on Christ, concludes nothing, unless these propositions did signify universally, and at all times, and in every person, and in every manner: which can no more pretend to truth, than that all Christians are God's elect, and all that are baptized are saints, and all that are called are justified, and all that are once justified, shall be saved finally. These things declare only the event of things, and their order, and the usual effect, and the proper design, in their proper season, in their limited proportions.

10. Eighthly: A negative argument for matters of fact in Scripture cannot conclude a law, or a necessary or a regular event. And therefore, supposing that it be not intimated, that the apostles did baptize infants, it follows not that they did not; and if they did not, it does not follow that they might not, or that the church may not. For it is unreasonable to argue, the Scripture speaks nothing of the baptism of the holy Virgin-mother, therefore she was not baptized. The words and deeds of Christ are infinite, which are not recorded, and of the acts of the apostles we may suppose the same in their proportion: and therefore what they did not, is no rule to us, unless they did it not, because they were forbidden. So that it can be no good argument to say, the apostles are not read to have baptized infants, therefore infants are not to be baptized: but thus, we do not find that infants are excluded from the common sacraments and ceremonies of Christian institution, therefore we may not presume to exclude them. For although the negative of a fact is no good argument, yet the negative of a law is a very good one. We may not say, the apostles did not, therefore we may not: but thus, they were not forbidden to do it, there is no law against it, therefore it may be done. No man's deeds can prejudicate a Divine law expressed in general terms, much less can it be prejudiced by those things that were not done. "That which is wanting cannot be numbered," cannot be effectual; therefore, "Baptize all nations," must signify all that it can signify, all that are reckoned in the capitations and accounts of a nation. Now, since all contradiction to this question depends wholly upon these two grounds, the negative argument in matter of fact, and the

Eccles. i. 15.

pretences that faith and repentance are required to baptism; since the first is wholly nothing, and infirm upon an infinite account, and the second may conclude, that infants can no more be saved than be baptized, because faith is more necessary to salvation than to baptism; it being said, "He that believeth not, shall be damned," and it is not said, "He that believeth not, shall be excluded from baptism:" it follows, that the doctrine of those that refuse to baptize their infants, is, upon both its legs, weak, and broken, and insufficient.

11. Upon the supposition of these grounds, the baptism of infants, according to the perpetual practice of the church of God, will stand firm and unshaken upon its own base. For, as the eunuch said to Philip, "What hinders them to be baptized?" If they can receive benefit by it, it is infallibly certain, that it belongs to them also to receive it, and to their parents to procure it; for nothing can deprive us of so great a grace but an unworthiness, or a disability. They are not disabled to receive it, if they need it, and if it does them good; and they have neither done good nor evil, and, therefore, they have not forfeited their right to it. This, therefore, shall be the first great argument or combination of inducements, Infants receive many benefits by the susception of baptism, and therefore, in charity and in duty, we are to bring them to baptism.

12. First: The first effect of baptism is, that in it we are admitted to the kingdom of Christ, offered and presented unto him. In which certainly there is the same act of worship to God, and the same blessing to the children of Christians, as there was in presenting the first-born among the Jews. For our children can be God's own portion as well as theirs and as they presented the first-born to God, and so acknowledged that God might have taken his life in sacrifice, as well as the sacrifice of the Lamb, or the oblation of a beast; yet, when the right was confessed, God gave him back again, and took a lamb in exchange, or a pair of doves so are our children presented to God as forfeit, and God might take the forfeiture, and not admit the babe to the promises of grace; but when the presentation of the child and our acknowledgment is made to God, God takes the Lamb of the world in exchange, and he hath paid our forfeiture, and the children are "holy unto the Lord." And

what hinders here? Cannot a cripple receive an alms at the beautiful gate of the temple, unless he go thither himself? or cannot a gift be presented to God by the hands of the owners, and the gift become holy and pleasing to God, without its own consent? The parents have a portion of the possession: children are blessings, and God's gifts, and the father's greatest wealth, and, therefore, are to be given again to him. In other things we give something to God of all that he gives us; all we do not, because our needs force us to retain the greater part, and the less sanctifies the whole but our children must all be returned to God; for we may love them, and so may God too, and they are the better our own by being made holy in their presentation. Whatsoever is given to God is holy, every thing in its proportion and capacity; a lamb is holy, when it becomes a sacrifice; and a table is holy, when it becomes an altar; and a house is holy, when it becomes a church; and a man is holy, when he is consecrated to be a priest; and so is every one, that is dedicated to religion: these are holy persons, the others are holy things. And infants are between both: they have the sanctification that belongs to them, the holiness that can be of a reasonable nature offered and destined to God's service; but not in that degree that is in an understanding, choosing person. Certain it is, that infants may be given to God; and if they may be, they must be: for it is not here as in goods, where we are permitted to use all, or some, and give what portion we please out of them; but we cannot do our duty towards our children, unless we give them wholly to God, and offer them to his service and to his grace. The first does honour to God; the second does charity to the children. The effects and real advantages will appear in the sequel. In the mean time, this argument extends thus far, that children may be presented to God acceptably, in order to his service. And it was highly preceptive, when our blessed Saviour commanded, that we should "suffer little children to come to" him: and when they came, they carried away a blessing along with them. He was desirous they should partake of his merits: he is not willing, neither is it his Father's will," that any of these little ones should perish." And, therefore, he died for them, and loved, and blessed them: and so he will now, if they be

brought to him, and presented as candidates of the religion, and of the resurrection. Christ hath a blessing for our children; but let them come to him, that is, be presented at the doors of the church to the sacrament of adoption and initiation; for I know no other way for them to come.

13. Secondly: Children may be adopted into the covenant of the gospel, that is, " made partakers of the communion of saints," which is the second effect of baptism; parts of the church, members of Christ's mystical body, and put into the order of eternal life. Now concerning this, it is certain the church clearly hath power to do her offices in order to it. The faithful can pray for all men, they can do their piety to some persons with more regard, and greater earnestness; they can admit whom they please, in their proper dispositions, to a participation of all their holy prayers, and communions, and preachings, and exhortations and if all this be a blessing, and all this be the actions of our own charity, who can hinder the church of God from admitting infants to the communion of all their pious offices, which can do them benefit in their present capacity? How this does necessarily infer baptism, I shall afterwards discourse. But, for the present, I enumerate, that the blessings of baptism are communicable to them; they may be admitted into a fellowship of all the prayers and privileges of the church, and the communion of saints, in blessings, and prayers, and holy offices. But that which is of greatest persuasion, and convincing efficacy, in this particular, is, that the children of the church are as capable of the same covenant as the children of the Jews but it was the same covenant that circumcision did consign, a spiritual covenant under a veil, and now it is the same spiritual covenant without the veil; which is evident to him that considers it, thus:

14. The words of the covenant are these: "I am the almighty God, walk before me, and be thou perfect: I will multiply thee exceedingly: thou shalt be a father of many nations: thy name shall not be Abram, but Abraham: nations and kings shall be out of thee: I will be a God unto thee, and unto thy seed after thee: and, I will give all the land of Canaan to thy seed: and, all the males shall be

Sect. xxv. &c.

circumcised; and it shall be a token of the covenant between me and thee: and, he that is not circumcised shall be cut off from his people "." The covenant which was on Abraham's part was, "To walk before God, and to be perfect;" on God's part, to bless him with a numerous issue, and them with the land of Canaan: and the sign was circumcision, the token of the covenant. Now, in all this there was no duty to which the posterity was obliged, nor any blessing which Abraham could perceive or feel, because neither he nor his posterity did enjoy the promise for many hundred years after the covenant: and therefore, as there was a duty for the posterity, which is not here expressed; so there was a blessing for Abraham, which was concealed under the leaves of a temporal promise, and which we shall better understand from them, whom the Spirit of God hath taught the mysteriousness of this transaction. The argument, indeed, and the observation, is wholly St. Paul's". Abraham and the patriarchs "died in faith, not having received the promises," viz. of a possession in Canaan. "They saw the promises afar off," they embraced them, and looked through the cloud, and the temporal veil: this was not it: they might have returned to Canaan, if that had been the object of their desires, and the design of the promise: but they desired and did seek a country, but it was a better, and that a heavenly. This was the object of their desire, and the end of their search, and the reward of their faith, and the secret of their promise. And therefore circumcision a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had before his circumcision "," before the making this covenant; and therefore it must principally relate to an effect and a blessing greater than was afterwards expressed in the temporal promise which effect was " forgiveness of sins, a not imputing to us our infirmities, justification by faith, accounting that for righteousness:" and these effects or graces were promised to Abraham, not only for his posterity after the flesh, but his children after the Spirit, even to all that shall believe, and "walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he walked in, being yet uncircumcised."

was

2 Gen. xvii. 1, &c.

b Rom. iv. 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12.

VOL. I.

Ꮓ

a Heb. xi. 13, 14, 15, 16.