circumcifion ? And yet the argu- 
 * c ment is plainly parallel: The anfwer of a 
 cc good confeience is required, that the bap- 
 11 tifm may be falutary -, therefore they only 
 Cf are to be baptized, who can make tins an- 
 " fwer : and the inward circumcifion of the 
 <c heart is required, as the only acceptable 
 U circumcifion in the fight of God : therefore 
 •' they only are to be circumcifed, who have 
 c< this inward circumcifion of the heart. The 
 li Jews did not admit profelytes to circumci- 
 V (ion withqut the anfwer of a good confei- 
 " ence ; but they admitted their infants with- 
 li out any fuch thing. Why therefore may 
 " we not allow the Chriftian church in the 
 l< adminifiration of baptifm, to obferve the 
 *' fame cuftom, in admitting the children of 
 then Profelytes to baptifm; as they admitted 
 them to circumcifion and baptifm." — It is 
 plain then, that there is nothing in what St. 
 Peter fays of baptifm, which can amount to 
 a prohibition, or exclufion of baptizing infants 
 in the Chriftian church. For, St. Paul fays 
 the fame thing in effedt of circumcifion ; 
 and yet, it is undeniably certain, that infants 
 were circumcifed in the Jewifh church. 
 
 In relation to what Dr. IVhitby fays of the 
 Jews admitting the children of profelytes to 
 circumcifion and baptifm ; he proceeds upon 
 the notion of Profelyte- baptifm obtaining 
 
 amongft 
 
 << 
 
( C>9 ) 
 
 amongfl: them. But, as learned men arc not 
 agreed in this point, we have laid litde or no 
 ftrefs upon it ; the argument from Profelyte- 
 circumcifion being clear and ftrong enough 
 without it. However, it is pleafant enough 
 to obferve, that fome authors, who very much 
 depreciate the authority of the Jewifh writers 
 upon tins head, fcruple not to make ufe of 
 their authority in deciding any point in their 
 own favour, e. g. about the antient mode of 
 baptifin ; concerning which we (hall offer a 
 few remarks, and fo conclude this argument. 
 Now — that the word, baptize, doth not j/- 
 ways, or neceiTarily fignify, dipping the body 
 all ever -, even Dr. Gale, after all his pains to 
 prove the contrary, was forced to acknow- 
 ledge in as plain terms as he durft. This 
 point hath been fet in a good light by Mr. 
 Perronet [z]. And Dr. Wall brought the 
 matter to a fair iffue in a ihort dialogue be- 
 tween an Antipaedo-baptift, and a church- 
 man [a]. The truth is, much of the time and 
 labour might have been fpared, which hath 
 been fpent in rummaging authors, to fix the 
 original fenfe of the Greek words, (iuTrlta, and 
 @K7rTigu. For the learned Critics know, that 
 ihefirjl and primitive, is not always the true 
 and proper fenfe of words. Becaufe in the 
 flux of language the fignifkation of words al- 
 ters at different times and places, and amongit 
 
 different 
 
 ' [z] Defence of Infant-baptifm, fee. a. 
 [*] Defence, &c. p. 96. 
 
( 7° ) 
 
 different people. And as words are but ar- 
 bitrary figns of ideas, or thoughts j cuftom is 
 the rule to fix their current fenfe. Suppofe 
 then, that the words in queftion primarily, 
 and originally fignified to dtp, or immerfe a 
 body all over ; it follows not, that this is their 
 real and precife meaning in the New Tefta- 
 ment. For, in the time of Chrifl and his 
 Apoftles, thefe words, as being then parts of 
 a living language, might have acquired a 
 more lax and general fignification amongft the 
 Hellenijis, importing to waft), not only by 
 dipping, but other ways. And that this was 
 the cafe in fadt, appears pretty plain from fun- 
 dry paffages in the Greek writers among the 
 Jews. E. g. It is faid of Nebuchadnezzar [b], 
 <c that his body was wet [c] with the dew of 
 <c heaven/' Now, can this mean, that his 
 body was dipped in the dew of heaven ; and 
 not rather that his body was wet with the 
 dew, falling or fprinkled upon it ? — Again : 
 it is related of Judith [</], " that (he went 
 <c out in the night into the valley of Bethulia, 
 ft and wajhedherk\f'[e] in (or at [/]) a foun- 
 c< tain, by (or in [g]) the camp." But the 
 circumftances of the cafe render it very im- 
 probable, that (he (tripped herfelf, and im- 
 merfed her whole body in the water.— 
 
 Again, 
 
 \b] Dan. iv. 33. [c] 'E/fc'pH from $hi\a. 
 
 V] Judith xii. 7. [e] 'E/3a-®Ti£fT©, literally baptised, 
 
 f] 'E<w j t*k iMyuq. See Walker. Do&rine of baptifmsj, 
 chap. 3. 
 
 \g] 'Ep 7? iv&$iyi$iKq. 
 
( 7* ) 
 
 Again, when the Apoftles were baptized with 
 the Holy Ghofl according to Cbrift's pro- 
 mife [h] ; this was not by immerfion, but ef- 
 fufwn. For, upon that occafion, St. Peter 
 told the multitude [/], " Chrijl being by the 
 " right hand of God exalted, and having re- 
 " cehedof the Father the promife of the Holy 
 <c Ghofl, hath fhed forth this [k], which 
 " ye now fee and hear'* This expreflion, 
 bath floed forth, or poured out, this (meaning 
 the Holy Ghoft in its extraordinary gifts) is of 
 more force than Caufabons criticifm in Adt. i. 
 5. upon which more ftrefs is laid than it will 
 bear, to make out fomething like a proper 
 immerfion in the prefent cafe. For (1.) it is 
 not faid, as he underftands it, that the houfe 
 was filled with the Holy Ghofl (which would 
 make the houfe infpired) but that the found, 
 which came from heaven, as of a rufhing 
 mighty wind, filled the houfe [/]. (2.) This 
 found, or noife, filled all the houfe, and not 
 only the particular room where they were 
 fitting. But, were all the people in the 
 houfe baptized with the Holy Ghoft, as 
 well as the Apoftles? (3.) It Jo filled 
 all the hcufe, as to be heard by all that 
 were in it; and fo great was the alarm, as 
 that it occafioned the multitude to come to- 
 gether [w]. Thus then, the Apoftles were 
 
 baptized 
 
 [*] Aa,i. 5. [/] Aft ii. 33. 
 
 [*] 'E?^*2- M Aft.ii. 2. 
 
 M Ver. 6. Vid. Dan, Heinfius. Sacr. Exercit in Ioc. 
 
( 72 ) 
 
 baptized with the Holy Ghcft, not in the way 
 of immerjicn, but of effujion. For, they were 
 not dipped into the Holy Ghoft, but the Ho- 
 ly Ghoft was poured out upon them. — Once 
 more ; we read [«], that a certain Pharifee, 
 who invited Chrift to dine with him, " mar- 
 tc veiled that he bad not firft warned [o] before 
 €i dinner'' Surelv, this wa (bin £ cannot mean 
 immerfing his body all over; as there is no 
 room here to pretend, <£ that Ckrijt was now 
 <c come from market : , or any court of judi- 
 <c cature y which might render it neceffary 
 <c to immerfe himfelf in water according to 
 c< the fuperftition of the Phari fees [/>]." And 
 yet in the original it is the very fame word for 
 wajhed, that is u fed in fpeaking of Chrift be- 
 ing baptized by John. How then dcth it ap- 
 pear, that Chrift himfelf was dipped ? Why, 
 we are told [fj\ " Chrift, when he was bap- 
 u tized by John in the river Jordan, went 
 <£ wd ft rait way out of the water, &c." From 
 whence it is inferred [r], cc that lince it is 
 * c faid, that he came out of the water, he 
 " muft firft have gone down into it; mud 
 c< have been in it, and was baptized in it; a 
 u circumftance Rrongly in favour of baptifm 
 u by immerfion, &c" Doth not this look 
 wonderful plain and clear ? Arid yet, it is all 
 grounded upon a mifiake, and the inaccuracy 
 
 of 
 
 [/;] Luk. ii. 38. M'EjWIl&H, literally, baptized, 
 
 [p] See Dr. Gill. Divine Right of Infant-baptifm exa- 
 mined, &c. p. 96. 
 
 [y] Mat. iii. 16. [r] Dr. Gill, comment, in loc. 
 
( 73 ) 
 
 of our Engli/h verfion. Let us only hear 
 what Mr. Henry fays upon the place; u Chrift 
 u having no fins to confefs went up immedi- 
 " ately out of the water ; fo we render it, but 
 "* not right 5 for, it is d-rro toZ v$*roq, i. e.from 
 u the water i from the brink of the river, to 
 u which he went down to be warned with wa- 
 <c ter, $. e. to have his head, or face wafhed ; 
 " {John xiii. 9 ) for, here is no mention of 
 e< the putting off, or putting on his cloaths, 
 <c which circumdance would not have been 
 <c omitted, if he had been baptized naked [j]. M 
 If this remark on the Greek phrafe is not quite 
 new; it was worth repeating ; for it feems to 
 be a fair Criticifm, and not any wretched 
 fhift, as Mr. Rees is pleafed to call it. But 
 it is really a wretched conjiruclion, which 
 he and others [t] put upon the words of St. 
 
 Mark, 
 
 [s] Mr. Henry's Expofition on Mat. iii. 16. 
 
 [/] Rees. anfwer to Walker, p. 127. Keach. anfwer to 
 Owen, p. 23,320. Plain account of the facred crdin. of bap- 
 tifm, p. 3 1 . Burroughs's two difcourfes on pofuive inflituti- 
 ons, p. 28. This laft named author fays (Defence of two 
 difcourfes, &c. p. 31.) •• If m rov lo^amv does not mean/*- 
 
 " to Jordan, what is the meaning of in to vJ^af, when 
 
 " applied to Philip, and the Eunuch ?" Why, if it mean inf 
 tht water, this will neither determine the meaning of that 
 other phrafe, nor necefTarily conclude for dipping. But, fays 
 he (ib. p. 26.) " There is no accounting for fuch words as 
 " thefe, [going down both into the water, baptizing there, and 
 U then coming up out of the water" A&s viii 38,39.] that is, 
 Vipon any other fuppofition, either of fprinkling or pouriog. 
 And yet, unlefs the word baptize, of itfelf necefTarily means 
 
 K dipping, 
 
( 7\ ) 
 
 Mark \y\ when they make him fay, that 
 John baptized Chrift into Jordan [w]. For, 
 in the fliie of Scripture, this would fignify, 
 that John made him a difciple of Jordan [#].* 
 The proper meaning of the Greek phrafe is at 
 Jordan ; expreffing the place, where John was 
 baptizing [_y], by way ofdiftin&ion from the 
 place, whence Chrift came to be baptized of 
 him. It is the very fame phrafe, that is ufed 
 by the Greek interpreters, where David tells 
 Solomon [z], that Shimei came down to meet 
 
 him 
 
 dipping, (which is denied) thefe mere circumilances of going 
 down into the water, and coming up out of the water, will not 
 prove a dipping in that cafe : for, was Solomon dipped, when 
 they went down with him, \tq iw Twf, to (or be it into) Gihon 9 
 and after anointing him in Gibon, came up from thence, i Kings, 
 i. 38, 45. Nor will thofe circumilances, confidered in con- 
 nexion with the ad of baptizing, fo certainly fix it for immer- 
 fion, as is conceived. For one may eafily conceive, that for 
 want of other conveniences, in that defart place, Philip might 
 go down with the Eunuch into the water to a certain depth, 
 that fo he might the more commodioufly take up water with 
 the hand, and pour it on the Eunuch's head. '* But why did 
 " Philip go down into the water himfelf, and take the Eunuch 
 •' along with him? Why did he not fetch a little water, to 
 " fpr inkle, or to pour upon him ?" To whichitisanfwered. 
 Where could Philip have in fuch a place any <vejfel proper for 
 the purpofe ? Befides, if the Eunuch was dipped, it muft either 
 be naked, or with his clothes on: neither of which feems pro- 
 bable in his prefent circumftances. After all, how will it prove, 
 that dipping was praclifed in all cafes, and particularly, that 
 John in baptizing him, dipped Jefus,even fuppofing thatP^/- 
 lip dipped the Eunuch ? A fuppofition fo precarious, as that up- 
 on a diftindt view of the cafe, Mr. Walker fays, (Doclrine of 
 baptifms, chap. 14. fee. 12.) " What's all the noife of Philiph 
 •'* dipping the Eunuch come to? To nothing elfe but mere 
 • - noife." 
 
 [a/] Mark i. 9. [w] h< T oP Iop/ctW. 
 
 [*] See 1 Cor. x. 2. Gal. iii. 27. 
 
 Ij] Joh.i. 28. [*] 1 Kings ii. 8. 
 
( 75 ) 
 
 him at Jordan[_a] % — As it is only by the by 
 that we here take notice of the mode of bap- 
 tifm ; we (hall not examine all the texts, that 
 are commonly alledged in favour of immer- 
 fion ; but refer the reader to thofe treaties, 
 which have been profefTedly writ upon that 
 fubjecl: \b\ Let it fuffice for the prefent to 
 obferve, that there is hardly a ftronger paffage 
 to be found, than thofe words of St. Paul[c\ 
 « We are buried with him by baptifm into 
 M death, &c." And yet fays an ingenious 
 writer, " I queftion whether we can certain- 
 <c ly from this paffage infer the outward mode 
 Cc of adminiftring baptifm. For, in the next 
 <c verfe, our being incorporated into Chrijl 
 u by baptifm is alfo denoted by our being 
 <c planted, or rather grafted together in the 
 <c likenefs of his death: and Noah's ark, float- 
 <c ing upon the water, is a figure correfpond- 
 " ing to baptifm, i. Pet. iii. 20, 21. But 
 " neither of thefe give us the fame idea of 
 " the outward form, as burying [</]." But, 
 fuppofe it were proper to preferve fome ana- 
 logy between the mode of baptifm, and that 
 of a burial \ it (hould be confidered, that the 
 K 2 modes 
 
 [a] x*r£0if— «i« rov IopAtw. By this expreflion we fee, 
 that Chrill might go down to Jordan, and fo come up from Jor- 
 dan after he was baptized by John at Jordan ; and yet never 
 have been fo much as in Jordan. 
 
 [£] See Plunging, a fubjeft of bigotry, when made efieptial, 
 &c. Dipping not the only Scripture and primitive mode, &c. 
 
 [<■] Rom. vi. 4 . [0 Taylor in loc. 
 
( 76 ) 
 
 modes of burial differ in different countries 5 
 and fo would require different modes of bap- 
 tifm to reprefent and exprefs them truly. 
 Confequently, no one particular mode could 
 be proper in all cafes. And thus the very 
 argument, which is commonly urged for the 
 univerfal propriety and even neceffity of im- 
 mer/ion, proves quite the contrary . — In (hort, 
 from the examples already produced, (to 
 which more might be added [e] y the word 
 baptifm appears to have acquired in common 
 ufe among the Hellenijls, fo large and gene- 
 ral a fcpfc, as to comprehend other modes 
 and ways of warning, befides that of immer- 
 fion. Hence Origen calls pouring water upon 
 the icoody baptizing it [/]. Therefore the 
 command to baptize fcems to be only a com- 
 mand to wajh, without prefcribing the parti- 
 cular mode [o]. And therefore, as no one 
 particular mode can be neceflary, exclujive of 
 another -, fo, different modes of baptifm 
 might be ufed from the beginning. We are 
 not pleafed to find any grave authors fpeak 
 lightly of baptifm by immerfion : for this 
 might be one mode of baptizing amongft the 
 ancients. Eut yet, fuppofing it to be fo, this 
 
 is 
 
 [e] Sec Walker. Do&rine of baptifms, chap 4 6. 
 
 [/] See 1 King, xviii. 33. Wall's Defence, Appendix, 
 p. 19. 
 
 [g] The Hebrew word, Tabal, and the Syriac, Amad, 
 are obferved to admit the fame large conftru&ion. See Wal- 
 ker, ubi fupra, ch. 7. 
 
( 77 ) 
 
 is no proof, that it was anciently the only 
 mode. Let immerfion then be allowed, but 
 not abfolutely required : it fhould neither be 
 defpifed nor idolized^ in our humble opini- 
 on. Since baptifm doth not fave by the 
 wafhing, ox putting away the filth of the flejh 
 \h\ is there not danger of over-doing here, 
 by laying fo much ftrefs upon the external 
 mode of adminiftration, as borders too near 
 upon fuperftition? In a word, if the falutary 
 nature of baptifm confifts not in the out- 
 ward rite itfelf, how much lefs in the par- 
 ticular mode ! 
 
 [£] i Pet. iii. 2t. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
BOOKS 
 
 PRINTED FOR 
 
 y. WAUGH and W. F E N N E R, 
 
 At the Turk's-Head, in Lombard-Street. 
 
 rp TT T> 
 
 BAPTISM of INFANTS 
 
 A Reasonable Service; 
 Founded upon Scripture, and undoubted 
 
 Apostolic Tradition: 
 
 In which its moral Purpofes and Ufe in Religion are fhewn. 
 
 Price Eight Pence. 
 
 DIPPING: 
 
 Not the only Scriptural and Primitive 
 
 Manner of Baptizing. 
 
 And fuppofing it were, yet a ftricl: Adherence 
 
 not obligatory on us. 
 
 Price Six-pence. 
 
 PiEDO- BAPTISM: 
 
 Or, A Defence of Infant- baptifm in Point 
 of Antiquity. 
 Againft the Exceptions of Dr. John Gill, 
 
 and others. 
 Price One Shilling. 
 
 PiEDO-BAPTISM DEFENDED: 
 
 Or, The Antiquity of Infant-baptifm further 
 
 maintained. 
 
 In Anfwer to Dr. Gill's Reply, entitled, Antipsedo- 
 
 baptifm, &c 
 
 Prick One Shilling. 
 
ma /fix 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 WM '■■"■:■'} 
 
 
 
 pT5" 
 
 4 
 
 > 
 
 w 
 
 is 
 
 3&S"