Wherefore, to baptize such persons, were to proclaim an agreement betwixt Christ and Belial, and to set up for concord betwixt light and darkness, and seal the same with a witness; which cannot be but an abuse of God's holy ordinance. It was a heavy charge against the priests, Ezek. xxii. 26. that they had violated God's law, and profaned his holy things; and put no difference between the holy and profane, nor shewed difference between the clean and unclean. Now, the law which they violated in this, we have expressly set down, Lev. x. 8. 9. 10. "And the Lord spake unto Aaron, saying, Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation; lest ye die: It shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations: And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean." The first respects moral, the other ceremonial purity or impurity. And this putting difference is evidently distinguished from the shewing difference doctrinally; as appears from ver. 11. "And that ye may teach the children of Israel," &c. Now, surely the Lord doth as little allow the profaning of his holy things under the gospel, as under the law; and the putting no difference betwixt the holy and profane, cannot but be a profaning of God's holy things, now as well as then. The priests also are reproved for bringing into the sanctuary, strangers uncircumcised in heart and in flesh, and thereby polluting it, Ezek. xliv. 7. And to prevent the mistake, lest they should think that the only ground of the quarrel was, that such were uncircumcised in flesh, the Lord tells them, ver. 9. that "no stranger uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into his sanctuary." Mark the disjunctive particle, "uncircumcised in heart, nor in flesh." Was the sanctuary more holy than the sacrament of baptism is? will moral impurity pollute the one, and not the other? If any shall say, that this respects not Israelites, but strangers; and so although it may hold good in our case as to professed pagans, yet not as to professed Christians: I answer, 1. The strangers were debarred from the sanctuary as uncircumcised in heart, therefore all uncircumcised in heart were debarred; for a qua tali ad omne valet consequentia. 2. The Lord expressly reproves the profane Israelites for entering into his sanctuary, Jer. vii. 9. 10. 11.

ARGUMENT V. ult. If none have a right to baptism before the Lord but real saints, then none have a right to it before the church but visible saints. The argument has been already proven; and the consequent is very plain. These two positions do mutually establish one another. If the word debar all from the sacraments that are not real saints, to admit such as have no appearance of

saintship, were to pull in with the one hand, when we shut out with the other; which is the high way to make people Atheists, and to believe nothing that is preached. When God hath declared, that none have right before him to the seals of the covenant, but those that have a saving interest in his Son, in whom "the promises are Yea and Amen;" and hath required the dispensers of the holy mysteries, to "put a difference betwixt the holy and unholy, and to separate betwixt the precious and the vile," and told us, that "we shall know them by their fruits;" men ought to beware of admitting such as plainly appear to be profane and vile. Men must not be blind, when the works of the flesh are manifest, Gal. v. 19.

Now, all this doth no way prejudice the right of infants to baptism corame cclesiæ; for the infants of visible believers are no less visible believers than they themselves are, seeing the Lord declares himself to be not only the believer's God, but the God of his seed. "We do not tie," say the professors of Leyden,* "the efficacy of baptism to that moment when the body is washed; but we do, with the Scripture, pre-require faith and repentance in all that are to be baptized, at least, according to the judgment of charity and that as well in infants that are within the covenant; in whom, by the power of God's blessing and of the gospel covenant, we affirm, that there is the seed and spirit of faith and repentance; as in the aged, in whom the profession of actual faith and repentance is necessary." "Yea," saith Zanchias,† "We must believe, that an infant of faithful parents is already baptized with the baptism of the Spirit, seeing it is in the covenant." It were easy to heap up testimonies given by orthodox divines to the first and third conclusions. Ursint gives his judgment thereanent in two theses: "All," says he, "and only the regenerate lawfully, receive baptism. The church administereth baptism lawfully to all, and only these whom she ought to account in the number of the regenerate." See "Calv. Inst." lib. 4. cap. 16. § 23, 24; "Wits. in Symb. Apost." p. 455. § 15; "Exer." p. 372, 381, 416; "Zanch. in Eph." p. 226; "Wend. Christ. Theol." p. 432; "Baxt. Inf. Bapt." p. 327; "Bowles' Past. Evang." p. 185.

CONCLUSION IV. All infants descended of parents whereof one only is a visible believer, hath right to baptism before the church; they ought to be baptized, whether it be the father or mother that makes a credible profession. Such are in covenant with God visibly; we are to look on them as probably within the covenant, as to the saving benefits thereof, so that none can

Synop. Pur. Theol. p. 609.
† Com. in Eph. p. 225. th. 13.
Thes. theol. de Bapt. th. 12. misc. p. 125.

forbid water. The apostle plainly tells us, they are not unclean but holy, I Cor. vii. 14. and therefore subjects lawfully capable of this ordinance. I find no need to insist on this point, being fully satisfied therein, and knowing none that deny it who do not altogether reject infant baptism. If it le inquired, Who is to be sponsor for the child when the father is the unbeliever? I answer, The father cannot be admitted, seeing there is no reason to expect that he will bring up his child in the fear of that God, the fear of whom is not before his own eyes; or in that religion to which he himself is a stranger. To overlook the mother, and to require another to be sponsor for the child, I see no reason. But the mother is to be sponsor for the child: 1. Because it seems the child hath its right by her. 2. Because the Scripture lays the bonds on her; so that she is antecedently obliged to bring up her child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, Eph. vi. 4. 3. Because she is the person most to be trusted in such a weighty concern. Whoever it be that presents the child to be baptized, I suppose is not material, providing he or she be a church member. Neither is it necessary that the sponsor present the child; but if it can be conveniently done, it ought to be. Only in the case supposed, the bonds being laid on the mother, it is not reasonable the child should want the seal of the covenant till she be able to appear in the congregation, if providence allow an opportunity before that time.

But now I come to the main point of this inquiry, viz. Whether or no all infants born of Christian parents, so called in opposition to Jews, Turks, and pagans, have a right before the church to baptism? or, whether the open wickedness, profanity, or gross ignorance of the parents, should hinder the infant to be baptized, till either the parents reform, or the child come to mature age, and by his personal walk satisfy the church as to his right to that ordinance? What hath been said to the former points seems pretty clear; but to determine this, hoc opus, hic labor est.

Many godly and learned hold the former part of that question, though, as I apprehend, on different grounds; all which, I conceive, are expressed by Zanchy, and Oliver Bowles. Their words are as follows. "The children of those," says that judicious divine, Zanchius,* ,*"that are indeed in the church, but, because of their unclean way of living, declare that they are not indeed of the church if they be offered to baptism, they cannot be debarred therefrom, nor ought they. The reason is, because though the parents be wicked, yet their impiety ought not to prejudge their children which

h;

are born within the church. But if you say, only the children of the faithful are to be baptized, because those infants only are judged to be within the covenant, and they only holy; I answer, the impiety of their nearest parents is not to be considered here, but the piety of the church in which they are born;-as also their ancestors who have lived godly and holily." "All infants," says Mr. Bowles, "who, in the judgment of charity, are within the covenant, are to be baptized. And baptism is to be administered exactly according to this judgment of charity. And that judgment concludes all to be within the covenant, whose parents were sometime sealed with the seal of the covenant." Hereto add Mr. Fulwood's notion of it. He judgeth the children of openly wicked parents are to be baptized, because their parents may be really members of the visible church, (notwithstanding their want of saving grace), and really baptized. And so they allow the children of such heretics amongst whom the formula of baptism remains safe, children of excommunicate parents, bastards, if there be any evidence of the baptism, at least of one of the parents. Some add foundlings. Bowles requires that there be sponsors found in order to the baptizing of these children of heretics, &c. otherwise he acknowledges the action to be lusory, and baptism to be polluted. I remember there is a question, Whether or not the infants of pagans, Turks, or Jews, wholly in the power of a Christian believer, being by him devoted to Christ, ought to be baptized? This is by Mr. Baxter† resolved in the affirmative, on Scripture grounds. In this case, the infant's right is wholly from the sponsor. Now, if the children of openly wicked Christians be put in this case, the plea for their right to baptism from their being born in the church, of godly progenitors, of baptized immediate parents, falls to the ground. But I suppose those learned men mean no such thing; but that, by virtue of their birth privilege, the children of openly wicked Christian parents have a right to baptism; and that, laying aside the case of such sponsors from whom the infants wholly derive their right to the ordinance, it is not necessary that one of the parents be a visible believer, or have a serious and credible profession, in order to their children's having a right to baptism coram ecclesia. And for proof of this point let the following arguments be considered.

ARGUMENT I. The seal of the covenant belongs to all those that are within the covenant; but the infants of all Christian parents are within the covenant; for so runs the covenant, "I will be thy

God, and the God of thy seed." Seeing the parents are sealed with the seal, they must needs be within the covenant, and consequently their seed also. The covenant is not made with the root, but also with the offspring; and if so, why may not the seal of the covenant be effectual, not only to the baptized parent if he believe, but also render his seed capable at least of the external sign. Wherefore the apostle saith, "Now are your children holy," to wit, by external holiness; whereby they are reputed to be within the covenant, being come of such a parent as hath given up his or her name to Christ, 1 Cor. vii.-14. Let it be duly considered what was the case that was so straitening to those Corinthians, which Paul doth resolve in the forecited place. It was not, whether or not the godly husband or wife might lawfully abide in the state of marriage with a wicked Christian yoke-fellow? but, whether or not the Christian husband or wife might lawfully abide in that state with a pagan? The apostle tells them they might, and gives the reason, "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified to the believing wife," i. e. the pagan to the Christian; and gives the reason, "Else were your children unclean; but now they are holy." And it is very palpable there was very open wickedness amongst that people. What sad divisions and disorders were among them! They tolerated the incestuous person; they did not mourn, but were puffed up; some of them were drunken when they came to the Lord's table; some denied the resurrection, &c. Notwithstanding of all, the apostle tells them their children were holy, consequently within the covenant, and to be baptized.

ARGUMENT II. The infant not having stretched forth its hand to the parent's iniquity, must not bear his sin, at least in spirituals, Ezek. xviii. 20. "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father: the soul that sinneth, it shall die." But surely, if no infants should be admitted to baptism but those of visible believers, many infants born of Christian parents should be debarred, and so uncontrovertibly bear the iniquity of their fathers. If God hath manifested his mercy so far, that the child shall not bear the father's sin, they seem to go strangely to work that will de bar poor infants because of the wicked life of their parents, in which they, poor souls, have no hand. Which is the more to be noticed, and calls people to be the more wary, if we consider that many a time God brings chosen vessels out of the loins of the most profligate parents. Even in the family of Jeroboam was one "found in whom there was some good thing found toward the God of Israel."

ARGUMENT III. If the heresy, impiety, or profanity of the Jewish parents did not exclude their children from circumcision, then the