believers, and very proper subjects of baptifm. Stephanas is by fome thought to be the fame with the Jailor; but if he was another perfon, it is plain his houshold confifted of adult perfons, men called by grace, and who were made ufe of in public work; they were the firft-fruits of Achaia, and addicted themfelves to the miniftry of the faints *. The fixteenth argument is: "None that truly fear God, can feriously and with "certainty fay, that there were not many infants among the three thousand "baptized by the apoftles at once; for the Jews were not content with any "ordinances without having their children with them. The apoftle directs "those who were at age to repent, but he commands every one of them to be "baptized, and objects nothing against their children; becaufe, as he says, "the promise was unto them and their children alfo; and this is a plain com"mand for infant-baptifm to all that will judge impartially." But, 1. A man that carefully reads the account of the baptifm of the three thoufand, having the fear of God before his eyes, may with the greatest seriousness and ftrongest afsurance affirm, not only that there were not many infants, but that there were not one infant among the three thoufand baptized by the apostles; for they were all of them fuch as were pricked to the heart, and cried out, Men and brethren what shall we do? they gladly received the word of the gospel, joined to the church, and continued ftedfastly in the apostles doctrine, in fellowship, and in breaking of bread and prayer; all which cannot be faid of infants. 2. What this author fuggefts, agreeable to what he elsewhere fays, that the Jews were not pleased with any ordinance unless they had their children with them, is without foundation; what difcontent did they ever fhew at a part of their children being left out of the ordinance of circumcifion, and no other appointed for them in lieu of it? And had they been difcontented, what argument can be formed from it? 3. The diftinction between thofe that were of age, whom the apostle directed to repent, and the every one of them whom he commanded to be bap-. tized, has no ground nor reafon for it, yea is quite ftupid and fenfeless; and even, according to this writer himself, is a diftinction without any difference, fince the every one to be baptized are fuppofed by him to have children, and fo to be at age; fince he adds, "and objects nothing against their children." And a clear cafe it is, that the felf-fame perfons that were exhorted to be baptized, were exhorted to repent, and that as previous to their baptism; and therefore must be adult perfons, for infants are not capable of repentance, and of giving evidence of it. 4. Those words, the promife is unto you and to your children, are fo far from being a plain command for infant-baptifm, that there is not a word of baptifm in them, and much lefs of infant-baptifm; nor do they regard infants, but the pofterity of the Jews, who are often called children, though grown As xvi. 32-34. 1 Cor. xvi. 15. Let this be obferved, in answer to what the author of The baptifm of Infants a reafonable Service, &c. has advanced in p. 43. BAPTISM. grown up, to whom the promife of the Meffiah, and remiffion of fins by him, and the pouring out of the holy Ghoft, was made; and are spoken for the encouragement of adult perfons only, to repent and be baptized; and belong only to fuch as are called by grace, and to all fuch, whether Jews or Gentiles. The feventeenth argument is; "The feed of believers fhould be baptized, be"caufe the privileges and bleffings which are fignified and fealed in baptism are neceffary to their falvation, and there is no falvation without them; namely, "an intereft in the covenant of grace, the remiffion of original fin, union with "Chrift, fan&tification of the holy Spirit, and regeneration, without which "none can be faved." The answer to which is, 1. That the things indeed mentioned are neceffary to falvation, and there can be none without them; but then baptifm is not neceffary to the enjoyment of these things, nor to falvation; a person may have an intereft in thefe bleffings, and be saved, though not bap→ tized; these are things neceffary to baptifm, but baptifm is not neceffary to them; and indeed a perfon ought to have an interest in these, and appear to have one, before he is baptized. Wherefore, 2. These things are not fignified in baptifm, and much lefs fealed by it; other things, fuch as the fufferings, death, and the refurrection of Chrift, are fignified in it; thefe, as regeneration, &c. are prerequifites unto baptifm, and are not communicated by it, or sealed up to perfons in it, who may be baptized, and yet have no fhare and lot in this matter, witness the cafe of Simon Magus. 66 The eighteenth argument is: "The children of the faithful ought to be bap"tized, because this lays them under strong obligation to fhun the works of Satan; and many have received much benefit from hence in their youth. Comfortable symptoms, or figns of a work of grace, have appeared very early in " several, though perhaps bad company has afterwards corrupted them. Besides "infant-baptifin keeps up a general profeffion of faith and religion, and makes "the word and means of grace of more virtue and efficacy, than if men had "utterly renounced chriftianity, and declared themselves infidels; and further, it lays a powerful obligation on their parents and others, to teach them their 66 duty, which is a main end of all the ordinances God has inftituted "." But, I. Is there nothing befides baptifm, that can lay persons under ftrong obligation to fhun the works of the Devil? certainly there are many things: if fo, then it is not abfolutely neceffary on this account; befides, though the baptifm of adult perfons does lay them under obligation to walk in newness of life", yet the baptifm of infants can lay them under no fuch obligation as infants, and while they are fuch, because they are not confcious of it, nor can it take any fuch effect upon them. 2. What that much benefit or advantage is, that many have t • John iii. 5. Pfalm lxxviii. 5, 6. Rom. vi. 4. have received from infant-baptism, I am at a lofs to know, and even what is intended by this writer, unless it be what follows, that figns of a work of grace have appeared very early in several, which may be, and yet not to be ascribed to baptifm; baptifm has no fuch virtue and influence, as to produce a work of grace in the foul, or any signs of it; befides, a work of grace has appeared very early in feveral, and has been carried on in them, who have never been baptized at all. 3. Infant-baptifm keeps up no public or general profeffion of faith or religion, fince there is no profeffion of faith and religion made in it by the perfon baptized; nor is it of any avail to make the word and means of grace powerful and efficacious, which only become fo by the Spirit and grace of God; and a wide difference there is between the difufe of infantbaptism, and renouncing chriftianity, and profeffing 'infidelity; these things are not neceffarily connected together, nor do they go together; persons may deny and disuse infant-baptism, as it is well known many do, and yet not renounce the chriftian faith, and declare themselves infidels. 4. Parents and others, without infant-baptism, are under strong obligations to teach children their duty to God and men, and therefore it is not neceffary on that account. The nineteenth argument is; "The feed of believers are to be baptizea, "though they have not actual faith, fince Chrift speaks not of these but of "adult perfons, Mark xvi. 16. And certain it is they have as much fitness "for baptifm as for juftification and eternal life, without which they must all perish; the Spirit of God knows how to work this fitness in them, as well "as in grown perfons: Jeremiah, John the Bapitft, and several others, were "fanctified from their mother's womb." To which may be returned for anfwer, 1. That if the text in Mark xvi. 16. speaks not of infants, but of adult perfons only, as it certainly does, I hope it will be allowed to be an inftruction and direction for the baptifm of adult believers, and to be a fufficient warrant for our practice. 2. If the infants of believers have no more fitnefs for baptism than they have for justification and eternal life, they have none at all, fince they are by nature children of wrath, even as others; and therefore can have none, but what is given them by the Spirit and grace of God. 3. We difpute not the power of the Spirit of God, or what he is able to do by the operations of his grace upon the fouls of infants; we deny not but that he can and may work a work of grace upon their hearts, and clothe them with the righteousness of Chrift, and fo give them both a right and meetness for eternal life; but then this should appear previous to baptifm; actual faith itself is not fufficient for baptifm, without a profeffion of it; the man that has it ought to declare it to the fatisfaction of the adminiftrator, ere he admits him to the ordinance. 4. Of the several children John iii. 8, 9. Eccles. xi. 5. Luke i. 15, 44. Jer. i. 5. Ifai. xliv. 3. Pfal. viii. 2. . viii. 36, 37. children said to be fanctified from their mother's womb, no proof is given but of one, John the Baptift, who was filled with the holy Ghoft from thence, which has been confidered in the answer to the fourteenth argument; as for Jeremiah, it is only faid of him that he was fanctified, that is, fet apart, defigned and ordained, in the purpose and counfel of God to be a prophet, before he was born; and is no proof of internal fanctification so early. Ifaiah xliv. 3. fpeaks of the Spirit fo of God being poured down, not upon the carnal feed of believers, but upon the Spiritual feed of the church; and Psalm viii. 2. is a prophecy, not of new-born infants, but of children grown up, crying Hofanna in the temple: no argument from a particular instance or two, were there more than there are, is of avail for the fanctification of infants in general; it should be proved, that all the infantfeed of believers are fanctified by the Spirit of God; for if fome only, and not all, how shall it be known who they are? let it first appear that they are fanctified, and then it will be time enough to baptize them. To The twentieth argument is; "The children of believers are to be baptized, "because their right to the covenant and church of God is established from "the first, much clearer than several other necessary ordinances; there is no express command nor example of womens receiving the Lord's fupper; no particular command in the New Teftament for family-worship, and for the "observation of the first day of the week as a fabbath; and yet none dare call "them in question; and there is no objection against infant-baptism, but the "like might formerly have been made against circumcifion; and may now "be objected against many other ordinances and commands of God." which I reply, 1. That with respect to womens receiving the Lord's fupper, it is certain, that not only they were admitted to baptifm, and became members of churches, but there is an express command for their receiving the Lord's fupper in 1 Cor. xi. 29. where a word is used of the common gender, and includes both men and women; who are both one in Christ, and in a gospel churchstate, and have a right to the fame ordinances. 2. As to family-worship, that is not peculiar to the New Testament-dispensation, as baptism is; it was common to the faints in all ages, and therefore needed no exprefs command for it under the New; though what else but an express command for it is Ephefians vi. 4 for can children be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, without family-worship? 3. As to the observation of the first day, though there is no exprefs command for it, there are precedents of it; there are instances of keeping it now, let like inftances and examples of infant-baptifm be produced if they can: though no exprefs command can be pointed at, yet if any precedent or example of any one infant being baptized by John, or Chrift, or his apoftles, can be given, we fhould think ourselves. obliged to follow it. 4. That the fame objections might be made against circumcifion formerly, as now against infant-baptifm, is most notoriously false; it is objected, and that upon a good foundation, that there is neither precept nor precedent for infant-baptifm in all the word of God; the fame could never be objected against circumcifion, fince there was fuch an exprefs command of it to Abraham, Genefis xvii. and fo many inftances of it are in the facred writings; let the fame be fhewn for infant-baptism, and we have done. 5. What the other ordinances and commands of God are, to which the fame objections may be made as to infant-baptism, is not said, and therefore no reply can be made. I have nothing more to do, than to take fome little notice of what this writer fays, concerning the mode of administering the ordinance of baptifm, p. 33. We are no more fond of contentions and ftrifes about words, than this author, and those of the fame way of thinking with himself can be; but surely, modeftly to inquire into, and attempt to fix the true manner of adminiftering an ordinance of Chrift, according to the fcriptures, and the inftances of it; according to the fignification of the words used to express it, andagreeable to the end and defign of it; can never be looked upon as a piece of impertinence, or be traduced as cavil and wrangling. And, ift, Since this writer obferves, that he does not find that either the facred fcripture or the church of England, have expressly determined, whether baptifm is to be performed by plunging or sprinkling, but have left the one and the other indifferently to our choice; 1 hope he will not be displeased, that we choose the former, as most agreeable to the facred writings, and the examples of baptifm in them; as those of our Lord and others in Jordan; and in Ænon, where John was baptizing, because there was much water'; and of the Eunuch; and as best representing the death, burial, and refurrection of Chrift: as well as best suits with the primary sense of the Greek word, Barril, which fignifies to plunge or dip. And, 2dly, Since, according to this writer, one mode is not more effential to the ordinance than another, but a reverential receiving of the fign; it may be asked, what of this nature, namely, a reverential receiving of the fign, the application of the water to the body, fignifying the fpiritual application of Chrift and his gifts Matt. iii. 6, 16. f John iii. 23. A&s viii. 36-38. |