(2.) It is objected against you, pag. 2. ' That if the commission, Mat. xxviii. excludes none from baptism, but such as are to be ex- cluded by the order therein to be observed ; and if baptizing and teaching are to precede, or follow one the other, as there named by- Christ, then these two conclusions will follow. (1.) That infants are not there excluded from baptism. (2.) That a person may be baptized, before he be taught ; for there we have, Fh'st, Ma,dr,Tsv(jari 'ffavra ra s^i-tj, disciple all nations ; make them disciples, or Christians. Secondly, We have Bacrr/^^oi/rss -/.aididaffxovrsg; whicli literally to trans- late, is baptizing and teaching. Now then discipling being a ge- neral word, that contains in it the two others that follow, viz. bap- tizing and teaching ; and being the imperative mood, whereas the other two are participles ; it is manifest, that the whole com- mand or commission, is given in that, and the mode of execution in these. And if the mode of executing that general commission be expressed in these, where baptizing is first, and teaching comes after ; what is become of the order of the Antipcj^dobaptists that have been so long talked of T
The sum of your answer is, ' That if baptizing be first, and teach- ing comes after ; then it will follow, that the apostles understood not their commission aright ; for they first preached, and then baptized them that by their preaching believed, Acts viii. Acts x. Acts ii. with many other places you heap up to the same purpose. And therefore infants must be excluded by that commission, because un- capable of being taught. And therefore let us criticise as we please upon imperative moods, and participles^ the case is clear, teaching must go before baptizing.'
358 A REPLY TO MR. CARy's SOLEMN CALL.
Reply. It had been more modest to suspect that you understood not the text aright, than that the apostles understood not their com- mission aright. The order of the words (as this well-fortified objec- tion declares that you cannot deny) puts teaching after baptizing: And though weshould allow you, that they discipled adult persons by ieacki77g, and taught others baptized in infancy, after their baptizing them; in bot' they followed their order and commission, in discipling the parents by preaching, and teaching their children baptized, by yirtue of the promise to them, after their baptism. For he declares, Acts ii. ' the promise is to them, and to their children f which gives a right to both unto baptism : And so teaching, according to the order of this comviisslon, may bean antecedent duty totheparent, andasub- sequent duty to him and his baptized children. For if Madrpiumli includes teaching before baptizing, why should not A/3a(fox7??, which is put after baptizing, respect the subsequent duty of teaching both the one and the other ?
(3.) Mr. Allen's next argument, mentioned by you, pag. 5. is
taken from Matth. xix. 14. " Suffer little children to come unto me,
and forbid them not, for of such is the kiufjdom of heaven." Whence
he argues agamst your objection, of the incapacity of infants for
baptism ; that if they are capable of interest, or membership in the
kingdom of heaven, or church, they are equally capable of the sign
or cognizance, which is baptism.
To this you reply three things: (1.) ' That it remains to be proved, that these little children were infants, and not grown boys or girls, capable of making an actual profession of their faith in Christ. (2.) It is doubtful, whether they were for the present in the kingdom of God, or were only elected, and so in time should be of his kingdom. And (3.) whatever they were, they were brought unto Christ, who himself baptized not; not to his disciples, who did baptize.'
Reply. Your first exception is vain and groundless: That they were very young, and little ones, appears not only by Christ's taking them in his arms, but from the very notation of the word Uaidia, a diminu- tive word, signifying a little child, or infant. So John was called, when new born, Luke i. 76. And Christ, when he lay in the manger; and Moses, when among the flags. And if this be not enough, St. Luke gives them another, Luke xvii. 15. Ta 8^29*3, infants; a word given to a child in the womb, Luke i. 47. And for what you object out of Piscator, that the same word is used of Timothy, who knewthe scriptures from a child; itisan evident mistake or shift; Fortheword is, arro I3ps(pis; : he knew them, not being an infant, but from his child- hood, or infancy; that is, when he had ydi^^^A\\\%inf ant-state, in which state these were that were brought unto Christ. And, (2.) Whereas you question their present right in the kingdom of God, or whether it were not future, by virtue of their election.? The text will not allow your interpretation, Tm yairBikrm i<;iv, Ofsuchisnot: not, i6(lat, shall lie, the kingdom of God. Their present church-membership, assert-
A REPLY TO Mil. CAllv's SOLEMN CALL. 359
e<l by Christ, is also a known rule, to regulate for the future the dis- ciples carriage towards them; which was too severe, harsh, and there- fore highly displeasing to Christ : But by telling them they were members of the church or kingdom of heaven, (they being very pro- bably the infants of believing parents, as their bringing them unto Christ with such affection, through the frowns and repulses of the disciples, shews) he gives them a known and plain rule, how to dis- tinguish infants, and regulate their carriage towards them ; which God's election can never be, that being an unrevealed secret. xYnd, (3.) Whereas you say Christ did not baptize them : I reply we never urged this scripture, to prove he did so; but only to prove their clturch-membership ; which, methinks, Christ asserts as plainly as words can assert it, whence he saith. Of such is the Jcingdom of hea- ven. And though you use to quibble at the word Tomloj'^, of such, as though it respected not the present infants, but grown persons, re- sembling them in humble innocent qualities; Mr. Sydenham hath sufficiently baffled that interpretation, by shewing its inconsistence with the scope and argument of that place, and how ridiculous this sense would be, when reduced to a formal argument.
(4.) The fourth argument you pretend to answer, p. 8. is drawn from 1 Cor. vii. 14. " Else were your children unclean, " but now are they holy.'"* To this you answer two things : (1.) That the holi- ness here spoken of, is not a fce:leral, but a matrimonial holiness, namely, legitimacy ; and is as much as to say. Your children are no bastards, seeing one of you is a believer.