by giving new hearts and new spirits, and by cleansing from all impurity, and designs real, internal holiness, shewn in an holy conversation; and such who appear to have that, have an undoubted right to the ordinance of baptism, since they have received the Spirit as a Spirit of sanctification, Acts x. 47. But this cannot be meant in the text, seeing, 2. It is such a holiness as heathens may have; unbelieving husbands and wives are said to have it, in virtue of their relation to believing wives and husbands, and which is prior to the holiness of their children, and on which their's depends; but surely such will not be allowed to have federal holiness, and yet it must be of the same kind with their chil drens; if the holiness of the children is a federal holiness, that of the unbelieving parent must be so too, from whence is the holiness of the children. 3. If children, by virtue of this holiness, have a claim to baptism, then much more their unbelieving parents, since they are sanctified before them, by their believing yokefellows, and are as near to them as their children; and if the holiness of the one gives a right to baptism, why not the holiness of the other? and yet the one are baptized, and the other not, though sanctified, and whose holiness is the more near; for the holiness spoken of, be it what it may, is derived from both parents, believing and unbelieving; yea, the holiness of the children depends upon the sanctification of the unbelieving parent; for if the unbeliever is not sanctified, the children are unclean, and not holy. But → 4. These words are to be understood of matrimonial holiness, even of the very act of marriage, which, in the language of the Jews, is frequently expressed by being sanctified; the word wp to sanctify, is used in innumerable places in the Jewish writings, to espouse; and in the same sense the apostle used the word ayiage here, and the words may be rendered, the unbelieving husband is espoused, or married, to the wife; or rather, has been espoused, for it relates to the act of marriage past, as valid; and the unbelieving wife has been espoused to the husband; the preposition rv, translated by, should be rendered to, as it is in the very next verse; God hath called us Ev Eignon, to peace; the apostle's inference from it is, else were your children unclean, illegitimate, if their parents were not lawfully espoused and married to each other; but now are they holy, a holy and legitimate seed, as in Ezra ix, 2, see Mal. ii, 15. and no other sense can be put upon the words, than of a legitimate marriage and offspring; nothing else will suit with the case proposed to the apostle, and with his answer to it, and reasoning about it; and which sense has been allowed by many learned interpreters, ancient and modern; as Jerom, Ambrose, Erasmus, Car merarius, Musculus, and others.

There are some objections made to the practice of adult baptism, which are of little force, and to which an answer may easily be returned,

1. That though it may be allowed, that adult persons, such as repent and Delieve, are the subjects of baptism, yet it is no where said, that they are the only ones: but if no others can be named as baptized, and the descriptive characters given in seripture of baptized persons are such as can only agree

with

adult, and not with infants; then it may be reasonably concluded, that the former only are the proper subjects of baptism. 2. It is objected to our practice of baptizing the adult offspring of christians, that no scriptural instance of such a practice can be given; and it is demanded of us to give an instance agreeable to our practice; since the first persons baptized were such as were converted either from Judaism or from Heathenism, and about the baptism of such adult, they say, there is no controversy. But our practice is not at all concerned with the parents of the persons baptized by us, whether they be Christians, Jews, Turks, or Pagans; but with the persons themselves, whether they are believers in Christ or no; if they are the adult offspring of christians, yet unbaptized, it is no objection to us; and if they are not, it is no bar in the way of admitting them to baptism, if they themselves are believers; many, and it may be the greater part of such baptized by us, are the adult offspring of those who, without breach of charity, cannot be considered as christians. As for the first persons that were baptized, they were neither proselytes from Judaism nor from Heathenism; but the offspring of Christians, of such that believed in the Messiah; the saints before the coming of Christ, and at his coming, were as good christians as any that have lived since; so that those good men who lived before Abraham, as far back as to the first man, and those that lived after him, even to the coming of Christ, Eusebius observes, that if any should affirm them to be christians, though not in name, yet in reality, he would not say amiss. Judaism, at the time of Christ's coming, was the same with christianity, and not in opposition to it; so that there were no such thing as conversion from Judaism to Christianity. Zachariah and Elizabeth, whose offspring John thre first baptizer was, and Mary, the mother of our Lord, who was baptized by John, when adult, were as good christians, and as strong believers in Jesus, as the Messiah, as soon as born, and even when in the womb of the virgin, as have been since; and these surely must be allowed to be the adult offspring of christians; such were the apostles of Christ, and the first followers of him, who were the adult offspring of such who believed in the Messiah, and embraced him upon the first notice of him, and cannot be said to be converted from Judaism to Christianity; Judaism not existing until the opposition to Jesus being the Messiah became general and national; after that, indeed, those of the Jewish nation who believed in Christ, may be said to be proselytes from Judaism to Christianity, as the apostle Paul and others: and so converts made by the preaching of the gospel among the Gentiles, were proselytes from Heathenisın to Christianity; but then it is unreasonable to demand of us instances of the adult offspring of such being baptised, and added to the churches; since the scripture-history of the first churches contained in the Acts of the Apostles, only gives an account of the first planting of these churches, and of the baptism of those of which they first consisted; but not of the additions of members to them in after-times; wherefore to give instances of those who were born of Eccles. Hist. 1, 3. c. 4.

ક

them, and brought up by them, as baptized in adult years, cannot reasonably be required of us: but on the other hand, if infant-children were admitted to baptism in these times, upon the faith and baptism of their parents, and their" becoming christians; it is strange, exceeding strange, that among the many thousands baptized in Jerusalem, Samaria, Corinth, and other places, that there should be no one instance of any of them bringing their children with them to be baptized, and claiming the privilege of baptism for them upon their own faith; nor of their doing this in any short time after. This is a case that required no length of time, and yet not a single instance can be produced.— 3. It is objected, that no time can be assigned when infants were cast out of covenant, or cut off from the seal of it. If by the covenant is meant the covenant of grace, it should be first proved that they are in it, as the natural seed of believers, which cannot be done; and when that is, it is time enough to talk of their being cast out, when and how. If by it is meant Abraham's covenant, the covenant of circumcision, the answer is, the cutting off was when circumcision ceased to be an ordinance of God, which was at the death of Christ : if by it is meant the national covenant of the Jews, the ejection of Jewish parents with their children, was when God wrote a Lo-ammi, upon that people, as a body politic and ccclesiastic; when he broke his covenant with them, signified by breaking his two staffs, beauty and bands.-4. A clamorous outcry is made against us, as abridging the privileges of infants, by denying baptism to them; making them to be lesser under the gospel-dispensation than under the law, and the gospel-dispen ation less glorious. But as to the gospel-dispensation, it is the more glorious for infants being left out of its church-state; that is, for its being not national and carnal, as before; but congregational and spiritual ; consisting not of infants, without understanding, but of rational and spiritual men, believers in Christ; and these not of a single country, as Judea, but in all parts of the world: and as for infants, their privileges now are many and better, who are cased from the painful rite of circumcision; it is a rich mercy, and a glorious privilege of the gospel, that the believing Jews and their children are delivered from it; and that the Gentiles and theirs are not obliged to it; which would have bound them over to fulfil the whole law: to which may be added, that being born of christian parents, and having a christian education, and of having opportunities of hearing the gospel, as they grow up; and that not in one country only, but in many; are greater privileges than the Jewish children had under the former dispensation. 5. It is objected, that there are no moré express commands in scripture for keeping the first day of the week, as a Sab bath; nor for womens partaking of the Lord's-supper, and other things, than for the baptism of infants. As for the first, though there is no express précept for the observance of it, yet there are precedents of its being observed for religious services, Acts xx. 7. 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2. and though we have no example of infant-baptism, yet if there were scriptural precedents of it, we should think ourselves obliged to follow them. As for womens right to partake of the

-

Lord's-supper, we have sufficient proof of it; since these were baptized as well as men; and having a right to one ordinance, had to another, and were members of the first church, communicated with it, and women, as well as mens were added to it, Acts viii. 12. and i. 14. and v. 1, 14. we have a precept for it; Let a man av pwños, a word to both common genders and equally signifies man and woman, examine him or herself, and so let him or her cat, 1 Cor. xi. 20. and we have also examples of it in Mary the mother of our Lord, and other women, who, with the disciples, constituted the gospel-church at Jerusalem; and as they continued with one accord in the apostles doctrine and in prayer, so in fellowship and in breaking of bread; let the same proof be given of the baptism of infants, and it will be admitted. — 6. Antiquity is urged in favour of infant-baptism; it is pretended that this is a tradition of the church received from the apostles; though of this no other proof is given, but the testimony of Origen, nane before that; and this is taken, not from any of his genuine Greek writings, only from some Latin translations, confessedly interpolated, and so corrupted, that it is owned, one is at a loss to find Origen in Origen. No mention is made of this practice in the first two centuries, no instance given of it until the third, when Tertullian is the first who spoke of it, and at the same time spoke against it. And could it be carried up higher, it would be of no force, unless it could be proved from the sacred scriptures to which only we appeal, and by which the thing in debate is to be judged and determined. We know that innovations and corruptions very early obtained, and even in the times of the apostles; and what is pretended to be near those times, is the more! to be suspected as the traditions of the false apostles "; the antiquity of a custom is no proof of the truth and genuineness of it; The customs of the people are vain, Jer. x. 3. I proceed to consider,

IV. The way and manner of baptizing; and to prove, that it is by immer_ sion, plunging the body in water, and covering it with it. Custom, and the common use of writing in this controversy, have so far prevailed, that for the most part immersion is usually called the mode of baptism; whereas it is pro perly baptism itself; to say that immersion or dipping is the mode of baptism is the same thing as to say, that dipping is the mode of dipping; for as Sir John Floyer observes, "Immersion is no circumstance, but the very act of baptism, used by our Saviour and his disciples, in the institution of baptism." And Calvin expressly says, "The word baptizing signifies to plunge; and it is certain, that the rite of plunging was used by the ancient churches." And as for sprinkling, that cannot, with any propriety, be called a mode of baptism; for it would be just such good sense as to say, sprinkling is the mode of dipping, since baptism and dipping are the same; hence the learned Selden, who Quod longinquitas temporis objicitur, eo major suspicio inesse debet, emanasse illas traditio enes a Pseudo apostolis; qui mirandum in modum conturbaverunt sanctos apostolos; qua £ Consuetudo magis cavendum est, viri christiani. Aonii Palearii Testimonium, c. 2. p. 238. sine veritate vetustas erroris est, Cyprian. epist. 74. p. 195. Institut. 1. 4. c. 15. 8. 19.

of Infants in Baptism, p. 44

Essay to Restore the Dipping

i

Opera, vol. 6. col. soc.

in the former part of his life, might have seen infants dipped in fonts, but lived to see immersion much disused, had reason to say, "In England, of late years, I ever thought the parson baptized his own fingers rather then the child," because he dipped the one, and sprinkled the other. That baptism is im mersion, or the dipping of a person in water, and covering him with it is to be proved,

1. From the proper and primary signification of the word Canτigw, baptize, which in its first and primary sense, signifies to dip or plunge into; and so it is rendered by our best Lexicographers, mergo, immergo, dip or plunge into. And in a secondary consequential sense, abluo, lavo, wash, because what is dipped is washed, there being no proper washing but by dipping; but never perfundo or aspergo, pour or sprinkle; so the lexicon published by Constantine, Budas, &c. and those of Hadrian Junius, Plantinus, Scapula, Stephens, Schrevelius, Stockius, and others; besides a great number of critics; as Beza, Casaubon, Witsius, &c. which might be produced. By whose united testimonies the thing is out of question. Had our translators instead of adopting the Greek word baptize in all places where the ordinance of baptism is made mention of, truly translated it, and not have left it untranslated, as they have, the controversy about the manner of baptizing, would have been at an end, or rather have prevented; had they used the word dip, instead of baptize, as they should have done, there would have been no room for a question about it.

11. That baptism was performed by immersion, appears by the places chosen for the administration of it; as the river Jordan by John, where he baptized many, and where our Lord himself was baptized by him, Matt. iii. 6, 13, 16. but why should he choose the river to baptize in, and baptize in it, if he did not administer the ordininance by immersion? had it been done any other way, there was no occasion for any confluence of water, much less a river *; a bason of water would have sufficed. John also, it is said, was baptizing in Enon, near Salim, because there was much water, John iii. 23. which was convenient for baptism, for which this reason is given; and not for conveniency for drink for men and their cattle, which is not expressed nor implied; from whence we may gather, as Calvin on the text does, "That baptism was performed by John and Christ, by plunging the whole body under water;" and so Piscator, Aretius, Grotius, and others on the same passage.

* Some represent the river Jordan, from Sandys's account of it, as if it was a shallow river, and insufficient for immersion; but what Sandys says of it, is only that it was not navigably deep, not above eight fathoms broad, nor except by accident heady. Travels, b. III. p. 110. ed. 5. But Mr. Maundrel says, for its breadth, it might be about twenty yards over, and in depth it far exceeds his height. Journey from Aleppo, &c. p. 83. ed. 7. vid. Reland. de Pales. tina, 1. 1. p. 278. & Adamnan. in ib. And therefore must be sufficient for immersion And Strabo speaks of ships of burden sailing through Jordan, Geograph. 1. 16. p. 509. And that it was a river to swim in, and navigable, according to the Jewish writers, see Dr. Gill's Exposition of Matt. iii. §.