baptized, as well as their carnal iffue; and have as good a right to it, furely, as they who have their holiness from them, and which even depends upon the fanctification of the unbelieving parent. I am able to prove, from innumerable inftances in Jewish writings, that the words fanctify and fanctified, are used for efpouse and efpoufed, and the apoftle, being a Jew, adopts the fame language; and let men wriggle and wrangle as long as they can, no other fense can be put upon the words, than of a legitimate marriage and offspring; nothing else will fuit with the cafe propofed to the apostle, and with his anfwer and reasoning about it; and which fenfe has been allowed by many learned Pædobaptifts; and I cannot forbear tranfcribing, what I have elsewhere done, the honeft confeffion of Mufculus: "Formerly, fays he, I have abused this place against the Anabaptifts, thinking the meaning was, that the children. "were holy for the parents faith, which, though true, the prefent place makes "nothing for the purpofe "."

66

Sixthly, From what has been obferved, it is not proved, as our author afferts, p. 32. that the apoftles looked on the children of believing parents as having an interest in the covenant of grace; and falfe is it, to the laft degree of falfhood, what he infers from thence, that "then we have undeniable evidence that they did in fact baptize the children of all profeffing believers; and that they "understood their commiffion as authorizing them so to do, Matthewxxviii. 19.' Let one fingle fact be produced, one undeniable inftance of the apostles baptizing an infant of any, profeffor or profane, and we will give up the cause at once, and fay no more. Nor did the apoftles, nor could the apostles understand the commiffion as authorizing them to baptize infants. What this Gentleman obferves, that the word teach is in the original to make difciples, or learn: Be it fo, it is not applicable to new-born babes, who are not capable of learning any thing, and much lefs of divine and spiritual things, of Chrift and his gofpel, and the doctrines of it; of which kind of learning only can the commiffion be understood nor are the children of believing parents called difciples, Acts xv. 10. adult persons are meant; and by the yoke attempted to be put on their necks, not circumcifion, which was not intolerable, but the doctrine of the neceffity of that, and other Mofaic rites, and even of keeping the whole law in order to falvation; this was intolerable.

This author further obferves, that children must be included in the words all nations, mentioned in the commiffion. If they are included so as to be baptized, and if this phrafe is to be understood without any limitation or reftriction, then not only the children of chriftian parents, but the children of Pagans, Jews, and Turks; yea, all adult perfons, be they who they may, ever fo vile and profligate,

See the divine Right of Infant-baptifm examined, p. 73-78. and the Reply, p. 55-58.

gate, fince these are included in all nations; but the limitation is to thofe that are taught, and learn to become the difciples of Chrift, and believe in him, as appears from Mark xvi. 15, 16'. Nor does it appear from the fcriptureaccounts, that there is any probability, and much less the highest probability, as this writer fays, p. 33. that it was the general practice of the apostles to baptize infants, and which he concludes from Lydia, the Jailor, and Stephanas; which inftances do not afford the leaft probability of it. To make it probable that there might be infant-children in those families, he observes, we read, when God fmote the first-born in Egypt, there was not an houfe in which there was not one dead, confequently not an house in Egypt in which there was not a child: but he did not confider, that all the first-born of Egypt flain, were not infantchildren; but many of them might be men grown, of twenty, or thirty years of age, or more; and of thefe, with thofe under fuch an age, and in infancy, it is not strange that there should be found one in every house'. Our author adds, "suppose it had been faid of one profelyted to the Jewish religion, that "he and his houfhold, or that he and all his were circumcifed, would any doubt "whether his infant-children were circumcifed? I believe not:" and fo do I too; but not for the reafon given, which is a falfe one; for it never was a practice, either before or fince Abraham's covenant, to receive children with their parents into a covenant-relation, if by that relation is meant relation to, and intereft in the covenant of grace; but for this very good reafon, because the Jews and their profelytes were commanded to circumcife their Infant-children ; but God has no where commanded any to baptize their Infant-children; and therefore when houfholds are faid to be baptized, this cannot be understood of infants, and especially when thofe in these houfholds are reprefented as hearers of the word, believers in it, and perfons poffeffed of spiritual joy and comfort. Seventhly, The evidence this author gives of the practice of Infant-baptifm, from those that lived in the firft, fecond, and third centuries, p. 34-40. comes next. He produces no evidence from any writer of the first century, though there are several whofe writings are extant, as Barnabas, Clemens Romanus, Hermas, Polycarp, and Ignatius. He begins with Irenus, as he is twice called; Irenæus is meant, of whom he fays, that he only mentions Infant-baptifm tranfiently; but he does not mention it at all: it is not once mentioned in all his writings, as corrupted as they be; being fome fpurious, and for the most part tranflations, and thefe barbarous, and but few original pieces: the paffage produced for his ufe, of the word regeneration for baptifm, is not to the purpose; fince by the command of regenerating, Chrift gave to his difciples, is not meant See the Reply, p. 63, 64.

iSee the Reply, p 58, 59, 62.

! Ibid.

the

the command of baptizing, but of teaching the doctrine of regeneration, and the neceffity of it to falvation, and in order to baptifm, the first and principal part of the commiffion of the apoftles, as the order of the words fhews. The other teftimony which, he fays, is plain for the baptifm of infants, there is not a fyllable of it in it: Irenæus only fays, "Chrift came to fave all; all I fay, that "are born again unto God; infants, and little ones, and children, and young "men, and old men." Which is most true; for Chrift came to fave all of every age that are regenerated, and of which perfons of every age are capable; but to' interpret this of Christ's coming to fave all that are baptized, is false; and is to make this ancient writer to speak an untruth: to prove that regeneration is used by him for baptifin, a paffage is produced out of Justin Martyr, faid to be his cotemporary, though Justin lived before him, in the middle of the second century, and fhould have been first mentioned; but will not ferve his purpofe: for Justin is speaking of the manner of adult-baptism, and not a word of infants; and of adult perfons, not as regenerated by or in baptifm; for he speaks of them before as converted and believers, and confequently regenerated; and their baptism is plainly distinguished from regeneration. Of the fenfe of the paffages of these two writers, fee more in the Reply, p. 16-18. The argument from apoftolic Tradition, p. 13, 14. Antipedobaptifm, p. 9-20.

The next teftimony produced is Origen, placed in the beginning of the third century, though it was rather towards the middle of it that he wrote and flourished in, and fhould have been mentioned after Tertullian. The paffages quoted from him are, the first out of his eighth homily on Leviticus, though the last clause in it does not belong to that, but is in the fourteenth homily on Luke, and the other is out of his epistle to the Romans: Now these are all taken out of Latin tranflations, full of interpolations, additions, and detractions; fo that, as many learned men obferve, "one knows not when he "reads Origen, and is at a loss to find Origen in Origen." Now whereas there are genuine works of his still extant in Greek, in them there is not the leaft hint of Infant-baptifm, nor any reference to it, much lefs any exprefs mention of it, not even as an apostolical tradition, as in the laft paffage produced; for so it should be rendered, not order, but tradition; on which I fhall just observe what Bishop Taylor fays: "A tradition apoftolical, if it be not configned with "a fuller teftimony than of one perfon (Origen) whom all after-ages have con"demned of many errors, will obtain fo little reputation among those, who "know that things have, upon greater authority, pretended to derive from "the apostles, and yet falfly; that it will be a great argument, that he is cre

"dulous

"dulous and weak, that fhall be determined by fo weak a probation in a "matter of fo great concernment "."

Tertullian is the next writer quoted as giving plain proof that Infant-baptifm was the conftant practice of the church in his day: he is the first perfon known to have made any mention of it; who, as foon as he did, argued against it, and diffuaded from it; and though it will be owned, that it was moved in his day, and debated; yet that it was practised, and much less constantly practifed, has not yet been proved.

The next evidence produced is Cyprian, who lived in the middle of the third century; and it will be allowed that it was practifed in the African churches in his time, where it was first moved, and at the fame time Infant-communion was practifed alfo; of the practice of which we have as early proof as of Infant-baptifm; and this furnishes with an answer to this author's questions, p. 42. When Infant-baptifm was introduced, and by whom? It was introduced at the time Infant-communion was, and by the fame perfons. As for the teftimonies of Ambrofe, Austin, and Pelagius, they might have been spared, fince they wrote in the fourth century, when it is not denied that Infant-baptism very much prevailed; of Austin, and particularly of what Pelagius says, fee Argument from apoftolic tradition, p. 19–26. Antipedobaptism, p. 33—37. And from hence it appears, that it is not true what this author fuggefts, p. 42, 52. that infant-baptifm was the univerfal practice of the primitive churches in the three first centuries, called the pureft times; when it does not appear to have been practifed at all until the third century, when fad corruptions were made in doctrine and practice.

Eighthly, This author proposes to answer fome of the most material objections against Infant-baptism, p. 43, &c. as, 1. "That there is no express "command for it in fcripture, and therefore unwarrantable." To which the answer is; that if there is no express command, there are virtual and implicit ones, which are of equal force with an exprefs one, and no less than four are obferved; one command is enough, this is over-doing it, and what is overdone is not well done: but let us hear them; the firft is God's command to Abraham to circumcife his infant-children, which is a virtual and implicit command to believers to baptize theirs! The reafon is, because they are Abraham's fpiritual feed, and heirs according to the promife; but the command to Abraham only concerned his natural, not his fpiritual feed; and if there is any force in the reason given, or the command lays any obligation on the latter, their duty is not to baptize, but circumcife their children; fince the facramental rite commanded,

n

Liberty of prophefying, p. 320. See the Reply, p. 19, 20. Argument from apoftolic Tradition, p. 16, 17. Antipædobaptifm, p. 24-29.

manded, it feems, has never been repealed, and ftill remains in full force. The next virtual and implicit command is in Matthew xix. 14. but Chrift's permiffion of children to come, or to be brought unto him, there spoken of, was not for baptifm, or to be baptized by him, but for him to pray for them, and touch them, in order to cure them of diseases. Another implicit, if not exprefs command, to baptize infants, is in Matthew xxviii. 19. This has been confidered, and difproved already; fee p. 99. The fourth and laft implicit command, the author mentions, is the exhortation in his text, Acts ii. 38, 39. in which, as has been fhewn, there is not the leaft hint of Infant-baptifm, nor any thing from whence it can be concluded.

This author obferves, that fince virtual and implicit commands are looked on as fufficient to determine our conduct in other things, then why not in this? fuch as keeping the first-day-fabbath, attendance on public worship, and the admiffion of women to the Lord's-fupper. To which I reply, he has not proved any virtual and implicit command to baptize infants; and as to the cafes mentioned, befides implications, there are plain inftances in fcripture of the practice of them; and let like inftances of Infant-baptifm be produced, and we shall think ourselves obliged to practise it. As to what this author fays of an exprefs, irrepealable command to children, to receive the feal of the covenant, and the conftant practice of the church to adminifter the feal of it to them; if by the covenant is meant the covenant of grace, it never had any fuch feal as is fuggested, which has been proved; nor has it any but the blood of Chrift, called the blood of the everlasting covenant.

2. Another objection to Infant-baptifm is; there is no express inftance in all the hiftory of the New-Teftament of an Infant-child being baptized, and therefore is without any scripture-example. To which is replied, by obferving that whole houfholds were baptized; as there were, and which have been already confidered; and these were baptized, not upon the converfion of the parent, or head of the family, but upon their own faith; and fo were not infants, but adult perfons; though this author thinks that fuch accounts would easily be understood to include children, had the same been said of circumcifion. They might fo, when circumcifion was in force and use; for this very good reason, because there was a previous exprefs command extant to circumcife children, when there is none to baptize infants. He further obferves, that from there being no exprefs mention of Infant-baptifm in the New Teftament, it should not be concluded there was none, any more than that the churches of Antioch, IcoVOL. II. 3 P nium,

• Matt, xix. 13. Mark x. 13. of the sense of this text see the Reply, p. 50-52.