on others, especially the younger sort; who first, because of their youth,
parents have always lived as they see them do, and yet they were admitted to baptism in their infancy, being born not of unbaptized but baptized persons, having right to the seal of the covenant by their parents, whether mediate or immediate; unless God, with his overcoming grace, work with them, there is no probability that they will in the least trouble themselves to mind religion. And if it should be so, that their wicked parents should tell them, they were devoted to God in their infancy, what success can their instructions and admonitions be expected to have, while they have still before their eyes the bad example of their parents? A more forcible inducement to wickedness, than a thousand of their admonitions will be to the contrary. But were they denied baptism, till either their parents should reform, or till they themselves by their personal walk should evidence their right thereto, in case their parents be incorrigible, it would be a very probable mean to induce them to seek the knowledge of religion, and to study a holy walk; considering that they live in a place where the gospel is preached, and the sad case of those that are without the church is holden forth. I confess, these things have no small weight with my conscience.
3. Whence it appears, that it would very probably have no small influence on others, especially the younger sort; who first, because of their youth, think religion not fit for them; and then betaking themselves to a married state, do wholly drown themselves in the cares of the world, or other lusts, leaving all care concerning their souls till they come to old age, (which perhaps they never see), or to a death-bed. This would at least put them in mind of changing their course of life, and turning over a new leaf ere they change their single life. I shall add, that by this means it would probably come to pass, that the holy ordinance of baptism, which is a seal of the same covenant with the Lord's supper, should not be so visibly degraded, and put so far below the other sacrament, in people's estimation, as indeed it is, by the promiscuous admission of infants thereto; there should be a more beautiful harmony in the subjects receptive of both; gross ignorance and wickedness should get a black mark set on it before the world; and, finally, the name of Christ should not be so blasphemed amongst Turks, Jews, and pagans, as it is, by reason of the vicious lives of those that live in the visible church.
Thus I have proposed what arguments on both sides have occurred to me, being desirous to find out the truth: and though there be difficulties on both hands, some whereof possibly may not be easy to answer, yet, truly, upon the whole of what is said, I think the opinions of those that say, None but the infants of visible believers have a right to baptism before the church, is most probable; and that the infants of any such as are not visible believers, though their immediate parents be baptized, and though they have had godly remote parents, have no visible right to baptism. And so I address myself to consider the arguments offered by those that differ, which are mentioned above.
I. As to the first argument, That the infants of all Christian parents are within the covenant; I answer, The phrase of being within the covenant is ambiguous. 1. Improperly, it may signify a person's living under the outward administration of the covenant; that is, in a society and amongst a company where all gospel ordinances are administered, so that they have the call of the gospel to come to Christ, and partake of the benefits of the covenant: for to say, the meaning of that is, that they are those to whom all ordinances are actually administered, as it would not help the cause, so it were impertinent here, while we speak of those to whom some of these ordinances may lawfully be administered. But this is very improperly said to be a being within the covenant, and can give no right to the seals of the covenant: for why? people may be living under the outward administration of the covenant, that is, in a society where all gospel ordinances are administered, and yet neither be in reality nor in appearance within the covenant; as Jews and pagans living in a Christian town or country, having Christ offered to them, and the benefits of the covenant, as well as baptized persons. So these Jews, Acts 2 were under the outward administration of the covenant, yet had they no visible title to baptism, and consequently were not properly within the covenant, till such time as they gave evidence of their faith in Jesus Christ, and repentance towards God. 2. There is a real being within the covenant coram Deo; as all are, whether adult or infants, that have the Spirit of grace. This cannot be meant here, (although it is that which only gives right before God to the seal;) because, as Mr. Bowles* tells us, we cannot certainly know who are actually, as he terms it, within the covenant. 3. There is a visible being within the covenant; and that is, when a person
doth really appear before men to be savingly within the covenant, or rather really and before God in it; and in this sense I deny that such infants as we speak of, are within the covenant: yet this only is that whereby they can have a visible right to the seal. The reason is, because their parents are not visibly within the covenant, unless you will reckon them to so visibly within the covenant, who have made a professed but a feigned devoting and upgiving of themselves to God; which is openly and plainly discovered to be feigned, by their profane walk, or gross ignorance. But of this before. Yet, if you will, it shall not be grievous to me to grant, that even this is a visible being in a covenant with God, (though not in the covenant, viz. of grace, holden forth in the gospel,) and a most proper visible being, under their own voluntary promise to take God for their God; by virtue of which, God hath a kind of interest in them more than others that have not come that length, which serves to aggravate their sin, and will heighten their misery; so that they are God's people, by virtue of their voluntary obligation to take God for their God; and God also, by virtue of the same, is their God, to give them laws, exact obedience of them, and to punish them for their disobedience. Yet are they not within the covenant of grace, either really or apparently; neither is God their God in the sense of the promise on which this argument is built; and so they can have no right to baptism by their being under that covenant or promise, however it be called. The plain reason is, because in that covenant, or the covenant of grace, to which baptism is appended as a seal, God promiseth not to be our God on any other terms but saving faith: so that whosoever believeth not really and savingly, is not before God within the covenant; and whoso doth not visibly believe, is not visibly within it. Hence seeing openly wicked baptized parents come not up, either really or in appearance, to the terms of the covenant, which is not a bare profession with the mouth, or the receiving of the sign in baptism, but true faith, or a real accepting of Christ, and God to be our God in him, they cannot be said to be in the covenant, either really before God, or visibly and apparently before the church. And this observation may serve to invalidate an argument wherein some do confide much, viz. that God owns himself to be the God of a profane people, and them to be his people. As to that which is added for proof, that such are within the covenant, viz. that their parents were sometimes sealed with the seal of the covenant; I deny it follows; and there is good reason for it: for so let
men turn Arians, Socinians, &c. or wallow in never so open and manifest gross abominations, notwithstanding of all means used to turn them from their evil way, they must still be looked on as within the covenant of grace, till they actually and formally renounce their baptism, But I say, with Riissenius, answering the Popish objection and argument adduced by them to prove that hypocrites and reprobates are true members of the church, because they are baptised, "they have only the sign."* It was never a seal to them, as I have already shown. It will be worth our pains to hear what a censure a very learned divine passeth against the assertors of this doctrine. "To profane the covenant of God," says he, "is to give out and acknowledge those for the confederates of God, who are enemies of God; and so to make such a God as obligeth himself to hypocrites and wicked ones." As for that proof of the argument, viz. That the covenant is made, not only with the root, but with the offspring; from whence it is inferred, that the seal may not only be effectual to the baptized, if he believe, but also render his seed capable of the external sign; it is of no force. If the learned man that hath this argument, mean by the root, the immediate parent, as I think he plainly does, then I deny the covenant is made with such roots; and therefore not with the offspring either, visibly; and have given the reason before. If he mean the remote parents, we have discoursed that already at some length. But truly I see no reason to talk so diminutively of baptism, as to call it the external sign. Was ever baptism appointed of God for a mere external sign? or do ministers, in baptizing the children of profligate parents, mean, that they should receive only the external sign, and not the seal of the righteousness of faith, remission of sins, &c.? If so, no doubt they are guilty of profaning that holy ordinance. As for the confirmation of the argument taken from 1 Cor. 7:14. we have already vindicated that place, and shewn that the apostle speaks to them as visible believers, which needs not be repeated here.
II. I am convinced there is scarcely less force in any of the arguments adduced for this cause, than in the second, which is, That the children must not bear the iniquity of their fathers, (for which Ezek. 18:20. is alleged); and therefore the infants of wicked, openly wicked baptized parents, are to be baptized. ANSWER 1. Why then is there an infant under heaven that ought not to be baptized? The infants of the rudest savages in the world have as little stretched forth their hands to their
fathers' iniquity, as the infants of baptized persons. 2. Whose iniquity did the infants of the first unchurched generation of the Jews, and those of Smyrna, Laodicea, and others, bear? I suppose none will plead their visible right to baptism. 3. The Israelites had God's express command for cutting off all the Canaanites, Deut. 20:16. 17. "Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. All the males among the Midianites' little ones are slain with the parents at God's command, Numb. 31:17. The children of Dathan and Abiram were swallowed up with their parents; Achan's sons and daughters were stoned and burned with him; and so, as Mr. Baxter* saith, cut off from the church and life. 4. Doth not the Lord expressly threaten, that "he will visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation?" But how all this may be, and yet that it should be such a strange thing, that the children of openly wicked parents have no visible right to baptism, because they are the children of such parents, I see not any colourable pretext for it. Now, as for the reconciling of this with Ezek. 18:20. the opponents are obliged to see to it as well as we, not only in the fore-mentioned cases, but also in their dealing with the Socinians, in the matter of the imputation of Adam's sin, and our obnoxiousness to the wrath of God upon the account of it, and in the point of Christ's satisfaction; in reference to both which, these heretics abuse that Scripture: yea, not only so, but in the case of baptizing the infants of heretics and excommunicated parents, where they do necessarily require sponsors; and if there be none found that will oblige himself to the church, and undertake the care of teaching those infants, they confess the action is lusory, and baptism is polluted: so that, even according to their own principles, the child may bear the father's iniquity. But the reconciling of these may be seen with such of our divines as write on the second command, and of the Socinian controversy. And what answer those learned men that use this argument make for themselves in the forementioned cases, they may bestow the same on themselves for us. Only I think, in the meantime, they should prove, that our doctrine doth properly make the children to bear the iniquity of their fathers in this case, as if the formal ground and reason whereupon the Lord proceeds against those infants were their parents' open wickedness; which if they do not, they do but beat the air, and fight with a shadow. Why may not
the Lord well be said to visit the open wickedness of such parents on their children, when he only takes occasion from that open impiety of the parents thus to punish the children; yea, to punish them for worse, for their own sin, which they bring to the world with them, and lays them open to the wrath of God? As if a king had a parent and his son both under sentence of death for treason, and the father should be so far from shewing any sorrow for his offence, that he is still going on in treasonable attempts, the king should on that occasion execute the sentence of death, not only on the father, but also on the son, who otherwise might have had mercy; and thus punish the father in his son, as well as in his own person: and yet the formal reason of the sentence against the son is his own treason, though he owes it to his father that the sentence is executed, but yet has no ground to complain of injustice in this matter. For my part, I will plead for no more in this matter; and this sufficiently maketh the argument without force.
III. But now we come to the third argument, which is the most considerable, in my opinion, of all that is advanced in this matter by those that differ. It is this: if the heresy, impiety, or profanity of the Jewish parents, did not exclude their children from circumcision; then the heresy, impiety, or profanity of Christian parents, cannot exclude their children from baptism; but the former is true: Ergo, ANSWER; before I come directly to answer this, I will propose three prejudices that I have against it. The first is this: that this argument concludes, that no heresy, profanity, or impiety of Christians, so called in opposition to pagans, Turks, and Jews, excludes their children from baptism; so that the door is thereby opened to the children of the most gross heretics that ever bare the name of Christians, and that even though accompanied with the grossest wickedness, unless perhaps they formally renounce their baptism: so that, as good right to the seal of the covenant have the children of the Gnostics, Nicolaitans, Ebionites, Cerinthians, Samosatenians, Arians, and Socinians, and such hellish crew, as the most holy and pious professor of the truth that is according to godliness. Quis feret hœc! what a sad thing is it to repute practically open blasphemers of Christ, and of the Holy Trinity, amongst those in covenant with God, though Turks, pagans, and Jews belch not out such blasphemies as they do against the truth! 2. This is inconsistent with the principles of some of
those that use this argument. They say concerning the Jews simply, without any limitation, that their heresy, &c. did not exclude their children from baptism; yet when they come to shew their mind concerning Christian parents, they tell us only of the children of such heretics amongst whom the formula of baptism is safe, that they are to be baptized; whereas, their argument carries it, not only to those, but to all heretics. And, alas! what is the formula of baptism to the purpose in Socinian congregations, where they do baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, while it is the open confession of their Satanical synagogue, that Christ is a mere man, whatever divine dignity is conferred on him, and the Holy Ghost not a person?* It is strange there should be such virtue in bare words, without the true sense and meaning. The Socinians in Transylvania sometimes baptized "in the name of Jesus who was crucified," but afterwards were obliged by the Prince to baptize "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." If the children of those who were baptized in the name of Christ who was crucified had right to baptism, then even the children of heretics, amongst whom the very formula of baptism is not preserved, have right to baptism; and so indeed the argument concludes: if they had not, but the latter sort had, what made the difference betwixt them who still retained their former doctrine and principles, and only for pleasing their prince changed their words? It is like it will be said, the former were not Christians: and why were they not Christians? because they were not baptized persons, not being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I should be loath to plead, that either of them were or are Christians: but I dare not unchristian them upon this head, that they are not baptized, lest I should make the holy children of the faithful no Christians, till they be baptized; or unchristian such Anabaptists as are not baptized, till such time as they may be baptized according to their principles; or unchurch the church in the wilderness, that for forty years wanted circumcision: but I would make both the sorts aforementioned no Christians, on the same ground that John makes them Atheists, 1 John 2:23. "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father:" which is judiciously improven against them, by a late writer.* And thus, as we go on, we go the deeper, finding the right of the children of very Atheists to baptism. 3. There is another prejudice I have against it, the lawfulness whereof may appear, if ye consider this argument: if the heresy, impiety, or profanity of the Jewish
parents, did not exclude their children from circumcision; then the heresy, impiety, or profanity of the Jewish parents did not exclude their children from baptism: the former is true: Ergo, the consequence is plain, (I use the same words that the opponents do, for proof of the consequence of their argument, only mutatis mutandis): for baptism was to them what circumcision was to them; their circumcision was to them a seal of the righteousness of faith, and so was baptism. Now, the grace of God is not more narrow under the New Testament, but more large than under the Old. This argument hath the advantage of the other, in that it proceeds from the Jewish parents and children under the old dispensation, to the same under the new; whereas the other proceeds from the Jews under the old, to the Gentiles under the new. If those things alleged by them prove their consequence, they must also prove ours. Yet I suppose they will not grant the conclusion of this argument, viz. that the heresy, impiety, or profanity of the Jewish parents, did not exclude their children from baptism: that the children of the Pharisees and Sadducees, impenitent murderers of the Lord of life, had a visible right to baptism. However, I think Peter judged not so, when he does so peremptorily require repentance antecedently to baptism. One of the premises must then be false: the minor is their own in terminis; they must then stick at the sequel of the major. If there be any just ground so to do, we have the same reason against theirs, as we shewed before. And let me add, that it is certain it is one and the same covenant to which both baptism and circumcision were appended as seals; it is one and the same church in which the Jews were under the Old Testament, and we are now under the new. The believing Jews were not taken out of one church and put into another; but only others were graffed in amongst them, and they continued still in the same olive, Rom. 11. God did not pull down his old house, and build a new one; but only took down the partition wall, and so made more room, Eph. 2:14. Say then, that the heresy, impiety, or profanity of the Jewish parents did not exclude their children from circumcision, and see if it will not follow, that these things did not exclude them from baptism either. I am not concerned either as to the truth of the antecedent, or of the consequent; it is only the connection betwixt the two. It is as true a proposition Si equus esset alatus, esset volabilis; as Passer est alatus et volabilis. I do indeed think the consequent false, and therefore am led by the hand to question the truth
of the minor of the argument proposed. I cannot but observe, that (so far as I have read or remembered) our divines against the Anabaptists do still set themselves to prove, that the children of the faithful ought to be baptized; and, In their arguing from circumcision, do hold the conclusion in the same terms: and so indeed the argument is not liable to the former exception, if it be so proposed, the children of the faithful under the Old Testament were circumcised; Ergo, the children of the faithful under the New must be baptized. Now, although I should not answer the argument propounded to mine own satisfaction, these seem to me such lawful prejudices against it, that until I be rid of them, I cannot fall under the force of the argument.
To come now to answer directly to the argument, I deny, the minor, viz. That the heresy, impiety, or profanity of the Jewish parents, did not exclude their children from circumcision. The grounds whereupon I deny it, besides that in the third prejudice, are these, 1. God threatens the Jews as well as others, in his law given on Mount Sinai, that "he will visit the iniquities of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation;" which was already shown, that it extends to the seal of the covenant. And judicious Calvin* understands it of "the Lord's taking away from the house of the wicked his grace, the light of his truth, and other helps of salvation." He doth also declare the seed of the wicked to be a cursed seed, Deut. 28:18; of which before. 2. It was a positive law that God gave unto the Jews, that in case a city were withdrawn to serve other gods, that city was utterly to be destroyed, and all that was therein; no not the infants were to be spared, Deut. 13:12, 13, 14, 15. Now, if the idolatry of the Jewish parents excluded their infants from the church and life, it excluded them also from circumcision; and so the impiety and profanity of the Jewish parents excluded their children from circumcision. So Achan's sons and daughters were stoned and buried with him, Josh. 7:24, 25, 26. How hard is it to believe, that the impiety of wicked parents amongst the Jews did go so far, as to cut them off, even from the church and life; and yet not to cut them off from a visible right to the seal of the covenant? 3. The Jews were to be excommunicated for heresy, impiety, and profanity. This must needs be granted, unless we say, that there was no such thing as excommunication amongst them; for who could be excommunicated but such? Now, even those amongst them that were
excommunicated with the least degree of excommunication, called NIDDUI, those who were the aposynagogoi, their male children were not circumcised, as Goodwin tells us.* And truly, whoso considers how usually the children smarted with their parents in their impiety, will not easily conceive of it otherwise. 4. This further appears, if we consider how God visits the profanity of the Jewish parents in their contempt of circumcision, not only upon I themselves, but their seed; as we may learn from that, Gen. 17:14. "And the uncircumcised man-child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people: he hath broken my covenant." To understand this place, so as that the parent only was liable to this punishment, and not the child, till he come to the years of discretion, as Goodwin doth, seems to me a commentary destroying the text; which passeth a sentence on all Jewish male children, whose flesh of their foreskin is not circumcised, that these shall be cut off from their people, and not that they shall be cut off when they are past the age of childhood. Till the eighth day they were not obliged, yea they might not be circumcised; but when that was over, and the child not circumcised, through the parent's contempt, he is then an uncircumcised man-child, and so liable to this sentence here passed against all such. Now, a parent might be guilty of this profane contempt two ways; either by reason of continuing impenitently in an openly wicked course, whereby his seed lost visible right to that ordinance; or by a profane slighting of it, though otherwise his child's title to it could not be denied: however, the child by this profanity of the parent, is cut off before he be capable to cut off himself; and no less can be meant by it, than a cutting off from visible church membership. "If any object, (these are Calvin's words),* that the infants were not to be blamed; I answer, that even as God adopts the infant son in the person of the father, when the father rejects such a benefit, the infant is said to abdicate himself from the church; for so much signifies that word, "To be put out from among the people whom God had chosen for himself." That some expound it, they shall not be Jews, is too coldrife: we must go further, to wit, that God will not acknowledge among his people those who will not bear the mark and badge of adoption." However this text directly toucheth the cutting off of the child, yet it seems plainly to follow thence, that much more the parent was to be cut off. From which it appears, that the profanity of the Jewish parents did render their children no visible church members, and
consequently excluded them from circumcision, as Jewish children, or children of such profane parents: which hath the more weight, if it be considered, that the Lord doth not here command others to see to the circumcision of such a child, which might have been expected if he had any visible right thereto, but precludes this, while he tells us, "he shall be cut off, or not acknowledged among his people:" so that should such a one afterwards be admitted, he comes in as a stranger doth, but not by birth privilege.
I come now to consider the reasons adduced to prove that the heresy, impiety, or profanity of the Jewish parents, did not exclude their children from circumcision. The first, which is taken from the universality of the command, is answered already, in taking off an objection made against our first conclusion. The command does indeed oblige all to be circumcised; but it doth also at the same time oblige them to be subjects theologically capable of that ordinance; as is above more fully declared. And, by the same labour, the force of the second reason, taken from the punishment to be inflicted on them, is removed also. And that Scripture we have spoken to before, and improved it for our purpose. To the third, taken from the practice of Joshua, in circumcising all the people at Gilgal, at the command of God; I answer, It can no no more be proven from hence, that Joshua circumcised every individual male among this people, than it can be proven from Matt. 3:5, 6. that every individual person of Judea, and the region round about Jordan, was baptized of John, confessing their sins; for there it is said, "All Judea, and all the region," &c.: yea it is certain, neither Joshua himself nor Caleb were then circumcised, being circumcised before. But the persons that were the first subjects recipient of that ordinance there, were men at age standing in their own right, capable to answer for themselves; and for the infants among them, they stood by the right of their parents, who are, without all possible proof, denied to be all visible believers. How can it be proven, that such were there circumcised as were not visible believers? The contrary is rather manifest, that being men at age, they were circumcised at God's command. But if men will hold by this, that such as were heretics, impious, and profane, were circumcised by Joshua, then we see more how far on this argument does lead us, not only to admit the children, but even such persons themselves at age, to baptism. That is
observable in Joshua's commission,* "Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time." With respect to Abraham and his family, their being circumcised, which was the first time, where the first subjects recipient of the ordinance were men at age, and then the infants by right derived from them; and so to be continued in the church, the males always to be circumcised in their infancy: but this order was broken off by the generation of adult persons who came out of Egypt, Josh. 5:5; so that it is now a second time to be set on foot, and so to go on as at first was appointed; first men at age to be circumcised, and then their infants. But in Old or New Testament it cannot be instanced, where the first subjects recipient of the seal of the covenant, were not visible believers. And is it not expressly said, that all the people that were men of war, which came out of Egypt, and obeyed not the voice of the Lord, were consumed in the wilderness? and after their circumcision, before they removed from Gilgal, these people kept the passover? ver. 10. Either then we must say, they were not heretics openly impious and profane, or else let us admit such as these to the sacrament of the Lord's supper too under the gospel: As Ursin observes from these two places, Numb. 15:28; Deut. 17:12. "God commandeth the contumacious to be taken away out of the commonwealth, nor does he allow them to be members of his people; much less then will he have them to be holden for members of his visible church, and to be admitted to the sacraments." And it appears, that in the wilderness, in a special manner, God acted himself the part of the magistrate, and put his own laws in execution. As to the fourth and last reason, That we never read of any of them excluded; I answer, A non scripto ad non factum non valet sequela. We read of children excluded from the church and life by their parents' impiety, and it would seem there were laws for the excluding of them; so that, by the word of God, they were excluded de jure. And we have heard, that the children of excommunicated parents were actually excluded.
IV. As to the fourth argument, taken from Acts 2:38, 39. we have already explained and improved that Scripture against the doctrine of the opponents. Whether by the promise be meant that, "I will be your God, and the God of your seed," or not, is not very certain. Some learned men* understand by the gift of the Holy Ghost, the extraordinary gifts of the
Spirit, peculiar to the first times of the church; and by the promise, the promise of the same, cited by Peter out of Joel, which he did repeat at large, ver. 17, &c. But howsoever it be understoood, it is clear, that this promise being to them gave them not a right to baptism, but that repentance was necessarily pre-required of them in order thereunto; as we have proved before; which quite invalidates any argument taken from hence for the cause that is pleaded. Again, there is another thing in this text that makes it, as explained for this cause, altogether useless to the purpose; and that is, that the promise is no less said to be to those whom the Lord shall call, who as yet were afar off, than it is said to be to those to whom he spoke; but had the Gentiles yet uncalled a right to baptism too? Finally, it is to be marked, that those to whom the apostle speaks here, were not all Jews, but many of them were Gentiles, neither were they all proselytes, as Aretius observes; yet to them is this spoken as well as to others. I have seen nothing as yet that satisfieth me as to that, in what sense the promise is said to be to those persons; but from what hath been said, it plainly appears, that in whatever sense it be said to be unto them, it doth not follow, they had thereupon a right to baptism.
V. The fifth argument is, That John the Baptist, and Christ's disciples, baptized all that offered themselves. This plainly concludes, that we are to baptize all that offer themselves; which I doubt if any sober man will affirm, seeing Turks and pagans may offer themselves in mock to be baptized: nor would ever this have come into my head, that they baptized all that offered themselves, as an argument for this cause, unless I had seen it among the arguments offered, as Mr. Fulwood says,* by divines, (what divines he means, unless it be Mr. Prin, I cannot conjecture), which to him were never satisfactorily answered. I grant indeed, that John and Christ's apostles did baptize whosoever, being visible believers, offered themselves; but I utterly deny it in any other sense. The proofs adduced are lame, and not to the purpose; for it is plainly said of the persons whom John baptized, that they were baptized "confessing their sins." Whether or not he did baptize the Pharisees and Sadducees, of whom mention is there made, is a question, the negative whereof I think is most probable; seeing it is expressly said, Luke 7:30, "But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him." And in Luke 3 while the Evangelist is speaking of those
whom John baptized, particular mention is made of the people, the publicans, and the soldiers, their asking questions of John as to what they should do, and each of them gets their directions; but there is not one word of the Pharisees and Sadducees asking what they should do, nor any particular directions, given to them; for which no satisfying reason appears, if we admit that they were baptized as well as the rest: Matth. 21:32, "Ye believed him not; but the publicans and the harlots believed him." Ver. 45, "And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them." As for that saying of John, "I indeed baptize you with water," ver. 11, it will no more prove that he baptized every individual person to whom he spoke, than it will prove that Christ baptized every individual among them with the Holy Ghost, and with fire; for this, as well as the other, John speaks to the same persons. Luke tells us the occasion of this speech, and to whom he said it, Luke 3:15, 16, "And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ or not; John answered, saying unto them all," (amongst whom the Pharisees and Sadducees were, as Matthew must be understood,) "I indeed baptize you with water;—he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." Will any from hence infer, that he baptized every individual person that heard him? if they will, we shall infer on the same ground, that they were all baptized with the Holy Ghost. So then that word, Luke 3:21, "When all the people were baptized," must needs be understood of all those of them who were baptized by him at that time; as the forecited word, vers. 15, 16, "All men mused—and he said to them all," viz. that heard him at that time. But grant he did baptize the Pharisees and Sadducees, how will it be made appear that they were not visible believers, or that they did not with the rest confess their sins? That he calls them "a generation of vipers," will not prove it; for that he said to all the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, as well as to them: and it is to be specially noticed,* be calls them not vipers, but "a generation of vipers," gennemates echidnon, those come of vipers, or the offspring of vipers: this they might be, and yet not be vipers themselves. That word, John 4:1, doth indeed bear, that Christ by his disciples baptized more than John; yet neither John nor Christ's disciples baptized any but visible believers; for it is expressly said, "that Christ made and baptized more disciples than John," ibid.; so that both made them disciples before they baptized them. Finally, I deny
that the apostles baptized any on a bare profession, or on a profession which was not a probable profession, or a probable evidence of true faith; as is clear from the Scriptures instanced, of which before.
VI. As to the sixth argument, taken from Ezek. 16:20, 21, that the children of the idolatrous Jews are called "God's children," and "born to God?" I answer, this will not prove that they had a visible right to the seal, no more than that magistrates have such a right, because they are called "the children of the Most High;" as specious a character as is given here to the seed of these idolatrous persons. These might be God's children, as being heirs of God and the kingdom of heaven, though thus barbarously slain by their parents; yet no visible members of the church, nor having any visible right to the seal. What if I say, they were the first-born whom God challengeth a special propriety in, upon the account of the deliverance their fathers met with when the first-born of the Egyptians were slain? according to that law, Exod. 13:2. "Sanctify unto me all the first-born, whatsoever openeth the womb,—both of man and beast: it is mine." It will not thence follow, as Mr. Fulwood says, that he owneth their parents yet to remain in his covenant; for this law would have obliged the children of Israel, though they had openly renounced God's covenant, and turned entirely apostates. It was the whole nation of Israel that had this mercy conferred on them, and so it obliged those that were of that nation, though not of the church. Wherefore, howsoever the parents should apostatize and renounce the covenant, by this law their first-born was the Lord's; unless we will say, that men by their iniquity may free themselves from being under the law of God once given to them. But truly I think, if we consider the context, we may plainly perceive the reason of this designation given to those children; and that is this: because God gave them those children, but, in the giving of them, reserved still his propriety in them, and made them not absolute lords over them, to dispose of them what way they pleased; but they were obliged to make use of them for God's honour, under whom they had their right to them. So that herein, not only cruelty, but robbing of God, and disposing of what was his, contrary to his revealed will, is objected to them. Now, view the context, and see how it favours this exposition, ver. 17. "Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images." vers. 18, 19. "Thou hast set mine oil and mine
incense before them." "My meat also which I gave thee, fine flower," &c. ver. 22. "Thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth, when thou wast naked and bare." Nothing more ordinary with the wicked and idolaters, than to forget God's propriety in what they have, and thence to take liberty to dispose of it at their pleasure, and to thank their idols for them rather than God; therefore God will vindicate his propriety in what they have, that they may see their sin, in abusing God's gifts to them towards his dishonour. Hos. 2:5. "I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, mine oil and my drink." ver. 8. "For she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine, and oil,— which they prepared to Baal." Ver. 9. "Therefore will I—take away my corn,—my wine,—my wool, and my flax."
VII. The seventh argument is taken from the following absurdities, that are supposed to accompany our doctrine.
1st, Families, parishes, &c. should soon be paganized. ANSWER. Fiat justitia, et ruat mundus. A man, say some, had better be a beast than like a beast. Sure I am, it had been telling some they had never been baptized, nor acknowledged to be church members. But truly I think the quite contrary would follow most probably, viz. that this would be a mean to bring them to be visibly christianized, as was above declared. It is truly a sad matter that people have nothing but their baptism to discern them from pagans. I confess, if the church should give over all dealing with them, there were some shew for the absurdity, or rather bad consequence, before mentioned; but while it is still the church's duty to preach to them in order to their conversion, there is no reason for it; yea, if it were so, by all probability, preaching would have more influence on them than now it hath. Though I dare not say, it is more for the honour of Christ to have no more in his visible kingdom than only such as are real believers, and rather to want close hypocrites than have them; yet I confess it is my settled judgment, that as it is a greater credit for a master of a family to have a few servants of entire fame in his house, than to have a great many rogues; so it is more for the honour of our holy head in the world, to have a few visible believers or saints, visible members of his church, than a great number of profligate wretches amongst others, members of the same.