»•-* 
 
^ 
 
 l(< 
 
 O-i- 
 
 "^ 
 
 s^ 
 
 
 
 ^s 
 
 
 
 
 , «^ 
 
 
 ns 
 
 j 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 J5 
 
 
 
 ^.^ 
 
 
 Ic 
 
 
 ( 
 
 — ^^ 
 
 Hi 
 
 Q- 
 
 
 1 
 
 ^t^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 *«r5 
 
 1^ 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 *3 
 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 
 fe 
 
 (U 
 
 ; 
 
 c^ 
 
 c 
 
 ; 1 
 
 'C^ 
 
 o 
 
 bfl 
 
 r\ 
 
 >s 
 
 Eh 
 
 <. 
 
 ^ 
 
 l^ 
 
 
 3 
 
 sT 
 
 
 Izi 
 
 £ 
 
 .«o 
 
 <«> 
 
 M 
 
 (ij 
 
 ■!2 
 
 jfi. 
 
 rt 
 
 CO 
 
 ■^ 
 
 ■^f* 
 s*-* 
 
 PM 
 
 S 
 
 
 Ol 
 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 -a 
 
 ^" 
 
 
 c 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 9f 
 
 1 
 
 v> 
 
 qI 
 
 & 
 ^ 
 
 

INF AN *f 
 
 B A P T I S |»i 
 
 FROM 
 
 H E A V E N!r 
 
 TWO DISCOURSES 
 
 DSL I VE R ED 
 
 At Haverhill Weft-Parifh, ^nVaSth, lySf, 
 
 r'W"^ 
 
 The Second Edition. 
 
 With an APPENDIX, obviating fome Ob» 
 jedtions offered againft the Truth uflerted ; and 
 fome other Remarks upon the late remarkable 
 Performance of Mn Hezekiah Smith. 
 
 By JONATHAN PARSONS, A.M. 
 
 Minifter of the Prefbyterian Church in Ne'wbury-Port. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 Printed by W. M^Alpinb in Marlborough-ftred") 
 
 IVIL'CCJ.AVIJ.. 
 

 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 THE Preface to the firft Edition, and 
 the marginal Notes and References 
 to fome worthy Authors, (which I ac- 
 knowledge were helpful to me in the 
 compoiition) are omitted in this for the 
 fake of brevity. And the many typo- 
 graphical errors in it are now correct- 
 ed, fo far, that I hope, if any ftill re- 
 main, they will not hurt the attentive 
 and judicious Reader. 
 
 The general Defign, and the evidence 
 given to fupport the Truths aflerted, 
 appear to me in the fame light that they 
 have done for more than 3 o years paft : 
 But upon a clofe review of the argu- 
 ments I am more confirmed, and am 
 more fenfible of the great importance 
 of the Truths defended. 
 
 ^)^,-■J^^^^^^>^^^^'^-v^^f73^•^T^•}?^^!,{^T^^T^r^^ 
 
D I S C O U R S^^ t 
 
 ACTS XVI. 33. 
 
 '^And was baptized , he^ and all his^ Jlraighti^ajj, 
 
 ^>:x^.::c>:::^ H E difFulivc goodnefs of the infi- 
 
 Tx nitely glorious God, is eminently 
 ^ difplayed, in giving us more noble 
 X X powers and faculties than the beads 
 
 ^>-^->.^><^'^% q£ ji^g earth, and in making ns ca- 
 pable of more excellent enjoyments and employ- 
 ments, than merely fenfitive creatures. But, when 
 the world of mankind was laid under a deluge of 
 fin and death, by the univerfal corruption of hu- 
 man nature, and there was none to help, the 
 goodnefs of God was more eminently difplayed 
 in the wonderful work of redemption by his Son 
 Jefus Chrift, who was the gift of the Father, and 
 made his foul an offering for iin, that he might 
 fee his feed, and the pleafure of the Lord might 
 profper in his hands. 
 
 And as God was pleafed to treat with innocent 
 man in a covenant-way, a covenant of works ; fo 
 he has been pleafed to make a new and better cove-, 
 nant, which is in ail things well ordered and lure» 
 ^nd to ifinglc out fpme of Adam's ruined race and 
 - - . hnnz 
 
 t 
 
6 Infant Eaptifm vindicated, 
 
 bring them into the bonds of it. Thus particu- 
 larly^ he dealt with Jbraham^ and entailed it un- 
 to his feed after him, for an evcrlafiing covenant, 
 which gave them a claim to many great and peculiar 
 privileges, _ And thcfe privileges the lews for ma* 
 iiy ages CQjoyed, until, by their unbelief, they ^ox-* 
 itMtA " the adoption, and thegiqry, and the cove- 
 *' Dacts, and the giving of the law, and the fer- 
 ** vice of God, and the promifeb." But what qua- 
 lifies the divine feveriry, in the reiedion of the Jews 
 from being the covenant-people of God, upon their 
 reje<fling J::fus Chrift as the true Meffiah, is, that 
 '^ through their fall falvation is come unto the 
 " Gentiles i" and fo they are become the myftical 
 body of Jefu&Chf iHj or the covenant-people of God, 
 
 Unto this covenant God has appointed a token, 
 iigo or feal of indudion, for a confirmation of the 
 promifes on his part, and an obligation to that duty 
 which is ihcir part of the covenant. Circumcifion 
 was the feal of indudlion unto Ahraham and to his 
 feed under the ancient difpenfation of the covenant j 
 butiince the blood of Jefus Chrift has been adual- 
 }y ihed for the remillion and purgation of fin, that 
 bloody ordinance is done aWay, and baptifm is, by 
 divine appointment, the badge of all the difciplesof 
 ChriO:, and the introdudtion in^othe vifible church. 
 Therefore all thofe that receive the doflrinCj and 
 fubmittedtotheinftitutionof John Raptift, he bap- 
 tized with water, as the manner of the Jews was to 
 admit profelytes, in token of their cleanfing them- 
 felves by repentance and reformation. This poitit-^ 
 ed io the baptifm which oar Saviour Jefus Chrifl 
 afterwards ordained to be the feal of indudlion ynto 
 ihe vifible churchj under the Chrifliaii difpenfation, 
 
 and 
 
Infant Bapiifm vindicated. f 
 
 ahd was the dawn of the gofpel-day. And hence 
 Chrift having received power from the Father, 
 gave a connniffion to his apoftles, and to all his 
 ordinary minifter?, to admit his dilciples into the 
 church by the {acred rite of baptiim with water, 
 " in the name of the Faiherj and of the Son, and 
 ** of the Holy Ghoft," as the fignal of dcdicatioa 
 to God, to be hi?, and for him, forever. There- 
 fore, when any of the Gentiles or others en:ibraced 
 the Chriflian religion, and made an open profeffion 
 of it, they were admitted into the communion oi" 
 the Chriftian church, by the ordinance of water-* 
 baptifm ; and not only they, but all theirs. Thus 
 in particular it was, with regard to the inflance be- 
 fore us : no fooner did the jailor fubmit to the laws 
 of Chriftianity, but he v^'as admitted to its privi- 
 leges, being baptized, he and all bis ilraightway^ 
 
 Having introduced my text, we might confider 
 that thofe, who are converted from paganifm or 
 judaifm, or any other religion, to embrace Chriilia-^ 
 nity in their adult age, have a right to theordinance 
 of baptifm : But as there are none among us that 
 diipute their right, unlefs it be thofe that deny wa-^ 
 ter- baptifm, it is needlefsat prtfent. I have only 
 two heads that appear ncceflary to difcourfe upon 
 this day to you ; in both which I defign, by the 
 help of God, to be clear and uftiul. And O that 
 my bltfTed Mafter would {land by me, and give 
 me all the light, fimplicity and fortitude, needful 
 to the undertaking, and the occafion of it. Ii> 
 dependence upon his help, I fay, 
 
 I, " Baptifm with water is an ordinance of 
 
 J* God, to be continued in the Chriflian church td 
 
 ^ ^ ^ " the 
 
^ 
 
 S Infaiif Bapfifm vindicated. 
 
 ** the end of the world. ** Some have imagined 
 that baptifm with water was nothing but an exter- 
 nal ceremony J indulged by the apoftles to the firfl 
 Chriftians, in condefcenlion to the cuftom which 
 obtained among the Jews ; and therefore that it is 
 not a command ofChrift. Bucaltho' we (hail not 
 deny that there was an ufage among the Jews, limi- 
 lar to baptifm, a fort of an appendix to circumcifi* 
 on, yet we affirm it was not a facramental inftituti- 
 on, until Chrill: made it fo. But when Chrift came^ 
 and would introduce a new difpenfation of the co-" 
 venant of grace, he appointed baptifm with water 
 to be the ieal of initiation, and rejeded circumcifi- 
 cn, which had been the initiating feal under the 
 former difpenfation. 
 
 None that will honcflly attend to the account 
 given in fcripture of this holy ordinance, can pof- 
 fibly doubt whether Water is to be ufed in the ^d- 
 miniilration of it. Will any read the account of 
 our Saviour's baptifm, or of the apoftles going un- 
 to water, with thofe that were converted to the 
 Chriilian faith, to baptize them, and yet pretend a 
 doubt, whether water was ufed in the adminiftra- 
 tion ? or can it be imagined, that when Peter faw 
 the deep imprefiion which the word had upon the 
 believing Jews and others, and fiid, "Can any man 
 *' forbid water, that thefe fhould not be baptized, 
 *•• and commanded them to be baptized," the ele^ 
 ment of water was not ufed in the adminiflration 
 of this holy ordinance ? No : the cleareft manifef- 
 tations of divine grace, and the extraordinary gifts 
 of the Holy Ghofl: conferred upon men, were fo 
 far from fetting them above water-baptifm, that 
 thefe laid an obligation upon them to fubmit to 
 
 it. 
 
Infant Babi'ifm 'vindicated, p 
 
 it *. Some might have /aid with regard to the 
 Jews, thefe have been circumcifed, why therefore 
 fhould they be baptized ? but the anAver would 
 have been eafy ; it was becaufe circumciiion was 
 aboliflied, and baptifm was the feai of introdiKflion 
 into the Chridian church. --Others might have faid, 
 fincc the Gentiles had received the Holy Ghoft, 
 what need was there cf baptizing them with water ? 
 but Peter virtually teaches us, that water-baptifm 
 is the door of admiffion into the vifible church 
 now, as circumciiion was formerly. Who then cm 
 forbid this plain fign and feal of the covenant unto 
 thofe that have received the tiling fignifisd ? when 
 according to promifc, God pours out his Spirit up- 
 on the Gentiles, and grafts them into the good 
 olive tree, who can forbid this teflimony and fcal 
 'of it ? 
 
 Neither was this an ufage of the firft Chrirti..ns 
 only, but it Vv^as infiituted for the ufe of the church 
 in all aees, to the end of the world 5 as the ordina- 
 ry medium of gathering and preferving the churcli, 
 out of every nation and people. This, I apprehend, 
 is evident from the commiiTion which Chrift gave 
 the apoftles, " Go yc therefore and teach all nation?, 
 " baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of 
 '* the Son, and of the Holy Gholl: : teaching them 
 " to obferveall things whatfoevcr I command you, 
 ** and lo, I am with you aKvay, even unto tlie end 
 " of the world." This commiilion is given pri- 
 marily to the apodles, as they laid the foundation 
 of the Chrifljan church. But did it terminate with 
 them \ No : it is alfo given to all niinif-ers ot the 
 gofpel to the end of the world. God had prom i fed 
 
 B a fuccefilon 
 
 * ^iXi X. 45---^S. 
 
10 Infant Bapt'ifm 'vindicated, 
 
 a fucceffion of minirters and churches to the end of 
 time, that the throne and feed of Chriil might en- 
 dure forever *. When therefore theapoiiies had 
 laid the foundation of the church, ordinary mini- 
 ilers were appointed to build it up. To. this end 
 Chrift hath given ** payors and teachers" J, by 
 whofe minifiry he might difciple and inflruft men 
 in the Chriftian faiih, till all the eledt among ail 
 nations, " come in the unity of the faith, and of 
 " the iinowledge of the Son of God unto a perfe-ft 
 '* man, unto the meafure of the ftatiire of the ful- 
 •* nefs of Chriil:/' God v/as able to do this, with- 
 out the inflrumentality of any man, or order of menj 
 but it hasplcafed him to appoint a fuccelTion of mi- 
 niflers, thereby to beget elieem, love, and reverence 
 to his gofpel. And thete miniilershe has command- 
 ed to charge all men, to oblerve all things whatfo- 
 ever Chrifl: commanded them. And was not this 
 one thing that Chrift had com.manded, viz. thaf 
 they fhould baptize all meet fubjeds, and fo bring 
 them under the bonds of the covenant? If they 
 were to teach them to obferve all things enjoined, 
 they were not only to teach them all the duties of 
 the moral law, but all the ordinances of the gofpel, 
 one of which is baptifm, as appears from the words 
 of our Saviour Jefus Chrift in the commiffion.— » 
 And it is evident that the apoAles underftood it to 
 be a ftanding ordinance in the church j for they 
 not only adminiilered it themfelves after the afcen- 
 iion of Chrift, but others, by their appointment, 
 admitted members into the church by that folemn 
 rite-f-. And indeed^ the reafon of the thing fup- 
 
 pofes 
 
 * Ifaiah lix. 21. % Eph. iv. n, jj, f Afts xvi. 14, 
 
 35, 33. with i Cor. i. X4j 15, 16. 
 
Infant Baptifm 'vindicated, i \ 
 
 pofes the continuance of this ordinar.ce in the Chrif- 
 tian church ; for if God has rencvved his covenant 
 of grace under the Chi iftian difpenfation, and e- 
 flabliflied it upon clearer promiics, wAvj is it not 
 as necefTiry to feal the covenant by water-baptiiiu 
 now, as it was in the beginning of the Chiiftian 
 ftate? 
 
 But, I apprehend, enoueh has been offered, to 
 prove that baptilm with water is an ordinance of 
 God, to be adminiftercd aiid received in all ages, 
 to the end of time. And hence it follows, that 
 " thofe are under a judicial infatuation, who, pro- 
 ** feffing to have great meafures of light and grace, 
 " deny the facraments of the New Teiiament, and 
 " particularly that. of baptifm with water." It is 
 a great fin for any, to fet light by any holy inPiitu- 
 tion of Chrifl j and flill a greater fin to deny one, 
 under a pretence of great meafures of light and 
 fpirituality. Nor can we \\ \k\\ any good reafon 
 fuppofe, that thofe who deny this ordinance in par- 
 ticular, under a notion of fpirituality, are not de- 
 luded J for the Spirit of God never teaches any 
 man contrary to the written word. Our Saviour 
 teaches us, that it is a thing not to be imagined, 
 that fatan il^ould fight againfi himfelf, becaufe tlmt 
 would ruin his kiuL^dom* ; and methinks men muft 
 put out their eyes in order to believe, that the Spi- 
 rit of God (hould teach one thing in the written 
 Vv'ord, and the contrary by his influences on the 
 heart, becaufe that would be cppofing himf^df. 
 How then can we find grounds to tliink, that thofe 
 are influenced by the lame fpirit that indited the 
 
 fcrip- 
 
 * Mat. »;i. 26, 27. 
 
1 2 Infant EapUjin "vindicated, 
 
 fcrlptures, who cry down outward ordinances, 
 which are plainly enjoined in the fcriptures ? What 
 reafon can be aiHgned, why men fl;iould believe 
 that fuch wild imaginations ought to be efteemed 
 of equal authority with the writings of our Savi- 
 our and his apoftles ? truly, no reafon at all : but 
 we ought, in honour to God and his written word, 
 to judge that all fuch perfons are under ftrong de- 
 lulions ; left to themfelves : and if thev continue 
 under fuch delufions, we cannot fafely think but 
 they " hate the light" of the gofpel, and wilful- 
 }y refufe to come to the light, lefl: their confciences 
 lliould reprove them : for, if they were true Ifra- 
 elites, they would receive the written revelation, 
 " not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, 
 the word of God, which worketh eiFe(Stually" in 
 ^all them that believe. 
 
 But we mdft haden to the main thing in view, 
 which is to confider, 
 
 IL That " the infants of fuch as are members 
 *' of the vifible church, have a right to baptifm." 
 Had the church of Chrifl in this place, and in the 
 neighbourhood, been left to their Chriftian prac- 
 tice, agreeable to fcripture and primitive ufage, it 
 might have faved me this labour, and prevented 
 many mifchiefs, which, I fear, will come upon 
 you . But the late innovations that have been palm- 
 ed upon you , ' I look upon as a providential call to 
 fland in this place, for the defence of the right of 
 infant baptifm. And tho' the church might have 
 had greater benefit by an abler hand, yet, as an af- 
 fectionate friend to the truth, I hope God will own 
 me while I honeflly endeavour to fupport his fink- 
 ing 
 
Infa?2t Eapt'ifm vindicated, i q 
 
 ing caufe. Let us give an unbialTed attention to 
 fome evidences that may be offered, to {how the 
 right of infant baptilm. And I defire you would 
 hear me patiently and carefully upon every argu- 
 ment, that if one (hould not be fatisfying, per- 
 haps, another may j if light does not convince you 
 this morning, it may in the afternoon. 
 
 Arg. I. ** If the infants of viiible believers do 
 " alio belong to the vifible church themlelves, then 
 '* they are to be baptized : but the infants of vi- 
 *' fible believers are alfo members of the vifible 
 '* churcli themfelves : therefore the infants of vi- 
 *' lible believers arc to be baptized." 
 
 That all might fully under/land my meaning, 
 I defire it might be obferved, that by infants be- 
 longing to, or, being members of the vifible 
 church, I do not intend that they have the 
 badge cr feal of their memberfhip put upon them 
 when they are firft born, but in a qualified fenfe 
 they are members : as a fon born in the army is 
 the king's foldier, or a child born in the king's do- 
 minions is the king's fubjecll ; tho' the former is 
 not aBually inliffed, nor the latter formally decla- 
 red to be fc. So the children of vifible believers arc 
 members of the vifible church as foon as they are 
 born into the world, before they have the badge 
 of church memberfhip put upon them, or have 
 the feal of the covenant put upon them. If a per- 
 fon did in no fenfe at all belong to the vifible church, 
 how could he, with any propriety, have the token 
 of mem.berihip put upon him ? Is it not in con- 
 lequence of a perfon's being a vifible member, that 
 he has the token put upon him^ which is the com- 
 mon 
 
Tif. Infant Baptifm vindicated. ^^P 
 
 mon right of all vifible members, and by which ^^ 
 token or mark they are diftinguifhed from others > ^ 
 And is not baptifm ihe token of vifible men:iber- 
 ihip, by which Chrift would have his vifible church 
 diftinguiOied from the refl: of the world ? I pre- 
 fume none of our neighbours who deny infant bap- 
 tifm, will pretend that there is any other way of 
 admiiTion into the vinble church, either from pre- 
 cept or example, fince Jefus Chrifl appointed this 
 holy ordinance. But ii they iiould pretend fome 
 other Vv'ay, they may fee tiienifelves miftaken, by 
 coniidering, that all the admituons we read of, fince 
 baptifm was a diviiie infiitution, were by this to- 
 ken or feai of the covenant. As evidence of this, 
 I would refer them to the three thoufand*, to Si- 
 mon. Magus and the eunuch-j-, to Paul J, to. Ste- 
 phanus and his houfhould**, to Lydia, the Jailor,^ 
 and their hou(hould§. All thefe were brought in- 
 to the church by the feal of baptifm j and I be- 
 lieve none can tell of any other way. Nor have 
 
 we any warrant, from the word of God, to delay 
 the adminiftration of this ordinance to fuch as are 
 members, until they are indodfrinated in the Chrif- 
 tian faith, and are capable of underftanding the na- 
 ture of the ordinance. All the fcripture examples 
 of admiffion are levelled againfc delays. No foon- 
 cr did thofe already mentioned belong to the vifii- 
 ble church, but they were baptized. Nor can any 
 man living; prove, that all thefe were adult perfons: 
 no ; .fo far from it, that there is no reafon to think 
 they were fo, but much reafon to believe the con- 
 trary. But v;hether they were, or were not, we 
 are alTured that it is the will of God, that difciples 
 
 of 
 
 * A<?cs ii. \ chap. Viii. % ciiap. ix. ** i Cur. i. 6". 
 § A<Ss xvi. 
 

 Infant Baptifm vindicated, l^ 
 
 of Chrifl: (Lould bs baptized without delay, as we 
 /hall conlider by and by. 
 
 In the mean time, what is mainly before me, 
 upon this argument, is to prove, " That infants 
 •* of vKible believers or church members, are al- 
 ** fo themfelves members of the viiible church, 
 " and therefore ought to have the feal of induc- 
 ** tion put upon them/' And this, I apprehend, 
 will appear to every unprejudiced mind, by a care- 
 ful attendance to a few things, luch as thefe fol-* 
 lowing, viz, 
 
 I. " God never made a covenant with man, 
 ** but what included his ieed." We have two co- 
 venants reprefented to us in the holy fcripture, 
 i;/z. a covenant of works and a covenant of grace ^ 
 and in both thefe God has covenanted with man 
 and his feed. 
 
 Thus God entered into a covenant of works 
 with y^Jam and his feed. Adam was the root of 
 all mankind, and his poderity were the branches, 
 God entered into a covenant of life wi;h him, bind- 
 ing him and his pofterity unto himfelf, with this 
 condition, ** he that doth thefe things fliall live of 
 •* them." And all his feed being ill him as their 
 covenant'head, fell with him in the tirfl: tranfgref- 
 fion. His a61: was imputed to them j his guilt was 
 imputed to them, fo that as foon us his pofterity are 
 born into the world, they are condemned. The 
 whole nature of man then fubfified in Adam, and 
 his enormous crimes tainted his blood. ** By one 
 " man fin entered into the world, and death by 
 V fin, fo death pafied upon all men, for that all 
 
 " have 
 
'1 6 Infant Bapfifm vindicated, 
 
 *' have finned." As the bleffings ofFered in thk 
 covenant to Adam and his feed, would have been 
 fecured to them had he continued in his integritj^ 
 fo the curfe falls upon all his pofterity by his dif- 
 obedience ; no fooncr are they human creatures, 
 but they are morally defiled and guilty creatures. 
 *' How is the gold become dim ! how is the moft 
 ** fine gold changed ?'* 
 
 Upon the apoftafy, God entered into a covenant 
 of grace to deliver men out of an eftate of fin and 
 Enifery, and to bring them into an eflate of falvati- 
 on by a Redeemer. This covenant of grace was 
 primarily and principally with the Lord Jefus Chrift 
 as the fecond Adam : and therefore he is called the 
 furety of the covenant of grace, to adjufl and make 
 up the difference between God and his people. 
 But altho* the covenant of grace is primarily made 
 with Chrift, as the reprefentative of his feed, yet, 
 in him, it is made with believers or with his feed. 
 Hence they are faid " to enter into covenant * j" 
 to " keep covenant •!• j" to " break the covenant J;'* 
 and many fuch like exprefiions ; fnewing that the 
 covenant of grace is made with believers. — And 
 parents that are believers, have their children ta- 
 ken into covenant with them. Whenever God 
 has taken parents into his family and kingdom, he 
 has taken in their children with them, and has 
 reckoned them a part of his family. Therefore 
 all the people of Ifrael, young and old, male and 
 female, are called " the children of the Lord your 
 •* God**j" adopted children, owned by God as 
 his people ; a people near to him, fet apart for him. 
 Hence, God direded Mofes to fay unto Pharaoh, 
 
 " Ifrael 
 
 *Pf. 1. 5. f^f, XXV. 10. J Lev.xivi, 15. **Dem. xiv. i. 
 
Infant Baptifm vindicated, 17 
 
 ** Ifrael is my Son, even my firfl-born*;" preci- 
 ous in my flight, and dear to me, tho' there were 
 many in Ifrael that were enemies to God and chil- 
 dren of the devil ; but were taken into covenant 
 in the right of their parents, and, in thiit i^.A^^ 
 " beloved for their father's fake." 
 
 ■ « 
 I am fenfible that Antimonians will objed and 
 fay, " That it is not poffible for a perfon to be 
 •* under the covenant of grace and the covenant 
 *' of works at the fame time ; to be p ecious in 
 *' the light of God, and yet haters of God ; to be 
 ** children of the devil, and children of God at 
 ** once. Hcjw then can the preceeding account 
 •* be reconciled ?'* 
 
 In anfwer to this objedlion ; I grant, that as to 
 the ft ate of perfons, all are either renewed or unre- 
 newed 5 in a flate cf nature or in a ftatc of grace : 
 they belong either to the firft or the fecond Adavi^ 
 *' It is as impoffible for a perfon to be under both 
 covenants at once, as it is for a man to be born of 
 two mothers." For the terms of the covenants 
 are diredly oppofite to each other : and therefore, 
 if a perfon is admitted into the covenant of grace, 
 by effedual calling, he is certainly cut off from the 
 covenant of works 5 for *' if it is by grace" that a 
 perfon is faved, *' then it is no more of works ; o- 
 " therways grace is no more grace. But if it be 
 ** of works, then it is no more grace : otherways 
 " work is no more work." — But this hinders not 
 but a perfon may be in a gracelefs flate, and yet 
 enjoy many and great external privileges of the 
 church, which belong to thofe whom God has 
 
 C feparated 
 
 ■— — ■^ ■■ - — ■ .-■■ ■ - - - . ■ ■ — — 
 
i§ Lifard Baptifm vindicated, 
 
 ieparated to himfelf, to make known his fiame 2* 
 mong them. Tho' outward privileges avail no-* 
 tiling to fpsclal grace, any further than means of 
 God's appointing ; yet they are privileges, and do 
 advance people above others, which lome are fa- 
 voured with, as ftewards, to improve and tranf- 
 mit to others. Paul reckoned the privileges of the 
 Jewiili church very great, even thofe that were 
 external *. To be dignified and diftinguilhed by 
 vifible church privilege?; to have the fymbols of 
 the divine piefence j the word and facraments ; to 
 enjoy the means of grace, and be feparated from 
 others as the covenant-people of Godj is a v^x'f 
 great favour. Now, all thefe privileges did be- 
 long to the body of the Jews, of all azes, as the 
 covenant-people of God ; even to them that never 
 received any faving benefit by them, as well as o- 
 thers. It is one thing to inherit the faving grace 
 jpf the covenant, and another to enjoy the outward 
 privileges of it. All the feed of vifible believers 
 have a right to many of the external privileges of 
 the covenant, and it is the duty of parents to cLiai 
 thefe privileges for them. 
 
 ir. " The Abrahamick covenant, including the 
 *' feed of vifible believers, is the covenant of grace.'* 
 The words exprels it with fo much clearnefs, that 
 iiot)e who have any tolerable underfl^anding of the 
 two covenants, and read with unprejudiced atten- 
 tion, can doubt whether it be the covenant of 
 grace. '^ I will eftablidi my covenant between 
 ** me and thee, and thy feed after thee, in your 
 *' generations, for an everlafting covenant, to be 
 " a God unto thee, and to thy feed after thee -f ." 
 I t 
 
 * Horn, ix, 4. t G^^' ^^^^' 7' 
 
Infant BapUfm vindicated. ip 
 
 If was a covenant never to be revoked ; fixed and 
 ratified as firm as the divine power and truth could 
 make it. It was a covenant fettled, with regard 
 to the rule of defcent; not to him, and tb.eu die; 
 but to him, and his feed after him, in their gene- 
 rations. Befides, God m^kes over iiimself to 
 Abr ham and to his feed in this covenant, which 
 he never has done in the covenant of works, fince 
 man's apoftafy. And having fettled the tenor of 
 the covenant, he confirmed und ratified it by the 
 ceremony of circumciiion, the feaiino; ordinance 
 under that difpenfati(5n. This Panl tells u?, *' wr;S 
 " a feal of the righteoufnefs of faith * j" or ji!:- 
 tification by faith ; and the righteoufnefs of faith 
 and that of works are oppofites, and therefore can- 
 not belong to one and the fame covenant. 
 
 I am fenfibte, ' that fome have devifed feveral 
 fchemes, to evade the force of plain fcripture evi- 
 dence in this matter. But if they fliould fay that 
 it was " a covenant to ftcure the land of Canaan 
 unto Abraham and his pofteiity," as fome pretend; 
 then I would afk them, how it comes to pafs that 
 the feal of the covenant was adminiftered to pro- 
 fel)ites, feeing no ff ranger had any right to the land 
 of Canaan-f- ? And altho' God promifed Canaan, 
 yet was this the principal and moft valuable part of* 
 the promife ; or, livill be a God to thee, and thy 
 Jeed after thee ? Do not thofe that make fuch an 
 evafion as this, difcover very mean and defpicablc 
 thoughts of the glorious God, and of the heaven- 
 ly Canaan j and an exceffive value for an earthly 
 
 inheritance ? Some again call it a mixt cove- 
 
 jianr, partly of works, and partly of grace ; and 
 
 fometinies 
 * Rom. iv. II. f E,xod. iii, 4t', 
 
20 Infant Baptifm vindicated, 
 
 fometimes a covenant of works only. But the a- 
 poftle Paul abundantly difproves thisabfurd notion^ 
 by urging the lability of the covenant which God 
 made with Abraham. Tho' Abraham and the pro- 
 phets are dead, the covenant is flill of force, and 
 can never be vacated ; and why ? becaufe Chrifh a- 
 bides for ever in his perfon, and in his members*. 
 And if any {hould objedt, that the law which was 
 given by Mofes could difannul the covenant, under 
 a notion of its being a covenant of works, the a- 
 poftle fays, that the fubfequent law could not dif- 
 annul the precedent covenant* and eftabliJi a diffe- 
 rent way of juftification, from that which was fet- 
 tled by the covenant of grace 5 but the great delign 
 of both the moral and ceremonial lav/ too, was to 
 fubferve the covenant which was made with Abra* 
 ham ; as it was adapted to convince men of their 
 undone condition, and the infufficiency of their 
 own righteoufnefs to commend them to God, and 
 to point out Chrift, the facrifice of atonement for 
 the expiation of fin -f». If this is not the plaift 
 fenfe of the apoftle, why are believers called " A« 
 *' braham*s feed J ? ** why are they called heir& 
 according to the promife? how come they *• blef- 
 *' fed with faithful Abraham**?" and how came 
 the bieffing of Abraham to defcend upon the Gen» 
 tiles? 
 
 If thefe things are duly confidered, I think k 
 will be very evident, that the Abrahamick cove- 
 nant was the covenant of grace ; and for that rea- 
 fon it is called an everlafting covenant, being fo la 
 its duration. 
 
 III. " The 
 
 * Gal. iii. 17, 18. '" t Se.e Gai. iii. 19,24. jiver. 23. 
 ** Gal. iii. 9, 14, 
 
Infant Baptifm vindicated, 2t 
 
 III. " The grant ii,i the Abrahamick covenantj 
 " made to his feed, has never been repealed.'* If, 
 by divine appointment, the gift of church mem- 
 berJ ip, and the token of the covenant, did belong 
 to the infants of vifible believers, under the former 
 difpenf^tion of the covenant of grace, and if the 
 fame law or rule abides in force (till ; then the in- 
 fants of believers under the prefent difpenfation of 
 the covenant, have an equal right now, and ought 
 to be admitted by the feal of the covenant. But 
 this gifc has never been repealed : God has no where 
 in his holy word reverfed this order ; no where ta- 
 ken away this privilege. God has changed the to- 
 ken of indudion, but not the fubjeds : there is not 
 the leafl intimation that the infant feed of vifible 
 believers are " caft out of the covenant, or cut off 
 *' from the privilege of having it fealed to them." 
 But, on the contrary, the vifible ad mini ft ration and 
 blefljngs belong to vifible believers and their feed. 
 And this, I apprehend, is abundantly evident, from 
 the eleventh chapter to the Bomans. For in that 
 chapter the apoftle is treating of the rejedlion of the 
 Jews from a vifible church Hate, for their unbelief 
 manifefi:ed in rejeding Chrift, and of the goodnefs 
 and mercy of God exprefied with his feverity there^ 
 in. Many of the Jewifli nation did entertain Chrift; 
 a remnant obtained righteoufnefs and life by him : 
 but the main body of them rejeded him ; they fliut 
 their eyes and would not fee, and then God in righ- 
 teous judgment blinded their eyes that they could 
 not fee, and fo were broken off from that vifible 
 church ftate. This indeed feemed harili dodrinc, 
 but if you attend to wlfat is written, it will appear 
 to be the main argument of the apoftle in the fore- 
 part of the chapter. But to qualify this dodrine 
 
 of 
 
$2 Infant Baptifm vindicated, 
 
 of the reje(5^ion of the Jews, he fays, that tha' they 
 were caft off and unchurched, yet the Gentiles were 
 taken in, and their' rejecf^ion was not final, but the 
 time would come, when they fliould be reftored to 
 their church ftate and privileges again. Some of 
 them fhould remain in their vifible church ftate ; " a 
 *' remnant, according to the eledion of grace* ;** 
 a few chofen veffels he continued in the covenant 
 made with Abraham and his feed. Abraham was 
 the root of the Jewifh church ; not the root of com- 
 munication, but the root of adminifiration, *' he 
 '^ being the firft with whom the covenant was {o 
 *' folemnly made.*' The olive tree is the vifible 
 church J the Lord calls its name a green olive tree-f-. 
 Tho' we apply it to union with Chiid, yet it is 
 fpoken of a vifible church ftate. And by the " root 
 and fatnefs'* of the olive tree, we muft underftand 
 the promifes and privileges v^hich belong to the vi- 
 able church. Now the believing Gentiles partiike 
 of this root, and therefore Paul fays, " the blef- 
 •' fing of Abraham is come upon the GentilesJ.'* 
 i^nd hence, " the fame fatnefs of the olive tree, 
 " the fame for fubftance, inftituted ordinances, and 
 *' vifible church memberfhip of infant feed, which 
 «' was part of the fatnefs of the olive tree that the 
 ■*' Jews had, cannot be denied to the Gentiles." 
 
 Having given the general meaning of the apoflle, 
 let us reafon upon it in the manner following, vix, 
 Iffomeonly were brc ken oflr", then the grant of 
 church memberfhip is not repealed, as to them and 
 their feed that remained, or were not broken off: 
 l)ut Faui affares us, that foilie only were broken off: 
 
 it 
 
 ♦ Gal. iii. f. f J^^^' ^'^^ ^^' X ^^^' "'* H- 
 
Infant Baptifm vindicated, 25 
 
 k follows therefore by Invincible confequcnce, t^at 
 the grant of church membcrihip remains unrepeJ- 
 €(i to them that werejbroken off. It was one evi- 
 dent delign of the apoftle to prove, that the rejec- 
 tion of the Jews was not total. The moft of then^ 
 rejecled Chrift, and therefore were broken off from 
 a vifible church ftate and its external privileges ; 
 but a remnant according to the eleifiion of grace 
 remained. Now, I fay, if fome only were bro- 
 ken off", then to them that remain, the right of 
 church memberfliip and its privileges remain un- 
 repealed.^ 
 
 But, will any pretend that all infants were among 
 the number that were broken oft'? this indeed 
 would not be more abfurdi, than fome things that 
 1 have met with inftead of argument. But I defire 
 fuch would confider the apoftle's reafoning in the 
 chapter referred to, and they may eafily fee that 
 he is quite againft them. As children come into 
 a vifible church ftate in the right of their pa- 
 rents, fo they are not caft out while their parents 
 continue members of the vifible church, unlefs^ 
 by their own adlual fins, they cut themfelves off. 
 Further, confider what Paul fays, *' becaufe of 
 *' unbelief they were broken off, and thou ffand- 
 " eft by faith*. '* Now if it was not an a6t of 
 mere fovereignty, that fome were broken oft^from 
 a church ftate and its privileges, but for their un- 
 belief J then the believing Jews and their feed 
 were not broken off ; therefore the ftate and privi- 
 leges remain to them, and to their feed ; /. e. they 
 are not repealed ; or otherways the infants of be- 
 lieving Jews were broken off, for the unbelief of 
 other men. Now, 
 
 * Gal. iii, 20. 
 
Hj^ Infant Baptifm vindicatedi- 
 
 "Now, fays Paul, the reje£^ian of the Jews 
 made room for the Gentiles ; the wild olive tree 
 was, contrary to natare, grafted into the true olive* • 
 the true church, from which the unbelieving Jews 
 had been broken off, and this church received f p 
 and virtue from the root. And if this is really tho 
 cafe; if the Gentiles are grafted into the fame 
 church, from which the Jews were broken off, 
 then the infants have the fame right of church 
 memberfhip that theirs had j and therefore the 
 right of church memberfhip is not taken away from 
 the infants of believing Gentiles. 
 
 Arg. II. " It is the will of God that the dif- 
 ** ciples of Chrift fhould be baptized ; but th6 
 ** infants of vifible believers, or of fuch as are 
 " members of the vifible church, are difciples of 
 ** Chrift J therefore it is the will of God that they 
 " iliould be baptized." 
 
 The firfl propofition of this argument is found- 
 ed upon the words of our Lord Jefus, in his com-» 
 miflion to miniflers : ** Go, teach all nations, 
 baptizing them — teaching them, &c.'' together 
 with Paul's words, " the fcripture forefeeing that 
 •* God would juftify the heathen thro' fiith, preach- 
 •^ ed before the gofpel unto Abraham, faying, in 
 *' the« fhall all nations be bleffed. So then they 
 •' which be of faith, are bleffed with faithful A- 
 •* braham.** From hence obferve, iT?, That 
 miniflcrs of Chrift are fent to teach people the co^ 
 ▼enant which God made with Abraham. The 
 promife was made to Abraham and his feed ; and 
 miniflers are bound to teach the whole of the co- 
 venant, 
 
 * Gal, iii. 16, 17. 
 
Infant Baptlfm 'vindicated, 25 
 
 venant, of which this is one part ; and they are 
 alfo to baptize, or adminifter the feal of induction, 
 unto all who enibraced Abraham's covenant ; none 
 might be excepted. 2^, All nations were to be 
 taught this covenant. The fame which had been 
 confined to one nation ; /. e. the covenant with its 
 privileges, is now extended to all nations that (l)all 
 receive the faith. The commiffion is, to make all 
 nations difciples, that were willing to enter into 
 Chrift's fchool j and fnch fliould be the people of 
 God, as the Jevvs had been in time pafl. Where- 
 as before one nation only was God's covenant- peo- 
 ple, now Chriil would have other nations taken 
 in likewifr : before this they were forbid going to 
 the Gentiles or Samaritans 5 *but now their coni- 
 mifiion extends to all nations. 3^, The firfl work 
 that minifters have to do, is to difciple, or enter 
 nations into Chrid's (chool. When the nation of 
 the Jews were made difciples, they were circum- 
 ciled ; and the firfl thing the apoftles and minifters 
 of Chrift have in charge, is to baptize and to teach : 
 Go ye^ make difciples, to me out of all nations, 
 by baptizing and teaching ; and the way of making 
 difciples, was entering into a fchool : In this fenfe, 
 Jofeph of Arimathea became one of Chrift's difci- 
 ples, not becaufe he was one that had been trained 
 up under his miniftry before, but that he might be 
 taught by him. 
 
 The fecond propofition in this argument is, that 
 the infants of vifible believers, are the difciples of 
 Chrift. This, I apprehend, every one mufl yield 
 to be true, who impartially confiders Peter's ex- 
 prefsly calling them fo. " Why tempt ye God, 
 " to put a yoke upon the neck of the difciples, 
 
 D " which 
 
2 6 Infant Eapupn "vindicated^ 
 
 " which neither our fathers nor we were able to 
 *' bear*,** The confroverfy referred to in this 
 fcripture, refpeds the tiiCLimciting the Genule 
 profelytes. " Certain of the Phai iiees roie up, 
 and infifted that it was necelTaiy to circumcife thtin, 
 and to command them to keep the law of Mojes." 
 Tho' they embraced the faith of ChriH:, yet many 
 of them continued very zealous for circumcifion, 
 and urged it upon the Gentiles as necefT^ry to ful- 
 vation. This was what raifed the diilenfion and 
 difputation with them j and this was what Peter 
 fliarply reproved thofe judaifing teachers for, as a 
 matter fo plain, that he could not but fpeuk of it 
 with fome warmth. " Now therefore why tempt 
 " ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck ot the dif- 
 *' ciples.*' But what yoke was this ? why, it was 
 the yoke, of circumcifion : they would impofe 
 circumcifion upon the believing Gentiles and their 
 feed, as it had been ufed among the Jews. The 
 ceremonial law was a heavy yoke, which they 
 would have laid upon the neck of the Gentiles^ 
 which Chrift came to ^\nt both Je vs and Gentiles 
 from. And Peter ^ in hisaddreis to iheafifembly, 
 tells thofe Pharifees, that they did,in cfFedl, prefer ibe 
 to God, in attempting to Lsy this yoke upon the 
 neck of the difciples. In this addrcfs, he evident- 
 ly calls the infant feed of believing GentileSy diki* 
 pies ; for the greatelf part cf any nation are chil* 
 dren ; and it was not only adult believing'. Gentiles, 
 but their male-children that they would have im- 
 pofed this yoke upon. Hence, if all the difciples 
 of Ch rift are to be baptized, and the children of 
 believing parents are cifciples, it necellarily fol- 
 lows, that luch children are to be baptizeti. They 
 
 are 
 
 * Acts XV, 10. 
 
Infant Bapt'ifm vindicated. 27 
 
 ire vifible difciples ; they vifibiy belong to the 
 icbool of Chrili:, are a part of his family and viii- 
 ble kingdom, and therefore may and ought to be 
 baptized. 
 
 Some indeed, whofe f..culty Is to make plain truth 
 dark, may pretend that Peter, by dilciples, meant 
 onlv adult pcrfons. But he that runs may read the 
 apoillc's meaning: for it was thofe very dilciples 
 on whom the judaifing teachers would have impo- 
 fed the yoke of circumcifion. And this yoke they 
 would have impoftd on the brethren, fpoken of in 
 the feries of his difcourfe. And it is as evident- 
 ly God's will, that the infants of vilible believers 
 fliould be baptized, as it is his will that dilciples 
 (hould be baptized j for God honours them with the 
 name of difciples. 
 
 Arg. III. " Thofe children that are federal- 
 *' ly holy, are to be baptized : but the infants of 
 *' vidble believers are federally holy : — therefore 
 ** the infants of viiible believers are to be bap- 
 tized/' 
 
 Perhaps no feflary, that allows Chrifllan facra- 
 ments, will deny, that federal holinefs gives a vi- 
 fible right to baptifm. But if any (hould deny this, 
 I would alk them what docs give a vifible right ? If 
 it be anfwered, a profeffion of faith : I would fur- 
 ther adc whether that is not a profeffion of federal 
 holinefs ? — And befides, it might be well to confi- 
 der, that God lirft covenanted with Abraham, that 
 he would be a God to him and his feed, and then 
 ordered the feal of that difpenlaiion of the cove- 
 nant of grace to be put upon them. *Tis for that 
 
 reafon 
 
2 8 Infant Bcipufm vindicated. 
 
 reafon God called Ifrael '* a holy people*3" ^s had 
 chofen them for his covenant-people, and diftin- 
 guiflied them from all other people in the world. 
 Probably there were very few of them that v^rere fa- 
 vingly converted to God at that time, for they had 
 given but very poor evidences of fuch a great change: 
 but God had feparated them to himfelf, to be his 
 peculiar people, above all nations upon the earth. 
 He fet his tabernacle in the midfl of them. : they 
 had the fymbols of his prefence, his holy oracles 
 and holy ordinances, and all the privileges of a vi^ 
 libie church. And thofe that were thus federally 
 holy, were to be circumcifed. Now, if baptifm 
 comes inthe room of circumcifion, then thofe that 
 are federally holy ought to be b:ipcized • But bap- 
 tifm has the fame refpecl unto federal holinefs un- 
 der the gofpe!, that circumciiion had under the law. 
 Circumcifion was a figa of belonging to God's hou- 
 ihold, and of having a right to the privileges of 
 the covenant, and fo is baptifm-f*. Circumci- 
 fion fignified patting off the fins of the iiefh, and 
 fodoes baptifmj;. Paul, in his epiflle to the Co- 
 loLtians, " fets baptifm in the fame ftate, and makes 
 '* it of the fame ufe to us, that circumciiion was 
 to the Jews." So that thofe who are federally ho- 
 ly, ought to be baptized, as Vv^ellas thofe that were 
 the covenant-people of God, under the ancient dif- 
 penfation, ought to be circumcifed. 
 
 Well, " The infants of viiible believers are fe- 
 " derally holy." Tho' real qualifications are not 
 propagated, yet relative privileges are ^ for, *' if 
 
 " the 
 
 * Deut, vii. 6. chap, xiv. 2. and xxvi. 19. Jer. II. 3. f Exod, 
 X'i. 43, 44. Acts il. 41. X Col. ii. II. Acts xxii. 16. T^C. 
 iii. 5. 
 
Infant Bapttfm vindicated. 29 
 
 <' the root be holy, fo are the branches*." Tho* 
 grace doth not run in the blood, yet external pri- 
 vileges do, even to a thoufand generations, unle{s 
 they are forfeited. This Paul feems very clearly 
 to point out, in the reafons of the diredion and 
 advice he gives converts to Chriftianity, who were 
 married to infidels. " The unbelieving hufband 
 " is fandified by the believing wife, and the un- 
 '* believing wife is fandlified by the believing huf- 
 ** band, elfe were their children unclean, but 
 " now are they holyf-." All the difficulty that 
 I know of, is to fix, or rightly to ftate, what fort 
 of holinels the apoftle now fpeaks of: and there 
 appears to me very little, if any, difficulty, in do- 
 ing this. 
 
 Surely, the apoftle, by holinefs, cannot mean a 
 principle of grace in the hufband ; for it is a ho- 
 linefs that is conveyed from the parents. Tho' 
 parents be ever fo holy, they cannot propagate real 
 holinefs to their feed. The graces of the Spirit 
 cannot be conveyed from one to another by natu- 
 ral generation. " Not of the will of the flelli, 
 ** nor of the will of man, but of God }; ." We 
 do not become the real children of God, by be- 
 ing born of godly parents. 'Tis the Spirit of God 
 that is the great and fole efficient of regeneration. 
 But the holinefs referred to, is that which comes 
 upon the child through the faith of the parent, 
 whether he be really, or only vifibly a bt;liever. 
 Befides, it is a holinefs that may be loft : " bc- 
 *' caufe of unbelief they may be broken off:" 
 they cut themlclves off by unbelief: and when 
 parents are broken off, or call: out of the vifiblc 
 
 church, 
 *Rom.xi. 16. Hsrj-y in Ice. f i Cor. vii. j.j. jjohni. ij. 
 
2Q hifant Baptifm vindicated, 
 
 cliarch, God cuts off their children from the ho- 
 Hnefs fpoken of. Now, this cannot be faid of a 
 ilate of faving grace ; for thofe that have a prin- 
 ciple of grace in their hearts, (hall abide for ever. 
 
 Nor can the apoftfe mean a matrimonial holt-' 
 nefs. For, a iavsrful birth has no dependence up- 
 on the faith of parents. Marria^:,es were as law- 
 ful among the heathen as among others: and where 
 a marriage is lawful, the children are legitimate, 
 even tho' the parents are heathen. And, on the 
 other hand, a child may be a baflard, and is fo, 
 if not begotten in lawful marriage, tho' it O.:)ould 
 be fuppokd that both the parents are believers. 
 The realiy and lawfulnefs of thefe relations, is 
 jiot founded in grace, nor in a profeffion of faith. 
 A father is as truly a fdther, a hufband as lawful- 
 ly a hulband, tho' he has no grace, as the moft 
 holy m;in in the world. Grace adds nothing to 
 the truth, or l.wfulnefs of any relation whatfoe- 
 ver, tho' it adds much to the c.omfort and right 
 life of all relations of life. Thjks, notwithfland- 
 ing, if both the parents are in a (late of heathen* 
 ifm, the children are unclean : but if one of the 
 parents is a believer, the children are holy. 
 
 Well, if this hclinefs is neither a principle of 
 grace in the heiiir, nor a manimonial holinefs, 
 what can it be but a federal hotfnefs ? BJng in- 
 fidels, they were out of the pale of the vifible 
 church, and their infant leed were common and 
 unclean, in the fame fenfe that heal hens in gene- 
 ral were filled unclean : but bein<>- believers, and 
 in the vifible church, or either of them fo, they 
 arc diflingui&ed from the world j and therefore 
 
 their 
 
Infant Saptifm timdlcated. Ji 
 
 tlieir children arc within the holy inclofure. They 
 are feparated from the reft of the world ; taken 
 into God's holy covenant j they are God's peculiar 
 people. "Tis a holinefs that comes to children, 
 thro* the faith of the parent, which can be no o- 
 ther than a federal holinefs, or being taken into 
 the parents covenantj which is derived to them, 
 either from Either or mother. And henc€, they 
 have not only a hereditary, but an adual right to 
 the ordinances of God ; unto them do pertain the 
 adoption, and the glory, and the covenant ok grace. 
 
 By thefe arguments, I apprehend, there is good 
 evidence laid before you, to relieve your mindSj if 
 you have had any fcruples, of the right which the 
 infants of vllible believers have to baptifm. Yet, 
 left any fiiould hefitate, or think it an immaterial 
 point, I hope you will give a candid attention to 
 what may be further offered, by way of evideiicca 
 together with the applications in the afternoofi.. 
 
 -D I S. 
 

 I S C O U R S E IL 
 
 ACTS XVL 3^. 
 
 •AnitiJa^ baptized^ he^ and all his, Jlratghtwap 
 
 J^x:<#xx^ ERE the doarine of infant baptifm 
 
 WX ^ circumftantbl a matter, as Ibme 
 ^ have reprefented it, I ihould think 
 X y.. the labour and time ill be ft owed to 
 
 J^.x>..-^.xx:^ 'infift upon this fubjed: j for nothing 
 is more deftrmaive to true Chriftianity, than pla- 
 cing it in modes, and firing our 2eal about circum- 
 ■ftantials. But I look upon this dod:rine of great 
 importance j and making light of it a great re- 
 iledion upon tlie God of the covenantj and the 
 great privileges contained therein. You need not 
 wonder, therefore^ that I fliiould take fome pains 
 to vindicate it in this evil day ; and if God fhould 
 break in Vv^ith his light, for your convid:ion and 
 eftabliiliment in the prefent truth which has beeii 
 maintained in thefe churches, you will not repent 
 your diligent attention to fome further evidences. 
 Therefore, with an humble dependence upon di- 
 vine-aid, let us add, 
 
 Arg. IV. " That dodrine which infers all 
 " inflmts to be in the vifible kingdom of fatan, 
 
 E ** i=? 
 
54 Infant Baptifin vindicated, 
 
 «* is certainly fulfe doflrine: — but the dodlnnd 
 ** that denies all infants to be members of the vi- 
 ** fible church, infers them to be members of the 
 " vi fible kingdom of fatan : — therefore it is falfe 
 y dodrine." 
 
 The vifible kingdom of Chrifl, and the vKible 
 kingdom of fatan, divide the world; i, e. thofe 
 that do not belong to the vifible kingdom of Chrift, 
 do belong to the vifible kingdom of fatan j for 
 there is no medium ; nor can thofe that belong to 
 the one, belong alfo to the other. If a child is ill 
 the vifible kingdom of fatan, there cannot be any 
 vifible ground of hope of the falvation of that 
 child. The only ground of hope that we can have 
 of the falvation of children, dying in their infan- 
 cy, is their being in the kingdom of Chri^^, or be- 
 ing the members of Chrift. And the only ground 
 of hope that we can have of their being the mem- 
 bers of Chrift, by a real and v tal union with him, 
 arifes from their vifible memberfhip ; for it is im- 
 poflTible that we can judge of that which is invifi- 
 ble, any other way than by that which is vifible. 
 
 Now, It is palpably falfe dofbrine, to reprefent 
 all infants, dying in their infancy, as dying in the 
 vifible kinedom of fatan ; for fuch dodrine would 
 tcike away all hope of their being faved. Where- 
 as the word of God gives us good reafon to hope 
 for the falvation of fome infants, dyirg in their 
 infancy. Therefore, the word of God gives us 
 good reafon to fay, that the dodlrine which teach- 
 es us that all infants, dying in their infancy, die 
 in the vifible kingdom of fatan, is palpably falfe 
 do(5lrine. 
 
 This 
 
Infant Eaptijm vindicated. 35 
 
 This argument, is fet before us by our Saviour 
 himklf, in the welcome he gave fome little chil- 
 dren that were brought to him. Some of his dif- 
 ciples, probably thought ic below their Mafter, to 
 take notice of little children, brought in their pa- 
 rents or nurfes arms, and therefore reproved them 
 for being fo troublefome. But Chrift rectified the 
 mirtake they went up(;n, and faid, " SuiFer little 
 " children, and forbid them not to come unto me : 
 ** for of fuch is the kingrdom of heaven*." Hence 
 It IS evident, at leaft, that fome little children be- 
 long to the kingdom of heaven, and therefore, not 
 to the kingdom of fatan. They are members of 
 the vifible church, and therefore, to them pertains 
 the privileges of church memberniip. Confequent- 
 ly, thofe that deny them the privilege of kiptifm, 
 do teach falfe doctrine, virtually laying, that they 
 arc all in the vifible kingdom of fatan, and that 
 there is no vifible ground of hope of their falvati- 
 on, tho* our Saviour fays the contrary. Yea, he 
 takes it very ill, of thofe who forbid them, and 
 fliut them out of church privileges. 
 
 Arc V. " That do(5lrine which renders the 
 *' privileges of the Chriflian church lefs, than the 
 ** privileges of the Jewi{h church, is certainly falfe 
 " doflrine : — but the do<Srine which excludes the 
 ** infants of vifible believers from the initiating 
 " feal of the covenant of grace, viz. baptifm, 
 " makes the privileges of the Chriftian church 
 ** lefs than the privileges of the Jewilh church : 
 *' —therefore it is falfe dodtrine.'* 
 
 That 
 
 — 
 
 ^ Mattt xi^. 14. 
 
36 Infant Baptifn vindicated. 
 
 That the infants of vifible believers in the Jew^: 
 \(h church, had a right, and aftually enjoyed the 
 feal of indudion into the church, needs nothing 
 further at prefent, than what has been offered, to 
 prove it. — And it is alfo evident, if this was a pri- 
 vilege in that church, the privileges of the Chrlf^ 
 tian church would, in that refpe^S, be lefs than the 
 privileges of the Jewiih church, provided the ini- 
 tiating feal of the covenant is denied the children 
 of believing parents under the gofpel. But what is 
 more abfurd than to fuppofe this? Paul, when he 
 (pompares the Old and Nev/ Teftament difpenfation 
 together, (hews the fuperior excellency of the lat-» 
 ter to the former. " Even that which was made 
 *' glorious, had no glory in this refped, by reafon 
 ^* of the glory that excelleth*." He undertook,^ 
 of fet purpofe, to ihow that the privileges of the 
 gofpel difpenfation, were far greater than the privi- 
 leges of the legal difpenfation of the fame covenant 
 of grace. But if the children of vifible believers,^ 
 are denied thofe external privileges of the covenant,, 
 which the children of the Jews enjoyed, then our 
 privileges are lefs than theirs were, and confequent- 
 ly theChriftian difpenfation is not fo excellent as the 
 legal difpenfation. Whereas the apoftle not only 
 confiders the fuperior excellency of the prefent to 
 the former difpenfation, on many accounts, in the 
 epiftle and chapter jufl referred toj but elfewhere 
 he affures us, that our privileges are, at leaft, e- 
 qual to theirs in the very cafe under confideration. 
 This he puts beyond all reafonable doubt, by af- 
 ferting that the Gentile church is grafted in among 
 them that were not broken off, and with them par- 
 take of the root and fatnefs of the olive-tree : and 
 
 T I .1 I " 
 
 * 2 Cor. iii, 10. 
 
Infant Bapt'ifm vindicated, jj 
 
 fo, ** the bleffing of Abraham comes upon the 
 ** Gentiles ;" the gofpehfed Gentiles are received 
 into the lame covenant relation with God, and par- 
 take of all the covenant privileges, from which the 
 unbelieving Jews were cut ofF. Now, in as much 
 as the Jews had tlie privilege of fealing the cove- 
 nant t(x their children, who can deny the leal of 
 the covenant to the children of vilible believers un- 
 der the gofpel ? If this was a privilege to them, 
 is it not as great a privilege unto us and our chil- 
 dren ? Do not thofe that deny the chihiren of 
 Chriftian parents the feal of the covenant, deny 
 them a great privilege, which the children of vili- 
 ble believers enjoyed under the law ? — If {o, thea 
 furely, this denial is a teaching falfe doctrine ; for^ 
 the privileges of the Chriftian church, and iht 
 grace and comforts of it, are, at kaft, equal in 
 thefe refpeds ; yea, in the whole, they are greater 
 than thofe that the Jewidi church enjoyed« 
 
 Arc VI. ** If it was the approved pradic© 
 •' of the church in the apoftles days, and fo down- 
 *' ward, to introduce the children of vilible belie- 
 *' vers into the Chriftian church, by the feal of 
 *' baptifm 5 then the infants of fuch parents ought 
 *' to be baptized : — but it was the approved prac- 
 *' tice in the time of the apoftles, and fo down- 
 ** ward, thro* all periods of the church : — there- 
 ^* fore the children of fuch parents ought to be 
 y baptized.** 
 
 When Chrift and his apoftles preached the gol^ 
 pel, they extended the promife or covenant, not 
 only as to the matter of it, but as to the manner 
 ^nd form of adminiftration, to vifible Chriftians 
 
 and 
 
5? Infant Baptifm vindicated^ 
 
 and their feed. No fooner was Zaccheus appro* 
 ved and declared a Cbriftian himfelf,but his family 
 alfo became related to Cbrift, by virtue of his in* 
 tereft in the covenant. *' This day is falvatioa 
 *^ come to this houfe, for as much as he alfo is 
 •* the fon of Abraham*." Before this, tho* a 
 fon of Abraham by birth, he was an excommuni- 
 cate, and the Jews were (hy of converllng with 
 him, but being a vidble penitent, his family were 
 brought into the church, and entided to privilep^es, 
 by virtue of his intereft in the covenant which God 
 made with Abraham. Chrid applied the promifc 
 to his houfe 5 /. e, to his children, whether young 
 or old ; to all his proper houfliold. Upon his 
 profeffion of faith and repentance, his family be- 
 came the vifible heirs of falvation, and of all the 
 means leading unto it. Here Chrift opens the 
 covenant made wi Ji Abraham, not only for him- 
 felfj but for his ho (e ; and argues from Zaccheus* 
 toeing a fon of Abraham, that the covenant was not 
 only to him, but to his houfe /. e, his feed. For to 
 what end fhould hh houfe be mentioned, if the 
 whole falvation fpoken of was confined to himfelf ? 
 Would St not be very abfurd for Chrift, to fpeak 
 of men and their hou (holds, and of falvation co- 
 ming to them and their houfes 5 and yet, to fuppofe 
 that he dcfigned to fliut out the children of fuch fa- 
 milies from the outward fign of the promife? What 
 % flrange policy arc they pofleffed of, who can 
 force themfelves to think, that Chrift did not here- 
 by intend, that the feed of vifible believers (hould 
 be included in the covenant, though they were 
 
 included in the darker difpenfation of it ? So, 
 
 when Peter came to Cornelius, he preached the 
 
 coYe- 
 
 f Luke sis. 9.. 
 
Infant Baptifm vindicated^ jp 
 
 covenant to him, with a gracious entail to hia 
 houfe * : he and his children (hould be taken in- 
 to covenant, and have the means of falvation. q.d* 
 Hitherto fiilvation has been of the, Jews, but now 
 it is to the Gentiles, as much as ever it was to the 
 Jews ; the promifes, privileges, and means of it, 
 are conveyed to all nations, as amply and fully, to 
 all intents and purpofes, as ever it had been ap- 
 propriated to the Jewifh nation, — So^ when the 
 apoftle preached to the jailor, and exhorted him 
 to admit the record that God has given of his Son, 
 he affures him that " he fliould be iaved and his 
 ** houfe-j-." believe, and falvation (hall come to 
 thy houfe : juil as God preached the covenant to 
 Abraham ; " walk before me, and be thou per- 
 ** fedl : and I will eftablilh my covenant between 
 " me and thee, and thy feed after thee ; to be a 
 ** God unto thee, and to thy feed after thee J :" 
 /» e. to thy houfhold. But did the apoftle mean 
 that the jailor's faich fhould eternally lave his hou- 
 fhold ? Anf. He meant the fame that is meant in the 
 promife given to Abraham and his feed : k> that the 
 quedion would be as proper for any one to aHc, 
 whether the promife of being a God to the feed of 
 Abraham, was a promife of eternal life ? The ut- 
 raofl intended by thelepromifes is, that they (hould 
 enjoy the blcllings of church J3riviieges, and the 
 external means of falvation ; and on thefe accounts 
 bediftinguilhed from all others. And herein thefe 
 promi(es agree with what Peter fays to thofe who 
 enquired what they fliould do : his anfwcr is, *' re- 
 ** pent and be baptized every one of you, in the 
 ** name of the Lord Jefus Chrift. For the promife 
 ** is unto you, and to your children**." When 
 
 they 
 
 * A(its xi. 14. Henry in loc. \ A^s xvi. ji % Gea, xvii, 
 1. 7. ** Afts ii. 38. 39. 
 
j^O Inpant Baptifm vindicated. 
 
 they were brought into a new difpenfation of the 
 covenant of grace by baptifm^their children were not 
 to be t'hrown out, but taken in with them j for the 
 promife, ** I will'be a God unto thee and to thjf 
 •* feed/* belonged as much to them and their chiU 
 dr-en, as ever it did to Abraham and his feed. A* 
 greeable to this fenfe of the promife, we find they 
 baptized houfliolds,or families, which may be con* 
 fidered ptefently. 
 
 And this muft be underftood of the infant feed 
 cf vifible believers : for, according to the moii au- 
 thentick church hiftory, infant baptifm was prac- 
 tifed in the days of the apoftles, and in the places 
 and churches to whom Paul wrote his epiftles* The 
 Chriftian church was inpoffeffionof this priv-ilcge, 
 for more than fifteen hundred years from its begins 
 ning, as we might make abundantly evident, wtre 
 it neceifary, both from the Greek and Latin faiiiers* 
 But if it fhould appear to be the pradice of die 
 church in the three iirlt centuries, that will fuffice 
 the prefent purpofe. To this end, 1 refer you to 
 the w^ords of Origen^ xvho fays, ** children are bap* 
 *' tized for the remiffion of fins, &c.^'* And a^ 
 gain, he fays, infants of children were baptized*!*-. 
 To the fame purpofe I might add the teitimony of 
 Irenaiis and Cyprian , who lived about the fame 
 time J. But I choofe to wave private teftimonieSj 
 in as much as I have the determination of a fynod 
 upon this head, not two hundred years after the a- 
 poftles, wherein v/asmore than threefcore bifhops* 
 
 The 
 
 "* Parvuli baptizantur in remifionem peccaiorurtt. And this 
 €frigen lived about a hundred years after the apoftle Paul. 
 
 f Paidia and n^-pia. % Irenaus was bifhop of Lj^'ontt 
 
 A. D. 184. ^Cyprian blfliop of Carthagf^ A. D. 25-3. 
 
Infant Baptlfm vindicated, /s^i 
 
 The occafion of the fynod was not becaufe infant 
 baptifm had not been an ufage of the church, but 
 becaufe it had been from the beginning : but one of 
 the bifliops had fome fcruples about the time of 
 their baptifm, whether it might be about the third 
 or fourth day, or whether it iliould be delayed till 
 the eighth, as it was obferved with refped: to cir* 
 cumcifion. The fynodical decree was to this ef- 
 fect** : " As for the matter of infants, whom 
 " you faid were not to be baptized within the fe- 
 *' coiid or third day after their birth, or according 
 " to the hwof circumciiion within the eighth day 
 '•^ thereof, ^c. our opinion is^ that none ought to 
 " be prohibited, efpecially no infants, tho' but juil 
 " born, Gfr." And this agrees with what other 
 particular renowned writers have faid, that the 
 church had all along the pofleffion of the privilege 
 of baptizing infants : and alio with what the pious 
 and judicious Calvin, who was well verfed in an- 
 tiquity, hath fiid, viz. " I affirm that this holy 
 ** oidinance of infant baptifm, hath been perpe- 
 " tually obferved in the Chriftian church ; for there 
 " is no ancient doftor, that doth not acknowledge 
 " that infant baptifm was conftantly adminiftercd 
 " by thsapoftles." And if, incontroverted cafes, 
 the conftant pradtice of the church is the beft in- 
 terpreter of thejaw of Chriil, the difpute muft be 
 at an end j for it always has been the pradice of 
 the church, to initiate the infants of believers by 
 baptifm, even from the firft conflituting a church 
 at Rome by the apofHe Paul, according to moft cre- 
 dible account j and it has never failed to this dav, 
 
 F tho' 
 
 ** 
 
 ^lantum vsro ad caufam Infantiuvi pcrtinci, qtcos dixijii 
 intra fecundam vel t^rtium dkn quo nali Jlnt conjtitn'os b.-r/'ti- 
 zari nsn operiers, &c. 
 
^t Infant Bapilfm 'vindicated. 
 
 tho* a number rofe up fiercely againft it, in Germa* 
 hy, after the church had polTcflcd it more then fif-» 
 teen hundred years in a good inealure of quietnefs. 
 
 Thefe argument?, ttiy brethren, tho' very im* 
 perfedly handled, are fuch as I amiable to an-* 
 fwer, and I hope will prove fluisfying to every ho- 
 neft enquirer after the truth, in the prelent debate 
 amopg you. Yet, left any rtiould ftill doubc, I 
 wiU briefly anfwer one or two thread- bare objcdti-* 
 ons urged againft our Chriftian pra(5lice,* 
 
 OhjeB. I. " Our adverfaries plead, as they fay, 
 *' for believers bapiifm ; and they argue to this ef- 
 *' fed, viz, infants are not capable of faith : but 
 *' there is no warrant to baptize any, but thofe 
 " that profefs their faith in Chrift ^ and therefore 
 " no infants may be baptized.'* 
 
 j^nf. I. " This obje(f>ion is of as mnch weight 
 *' againft circumcinnor children, under the legal, as 
 ** againft baptizing them under the Chiiftian dif- 
 " penfation of the covenant of Grace." Is the vi- 
 fibility of faith necelTarv for the b.piifm of adult 
 perfons ? fo was the viiibllity of faith necefTary tCr 
 the circumcifion of the adult under the l.w; *• a 
 *' feal of the righteoufnefs of fiitk*," which they 
 had, *' yet being uncircumcifed." But what doth 
 this argue more than that thofe who are yrown to 
 years of difcretion, and have not had the feal of 
 the covenant put upon them, muft make a profef- 
 fion of their faith before they are b.ptiz^d? But 
 if the infants of vinble belicvtrs were capable of re- 
 ceivino; the feal of the covenant, under the former 
 
 dif- 
 
 ^ jcCoiXi. iv. II. Henry in loc. 
 
Infant Bapfifm vindicated. ^-^ 
 
 dlfpenfatlon, how they can be caft out or denied the 
 fe..l under the prefent difpenfation, without war- 
 rant, I confels, is quite beyond my difcernment. 
 Jf they were taken into covenant of old, and had 
 the feal of the covenant put upon them, and the 
 fame covenant is continued, with all its privileges, 
 by what fevere fentence they are rejected and in- 
 capacitated, thofe^J^appy people are concerned to 
 make out, who not only rtjed, but nullify and re- 
 proach the baptilm of the feed of believers. 
 
 uinf. II. '' We preach the fame covenant, and 
 " pradife as the apofties in this regard have done." 
 Adult perfons, in order to admillion in the church 
 by the feal of the covenant, have been vifible be- 
 lievers under both difpenfitions. And when we 
 preach publickly, or in privateconverfation, tothofe 
 that belong not to the church, but live in a flate of 
 Gentilifm, we preach the fame doctrine that the a- 
 poiiles preached upon this head. So we (liould 
 preach, were we fcnt to the fcattered tribes of If- 
 rael in America, now the poor favages of the wilder- 
 ness : were we the happy inftruments fent among 
 the poor Indians, to turn them from their f dfe di- 
 vinations, and fuperfliiious ufages, to follow a di- 
 vine revelation of unqueftionable verity, we fliould 
 infift upon the fame dodrine ih^u the apoitlJs infill- 
 ed upon ; and when any of them believed in the 
 Saviour, and repented of their liris and were bapti- 
 xed, and fo became members of the vifible church, 
 we rtiould treat them juft as the apoftles did. We 
 fhould tell them that the fame d^y falvation came to 
 their houfes j that a church memberfhip was con- 
 veyed to their children, and they were included in 
 the privilci^es of the covenant with themlelves. I 
 
 am 
 
ij.^ Infant Baptifm viitd'tcated, 
 
 am fenfible our adverfaries deny this ; and let them 
 fhew me a warrant for their excluding the infants 
 of fuch, and I will join them : but fince Chrift and 
 his apofllcs have refolved this matter in favour of 
 our principles and pradice, they muft allow us to 
 adhere to their testimony, as worthy of credit. 
 If parents, making a profeffion of faith, do not, 
 in that way, bring in their children wrth them, 
 then furely our blcfled Saviour miffed it, when he 
 told Zaccheus, that that day falvation was come 
 to his houfe; for as much as he, a poor publican , 
 was now interefted in that covenant which God 
 made with Abraham. If parents, thus believing, 
 do not bring in their children, then Peter miffed 
 it, in faying to believing penitents, " the promife 
 ** is unto you, and to your children." Yea, if 
 this is not the cafe, Paul miffed it, when he faid 
 to the Galatians, that " the bleffing of Abraham 
 ** came upon the Gentiles." If what the Ana- 
 bapiifts lay is true, ihefe, and many other texts of 
 fcripture muft be rafed out of the bible; for it will 
 not do to receive them as infallible truth; becaufe, 
 upon their principles, they are evidently falfe. But 
 if, on the other hand, what Chrifl and his apof}:les 
 have faid about the matter be true, the unavoid- 
 able conlequence of it will be, that the infants of 
 yifible believers are to be baptized, 
 
 Yetfl-ill, tho' this might ferve for an anfwer, they 
 go on and objedl, 2dly, that " There is noexprefs. 
 ** command or example for baptizing infants," 
 
 Anf, I. ^* What if we fliould rejeft fome o- 
 ** ther duties, with a confident affertion that there 
 is no exprefs command for them ?" Can they 
 
 (liow 
 
 «c 
 
Infant Baptifni vindicated, ^5 
 
 fhow us any cxprels command or example for wo- 
 men to receive the Lord's fupper ? and if they can- 
 not, why do they admit them ? We grant, that 
 by fcripture confequence, they ought to be admit- 
 ted to the Lord's table : but where will they find 
 an exprefs command for it? If we were difpofed to 
 wrangle, we might eafily fay, where is the exprefs 
 command or example to bear them out in admit- 
 ting women to the Lord's table ? And again, 
 where is the exprefs command or example for tha 
 religions obfervance of the Lord's day, inflead of 
 the old feventh day fabbath ? Or, where is the 
 command or example in the New Tellament, for 
 holding publick lectures on week days? Let thefe 
 queftions be fully refolved, and I hope that I have 
 offered you as much light for infant baptifni, as they^ 
 can bring for their pradtice in thefe points. But 
 
 Anf. n. " We have an exprefs command, which 
 " has never been reverfed, to adminifter the initi- 
 *' ating feal of the covenant, to the children of vi- 
 ** lible believers." We don't lay that the com- 
 mand is in thel4i words, " Go and baptize the chil- 
 " dren of all my covenant-people j" or that " the 
 ** apoftles did certainly baptize the infants of bs- 
 " lieving parents." But no man that enjoys the 
 bleliing of a found mind, and is not blinded by er- 
 ror and prejudice, can fay that we have no good 
 warrant lor baptizing the infant feed of viiible be- 
 lievers. For, we have a command to adminifter 
 the feal of the covenant to the infants of believers : 
 and this command has never been reverfed ; and 
 therefore it is flill in force, and not only warrants, 
 but obliges us to adminifter the initiating feal of 
 the covenant to dich infants, which, under the 
 
 prcfcnt 
 
i|6 Infant Baptlfm vindicated. 
 
 prefent difpenlluion, is baptifm. And were there 
 ever fo many difpenfations of the fame covenant of 
 grace, and a new feal of introdudion to each new 
 difpenfation, the fubjeds muft remain the fame, 
 unleisGod had excluded them. Nor have we the 
 leaft reafon to imagine, but that the apoilles ob- 
 ferved the command, in adminiliering the feal of 
 the covenant, to the children of believing parents, 
 Vi^ith conftant exadnefs. For akho' it is not laid 
 in thefe very words, " they baptized the infant 
 " feed of believing parents," yet we are ailured 
 of it by words that are equivalent : for we are told 
 that they baptized hou'holds or families; Lydia 
 and her houfhoid, Stephanus and his houihold, the 
 jailor and his houHiold, &c. And thefe accounts, 
 to an impartial mind, I think, muft be equivalent 
 to the plciineft aifertions : for in the fciiptures, the 
 terms bouje and hofftold^ are conflantly ufcd to fig- 
 nify the children of the houfe*. Now, to what 
 poflible end fl.::ould the apoOles, wheii fpeaking of 
 bapiifm, borrow a phrafe ufed in all languages, 
 particularly in the Old Teflament, to fgnify the 
 children of a houfe, unlefs it were to fignify that 
 there were children in that houfe ? Doubtlefs, if 
 a miffionary to the Indians fliould write us, that 
 he had baptized luch ah Indian and his houfe ; and 
 another fliouJd write us, that he had baptized the 
 head of fuch a family, and all his, we lliould ve- 
 ry readily underffand them. Yea, I cannot think 
 that even an Anabaptiff could eafjlv mifiake fuch 
 accounts, after all the prejudices they have imbibed 
 againft our dodtrine and pradice. And if he fhould 
 
 fay, 
 
 * Gen, ixx. 50. chap. xlv. 18, 19. Numb. Hi, 15. PiVtl. 
 €xv. 12, 13. Beiidcs many other texts which teach us the fame 
 
 iBTUth, 
 
Infant Bcipfifm vindicated, ^J 
 
 fay, that it is prtflible thefe families had no infants 
 in them ; we may cluim a right to fay it is poffible, 
 yea, highly probable they hadj not only becaufe 
 ho ifliolvls ufually contain, and families are made 
 up in part of children ; but alfo becaufe children 
 were included in the covenant wiih their parents, 
 and have never been cut off. 
 
 APPLICATION. 
 
 Ufe T. Learn hence, " fomething of the evil 
 ** and danger of Anabaptift principles and their 
 " pradice agreeable thereto." I do not defire to 
 reprefent them in a falfe light 5 and hope to be kept 
 from a cenforious fpirit in all that 1 fay of them. 
 I am fenfible they generally difavov/ the name of 
 Anab.iptids, though we conftantly, and with good 
 reafon, fay it belon_,s to them. For they not on- 
 ly deny the right of infant baptifm ; but baptize 
 over again thofe that have already been baptized. 
 They deny that the children of vilible Chriflians 
 have a vilible right in the covenant with their pa- 
 rents, and take parents into covenant without their 
 children j becaufe, fliy they, it is every man's own 
 faith muft make him a fon of Abraham. But thefc 
 things, I humbly apprehend, are linful and dan- 
 gerous principles and pradices. For, 
 
 I. " It is fetting up a covenant that God never 
 ** madej" a mere human device ; a contrivance to 
 take in parents without refped to their children. 
 And this is fueh a covenant which is without fcrip- 
 ture foundation : for God never made a covenant, 
 in any one inftance, v^'ith parents, without inclu- 
 ding; 
 
2]. 8 .Infant Bapfijin vindicate J. 
 
 ding children. The covenant of life was not onl]^ 
 with Adam, but for all his pofterity j and after thd 
 apoftafy, as foon as God entered into a covenant 
 of grace, the promife was unto parents and thcif 
 children. And therefore Eve was called, " the 
 mother of all living * ;'* not fo much becaufe all 
 mankind fhould defcend from her, as becaufe (he 
 was to be a covenant mother, as Abraham was the 
 covenant Either of us all. So, God made the co- 
 venant with Noah and with his feed after him, 
 both before and after the flood ^ So when the 
 church of God was in great diflrefs, (he is put in 
 mind of the covenant which God entered into with 
 Abraham and his feed, for her fupport and encou- 
 ragement J intimating that he ftill remembered that 
 covenant, and would be a God to his people and 
 their children, under all their diflrelTes J. And 
 fo David triumphs in the covenant that God made 
 with Abraham, which was renewed with David 
 and his feed. And after the rejedlion of the Jews, 
 the fame covenant was continued, as we have ob- 
 ferved in arguing upon the important fubjedt. — 
 The Gentiles were grafted into the fame root, and 
 that root was Abraham and his covenant, in the 
 fenfe already explained ; for which caufe he is called 
 the father of the Gentiles **. And it is for this 
 very reafon that the apoftle faid, " The promife 
 ** is unto all that were afar off, and to their chil- 
 *' dren, even as many as the Lord our God fhall 
 " call." This promife pointed to the call of the 
 Gentiles into a church ftate. And when the Jews 
 fhall be gathered in again, they (]:all be brought, 
 they and their children, into the fame covenant, 
 
 out 
 
 *Gen.iii. 20. f Gen. vL 18. ch. Jr. 8, 9. :|: Ifa. li. i, 2, 3. 
 ^* Rom, iv. 16), 
 
I-fifant Baptlfm vindicated, 49 
 
 «ut of which they were caft. Indeed, the fcrip* 
 tures fpeak of no covenant, that God has entered 
 Into with man, which doth not comprehend or 
 t-ake in children with their parents. And there- 
 fore a covenant that excludes the children of cove^ 
 nant parents, is a covenant of man's, and not of 
 God*s making. Now, would it not be well for 
 thofe that change and cut off fuch an efTential part 
 of the covenant, to coniider ferioufly, whether it is 
 not more thanamerecircumllance, thus to pervert 
 God's order in his covenant? Uzzah's offence in 
 touching the ark, when it v/as in the way to the 
 city of David, feemed to be very fmall. The de- 
 fign of it feemed plaufible to ihew his willingnefs 
 to promote the publick good : but the matter of 
 order in which he undertook to promote this good 
 was fo offenfive, that the Lord fmote tJz^ch with 
 fudden death, as a teftimony of his difpleafure a- 
 gainft him. And if a matter of order is fo great in 
 the fight of God, what is it to mutilate the cove-^ 
 nant of God ? It is a great fin to negledt or change 
 the ordinances of God : but it is flill a greater fin 
 to change the everlafting covenant, the Abrahamick 
 covenant, which is the foundation of ordinances^. 
 Tho* I charitably think fome ferious people have 
 done this, for want of due confideration, yet I 
 know of no vv^ay of finning more dangerous ; no 
 way more likely to fettle men down in a falfe hope^ 
 than to change the covenant God hath made with 
 his people. Did men rightly confider the difiinc- 
 tion which the fcripture makes between the vifible 
 and invifiblc church, it might prevent this evil ; 
 but the pride and prefumption of the heart draw 
 them away to afllime the divine prerogative, and 
 
 G tfi) 
 
j'o Infant ^apflfm ^.indieated. 
 
 %o take that work ypon themfqlves which belongi 
 to Chiift only ^, 
 
 JI. *' Denying the right of baptifm to the chil- 
 ** dren of believing parents is a great injury done 
 ** to ihem.** For, they are hereby cut off from 
 that covenant and the privileges of it, v^hich God 
 has grafted them into ; and are put into or placed, 
 in the fame condition with the children of the hea« 
 then world, altho' our Saviour reckons them the 
 fnembers of his vifible church. And is it not a 
 dangerous thing to deny the covenant and its privi- 
 leges to thofe to whom they belong ? Is it not of» 
 fending againft thofe little ones, unto whom doth 
 appertain the privileges of vifible church member-* 
 0)ip ? It is doubtlefs very offenfive to God for his 
 people to tolerate the admiffion of profane perfons 
 into the church, or tamely to fuffer them in the 
 chu-rch if they are admitted j and I am perfuaded 
 the negle(51; of the holy ordinance of church difci- 
 pline, is the ready way to make the name of churches 
 and church members mere empty notions.— But 
 the offence is ft ill much greater in any perfon or 
 fedt, to refufe admiffion to thofe whom the Lord 
 would have received ; and that becaufc it is a virtual 
 blotting their names out of the laft will and tefta- 
 ment of our Lord Jefus Chrift. Should we not 
 think it a villainous adt in any, to take out the name 
 of a perfon, that had his name put into the laft 
 
 will 
 
 ^ Matt. xi'n. 41. chiip. xxv. 32, 33. Some perfons feem 
 to lofe fight of the differenee between the vifible and invijible- 
 church, even by that which is one plain evidence of the diffe- 
 rence, viz. becaufe there are many hypocrites and .unbelievers 
 in the vifible church; and fo becaufe many baptized children wil! 
 perifli, they v;ould not have them baptized. But this is to be 
 >?vife, rot only ah^ve what is written, but agaUtfi what b 
 written. 
 
Infant Baptifm Vindicated, ^l 
 
 will and teflameht of a teftator, and ^oiVi^ valuable 
 legacy left him ? Yes : we all fay it is facred ; the 
 toerfon muft have the benefit, and the lafl will and 
 teftament of the teftator muft rettiain unalterable : 
 the teftament is in force by the death of the tefta* 
 tor, and cannot be altered, with reference to the 
 !aft will of men that are dead. In like manner, 
 Paul argues the facrednefs of the privileges of the 
 feovenant of grace, which he calls a teftament*; 
 and teaches tis that the privileges granted to Abra- 
 ham and his feed remain firm and unalterable to 
 all the covenant-people of God ; and that it is in- 
 confiftent with the wifdom, holinfcfs, and fdith- 
 fulnefs of God to fet afide this ad! of grace to his 
 
 feople. -^ ^-* Will any plead that children arc 
 
 t\bi capable to ftipalate for themfelves, and there 
 fore they muft be fhut out from the covenant and 
 its pi ivileges ? To fuch the anfwcr is ready : when 
 the Lord takes a perfon into the fpiritual and in- 
 ternal part of the covenant of grace, he requires his 
 confent : but this covenant, as to its external pri- 
 vileges and admiriiftration, is' a merciful gift or 
 gratntj Which children of vifible believers have a 
 title to, and are as capable of entering into covenant, 
 in this reoard, as ever. If they were capable of 
 cireumcifion, which was the feal of tlie covenant 
 under the ancient difpenfation, they are capable of 
 baptifm, which is the feal of the covenant under 
 the prefent difpenfation. And if God was greatly 
 blended with any tliat f)«gle<ft'ed the feal of the co- 
 venant amonty the Jews -J^j is it not much m-ore of- 
 fenfive for Chriftians, under the clear fight of the 
 gofpel, to deny that the children of believing pa- 
 rents have any part in the covenant itfelf ? If thofc 
 
 that 
 
 * Gal. iii. 15. f Exod. iv. 24. 
 
52 Infant Bdp-tifrn vindicated. 
 
 that were not baptized, in our Saviour's time, are, 
 for that reafon, reprefented as defpifers of his 
 grace * ; what are they guilty of that deny the 
 foundation of baptifm, the covenant of grace, as 
 it belongs to the children of believers ? 
 
 III. " By the pradlce of re-baptizing thofe that 
 ** have been baptized in their infancy, the name 
 *' and ordinance of God are diQionoured, and the 
 ^' reformed churches are fet at naught," 
 
 I fay, the name and ordinance of God are dif- 
 honoured by fuch a practice. If men fliould ex- 
 prefs a religious veneration for God's name and or- 
 dinances, then a needlefs, is a iinful ufe of them: 
 but to ufe the name of the blefled Trinity,, and 
 repeating baptifm refpeding the fame fubjedt, is a 
 needlefs ufe, and therefore a Iinful abufe of them. 
 It is a pradice without any divine warrant : it can- 
 not ferve any good intention • it is not an adt of 
 duty or obedience to God, but mufl be ofFenfivc 
 in his fight. Would it not therefore be very fuitn. 
 able for people who feem to make light of fuch a 
 pradlice, to confider who hath required this at 
 inens hands ? And whether God will have his 
 work done by our rules ? Or will accept that at 
 our hands, which he hath not appointed \ 
 
 Again, the reformed churches are fet at naught 
 by this pradice. No man can prove from fcrip- 
 ture, that dipping the body all over in water is 
 neceffary to the e&nce of baptifm ; nor can they 
 prove it from apoftolick pradlice j and yet the A- 
 nabaptifh make it efTential, tho* without warrant,, 
 
 and 
 
 k * Luke Yii. go. 
 
Infant Baptifm vindicatecJ, ' 53 
 
 and teach their hearers, that " they have ground, 
 *' in their hearts, to judge fouls to be godly," 
 who do not go into their meafures ; but as they 
 are not baptized, (becaufe not plunged all over in 
 water) and " as baptifm is an introdudion into 
 ** the vlfible church, and eflential to it," they very 
 gravely excommunicate all the reforrr^ed churches 
 in the world, unlefs they will profane the ordinance 
 of God, by being re-baptized or plunged into the 
 water. And tho* fome, to ferve their own ends, 
 may call us Chriftian churches ; when thofe ends 
 arc attained, they teach their people that wc and 
 our congregations -, we in the miniftry and all our 
 churches J are no vifible members nor churches of 
 Chrift, but a number of unbaptized fouls ; and 
 therefore unfit for their having communion at the 
 Lord's table on any occafion whatever. All this 
 is on account of a mode of adminlftration, letting 
 themfel^s up as infallible judges, and making a 
 mere uninftituted mode fo eflential, I fay, as to 
 excommunicate all the reformed churches, toge- 
 ther with their kings, and all in authority under 
 them. But, methlnks, they might have modefty 
 enough to flop their courfe a little, and afk them- 
 felves, whether It is not poffible that fome others 
 may underftand Greek and Latin, and ancient cuf- 
 toms, as well as they ? If they could believe thls> 
 why fhould they condemn and rejedt the moll re- 
 nowned churches in the world as perverters of the 
 holy inftitutlon of Chrift ; becaufe they do not 
 pradife in the very fame mode that they do? Doth 
 the kingdom of God, in the lal^ times, confill in 
 a mere mode of adminiflration, diftlng^uilhed from 
 all other modes? If it doth, there is a new thing 
 under the fun ; a gofpel that Paul and the other 
 
 apoRlej 
 
54 Infant Bapt'ifm vindicated. 
 
 apoftles abhorred in their day. And I apprehend, 
 thofc re-baptizers muft needs take thofe things for 
 evident and important truth, refpeding a mere 
 mode of baptifm, and a mode e0ential to the be- 
 ing of the facred ordinance, which neither they 
 jior their fathers have been able to prove ; yet thty 
 are wife and good enough, to judge, condemn, 
 and excommunicate the whole reformed church 
 upon that account. -^VVhat fe<St in the whole re- 
 formed world, can we more properly apply the 
 words of infpired Paul to, than to ihole that prac-* 
 tifed after this fort ? " Why is my liberty judged 
 *' of another man's confcience ?'* Why do they 
 Walk uncharitably ? If they cannot baptize chil- 
 dren, why do they excommunicate thofe that are 
 baptized, becaufe they are not plunged under wa- 
 ter ? Why is there this notorious, criminal judg- 
 ing, cenfuring, and ciafhing among thofe that call 
 themfelves Chriftians? At what an unreafonable, 
 imprudent rate do they ufe their Chriftian liberty ? 
 How will they give us good reafon to believe that 
 the learned part of them have aded in thefe things 
 with Chriflian fimplicity ? God grant, that they 
 and we may confider Chrift as our judge, and that 
 before him both parties fhall fland as perfons to be 
 tried, and to give an account, expecting our final 
 doom from him, which will be eternally conclu- 
 iive. But, in the mean time, I muft declare, that, 
 as I underftand the fcriptures, they are guilty of 
 worfe than the Corinthian fchifm. For, the Co- 
 rinthians, tho* they, in the celebration of the ho- 
 ly ordinance, fell into parties, continued to be one 
 church ; notwithftanding their ftrifes and divifions, 
 there was no feparation from external communion : 
 but the Anabaptifts not only have feparate aflemblies, 
 
 but 
 
Infant Baptifm 'vindicated. ^g 
 
 butliold feparatc communion from the whole Pro- 
 teilant church, and deny occafional communion with 
 their Christian brethren that differ from them in 
 the mode of baptifm, even tho' they profefs agrec- 
 nient with them in all dodrinal articles in general. 
 How they, or any for them, can juftify or excufe 
 fuch a fchilm as this, is quite beyond my comprc- 
 henfion. Paul reckons all fchifm among the works 
 of the flefh*: and it ought to be really offenfive to 
 all good men j for it gives great advantages to the 
 enemies of the truth, and tends to render true re- 
 ligion contemptible and vile before the world. 
 
 Ufe II. Learn hence, ** that k is a plain duty 
 ** to beware of thofe zealots who fet themftlves up 
 ■' againd our Chriflian pra6lice of infant baptifm, 
 ^* to draw away difciples after them.*' Some in 
 the apoftks days, and afterwards, did pervert and 
 flrain feveralfcriptures to make them patronife their 
 errors ; thofe that had been much efteemed rofqg| 
 up, and by their plaufjble inlinuation, made divi* 
 iions among the difciples of ChriO^, and brought 
 them over to themlelves as heads of parties -J-. 
 jtlow fir this is the cafe in our day, and in thefe 
 parts of the land, men will judge for themfelves. 
 but I believe thofe that have t'le interefls of the 
 true church at heart} thofe that love the Redeem- 
 er's caufe, are in pain, and tiemble for the ark. 
 Arminianifm has long harboured itfelf under the 
 roof, and claimed a kind reception among the re- 
 formed churches, tho' its doctrines are contrary to 
 all Protefl:ant confcffions of faith. And of late, 
 Enthuliafm and Anabaptifm have joined hands, 
 and threaten to fweep away our glory. This was 
 
 the 
 
 ^- . ■ .- ■ f 
 
 * Gi4i. V. 20, 21. f nCU JkJt. 2y, 30. 
 
^6 Infant Baptifm n^hidlcated, 
 
 the cafe very foon after the reformation from Pd* 
 pery began • and like thofe that promoted it then, 
 fo now, as a learned and pious divine has obfer- 
 ved, " the Anabaptifts are almoft every where in 
 " a fevefj or paroxifm of zeal, to make profelytes 
 " to their fchifmatical^ narrow party |" quite op- 
 pofite to the genius of the gofpel of Chrift.— Let 
 none of us ** fay, a confederacy to them to whom 
 ** others fay a confederacy*," Be not afTociated 
 with them in their confederacies againft the cove- 
 nant of our God and the holy pradice of the 
 church of Jefus Chrift. We hold nothing in this 
 ordinance contrary to the inflitution itfelf : no- 
 thing as to the fubje^t, but what we have fupport- 
 ed by the word of God ; nothino; but what has 
 been perpetually obferved in the Chriflian churchy 
 and conftantly pra(5lifed in the apoflles time j no- 
 thing but what the church has been peaceably 
 pofTeffed of in general, until the Anabaptills in 
 gijermany rofe up, and wrought woful tragedies in 
 many places ; overthrew magiftracy, fet up a king 
 of their own, and committed many other abomi- 
 nable deeds. — I do not mention thcfe lafl abomi- 
 nations, to inlinuate as if the Anabaptifts in thefe 
 parts have gone into the fame pradices. But they 
 have already fet up the notorious fchifmatical prac- 
 tice of excommunicating all reformed churches 
 that do not run their dangerous lengths : and what 
 further may not be feared, when Enthuiiafm, in- 
 ftead of real Chriftianity, leads and governs any 
 part, whatever ? They who rend and tear the church 
 of Chriil to pieces, merely on account of the mode 
 of baptizing j inftead of having the covenant of 
 grace confirmed to them thereby, may juftly fear 
 
 being 
 
 ^ iia. viii. 12^ 
 
' Infant Baptifm vindicated, 57 
 
 lieing cut off from Chrift and his gofpel benefits^ 
 whiitever their pretences be. Would to God, thofe 
 that are feized with this party fever^ might be du- 
 ly fenfible of the aims and ends that govern themi 
 An unl.iuful adion cannot juftify a good end j if 
 it would, men might lay the reins upon the neck 
 of their corruptions without controul, and think 
 tiiemfelvcs warranted in fchifm and other mifchief, 
 under the grave pretence of leeking the glory of 
 God J devoutly doing evil that good might come : 
 fuch vile things have been, and ftill may be prac- 
 tifed, with abundance of feeming love to Chrif>j 
 and a pretended heart-breaking concern for preci- 
 ous fouls, and with a tide of zeal, like a land- flood ; 
 when all the £how fprings from felf-love, and zeal 
 to carry on bye^ends, or to uphold or promote a 
 fchifm in the body of Ghrift* 
 
 But, leaving them with him, wtiofe prerogative 
 it is t) look into the fecret thoughts of the liearts 
 of all men, and to fearch out all their principleSj 
 motives and endSj that lurk in their inmoft parts j 
 I fay, leaving them with Godj I apprehend it to 
 be your duty and mine, fo to behave, as to be no 
 ways aiding and abetting their principles or prac- 
 tices; no ways conniving at, or encouraging them 
 in their defigns. Tho' we muft be far from cur- 
 fing or wifliing evil to their perfons, yet we ought 
 to abhor their fchifmatical pradices, and not love 
 the fin for the fake of the man. God knows whe~ 
 ther this has not been a fnare in which Ibme have 
 been caught, round about you, as they fuppofe there 
 has been almoft a famine of the pure word of life 
 among them. But no difficulty whatever can juf- 
 tity or excufe us in putting countenance upon a plain 
 
 H fcrip- 
 
58 Infant Bapt'ifm vindicated, 
 
 fcripture fchifm : but, as a teftimony of our owit 
 abhorrence, and of our own innocence, we ought 
 to fay, as Jacob did in another cafe, " unto their 
 •* aflembly, mine honour, be not thou united/* 
 
 This, my brethren, I do urge upon you with an 
 honeft plain heartednefs; and, in thefe difcourfes, I 
 truft that I fpeak confcientioufly, as in the fight and 
 prefence of the omnifcient God. And, if you 
 (hould pracflically defpife this counfel, you may fee 
 reafon in the bitternefs of your fouls, to repent it 
 when it is too late. You that are parents in parti* 
 cular, may, by the countenance ycxi put upon this 
 fchifm, fee and feel reafons of difcouragement with 
 regard to your children. A pradical treating fcrip* 
 ture fchifm, as tho' it were a trifle, may draw o- 
 thers to treat it as fuch ; and, as oneerror leads to 
 another, you may, in a (hort time, think that your 
 children ftand upon a par with heathens ; no cove-»\ 
 iiant to plead in their . behalf j but they are left a9 
 the poor favages in the wildernefs to the uncove- 
 nanted mercy of God, which muft needs damp 
 their fpirits under foul concern, in pleading for the 
 mercy of God in Chrift Jefus. They could not 
 plead their covenant relation to God as their father, 
 nor his intereft in them as his covenant chilJren, 
 They could not plead their covenant privileges and 
 obligations, nor ufe any other plea but what art 
 heathen might ufe. I know indeed fame Amino* 
 mians will call it legal, if any fhould fay that the 
 children of the covenant (land fairer for heaven thaa 
 the heathen world. But I will venture to fay, that 
 the covenant people of God are warranted to plead 
 their covenant interell when they are in diftrefs« 
 ♦* Turn thou me, and I fliJl be turned 3 for thou 
 - ^ - . " art 
 
Infant Baptifm vindicated, g^ 
 
 ** art the Lord my God *." Ephraitn is repre- 
 fented as under convidtion of fin, but not convert- 
 ed i and yer, in his prayer for converting grace, he 
 pleads his vilible relation to God, as an argument 
 for this mercy. — Add to this, if you think hghtiy 
 of re-b ipiizin^, and confequently treat it as a fmall 
 matter, you will eafily come to think lightly of pro- 
 faning the name and ordinance of God, and will 
 naturally inllill the fame thoughts into your family, 
 and really encourage Others therein. 
 
 U/e III. Let us (hut up all with '* a word of 
 " exhortation", to parents -, to children -, and to 
 the church of Chrift. 
 
 « 
 
 I. " Let parents rake hold of the covenant, not 
 only for themfelves, but for their children alfo." 
 I apprehend there is -ireat encouragement for be- 
 lieving parents to muke this attempt ; for they are 
 not only the blefTed of the Lord themfelves, but 
 their offspring wiih thcm-j-. There is a bleffir^g 
 entailed from them to their offspring ; " the feed 
 •* of the blcfied of the Lord." God has been 
 pleafed to enter into covenant with you j ?nd not 
 with you only, but with your feed af:er you. With 
 joyful and thankful entertainment of this covenant 
 you ought to fall before God, as Abraham did ;{:: 
 Or with Mofes undsr a fenfe of fpecial obligations 
 for covenant bleffin^r, " behold, the heaven, and the 
 *' heaven of heavens, is the Lord's ; the earth alfo 
 •* with all that therein is. Only the Lord had a 
 *' delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chc fe 
 " their feed after them, even you above all people, 
 ** as it is this day**.** And is the fame God your 
 
 covenant 
 
 "♦Jer. XXII. ig. I I1ai.lxv.33. JCJen.xvii. 17. *'*Ueuc. x. i^j, 13. 
 
6o Infant Bapufm 'vindicated, 
 
 covenant God, and the God of your feed ? Has ho 
 pot this honour upon them as well as upon you \ 
 Has he brought them hito his kingdom \ Then 
 
 " Exercife faith in a covenant God on their be- 
 *' half, in every cafe, and in every branch of your 
 *' duty refpecfting them." The people of God 
 have exercifed faith upon the covenant, in behalf 
 of iheir children. David founds his plea for fami- 
 ly bleffings upon the covenant of promife, ** oa 
 " which God caufed him to hope." He defired 
 no more, and expedled no lefs. *^ Let the houfe 
 *' of thy fervant he eftabiifhed before thee : for 
 ** thou, O Lord of hofls, God of Ifrael, hail re^ 
 *^ vealed to thy fervant, faying, I will build thee 
 ** an houfe*." So all believing parents Ihould look 
 over the promifes that God has made refpeQing the 
 children of luch, and pray, as David did, for their 
 own children, as being part of the covenant which 
 the Lord has made with them : " Let it pleafe thee 
 *' to blefs the houfe of thy fervant with thy blef- 
 ** ling, let the houfe of thy fervant be truly and 
 ** eternally bleifed." And if you exercife faith in 
 the promiles for your children, you may entail very 
 great bleffings upon them, and live to fee many good 
 things of the covenant accomplifhed ui;}to them, 
 which will be matter of unfpeakahle comfort to 
 you, if you fliould leave them in an evil world, or 
 if they die before you. How happy would it be, 
 if you could on good grounds view your children, 
 thole olive plants round about your tables, likely to 
 fhare in the fpecial grace of the covenant 1 They 
 ^re branches of the good olive tree^ and to fee them 
 bid fair for trees of righteoufnefs in the church of 
 
 God 
 
 * 3 Sam. Yii. -2 6, 27. i Chr..xvii. :?4, 2.5. ■■ ' 
 
Infant Baptifm nnndicated. 6t 
 
 God upon earth, would be comfortable indeed.'. 
 Conijder how the church is to be kept up, in a luc- 
 ceffion, by the feed of the faithful; '* inftcad of 
 •* the fathers Iliall be the children ;" as one gene- 
 ration pafleth away, another generation ihall come, 
 ** from hence forth and forever ?'* 
 
 II. " Let children walk worthy of their cove- 
 ** nant privileges and engagements." Has God 
 entailed his covenant upon you in all its vifible pri- 
 vileges and blellings? Then take heed thai yoii 
 do not live in the carelefs violation of its folemn 
 engageQients. Defpife not the grace of God that 
 you have received, but actually take hold of the 
 covenant in your o.vn perfons. Grace has hither- 
 to prevented you ; has gone before, upheld, and 
 hindered your ruin. God has taken you into a fa- 
 miliar covenant with himfelf, of his own mere 
 mercy and diflinguifhing grace. You might have 
 been among the uncircumcifed, without a covenant 
 God in the world. But it is other ways, and you 
 enjoy a very great privilege in being born of cove- 
 nant parents, and in having the feal of the cove- 
 nant put upon you. Confequently, it will be a 
 great aggravation of your fin, guilt and judgment^ 
 if you, like profane Efau, defpile your birth-right. 
 The contempt of fuch a privilege is a great fin and 
 difhonour to God, and will add great weight to 
 your guilt, and enhance the reckoning another day. 
 You are children of the vifible kingdom of grace; 
 but if you defpife the covenant of your God, you 
 muft be cut off: if you make light of it, or reft 
 in your external privileges, you muft be caft into 
 outer darknefs, while " many ihall come from the 
 ** eaft and the weft,; and iliall fit down with Ar 
 
 ** bfiihani,, 
 
Si Infant Baptifm vindicated, 
 
 •* braham, and Ifaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom 
 ^' of heaven.'* O that thefe children might be 
 •wife In time \ O that they may take heed to them- 
 fulves in the day of gracious vifitation^ left they, 
 who are an holy flock, (liould be caft out as abo- 
 ^unable branches [ My young friends, if God 
 ihould open your eyes, and convince you of fin 
 and mifery ; if he Ihould make you duly fenfible 
 tliat yoo have deftroyed yourfelves, and that your 
 lighteoufnefils are as filthy rags, then ptead the 
 covenant of your God. *' Remember the cove- 
 *' nant thou h^ift made unto Abraham, and the 
 *^ land thou gaveil unto Abraham thy friend for 
 •* ever." 
 
 III. Permit me to addrefs the church. " And 
 *^ O that all the churches would exercife a fpecial 
 ** Watch over, and tender compaffion to the chil- 
 •' dren o{ the covcjiant/' i humbly apprehend, 
 there hus been a very great dtclenfion in thefe 
 churches, particuLriy re(pe(!liiig their duty to- 
 wards k.ptizcd children, for many years paft. 
 And it may be vv'orthy of their leiicus confidera- 
 tion, V. hctlier it is not partly owing to their ne* 
 gled, that fo many are guilty^of defpifing the oath, 
 and breaking the covenant ? Does it not become 
 every particular church to take care that the bap- 
 tized are brou;j;ht up as children of God, in the 
 nurture and admonition of the Lord ? Surely fuch 
 children are members of the vifible church $ and 
 are not they committed to the care of the church? 
 Does not the church virtually promife to watch o- 
 ver every child that is baptized in it ? If fo, it is 
 the glory of the church to bring forth children, 
 ^nd olfer them up unto God ^ to fee that all things^ 
 
 in 
 
Infant Bapiifm vindkafed. 6^ 
 
 !n the Way of meanSi are attended, that they might 
 be the Lord's. 
 
 The general negleft of that important duty^' 
 which parents and churches owe to their children, 
 is a forrowful obftru(5lion to the fuccefs of the mi- 
 ni dry. Hence it comes to pafs, that we are call- 
 ed to build without a foundation ; and our hearers 
 receive the grace of God in vain. Probably faith- 
 ful minifters might do ten times more good than 
 they do, were parents and churches duly attentive 
 to teach and govern the children of the covenant* 
 O that we might fee a fpeedy and thorough refor- 
 mation of family inftrudion, and church infpec^ 
 tion, and the well ordering of both 1 And let 
 them be excited to lay up a ftock of prayers for 
 our children and the riling generation. We (hould 
 confider their covenant relation to God, and their 
 extreme need of the efficacious grace of the cove- 
 nant ; and let thefe be powerful motives in our 
 hearts, to lay the hand of faith upon them, and 
 pray that, as they rife up and take our places, they 
 might declare the name of the Lord to fucceeding 
 generations* 
 
 APPEN^ 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 ^x>:#xx:^EVER AL months pad was publifli- 
 X r]^ y ed for Philip Freeman of Bojion^ a 
 f= ]^ f Pamphlet entitled, *' The Dodrine 
 X X *' of Believers Baptifin, by Immer" 
 
 iCxx#x><:^ ^i fion only; aflerted and maintain- 
 ** ed, againft the attempts of Mr. Jonathan Par- 
 *\fons, A. M. to invalidate it, &€." By H, Smithy 
 A. M. late of NaJau-HalJ, &c. 
 
 This Pamphlet may be confidered as exfraordi^ 
 nary on many accounts : I fliall mention fome, as 
 follow, viz. I . It is very confideftt and ajjmnifig ; 
 and thereby it gives a clear view of the fufficiency, 
 temper, and religion of its author; and alfo of the 
 defpicable arts he has ufed to fupport and propa- 
 gate his favourite principles. 2. It has met with a 
 tranfpwting reception among fome of thofe whom 
 I defigned to point out in my ftrmons. In fuch 
 an extafy were fome^ that they reported that Mr. 
 Parfons was dead ; and others, that he was cut to 
 pieces. 3. It is alfo remarkable, that fo learned 
 a perfon as Mr. S, fhould condefcend to take fuch 
 unwearied pains to convidl an inconliftent, weak, 
 unrighteous Smatterer, as he reprefents me to be. 
 One would have thought that a perfon fo z/w- 
 ^uarded in his writings, as plainly t(j fubvert the 
 ~ " I dcfi^n 
 
66 APPENDIX. 
 
 defign of his fettlement, and to introduce juftifi- 
 cation by the deeds of the law, might have been 
 detected , by thofe that had Uved under his mini- 
 jftry above twenty years, without the help of his 
 learned pen. But, doubtlefs, Mf. S, confidered 
 the Prefbyterians at Newbury- Port , as a company 
 of very weak and ignorant people ; and therefore 
 that they flood in need of fome able inftrudtor to 
 teach them, and confequently dare not refufe his 
 
 aid. If it were not fo, why fhould he, with 
 
 fo much ardour and pity, like a perfon in diftrefs, 
 call upon them, once and again, to view me as a 
 poor, inconfijlent^ felf-contradi(flory writer ? — one 
 that fhifts from fide to fide } — prefumptuous and ig- 
 norant^ rirangely confounding the covenant of 
 
 grace and covenant of works ? — whofe inconfiflen" 
 cy ii very evident ? — who twifls, turns, and chan- 
 ges the order of Chrift's commiffion ? — vindicates 
 his tenets only by unrighteous methods ? — publickly 
 patronizes Arminianiim^falfe do^irine^ — bad divi- 
 nity — contrarv to o>'thcdox)\ &c. &c. &c. ? I fay, 
 one would have thought that a perfon of Mr. «S's 
 penetration might have feen it needlefs to take fo 
 much pains, and to do me this great honour, and 
 abundance more of the like nature. 
 
 But fince he thous^ht it worth while to tug hard, 
 and twift into almofl any Shape to mifreprefent 
 me, and to gain his point in view ; and has alfo 
 fent me one of his learned pamphlets, containing 
 fifty fix pages, befides the preface, he may poffi- 
 bly think more highly of himfelf, than he ought, 
 if there is no publick notice taken of it. But I 
 hope the render will not defpife the good caufe I 
 have humbly attempted to defend, on account of 
 
 ' ths 
 
APPENDIX. .67 
 
 the great abilities of my antagoniil:. Let him not 
 have the faith of our Lord Jejus Chrifi with re- 
 fpedt of pcrfons j for, if that (hould be the cafe, 
 he would not judge of the controverfy according 
 to the evidence brought in favour of the truth, but 
 according to the efteem he has of the pcrfon of- 
 ferins it. Truth has often run great hazards, be- 
 caufe the perfon that vindicates it is not efieemed 
 by the perfon that reads it. But if you will muke 
 truth your greateft advantage, I need not fear the 
 evils of your cenlure. In hopes of a candid at- 
 tention in the reader, I fh'all now begin 3 and 
 
 I. Take a glance upon Mr. »S's preface. He 
 fays ** a good name is rather to be chofen than 
 " great riches." ylgreed: but perhaps we fliall 
 differ, if I tell him, that the good name (pokcn 
 of by Solomon, is a name io^ good things r, a name 
 that has its foundation laid in an innocent, unbla- 
 mable life and converfation j a name that renders 
 a perfon truly worthy of honour. And whether 
 Mr. S. deferves a good name, in this fenfc, thofe 
 that know him perfonally, and his readers, will 
 judge for thcmfelves. — He complains of " a hea- 
 " vy and unjufl charge" alledged by me again ft 
 him in my difcourfes at Haverhill, on the fubjecl 
 of infant- baptifm. But 1 know of nothing in thofe 
 difcourfes that he needs to groan under, but the 
 weight of the argum^ents 1 adduced to fupport ti-.e 
 main truths' exhibited. — But Mr. S. meant a mr.f- 
 ginal note concerning a zealous anabaptift teacher, 
 which, as it is offeniive, I drop in the fccond edi- 
 tion : but, inftead of it, I think my fclf bound to give 
 my readers a few fcraps oi hiftorical truths, v/hich 
 poffibly niay bv as difagieeab.e as die note i:fcU. 
 
68 APPENDIX. 
 
 In converfation, more than two years ago, a 
 profeffed baptifi very frankly told me, that " he 
 *' looked upon a particular mode of baptifm, as 
 •* diOinguifhed from other modes, not at all elTen- 
 ** tidl to the beitig of that ordinance ; and that he 
 ** could freely join with us in the facrament of the 
 *' Lord's fupper.'* About the fame time, the 
 fame candid perfon told another minifter, and fe- 
 veral others, that he could freely baptize the in* 
 fiincs of believers, eiiher by fprinkling or flfFufion, 
 
 if the parents defiied it. He alfo told me, that 
 
 the delign of his taking a long journey into thefe 
 parts, was to preach Chrift among poor people 
 that could not procure preachers. — That he de- 
 fired, to this end, to travail down to the eaftern 
 letilements, and preach among them, from place 
 to place, until the then fall of the year, when he 
 
 ihould return back to the Jerfeys. —I told him, 
 
 if the(e thmgs were fo, I was willing, upon cer- 
 tain conditions, to write in his favour.-^—He ,ex- 
 prefTed his thanktulnefs; and mentioned his defire 
 of my writing feveral times. — Accordingly I Wiote 
 to one minifter and one ruling elder. I told them, 
 in mv letters, who the bearer was, and what his 
 profcfTcd defign was. 1 read him both of the let- 
 ters, and he exprefled his approbation of my cau- 
 tious manner of writing as to his fentiments about 
 bipiifm; and took the letters with a low bo^.— 
 I then took him alone, and told him that I was 
 pleafed to fee young men, as well as others, zea- 
 Ions in religion : but that zeal without light was a 
 very dangerous thing. — — That I had obferved he 
 was very zealous ; but he mud not take it ill of 
 me, if J alfo told him that he appeared raw in di- 
 vinity, and that fueh preaching as I had heard 
 
APPENDIX. 69 
 
 from him did not tend to ferve his profeiTed de- 
 {ign. Therefore I urged him to ftudy more, and 
 preach lefs ; and told him, if he would be faith- 
 ful to his pretenfions, and clofely apply himfclf 
 to ftudy, I wiS willing he fliould keep the letters, 
 
 and go forward. Upon this he exprefled his 
 
 refolutions to take my advice: and told me he ex- 
 pe^ed to fet out towards the eaftem feltlements 
 the next Friday^ &c. &c. 
 
 In this account, I am fully fatisfied that there is 
 not one idea communicated^ but what was conveyed 
 in converfation, beiides many more which I omit 
 for the fake of brevity. But if the cafe (hould 
 hereafter call for it, I expedt many other things 
 will be produced, and, if need be, fworn to, 
 which may give further light refpeding a certain 
 perfon, who feems to fet a great price upon a 
 good name. — Whether this view of the cafe fuits 
 better than the marginal note, Mr. S. and his 
 friends may judge. Since they have made a great 
 noife about it, and he has infinuated in his preface, 
 that I did not believe myfidf, I think duty has 
 called me to publi(h thefe hints : and if he can 
 conftrue Latin, he may think of what follows, 
 viz. 
 
 ^li mittit in altum lapidem^ recidet in caput ejus» 
 
 When I had carefully read over Mr. S^s won-- 
 derful piece againfl; my vindication of the dodtrine 
 of infant-baptifm^ it put me in mind of a faying of 
 one of the Fathers ; corrodunt non corriguni -, cor- 
 reptores^ immo cnrriiptorfs. And alfo, of SauVs 
 .piety, who fays, " I forced myfelf, and offered a 
 
 burnt- 
 
yo APPENDIX. 
 
 burnt-ofFering," / e. he did it without a divine war- 
 rant } and it proved to his own hurt. And thefc 
 two things I leave, for the prefent, to Mr. «S's mor© 
 
 fober refledlion, But the reader muft allow me 
 
 to obferve, that the many noify explofions of his 
 heart, (fometimes pitying my ignorance ; at other 
 times accuiing me of uling unrighteous m^ethods 
 to accompli(h my defign ; then attacking my fen- 
 timentsin divinity, and anon, charging me with 
 inconiiftency ; pitying my poor deluded people, 
 and warning them to take heed, £?f. ^c!) I fay, 
 the many things of this nature, often repeated with-' 
 ' cz^^ evidence, are fW^^-zz^ marks'of great diftrefs, 
 and loud calls to his dear brethren for their help. — 
 Yet, if he fliould be more noify ftill, and reprelent 
 me in darker colours, (If that can be) 1 pray God 
 to grant him the fpecial knovv ledge of the faving 
 truth ; and hope, through grace, I iliall always bs 
 able to fay, weatn injuriam patienter tuli -, injuria 
 
 am contra jpoujam Cbrijii ferre non potui, 1 ihall 
 
 endeavour to bury his mean infults upon me in for- 
 getfulnefs 5 but his injuries dor^e to the important 
 truths of God, and the caufe of \}^t great Redeem- 
 ery are injufferahle. And, in vindication of my 
 arguments for the truth, againft his wild excepti- 
 ons, the reader ought not to be offended if I am 
 led to cxpofe him, 
 
 He fpends the ^th page of his pamphlet, chief- 
 ly in endeavouring to perfuade his readers that I 
 am inconfiftent with myfelf. But for his help to 
 a good underftanding of EttgUJh, and for the be- 
 nefit of others, who may be at a lofs about the 
 meaning of words, I muft inform them, that by 
 initiating, and by the feal or mark cf indxi^ion in- 
 
 ta 
 
APPENDIX. 71 
 
 to the church, &c. I mean the fame that every 
 honefl: perfon means, if he underflunds E7jgUJ}\ 
 viz. Performing the fir ft rite unto qualified fub- 
 jefls ; or putting the mark, token, or feal upon 
 them, and thereby making their right manifeft. — 
 This, applied to baptifm, is marking out and ma- 
 nifefting the perfons baptized, to be what they 
 really are, viz. Members of the vifible church. 
 By that inftituted rite they arc folemnly admitted, 
 bccaufe, in a qualified fenfe, they were members 
 before ; as a child born in an army is enrolled be- 
 
 caufe he is the king's foldier, Gfr. This hint, I 
 
 hope, will help Mr. S's> underftanding : and if it 
 fliould, poffibly he may underftand what follows, 
 "liz. \Umo:v7i qualifications make ^tx(ou5 members 
 of the vifible church 3 then baptifm does not 7?iakc 
 them members of the vifible church : but known 
 qualifications make them members of the vifible 
 church J therefore baptifm does not 7nake them 
 fo. 'Tis granted ; baptifm isafolemn rite of ad- 
 mifiion ; or an enrolment of the party baptized 5 
 but he has tins mark or feal put upon him, becaufe, 
 in a qualified fenfe, he was a member before : 
 otherwife, it would be abfurd to admit 'or enroll 
 him, or to initiate him by the feal ot the covenant. 
 
 I Shall now enter upon the confideration of the 
 main thinis intended by Mr. 5. againfi: my argu- 
 ments in favour of infant- baptifm. And 
 
 T. Againft the firfl argument he ofifers feveral 
 things, which, if he had proved, it might ferve his 
 purpofe. P. 6. he very confidently aflerts that no 
 perfons have a right to the fign ofmemberfliip 
 without (before) they make a profeflion of faitla 
 
 and 
 
72 APPENDIX, 
 
 and repentance. To prove this he adduces A5fs 
 ii. 38. and yiii. 37. But if /Mr. 5. would prove 
 any thing from the^^criptures, I fuppofe it is, that 
 thoiQjews to whovnPeter preached, and thtEuriucb 
 who fought to be baptized by Philip, were requi- 
 red to profefs faith and repentance. And what is 
 that to the purpofe ? Will he argue that the adult 
 muft profefs faith and repentance, in order to bap^ 
 tifm ? And who does he oppofe in it, unlefs it be 
 a man of ftraw of his own making ? But will it 
 follow that, becaufe the adult are to profefs faith 
 and repentance in order to baptifm, therefore their 
 children have no right to baptifm ? If Mr. S, would 
 do any thing againft my argument he muft fliow 
 that the covenant of promife to men in a church- 
 ftate, does not comprize their children : or that 
 none but thofe who arc capable of profeffing faith 
 are taken into covenant with God. Whereas, had 
 he honeftly confidered ih^ 39/^ verfe of that 2d 
 chapter, the mafk would have drjpt and difcovered 
 hisweaknefs. Repent and be baptized, ^c. For the 
 promife is unto you and to your children, and to all 
 that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our 
 God (hall call. In thefe words of the Apoftle, the 
 reader may fee an encouragement to baptifm, ta- 
 ken from a covenant-privilege, which is fet forth 
 as it was extended to the Jews, and to their chil- 
 dren ; and then to the Gd';7^//W, when they fhould 
 be called into the fame church -ftate that the Jewi 
 were in at that time. The call here fpoken of 
 can't mean an efFeiflual call, fuch as is proper to 
 them that are fandtified by the holy Spirit : for if 
 it were fo, the n)ifihle token of memberihip, would 
 be limited to the invijible • hurch. But it is a call 
 unto a church-Hate, fuch as the Jews did enjoy at 
 
APPENDIX. 73 
 
 that time. Hence, the reader may fee the force of 
 Peter' ^ argument ib this, '>Jtz. " Thole have a ri^ht 
 to bapdfm, unto whom the covenant of promife be- 
 longs : but this covenant belongs to all in the vifi- 
 ble church, and to their children." None can deny 
 the firil: propolition, unlels they oppofe the Apoftle 
 himfelf. And as to the 2d propolition, that the co- 
 venant comprifes children with parents, the Apoltie 
 plainly (hows : for when he aliigns the firit place 
 to the 'Jews^ and takes in their children, he refers to 
 the promife of God's covenant in Gen. xvii. 7. And 
 as the bleffingof thtAbrahamick covenant run to the 
 "Jews and their feed, until they were broken off, fo 
 it was to come upon the GeiitileSy who were then 
 far from God, and from his covenant j but to be 
 brought in, even they and their children. 
 
 What Mr. S. would reprefent of me, ( Page 6 J 
 and 7. ) gives me no pain. It is common with 
 weak people, for want of argument, to make ufe 
 of many bugbear words, thereby to alarm their 
 weak admirers. I am willing to hope that it was 
 his profound ignorance of the extent of the cove- 
 nant of grace, that led him to reprefent me as an 
 Arminian^ holding dangerous doSirine ; giving up 
 the important do5lrine of regeneration 5 teaching 
 jufiijication by the deeds of the law -, fubverting 
 the very foundation of my fettiement ^^Newbury; 
 and maintaining total apojiafy from the grace of 
 efFedtual calling, with many other fentences of 
 falfe terror. 1 fay, that I am willing to hope on 
 the moft charitable lide ; had it not been manifeft 
 that he expected to make great advantages to him- 
 felf by this falfe alarm. — The reader may prcfent- 
 ly fee that all thefe rcprefentations are abnjive flan- 
 K "' ders^ 
 
74 APPENDIX. 
 
 ders, and groundlefs charges ; tending neither to 
 help his caufe, nor uphold that good name, which 
 he profcfTed to value above great riches, in his firft 
 letting out. 
 
 In the next place, upon my fir ft argument, he 
 boggles, and ftarts at my aflerting that the Abra- 
 hamick covenant is the covenant of grace. Now, 
 although I offered light enough to prove this truth, 
 under the 2d he.d of my firft argument, to fatil- 
 fy a ferious reader ; yet, as further evidence, you 
 may take what follows, viz» i. That covenant 
 wherein God makes over himfelf to a perfon, is 
 the covenant of grace ; but God made over himfelf 
 unto Abraham and to his feed, in that covenant 
 which he eftablifhed between himfelf and Abra^ 
 hum^ Gen. xvii. 7. therefore that covenant is the 
 covenant of grace. The major, or nrft propofition 
 mufi be true ; becaufe, fince the fall of Adam^ God 
 is not the God of any out of Chrift. The minor, 
 or 2.d propofition is exprefsly afifcrted in the text 
 referred to ; and therefore the confequence is 
 
 unavoidable. 2. That covenant which repre- 
 
 fents God as (hewing mercy to finners, is the co^ 
 venant of grace : but the Abrahamick covenant re- 
 prefents God in this view, Exod. xxxiv. 6. there- 
 fore it is the covenant of grace. There is no me- 
 diator, no peace with God, no pardon of fin held 
 forth in the covenant of works : But thefe blefilngs 
 are held forth in the covenant made with Abraham 
 
 and his feed, 3. That covenant to which the 
 
 typical fucrifices did belong is the covenant of grace: 
 but the typical lacrifices did belong to the Abra- 
 hamick covenant ; therefoit it is the covenant of 
 grage»~— Aii the faciinces under the law,- had 
 " ;"~ " " fome 
 
APPENDIX 7J 
 
 fome rerpe(5l to the great facrificc of Chrifl, and its 
 blefled efferts. They were to fliew men th it 
 without fliedding of blood there is no remiffion of 
 fins. And God ratified this covenant by blood, 
 which he fprinkled upon the book of the laitf, 
 as it lay upon the altar, to confecrate it to facred 
 ufe, as containing the covenant, in which God was 
 one party j and fprinkled it alfo upon the people, 
 as the other party in that covenant, typicully repre- 
 fenting that the covenant betv/ecn God and belie- 
 vers ihould be confirmed by the blood of Chrifi-, 
 Exod. xxiv. 5, 6, 7. Heb. ix. 19. Hence, the law 
 in its adminiftration w^as never intended by God to 
 fet forth a covenant of works, but the covenant of 
 grace. And it is ufually called a covenant, (ee Deut, 
 xxix. 10, II. Chap. xxvi. 17, 18. belides other 
 
 fcriptures. 4. That covenant which binds to 
 
 the obfervation of the ceremonial law, is a cove- 
 nant of grace : but ih.Q Abrahamici^ covenant bound 
 the people of God, under the former difpenfation, 
 to obferve the ceremonial law : therefore it was 
 
 the covenant of grace. 5. That covenant 
 
 which God made with Mofes, was the covenant of 
 grace ; for Mofes was a believer, Heb. xi. 23. But- 
 the covenant which God made with Mc/iSy he 
 made with all I/rae/, Exod. xxxiv. 27,28. there- 
 fore it was the covenant of grace. 
 
 Having offered thefe arguments very briefly, iti 
 addition to the evidences in my Sermon, I (hall 
 endeavour to colieft Mr. S*s objedions in the fair- 
 eft light I am able, out of fo much darknefs as 
 covers them. And here 
 
 L If he is intelligible, I think he objcds (P. 10. 
 
 and 
 
7^ 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 and I r. and many other places) that If the covenant: 
 of grace was made with Abraham and his feed, 
 then fome that were efFedually called^ might af-* 
 terwards fall away, and finally perilli. This he 
 iiippofes Mr. P. would not choofe to aflei t ; but 
 yet luppoks it mufl be the conlequence of my opi-* 
 nion relpedling the j^hrahamick covenant. And to 
 iliow that all the children of believing parents can't 
 be Included in their parents covenant, (without 
 iinal fallini from grace) he feveral times over men- 
 lions Jjhm^el, Hophnij PhineaSy and others, as 
 perfons that were not included in the covenant 
 wi:h their pr^rents ; or if they were, then that the 
 iinal perfevcrance of the faints is not true. This 
 again he intimates, that 1 ihould not readily and 
 openly profefs whatever my private opinion might 
 be, fiiice I have openly profelTed, and zealoully 
 maintained the final perfevcrance of the faints, o? 
 of all thofe that are effectually called,. 
 
 Now, whatever my prefent fentlments are, re- 
 fpedting the total apoftafy of fome that have been 
 fcivingly converted, Mr. S. knows, at leafl: he ought 
 to have known before he commenced an author, 
 that other divines, of much greater importance to 
 -the church than either of us, have held the final 
 perfevcrance of the faints ; and yet have conftantf 
 ly aiferted that the children of believers are inclu- 
 ded in the covenant of grace with their parents.— 
 .Therefore, if, upon this head, he would have fai4 
 any thing realty to anfwer his defign, he fhould 
 have proved, if that were poffible, that none but 
 thofe, who are effedually called, are included \i\ 
 the covenant of grace. But this he has not once 
 acteippted to dg 5 nor will he be able to do it^ by 
 
 thp 
 
APPENDIX. 77 
 
 utmoft efforts, without recourfe to a new Bi- 
 ble. 
 
 Tho' he has done nothing, by way of argument, 
 to lupport this his anttjcriptural cavil, I (hall, h)r 
 the fake of thofe readers that lincerely deiire to em- 
 brace the truth, oiler a lew things further, viz. 
 
 <c 
 
 J, It is very evident from the Scriptures, that 
 the covenant of believing parents takes in all 
 ** their feed.'' Jt took in itli the natural feed of 
 Abraham by Sarah, Rom. ix. y^ H. Tho' but few 
 of them, compared with thewholj?, partook of the 
 internal and everlafling bleffings of the covenj.r^ of 
 grace, yet all who defcended from Abraham in cue 
 line of Ifaac and yacob were the children of God, 
 adopted into his family, which compiiled the wl^ole 
 body of the Jews ; and they all enjoyed the ten*- 
 poral and the external bleffings of the covenant. 
 Job. viii. 33t 37, 39. IjhmaelAio was in covenant 
 at the time of his circumcifion, and his circumci- 
 iion was a proof of it. Gen, xvii. 1 1. And he con- 
 tinued in covenant, until, by God*s fpecial com- 
 mand, he was cafl out for mocking his brother. 
 Gen. xxi. 9, 10, 12. In like manner God will ^.v- 
 dude thofe from his covenant, who feek to be juf- 
 tified by the law, and defpile the righteoufnefs of 
 Jefus Chrift, GaL iv. 29, 30. There are two forts 
 of people in the vifible church : one fort walketh 
 in the fteps of faithful Abraham^ and the other 
 fort walketh after the fiefh : and this will probably 
 be the cafe to the end of time. And all in the 
 vilible church are called fons of God, children of 
 the covenant, becaufe they are diilinguiilied with 
 great and precious external privileges, as the fa- 
 vourites 
 
yS 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 vourites of heaven, Rom. ix. 4. They enjoy the 
 vi/ible tokens of the divine prefence, in oppofition 
 to thofe that are not in the vilible church, bo all 
 the ifraelites were Jews outwardly, Deut, xiv. i. 
 Mat, viii. 12. JBs iii. 25. And this was not only 
 true of the Jews^ but it is now the privilege of 
 the Gentiks^ who were Grangers to the covenant 
 of grace in its various editions, until they were 
 called into a vifible church-ftate, Eph.u. 12, 19. 
 Gal. iii. 26. I prefumc no perfon (except it be 
 an Afitinomian) will venture to fay that all thofe 
 who were called into a church^flate at Ephefus^ 
 were effeSfually CdMtd by due holy Spirit. Efpecially, 
 it cannot be fuppofed, with any colour of reafon, 
 that the Galatian convevis^ who forfook Faul^ and 
 followed the judaizing teachers, and enmbraced 
 their pernicious errors, were favingly converted to 
 God. Their furprifing condudl againft that emi^ 
 nent apoftie was from evident hatred to the truth ; 
 particularly, to thofe great dodrines which he af- 
 lertcd and maintained againft thofe that preached 
 another gofpel. Neverthelels, they were members 
 of the vifible church, and the covenant people of 
 God, And, as thofe hypocrites were in covenant 
 for outward privileges, io the covenant included 
 their feed with them, as to luch privileges, as fully 
 as if they had been effedually called. 
 
 II. Vi/ible church memhen have been cafl out of 
 their covenant relation to God j they and their 
 children. None but thofe that were in covenant 
 could be cad out, i Cor. v. 12, 13. The jurifdid:ion 
 of church-rulers doth not extend to the heathen, 
 but to the covenant people of God. Thofe that are 
 left out of covenant are left to the judgment of 
 
 God 
 
APPENDIX. 79 
 
 God in the adminiftrations of his providence : but 
 thofe that are the covenant people of God are caft 
 out, when they appear to be irrecoverable. So 
 Cain was caft out of the church. Gen. iv. ii, 14, 
 And this is an immoveable evidence that he was in 
 covenant with God, until, for his bloody crime 
 againft his brother^^/, he was caft out. The rejec- 
 tion, both of Cain and IJhmael^ neceffarily infer 
 their being members of the viiible church. They 
 were boih in covenant with God ; but when he 
 caft them out, they were not to be looked upon in 
 covenant any longer ; nor could they lay claim to 
 any covenant-privileges. The fame is true of the 
 whole nation of the Jews ; they and their feed^ 
 Once they were a chofen nation, a peculiar people, 
 feparated to God as his covenant people > Jews by 
 nature, and not linners of the Gentiles. To them 
 did belong all the precious external privileges of the 
 church of the living God, Rom. \x. 4. Deut. xxix, 
 12, 14, 15. — and yet very few of them were ii-* 
 nally faved. And thofe that rejecfted Chrift, and 
 continued to do fo, after he came in the fleili and 
 was crucified, were caft out of the church, and 
 God has piiblickly difowned them and their chil- 
 dren for his people, unto this day ! — »The fame aw- 
 ful threatening lies againft the Gentile church ; and 
 it mav be ju Hy expeOed that the threatening will 
 be executed, when and where, and fo far as their 
 ffate and condud call for it, Rev. ii. 5, 
 
 But fays Mr. S. by Mr. Ms help, if the cafe is 
 as I have reprefented it, then, i. Some that are juf- 
 tiiied andfandified may be finally loft. And 2. that 
 believers before Abraham^ day could not go to 
 heaven, They could neither be juftified nor con- 
 ' '" demned : 
 
go APPEND! X. 
 
 demnc^ : they could go neither to heaven not 
 hd\y(sc, vid. P. 1 1 — 14* And the rea(on he gives 
 is beeaufe they are out of Abraham's covenaet. 
 
 To the firfl of thefe I anfwer 5 the covenant of 
 grace hath t'wo parts, anfwerable to the pronaifes 
 contained in it. The promifes of juflification, fane- 
 tification, and everlafting bleiTcdnefs are inexprefli- 
 bly the moft excellent. But there are Ipiritual 
 privileges and worldly good things alfo, comprifed 
 in the covenant of grace, i 7m. 4. 8. People may 
 be, and h^ve been in the covenant of grace for fpi- 
 ritual privileges, who never were, or will be jufli- 
 fied, landlified and glorified, Rom. iii, i, 2. Hof, 
 viii. 12. Rom. ix. 4. All the feed of believers are 
 taken into the outward privileges of the covenant j 
 and they may and ought to claim them as their 
 right, againft all that any man can offer to oppofe 
 It, unlefs, by their own fin, they deferve ta be 
 cut off. 
 
 But fuppofing, (what is not true) that none but 
 believers are included in the covenant of grace j 
 even then it would appear, that thofe who are not 
 effeSiually called are in the covenant of grace : 
 for God gives the charafl'er of beikvers, Jainfs, 
 difciptes, c ho fen people, holy natiofi, dec. to thofe 
 that are not effedually called. See Dent. vii. 6. 
 Ch.xxvi. 19. j^^s ix. 32, 41. Ch. viii. 12, 13, 21. 
 Ch. iv. 4. Pf. Ixxviii. 34. Luk. viii. 13. i Cor. xiv. 
 33* From thefe and other icriptures, too many to 
 be named, it appears that perfons are in the cove- 
 nant of grace for fpiritual privileges, who are not 
 favingly converted, — ^-And indeed, to reflrain the 
 covenant to that antinomia?i fenfe that Mr, S. 
 ~ ._ _ ^ _ plainly 
 
APPENDIX. St 
 
 jpkinly reflrains ir, will involve him in thofe ab^ 
 ibrdities, which neither he nor his brethren will 
 eafily get rid of. -^ What will tney do with thofe 
 covenant breakers, P/dl. Ixxviii. lo, 37 f And 
 were not thofe in covenant wich Godj who are 
 threatened with a curfe, Jer. xxxiv. 18, 19, 20 ? 
 Or what will they do with thofe hypocrites that are 
 in the world f Doth not God often complain of hy- 
 pocrites in the charchj who yet have lome fort o£ 
 faithj and fome of them the moft confident of be- 
 ing faved ? And arc not fuch as thefe in covenant 
 with God, PfaL Ixxviii. 8,10, 36, 37 ? — Befides all 
 this ; if the covenant is extended to none but thofe 
 that are effeSfually called^ what can Mr. S. and his 
 Anabaptiit brethren do in their office ? Can they 
 certainly know that every perfon they lead to re- 
 nounce their infant- baptifm, and make a profeffion 
 of faith and repentancej is effedually called ? Jcfas 
 Chrift indeed, might have fiid this with gertainty, 
 becaufe he knew what was in tnan^ and could dif- 
 tinguifh between real and vifible Chriftians. Eiit> 
 tho' we may have a judgment of difcretion refpedl- 
 ing the ftate of others, yet who, except fome ex- 
 travagant enthuiiaft, will pretend to the infailibls 
 knowledge of the brethren ? — And if we can go no 
 further than a judgment of difcretion, how can a 
 faving change be the ground upon which the pri- 
 vilege of baptifm is granted ? Or if a faving change 
 is the ground, how then can fallible tnen ever bap- 
 tize at all ? Will they fay, we muft ail upon the 
 vifibility of their being in covenant with God ? I 
 join ifTue with them, and have proved already, that 
 the feed of vifible believers are as vifibly in cove- 
 nant with God as their parents, 
 
 I^ Hence 
 
82 APPENDIX. 
 
 Hence it follows, chat a perfon may he under the 
 law, as a covenant of works, and yet have a good 
 right to the external privileges of the covenant of 
 grace. It was obferved, in my firft Sermon, that 
 as to the ftate of perfons, all are either renewed or 
 unrenewed, and, in that fenfe, they cannot be under 
 both covenants at once ; that if they are efFe(5tually 
 called they are not under the law, as a covenant of 
 works ; but if they are not effedually called, they 
 are ftill under the law. But the antinomian confe- 
 quence is no true confequence, 'wiz. That an uncon- 
 verted perfon is, in no refpedts, in the covenant of 
 grace : for an unconverted perfon may have as 
 plain, full, and revealed right to the fpiritual privi- 
 leges of the covenant, as one that is effedually 
 called. If he is one of thofe whom God has fepa- 
 rated from the world to himfelf, he muft have as 
 good a vifible right to fome external privileges as 
 the beft man in the world. 
 
 Therefdre, what become<5 of the impofjihility of 
 being in the covenant of grace, and not falling from 
 the grace of tffedual' calling ? May not a perfon 
 have a revealed covenant right to common mercies 
 and outward gofpcl privileges, and never be jufli- 
 jfied before God by the perfed righteoufnefs of 
 Chriil - never be renewed and fandified by the 
 holy Spirit ; and therefore never be glorified in 
 another world? Even Mr. 5. would not choofe 
 to fay openly thdt all he plunges under water " will 
 •' go to heaven 5" and yet they are, in his o- 
 pinion, the covenant people of God, when he has 
 prevailed upon them jacrilegioiijly to renounce the 
 covenant and turn Anabaptifls. And whether thofe 
 be converts to his party will go to heaven or hell. 
 
APPENDIX. 8^ 
 
 yet others mny be, and have been interefted in 
 the covenant of grace, who (hall never enter into 
 the kingdom of glory. 
 
 But then v;^e meet with repeated difficulties pre- 
 tended about yidam, j^bel, Enoch and others, (as 
 many as you pleafe) before Abraham'^ day, that 
 
 ^vere favingly converted. And will the reader 
 
 allow tr.e, on this occafion, to ufe the words of my 
 learned antagonift ? Then I fhould fay, it is mere 
 noije without fubjiance. For God brought Adam^ 
 Abel^ and Enochs under the covenant of grace, in 
 both its parts. The fame covenant was made with 
 them, that was made with Abraham^ tho' it was 
 not fealed by circumcifion. Circumcifion was 
 bottomed upon the command of God 5 /. e. If there 
 had been no command for it, no man might have 
 figned the covenant with fuch a feal j but the com- 
 mand had relation to the covenant which was not 
 fealed before. All thofe, before Abraham^ that 
 were efFedually called, and fo were intereftedin^^?//? 
 parts of the covenant of grace, are doutblefs round 
 about the throne, ^* faying with a loud voice, worthy 
 <* is the Lamb that was flain, to receive power, and 
 *' riches, and honour, and glory, and bleffing." * 
 
 After Mr. S. has fpent about a page together 
 (befides the general tendency of the moft of his 
 pamphlet) to mifinform his readers about the co- 
 venant of grace, he returns back to the member- 
 
 (hip 
 
 * That 1 might not render my Appendix extreme lengthy, I 
 do but hint at things. But if God fhould ipare and enable 
 me, I am willing, vipon proper encouragement, to publilh n^y 
 thoughts mo7;e largely, as I have lately had a call to open Uigio. 
 to my own peopi?. 
 
84 APPENDIX. 
 
 fhip of children ; and, with the help of Mr. MGrZ 
 gariy injudicioully, tho* very warmly, argues in tha 
 following manner, 'viz. ^' That law which gave be-^ 
 *' ing to infant memberfliip and circumciiion, isa-^ 
 *' bolifhcd by divine authority, as part of the form- 
 *' er adminiilration. This (fays he) muft be 
 *' granted, or elfe circumciiion is yet in force.'* 
 But he has proved neither that the law which gave 
 being to infant memberlliip is abolifoed ; nor^ that 
 circumciiion muft be in force, provided the law 
 which gave being to infant membership is not a- 
 boliihed ; unlcfs the important word methinh^ 
 will prove it. Perhaps he did not expe<fl his read- 
 ers would fee that the law of church memberiliip 
 was one thing, and the initiating feal is another. 
 The fubjeds are the fame that they were under the 
 former difpenfiition of the covenant, tho* the feai 
 of indudion is changed from circumciiion to bap- 
 lifm. The abolition of circumciiion as a type, did 
 Slot aboliih the initiating feal of the covenant, nor 
 caft the children of believing parents out of the co-s 
 venant, As they were taken into covenant by a 
 law, that has never been repealed, fo they muft be 
 iigned or maiked out for the Lord, as members of 
 his family, or fubjeds of his kingdom : for, ever 
 iince God took a people to himfelf out of the loins 
 of Jihrtiham^ he has appointed a feal, and ordered 
 the time of its adminiftration. " A man that hath 
 ^* a grant from king or ftate, hath iffo faSio right 
 ** to the feal ; and the right neceifarily follows up- 
 *' on the grant, tho' he muft ftay till a fealing day 
 l^ before he poffefs it," 
 
 His next attempt, which is from Heb, viii. 8, ^.' 
 |pd ^er, xxxi, is as little to his purpofe.^— What 
 
APPENDIX. 85 
 
 if the mofaick difpenfation, with all its rites, cere* 
 jnonieSj and inftitutions, is now fet afide ? This 
 will give no evidence at all, that the children of 
 believing parents are cafl out of covenant. The 
 Apoftle calls it *' a fiew covenant, in that he hath 
 ** made the firft old.''' But this cannot refer to 
 the covenant of grace and the covenant oi works ; 
 or to iwo dijUnB covenants ; for then it would 
 follow, in the jormer cafe, that there was no co- 
 venant of grace revealed to men before the new- 
 teftament difpenfation; and in the latter^ that all, 
 in the new-teftament times, who enter into cov-e- 
 nant, do keep covenant ; but all in old-teflament 
 times were covenant-breakers. But the contrary 
 10 both thefe things are evidently true. There 
 were fome that kept covenant in old-teflament 
 times, Fjal. xliv. 17. and ciii. 17, and there are 
 fome covenant- breakers under the prefent difpen- 
 fation of the covenant, i T^im. v. 12. The lavr 
 was written in mens hearts under the former dif- 
 penlation, Deut, xxx. 6. Ifai, Iv. 3. Hence, the 
 oldnefi that is aboliflied is only in ^ircumftances^ 
 wherewith the covenant of grace was then clothed, 
 
 •< Both the old and new covenant are fubftanti^ 
 
 ■ally one, and the fime covenant: Chrift is the me- 
 diator of both, tbowgh in the former he was ty- 
 pified by Mojes. Both have one and the fime 
 teims on Chrid's part, forgivenefs of fins and c-» 
 tcrnal life. Both are one and the fame on man's 
 part: " the jufl. lived by faith under the former 
 difpenfation;" and under the new difpenfation, it 
 is ^* whofoever believeth in him (hall receive the 
 remiflion of iins/' — Both are one and the fame 
 church of Chrifl, Matt,s\\\. 11. Their faith 
 terminated qb one and the fame objed, "Job, viii. 
 
86 APPENDIX. 
 
 56. 1 Cor. X. 3, 4. — And thefe identities manlfeft 
 that the church is the fame under both difpenlati- 
 ons. The fame kingdom which the Jews pof- 
 feffed ; the fame privileges which they enjoyed as 
 thg peculiar people of God, were taken from them 
 and given to the Gentiles^ Matt. xxi. 43. — Now, 
 if the Mediator be the fame ; the terms on both 
 fides the fame j then the covenant is the fame ; 
 the o/f/ covenant which the Jews entered into, and 
 the new covenant which Chriftians enter into, 
 
 is one and the fame covenant. 'Tis granted ; 
 
 the covenant of grace, under its prefent difpen- 
 fation, is called a new covenant : but it cannot 
 be becaufe it is not fubflantially the fame with the 
 former, fince the terms of both are the fame; but 
 it is becaufe, fince it is held forth by Jefus Chrifl:, 
 no nation is debarred from entering into it: there 
 is a change of ordinances, and it is now confecra- 
 ted by the blood of Chiift, It is alfo new, be- 
 caufe the light, liberty, and grace contained there- 
 in, are more clearly, comfortably, exprefslv and 
 abundantly promifed in this, than in the former 
 difpenfation of it ; and becaufe of the more fpiri- 
 tual ordinances of worfhip that are contained in 
 
 this, than were in the former difpenfation. ^ 
 
 And what of all this ? Doth it follow that the 
 covenant is not the fame ? No. You might as 
 well argue, that the law of love was not the fame 
 law to God's people of old, as to his people un- 
 der the gofpel, becaufe it is now called a new com^ 
 mandment. Whereas, there was the fame law, 
 commanding love one to another, under the yeiM- 
 ijh^ as there is under the chriftian difpenfation. 
 This law of love is fully contained in the Deca-^ 
 
 kgue, and other parts of the Old leji anient. ^ 
 
 But 
 
APPENDIX, 87 
 
 But it IS called a new commandment, becaufe it is 
 enjoined by a new example, and with new expla- 
 nations, motives and enforcements. So, the co- 
 venant of grace, under the former difpenfation, 
 was clothed with darknefs and terror, agreeable 
 to that legal ftatej and was not found fault lefsy 
 or without defc6t ; /. e. it was lefs perfect, than 
 what was to fucceed ; or, it was im per fed: com- 
 pared with the prefent difpenfation : and, in dif- 
 tindion from it, the prefent is a clear, dilincum- 
 bered, fpiritual, and glorious difpenfation ; or a 
 glorious edition and enlargement of the fame co- 
 venant ; and therefore it is called new. — Hence, 
 Mr. S. with the afTiftance of Mr. Morgan^ has 
 done nothing to his purpofe, unlefs he defigned to 
 work himfelf up into the clouds, and amufe his 
 readers with darknefs. For he has done nothing 
 to invalidate the evidence that I have offered, pro- 
 ving that the Abrahamick covenant is the cove- 
 nant of grace. 
 
 Nor doth what he offers, P. 16. againft the ^- 
 *oerla[tingne]s of it, argue any thing to his purpofe. 
 For, altho' the word everlafiing is not always to 
 be taken ftridly j yet when the covenant of grace 
 is the fubje(5t in queftion, it always fignifies a per^ 
 petual continuance. Tho' many circumftances in 
 the adminiflration may be altered, yet the cove- 
 nant itfeif is lafling in all its fpiritual privileges ; 
 and its efficacious promile* reach thro* all periods 
 of time : yea, everlafiing life is promifed in it ; 
 and it is of eternal efficacy ; for the glory and re- 
 ward, which the great Head of the covenant 
 has purchafed for all that are, or fliall be effedlu- 
 ally called, is an eternal weight of glor)\ 
 
 ^ - - <Again> 
 
88 APPENDIX. 
 
 Again ; Mr. *S. fays 1 have intimated that the 
 'j^hrahamick covenant is a pure covenant of grace* 
 This he faid of me, not becaufe I called it a pure 
 covenant, but, I fuppofc, it was to draw out my 
 fenciments, that fo he might, in his next, draw out 
 all the force he can rally from his party againft me* 
 And confidering he may be ftraitened for matter to 
 make out another pamphlet, I am willing to affirm 
 •what is really an important truth upon this head^ 
 though I had no need to do it for the vindication of 
 my arguments againfl his exceptions. Therefore I 
 donowaflert that the Abrahamick covenant ii <t 
 fure covenant (^f grace. For, if it is not pure, but 
 mlxt as the Anabaptifts (to help themfelves againft 
 infant baptifm) haveafferted, then it is a compound 
 of pure and impure ; /. e. fome of its ingredients are 
 fuch as they fhould be, and others are adulter at e^, 
 Like the falfe teachers dod:rine in Paul's day, 
 whom he oppofed as perverters of the puregofpel 
 df Chrift : or like the Antinomians^ againft whom 
 yames wrote, for their making high pretenfions 
 to faith in Chrift for juftification, without any 
 proof of its fincerity by fruitfulnefs in good works* 
 feoth thefe forts of hypocrites held to fome reveal- 
 ed truths, but they mixed them with others that 
 were corrupt, and fo fpoiled the whole. — I hope 
 Mr. S. will not fay, in his anfwcr, that the gof- 
 pel which Paul tells us was preached to Abraham^ 
 was an Arminian or an Antinomian gofpel. This, 
 befure, would make the Ahrahamick covenant im-* 
 
 pure enough. Or is it impure, becaufe it had 
 
 promifes referring not only to eternal bleflednefs, 
 but to temporal good > But are we not under fuch 
 a gofpel in thefe days alfo ? If there is no pro- 
 inife in the covenant of grace, refpedting tempo- 
 
APPENDIX. 89 
 
 fat good, how will Mr* 5*. pray, in faith, for his 
 daily bread ? Or, what vvillhe fay to thofe pro- 
 tnifes, Pfal. xxxvii* 3. andy^iii. S. Matt. vi. 25-^- 
 30. befides an hundred other promiles refpeding 
 the life that now is ? Can a btiliever be in any re- 
 lation or cirGLimftancc of life, and have no gofpel 
 promile fuited to his cafe ? — Tho* the moll emi- 
 nent promifes in the Abrahamick covenant refpedt 
 eternal life, yet there are great and precious pro- 
 mifes in that covenant refpeding the life that 7701^^ 
 is^ both under the former and prejent difpenfation 
 of it* 
 
 Aftef ttiany violent aiTaults of his own, with 
 the afliflance of feveral not fo noted as himfelf, he 
 tries the virtue of Dr. GiWs arguments. And the 
 AnabaptiJVs in our land, fo far as I have had op- 
 portunity to obferve, feem to think whatever that 
 Jearned writer fays, muft be true 5 and his ipfe 
 dixit is full proof of it. By hearing him referred 
 to, and often quoted as if it ou^tio put an end to 
 all JlrifCi minded me of the two following lines^ 
 
 ^i fpmigif facros, aiiro^ *Oel marmore 'Vuitus 
 hlon facit ilk deos -, qui rogat^ ilk facitk 
 
 If Mr. S. quotes Dr. Gill truly, he tells us fromi 
 Rom.YA. 16, 17. " that by the Jirft fruits^" is 
 meant " the firft converts among the Jews un- 
 *' der the gofpel difpenfation, ^f." — But, if Mr. 
 S. thinks Dr. G/7/'s name (hould ftand for evidence, 
 I hope Dr. Gilt will not expect that every one can 
 fliut their eyes againft the light, in complaifance 
 to his name.— ^Let us rather conlider the plain and 
 
 M iamiliar 
 
90 APPENDIX. • 
 
 familiar fenfe of what the Apoftle has wrote ifl 
 the text referred to. — To take down the pride of 
 the Gentiles^ and their infults over the Jews, the 
 jApoftle fhowSj in the i ith verfcj that the whole 
 body ot iht JewSy as a nation, were not cut off 
 from their vifible church privileges, irrecoverably 
 and for ever. But their rejecting Chrill fcould 
 be over^ruled, for fpreading the gofpel fo much 
 the fooner among the Ge?2tiles : and the reception 
 which it met with among the Gentiles, was ordered 
 to be a means of trial to the Jews, for exciting them 
 to go beyond the Gentiles in faith and obedience. 
 — And, verfe 12. if the falling of the Jews fvom 
 God's covenant, be made an occafion of the in- 
 riching the Gentiles ; how much greater acceffion 
 of the Gentiles will there be into a vifible church- 
 ftate, when the Jewijh nation, in general, fhall 
 be called into a vifible church-ftate again, — Upon 
 this he falls into a difcourfe about his great concern 
 for the JewSy and their being ingrafted again into 
 a vifible church-ftate, and into the way of falva* 
 tion by Chriftj and fpeaks of the wonderful effed: 
 their reception into covenant will have upon the 
 Gentiles, who, till that time, will remdn dead in 
 trefpaffes and fins. — Then comes in the texl Mr, 
 S. refers to : " If the jirft fruits be holy, the 
 *^ lump is alfo holy : and if the root be holy, fo 
 " are the branches." ^ he Jirft fruits, Siud the 
 root, doubtlefs fignify, Abraham, Jfaac, and Ja^ 
 cob, with the reft of the patriarchs-, but efpeci- 
 ally " Abraham, with whom the covenant was 
 " made as the root of that nation, from whom the 
 " whole nation fprung, and by whom it was con- 
 " fecrated to God, as the offering of the firfl: fruits 
 ". fandified the whole produ(a of the harveft, and 
 " «' the 
 
APPENDIX. 91 
 
 *' the offering of a cake, or of two loaves, fanc- 
 *' tified the whole lump of dough," Levit. xxiii. 
 10 — 17. and Numb, xv. 19, 20, 21. So Abra- 
 ham was viiibly feparated to God, and became fe- 
 derally holy by that everlajiifig covenant^ ivhich he 
 eftablified with him^ to be a God to hitn, and to his 
 feed after him. Hence, if Abraham, who was 
 the root of adminiilration to the Jewijh church, 
 ;n the line of Ifaac and yacob ; if they were fede- 
 rally holy, as he was their covenant father, then 
 there is reafon to hope, tho* they are now broken 
 off by unbelief, that they will be brought in, to 
 the faith and all the privileges of a church-ftdte a- 
 gain, to join with thofe that were grafted in by 
 incifion, when the natural branches were broken 
 off. — Mr. S. may coniider, if he thinks it worth 
 his while, whether leprefenting the firft fruits^ 
 the firft JewiJJo converts, under the prefent difpenr- 
 fation of the covenant, is not a falfe interpretation 
 of the text ? Whether the fimilitude taken from 
 the ceremonial law, concerning the jirji fruit i, 
 and that from the law of nature, concerning the 
 root, is not the fame ? And whether the holinefs 
 of the lump, and of the branches, doth not refpeit 
 the holinefs of the fews, in their ancient cove- 
 nant relation to God, as an holy people ?— If this 
 is not true, how could the Apoftle fay, verle 17. 
 fome of the branches were broken ofj't Do'h rot 
 this refer to thofe fews, who were cut off from 
 their covevant claim ? — And if fo, then the graft- 
 ing in, muft refpedl the Gentiles, who had been 
 fir angers to the covenant of grace, and, like the 
 branches of a wild olive-treCj were ufclels and un- 
 profitable ; but are now fet in the place of thofe that 
 were broken off, among the remnant of the fe'ms 
 that were not broken off, as I have confidered un- 
 der 
 
92 APPENDIX. 
 
 der the 3^ head of my firft argument, to which t 
 refer the reader.— But, fays Mr. 6\ (P. 17.) *' the 
 *' root and fatnefs, which they partook of, are not 
 ^' the privileges of the Jewijh church ; but the pri- 
 *' vileges of the new-teflament church» of which 
 ** Chrifl is the root and foundation-flone." 
 Fray, Mr, S. who fuppofes that Chrifl is not the 
 roo. and foundation of the church, in the moft 
 important fenfe ? It has been exprefsly granted 
 that he is the root of communication to the church, 
 under the prefent difpenfation of the covenant of 
 grace. He has purchafed all the bleffings of time 
 and eternity ; the food we eat and the raiment we 
 put on : and not only all temporal, but all fpiri- 
 tual and eternal bleffings : and as Head and Lord 
 of all, he communicates thefe bleffings -r- — And 
 "was not Chrifl: the root of communication to the 
 church, under the former dilpenfation of the co^ 
 venant, in the fame fenfe that he is now ? Did 
 not God the Father accept of his engagement as 
 fully ^ as if he had been actually incarnate ? Was 
 not he fet up, and accepted, and conftituted Head 
 over all things from everlafting ? Was he not as 
 truly the foundation of the JewiJI)^ as of the chrif- 
 tian church ? If not, how could the covenant be 
 primarily made with him, as the Mediator, Head 
 and Surety of it ? — ■ — But, this hinders not bu^ 
 Abraham was the root of adminijiration to the 
 yewijh church and nation, as their federal father; 
 and therefore the branches were relatively holy by 
 the confl:itution of that covenant, which was made 
 with him and his feed. And real faints were as 
 iively JloneSj built up a fpiritual houfe, upon Jefus 
 Chrifl the fure foundation, in the yewijh as well 
 ^s the chriftjan church,- — But, doth it follow fropi 
 
 thence, 
 
APPENDIX. 9j 
 
 thence, (as Mr. S, argues) that the prerequifite to 
 the initiating feal of the covenant is faith, either un- 
 der the former or the prefent difpenfation of the co- 
 venant? — Faith, indeed, or the profellion of it, is a 
 prerequifite in the adult, and fo jc was of old : but 
 it is eafy for any honelf man to fee, that infants may 
 be as proper materials for the chriftian as for the 
 ^eiififk church. And to what purpole do.s Mr, 
 S*. bring the text of Uvely ftones'i Does he thiiik 
 that real faints were not as lively l^ones, under the 
 former difpenfation of the covenant, as now, tho* 
 the pomp and grandeur of their temple was of 
 dead materials ? Or would he thereby infinuate 
 into weak minds, that the merciful grant of church 
 memberfhip which was made to children former- 
 ly, is now repealed ? Perhaps his performance 
 will meet with no reader fo penetrating as to fee 
 the text referred to will prove a repeal. And, 
 without boalling, he may be challenged to biing 
 any text in the Bible, or any fair and jull iiiference 
 from one, that will prove a repeal.- — -Now, if 
 he has not proved a repeal, he has proved nothing 
 againfl my argument. And if there is no repeal 
 of the merciful grant, then the favour belongs to 
 the children Hill, and they cannot be debarred 
 without facrilegioufly keeping back Vv'hat God 
 claims as his. To refufe the feal of baptifia 
 to the feed of believers, is to rob God of what he 
 
 has appropriated to himfelf. ^Therefore I do 
 
 humbly entreat ail thofe that love and fear God, 
 and have opportunity and ability to fearch after the 
 truth without prejudice, to confider whether a 
 Ipirit of enthiifiafm or felf-fulnefs has not drawn 
 them afide, if they are already carried off frotn 
 9Wr fcriptur^ doctrine of infant-baptilm ? ChlK 
 '" " artii 
 
94 APPENDIX. 
 
 drcn of believers muft have the token of the co-» 
 venant put upon them, in the right of their pa- 
 rents faith, in obedience to a command that never 
 has been repealed. A profeffion of faith is re- 
 quired of none but the adult, before they receive 
 the token of the covenant. 
 
 The next affault is upon my 2d argument, 
 where I afferted that the infants of believers are 
 
 dijcipks of Chrift.— From this, after Mr. S, has 
 
 quoted LuL xiv. 26 — 33. he takes a perfcdt ram- 
 ble for about a page and a half. This put me in 
 mind of the preachments of run-about exhorters j 
 or rather of T.^om Puzzle in the Trailer, who made 
 a great blufter, nothing to his purpofe. But after 
 he defcended from the clouds, his ekctrick iirc 
 catch'd upon Mr. Stennet ; and by his affiftance, 
 he endeavours to prove [Page 20, 21.) that none 
 can be difciples without being Jirji taught 3 and 
 that teaching preceeds baptifm. 
 
 ) ;To this I anfwer, i. Mr. Stennet has well obfer- 
 ved that fuch teaching as producetb/<:z//y6 in Chrift^ 
 and fubjeUion to his gofpel^ is necefTary to produce 
 the good effeds fpoken oi Liik. xiv. 26, &c. None 
 but thofe that are el^edually called will faithfully 
 difcharge the duty of difciples. Yet, 2. the term 
 difciple is the fame with jcholar ; and to dijciple^ is 
 to enter into a fchool for being trained up accord- 
 ing to the laws and rules of the mafler of that 
 fchool. See Mat. xxviii. 19. Go Teach all naii" 
 om. Greek, Matheteusate /^^/"^ ta ethne. 
 Introduce the nations of the earth, Gentiles as well 
 as Jews, into my kingdom, as fchobrs into my 
 fchool, by a facred rite of my own appointment — 
 
APPENDIX. 9^ 
 
 Mr. Sfennet challenges us to produce an inflance of 
 any that were difciples before they were taught. 
 And I did produce inftances, in my 2d argument, 
 which Mr. S, has wifely declined offering one word 
 of evidence to prove that they were not true. And 
 indeed, neither he, nor any other perfon C2iuju/tly 
 doubt, whether the yoke fpoken of Auis xv. was 
 circumcidon or not ? And if it was circumcifion, 
 then infants are included among the difciples. That 
 which is done to infants, is done to difciples, and 
 therefore they are difciples, as I have proved in my 
 firft Sermon. — Yet, it may be added ; perfons may 
 be, and have been difciples without real fubje-ftion 
 to Chrill:. y«^i7i was a difciple : all that 5<zm/ could 
 find of that wav, were dilciples, and many of the 
 yews were difciples, that turned away, and walk- 
 ed no more with him. And Chrift himfelf has 
 taught us that infants are difciples. Mat, x. 42. 
 Mark ix. 41. Mat. xviii. 5.-— Belides ; for any to 
 deny that infants v/ere included in our Saviour's 
 commiffion to dijciple all nations, would involve 
 the apoltles and their fucceflfors in the miniftry, 
 in a contradidtion : for nations are to be difcipled ; 
 and infants are a part of every nation. — Tho' none 
 will go to heaven, bat fuch as have the fpirit of 
 martyrdom, yet whole nations may be difciples of 
 Chrift. If they are entered into his fchool ; if they 
 are put in the way of falvation, and put into the en- 
 joyment of fpiritual privileges, they are difciples. 
 
 Mr. iS. to help his weak caufe, " twifts and 
 turns" many ways againft this argument. He tells 
 his readers {Page 22.) that our Saviour in Mark 
 xvi. 16. has {hewed " the exacft order which is to 
 *' be obferved,— firft ^r£'^fj6/^?j"j then believing^ then 
 
 haptvzing:\ 
 
5)6 APPENDIX. 
 
 haptizing.*' And fo, in effed, he charges me witli 
 inverting the order which ChriO: has eftablifhed.— - 
 To this it may, perhaps, be faiisfying to Mr. S. if 
 I tell him that Dr. Gtlly in his antinomian Ser- 
 jnon open eternal Juflificatlon, tells me, " the or- 
 *' der of things is frequently inverted in Scripture* 
 *' — It does not always obferve that firft which is 
 " firft 5 and that laft which is lad ? but changes 
 ** the order; fo that nothing ftridtly is to be con- 
 ** eluded from thence."— But I add further ; thai 
 if Mr. 5. defigned to prove from that text, that 
 infants may not be baptized, becaufe they can'l 
 beheve, why has he not fpoke it out in fo many 
 words ? Did he forefee the evili and hide himfelt ? 
 Surely he might have leen, that it would as necef- 
 farily follow, that when they can't believe, they 
 muft be damned. — That which will re- 
 ceive infants into heaven, will receive them into 
 the viiible church by baptifm* 
 
 I confefs, It appears flrange, that a Gentleman^* 
 who pretends to be far above a jmatterer in Greeks 
 fhould boggle and try to blunder his readers about 
 the commiffion Chrift gave his minifters. For it is 
 evident, from that commifion, that the firft work 
 they had to do, was to profelyfe or admit all nati- 
 ons into the fchool of Chrift, baptizing and teach- 
 ingihtxn, ** And when parents gave in their names 
 to Chrift for themfelves, and their families, their 
 whole houfe were difcipled, or admitted into his 
 fchool. Among the Jews, being difcipled was 
 not being firft taught, and then initiated to a maf^ 
 ter ; but they were initiated to a mafter, and then 
 taught. So all ifrael was baptized into Mojes^ i 
 Cor, X. not as already taught, but to be inftrud^ 
 
APPENDIX. 97 
 
 cd and guided by him for the future," Nor can it 
 reafonably be fuppofed butthe apoftle?;, who were 
 JewSy mull: needs underiland the comaiiirion in 
 the fame latitude that they had been aceuftomed to^ 
 They had all along ** feen, that in all covenant 
 tranfadtions betwixt God and his church, the in^- 
 fants of believers had always been admitted, toge- 
 ther with their parents, and pafTed under the fame 
 initiating rite." They alfo knew this their admlffiori 
 was a great privilege : they alfo knew that all na- 
 tions were foon to partake of all the privileges of 
 the church j to be grafted into the fame olive-tree^ 
 and to be joint-heirs with them of all their religi- 
 ous grants. They alfo knew it to be the pradice 
 of the church, that when a Gentile was profelyted 
 to the v\ orfliip of the God of Ifraely not only he 
 was baptizcdj but all his infant feed." How there- 
 jFore was it morally poffiblCj how couW it confifl: 
 with reafon for them to think but they muft in the 
 profecution of their commiffionj go and pra(5life in 
 all things as formerly^ where Jefus Chrift himfelf 
 had not made a difference ^ — Gould they imagine 
 that infants^ who had been airways enrolled in the 
 lift of difcipleSj lliould now be excluded, without 
 one word offered by their Mafler to exclude them ? 
 Let Mr. S. fhew in his next, where Chrift has 
 fhut them out of this privilege ; or by what pro- 
 hibition he has forbid their enjoying the merciful 
 grant made them, any longer: or elfe let him^ 
 like an honefl man, confefs that they are no where 
 debarr'd 3 for he mufl, either prove that they are 
 excluded, or mufl allow them the chriflian rite of 
 baptifm, orelfe, armis pollentior ajlusk 
 
 In the next place Mr. S, falls upon my 3 Jar-*' 
 N gument^' 
 
98 APPENDIX. 
 
 gumente And^ i. He denies that federal holinefs 
 givrs a right to baptifm j (fee Fage 23.) and gives 
 this wonderful reafon for it, in%. not federal holi- 
 ntfs but a " profefTion of faith/' gives a right.-— 
 If he has any meaning to this, belides keeping the 
 mafk which he has taken to himfelf, it mufl: be, 
 that thofe who appear to be in covenant with God 
 are the fubjeds of baptifm, and no others : for 
 what is to be underftood by a profeffion of faith, 
 but a profeffion of a covenant intereft in Chrifl ? 
 —Now, there is, at leaft^ as good evidence 
 that the infants of believers are in covenant, as 
 that any who profefs faith and repentance arc fb. 
 I mean here, that we have as good reafon to think 
 they are regenerate, as to believe it of thofe who 
 fay they are converted : for we have proved that 
 God has taken them into covenant 'vijibly j and he 
 has alfo made many great and precious promifcs to 
 them. — —But Mr. 5. feems jealous that what he 
 has offered of a profeffion of faith giving a right X.6 
 baptifm will hardly ferve his purpofe 3 and there- 
 fore he hurries from that, and fays " it is only the 
 ** command of God that gives a right to an ordi- 
 nance of God 5" /. e. (as he has explained it) no 
 tnan has a right to inftitute any ordinance as a figtt 
 cr feal of the covenant ; nor may any man pretend 
 to obfei ve any rite as an ordinance, before God 
 himfelf has appointed it. See to this effect Fage 
 
 23, 24. He might as well have faid, that no 
 
 perfon bus a right to that which has no exiftencCr 
 And I am willing he fhould exult in all the tri^ 
 Tumph, which that arguing can poffibly give him.— 
 Mv argument fuppofes an ordinance of God ; that 
 this ordinance is the initiating token of the cove- 
 nant. And if Mr. 3, has done nothing to in- 
 
 validate 
 
APPENDIX. ^^ 
 
 Validate the major propofition, befides what I have 
 obferved, it will only fervc to fliow his readers^ 
 that he has more ufe for the mafk, than, perhaps, 
 he himfelf is aware of. And indeed, conlidering 
 his principles ftand in more need of it than any 
 denomination of Proteftants that I ever met with, 
 it is no wonder he fcrabbles fp earneflly af-^ 
 jer it.- -But 
 
 He foon comes to a common objcdlion, and calls 
 jn the help of his brethren.— It is again ft the minor 
 propofition in my argument, *viz. " The infants of 
 vifible believers are federally holy." i Cc^*. vii. 14. 
 And, tho' he has fummoned many witneffes to 
 help his c^ufe, he can't fiipport fallhood by them. 
 He might, with more propriety, have called in 
 Richard ^tapleton, a zealous and bitter Papift, who 
 lived A. D. 1597, and R, Bellarmine a famous 
 cardinal at Romey A. D. 1 599, as his vouchers. 
 
 befides many others of the Romifi church.'^ But. 
 
 among Proteftants, I might eaiily quote many a- 
 gainft him, where he pan produce one in his 
 favour. 
 
 It is enough for us both, to let the Apoftle fpeak 
 for himfelf 5 and, if he is allowed to fpeak com- 
 mon fcnfe, we muft grant that he writes of a fe- 
 deral^ and not a matrimonial holinefs, — —Mr. aS*. 
 fays, the holinefs is <* that which renders the off* 
 fpring legally begot and not baftards." To this ef- 
 fed fee Page 25, 26. — Againft this, I have affirm-- 
 ed that it is a /^J^r^/ holinefs ; that they are ex^ 
 ternally, relativelyj and federally holy ; a feed vi^ 
 iibly feparated and appropriated to the Lord, an(i 
 iatitk4 to thofe outward privileges of the covenant^ 
 ^ ' - - - ^l^^jjj 
 
100 APPENDIX. 
 
 which they are capable of in their infancy.- >i« 
 
 That y[x. S>temiet, Dr. Gill, (and Mr. 5. afte? 
 them) {hould call it a matrimonial hoXintk, in op-^ 
 pofifion to a federal holinefs, is not a little diffi-^ 
 cull It) reconcile with common fenfe. For the be-^ 
 licver und unbeliever mentioned, are both of theni 
 fiippoftd lo be in a married ftate, while in a ftate 
 of headienifm. Now one of them is converted to 
 the ehii^tidn faith; a fcruple arifes, whether the 
 other oiigbt not to be pat away, becaufe he or fhe 
 remains ij) be. rhenifm ftill. No, fays Paul-, your 
 cafe is very differenr 'from the cafe of the Ifrael" 
 ites, who were forbid to marry with the daughters 
 of idolatrous nations, both on a religious and civil 
 Confideration. And tho' you ought not to marry 
 unbelievers • yet, being married in a ftate of un- 
 belief, you may not put away hufband or wife 
 that continues in unbelief, merely becaufe you are 
 converted to the chriftian faith : for, how knowejl 
 thou, O believing ivije^ whether by ftill continue 
 ing to dwell in love, with thy unbelieving huf-^ 
 band, thou mayeft not be an inftrument of gain* 
 jng him over to the chriftian faith ? Or how know- 
 eft thou, O man, being a believer, but thou mayeft 
 be an inftrument of converting thy unbelieving 
 wife ? 
 
 Befides; the terms unclean and holy, which fre^ 
 quently occur in the Old and New T^ejlament, are 
 never ufed to fignify legitimate and illegitimate : 
 *' And as the Apoftle was fpeaking of perfons al- 
 ready married, and m^arriage is a civil ordinance 
 of the God of nature, there was no room to doubt 
 whether the children of fuch unbelieving parents 
 \vere legitimate or not^ fince that depends entirely 
 
APPENDIX. lot 
 
 upon the legitimacy of the marriage^ and not on 
 the religious character of the hufb.iiid or wife j 
 ^vhether one or both, or neither of ihtm, were 
 Chriftians or no." — But as it was with the parent, 
 fo it was with the child, as to church- flate or fe- 
 deral holinefs -, that being a privilege which de- 
 fcends from parent to child, if the parents were 
 out of the pale of the vifible church, the child 
 was fo too : if parents were enrolled with the peo- 
 ple of God, the chil ^ren were reckoned, in a qua- 
 lified fenfe, members of the vifible church. BuC 
 when the parents were divided, the one /6o/}', the 
 other unclean^ in this cafe, the Corinthians feared 
 the children would be unclean wirh the unbelie- 
 ving parent. The Apoftie removes the fcruple, (as 
 was obferved) by telling them that the unbelie- 
 ving party does not defile the iffue : but the child 
 is holy, and not to be reckoned with the unbelie- 
 ving parent, who was a Gentile. In this way 
 Pnul took off the perplexing fcruples both as to 
 themfelves and their children. — Indeed, he could 
 not mean that the children of believers were jno- 
 rally clean j for they are, in this fenfe, as unclean 
 "by nature, as the children of other people. Nor 
 could he mean that they were all regenerated by 
 the Holy Ghoft ; for fad experience teaches us, 
 that many children, who are federally holy, are 
 not born from above; as alfo, we fee the fame lad 
 truth of many profeffors, baptized in their adulc 
 age. " But unclean and holy are manifeftly to be 
 *' taken here, in that well known and f^imiliar 
 ** fenfe, in which the church oi IJrael^ and their 
 *' feed, by virtue of their vifible relation to God, 
 ** as his covenant people, were called an holy peor- 
 *J fle^ and on holy feed^ in diftinction from the 
 
 *' heathe4^ 
 
io2 APPENDIX. 
 
 ** heathen nations, which were fliled uncleati, as 
 f* being out of the pale of the church, and ex- 
 *^ eluded from the privileges and bleffings of God'^ 
 ** covenant/' See for this, Deut. vii. 6. Essrit 
 IX. 2. Ifoi* vi. 13. Chap. iii. i. and Ixii. la. So 
 the parents and children of the vifible church are 
 called holy, as in Rom. xi. 16. and the Gentiles, in 
 their unconverted flate, are reprefented as unclean^ 
 jiBs X. 14, 28. ** When therefore the infants 
 of vifible believers are baptized, it is no more let?- 
 ting a feal to a blank, than v^hen that prdinance 
 is adminiftered to perfons, who never were bap« 
 tized before, upon their open profeiTion of faith, 
 but were not i^ffedually called : for the ground of 
 baptizing infants or thoie that are adult, does no,^ 
 lie in a certainty, but in a %njibte covenant relat^^ 
 on to Gj?d. When parents make a credible pro-^ 
 feffion of faith and repentance, a vifible hoUnefs 
 is entailed on their children, and they have an e? 
 vident right tp th© initiating token of the covct 
 IJant/' 
 
 But Mr. S. learnedly adds, ^' If it be a holine{§ 
 ** which gives the children a right to baptifm, — ^ 
 " then all the children of fuch parents muft have 
 ^* a right to it, from the qualification derived from 
 ** their parents^r-even to 50 years old, ^c.** But 
 with the leave of thofe that are more learned even 
 than Mr. .S. I will venture to affirm, that it is 
 poflible thofe children may caft themlelves out of 
 covenant, before they arrive to half the age he has 
 £xed upon 5 yea, as foon as they are capable of 
 moral adtion ; for beiiig in covenant does not ne^ 
 
 cefTarily imply regeneration. -If it did, no man 
 
 jiving might baptize, either mm^ womana or child. 
 
A P P E N O I 5f. 165 
 
 «i*-Nor yet, does it appear from any thing he haj 
 ofFered, that they can claim this fight by theii" 
 parents, after they are grown to years capable id 
 judge far themfelves. So long as they are in a 
 ilate of infancy, there is as good ground of hope 
 Concerning them, as concerning thofe that profefs 
 faith in their adult age. The proper ground of 
 baptizing infants or adult, does not lie in a cer-* 
 tainty of their being endued with the faving grace 
 of God, but in their 'vijible CQVtr\z.nt. relation to 
 God, as I but jufl obfcrved. And this is full ^^ 
 manifeft, by God's promife to the feed of bclie)- 
 vers, as it is by the profeffion of faith in the ac-»' 
 dult. 
 
 Having confidered what Mr. 5*. ofFered againfl 
 tay 3^, let us now attend to his reafonings againflf 
 my 4/^ argument. — Page 27. he fays " it has beeii 
 ** already prov'd, that in the fcriptural fenfe, the 
 ** meet fubjedts of the gofpel church are ftich^ #h6 
 *' are capable of profefling their faith in Chrift, 
 *"* which infants are not.'' — But what does fuch 
 arguing reprove ? Will it follow, that infants of 
 believers are not in the vilible kingdom of Chjjift, 
 becaufe fuch as are capable of profefling their faith 
 are meet fubjeds of that kingdom ? Who denies 
 that fuch as are capable of profe fling faith are 
 meet fubjeds of the vifible church ? This is not 
 the point in queftion 5 nor can it ferve any purpofe, 
 but for a malic to the writer, and an amufement 
 to weak or inattentive readers. If Mr. S, would 
 have done any thing againft my argument, he mufl 
 have proved that only thofe that profefs their faith 
 are capable or meet fubjeds of the vifible kingddm 
 of Chrif^, which neither he nor his fathers have 
 
 ever 
 
lo. 
 
 APPENDIX, 
 
 ever beenable to do.-^Nor will his calling the vU 
 fible kingdom of Chrift, the gofpel churchy help 
 the matter at all x for God never had any other 
 than a gofpel church fince the fall of Adam, I 
 hope, in his next, he will keep to the point, and 
 either offer fome good evidence that nojte but be* 
 iievers are the fubjcfl'S of Chrift' s vifible kingdom ^ 
 or honeftly confels that he is not able to prove it* 
 
 Some things that have no relation to my argu-** 
 m°nts I wholly pais over, tho/ if I fliiould pafs by 
 all of that nature, the greatefl part of what he has 
 
 wrote would be negleded.^ -Page 28. he fays, 
 
 *' according to Mr. P. it is the Scripture dodlrine 
 ** that is falfe ; becaufe it will not join with him 
 " in admitting infants as members of the vifible 
 ** church." — And what light does he offer to fup* 
 port this wonderful difcovery ? Why truly this, 
 'Dtz. " I can find no account of any infants being 
 " baptized — till the latter end of the 2d or begin- 
 ** ning of the 3^ century." ^D. If a man of fo 
 great reading and penetration as I am, has not 
 found that infant-baptifm is of earlier date than the 
 9.d or 3^ century, then it is the Scripture dodtrine 
 that Mr. P. reprefents as falfe dodtrine. For, all 
 the knowledge of this matter, that is contained in 
 
 the Bible or profane hiftory, lives in me\ -ASi'^ 
 
 um erit de ecclefia, cum ilk morietur, 'Non jub- 
 
 iimiiis [apit qtiam ille, But, as the hiftory ot 
 
 infant-baptifm belongs to my laft argument, I (hall 
 add no more in this place ; except a word or two 
 of Latin 5 Vana jcientice opinione imhutia, 
 
 ' In the next place he tells his readers, that tpiih-^ 
 iickh patronize Arminianijm^ and give it a kindre-^ 
 
 T' " ception^ 
 
APPENDIX. ros 
 
 teffion. And why has he afTerted this with much 
 pretended forrow? Anf Becaufe of the glaring 
 evidence of mj apoftafy, which he finds in thefe 
 Vt^ords, 'oiz. " The onJy ground of hope that we c<\\\ 
 *• have of infants being the members of Chriftj by 
 •' a vital union, arifes from their vifible member- 
 ** fliip.*' Upon this he reprefents me, as rejcdt* 
 ing the covenant of grace, and the fatisfadion of 
 Chrift, and fetting up the aft of the parent or mi* 
 nifter inftead thereof, ^c. See P. 28, 29. — 'Tis 
 ufual with Grub-fir eet writers to pretend their de- 
 fign is- to reform the church j and this, they ima* 
 gincj will excufe any flinders. But who, except 
 ikr. S. could have the foreheud or folly to mifie* 
 prefent me in this manner? Who, that has com- 
 ttion fenfe, can help fearing this was a contrived' 
 ft'aud, if he gives himfeif the trouble to read .vhat 
 I have Written upon that head? — -if Mr. .S\ wou d" 
 do honour to God, and to his o .vn labouring ciia- 
 rader, he muft confefs that, in many pLces, e- 
 fpecially in this, he has mifreprefented me, either 
 through great weaknefs, or through wickednels.— « 
 I defire the reader to confider, what ground of 
 hope he can have, that another is interefled in the 
 covenant of grace, or the Ipirittal privileges, or 
 fpecial bleffings of the Mediator's purchafe, unlefs 
 the ground is 'oifibie ? Can Mr. S. by his great 
 penetration, or by legerdemain^ perfuade his admi- 
 rers that a perlon is vitally united to Chrift, by a- 
 ny vivifihle evidence? Or can he, upon antinO'^ 
 mian principles, (liow his readers a method or 
 ground of hope for the falvation of others, with- 
 dut a mfihle ground of hope for it? I lay once 
 rhore, that it is impoffible for any man living, to 
 judge of that w^hichis^ to him, in'^ifibk^ any o- 
 
io6 APPENDIX. 
 
 ther way than by that which is vijibk. And if 
 IVIr. 5. does not coi fefs in his next, let him make 
 the art of reafoning quake before his mighty con- . 
 fequences ; or elfe he will be hardly put to it to 
 prove, that I have given /Irmintanijm a kind re- 
 ception. He has laid his charge too high, conli- 
 derin? he brought no evidence to fupport it : but 
 poffibly it was in his mind, that if a perfon {hould 
 confidently affirm, he believes^ perceives, or has a 
 jenle of his ju/iificationy that rfiouid be received 
 for good evidence of it, not to himfelf only, but 
 to others. Or, might he not, from a pious con- 
 cern lefl the infeBion of bad divinity, dangerous 
 doBrine, &c. (hould fpread, advife his devoted 
 readers to find out fome ground of hope concern- 
 ing infants, dying in infancy, without any pretence 
 of evidence ? I fhall not pretend to guefs at the 
 certain meaning of that elaborate part of his pam- 
 phlet 3 but I really believe it was his own. 
 
 Again ; he fays, ** To render my argrment the 
 ** more plaufible, I have quoted Matt. xix. 14." 
 See P. 29. This he thinks will not ferve my end, 
 b^;cauie thrift baptized none, Truej JefusChrift, 
 i^)^ wife reafons, b^ prized none with his own hands, 
 tho' he entered f ich a multitude of difciples into his 
 fchool by baptirm, that it made his malicious ene- 
 mie? riifje. Bui it is nOihiniJ againft, nor in favour 
 of my argument, whether he b :ptized or not. My 
 argument is, th it the infantsof b li^vers have 2i right 
 to baptifm, becaufe they are members of the viji- 
 ble church. Our Saviour, in the text referred to, 
 phiily intimates, that their covenant interefl, and 
 vifihle chu ch membe'^iliip, Ihould be continued 
 under the prefent csifpeniuUon, ^ Oj Juch is the 
 
 kingdom 
 
APPENDIX. 107 
 
 kingdom of heaven. The argument for ir/Lnt- 
 baptifm from this text 1 grounded upon the words 
 Chrifl uttered on the occafion j and not upon his 
 pra(5tice ; as the reader may fee by turning to the 
 
 argument itfelf. Mr. b\ long quota* ion fiom 
 
 Dr. Gilly cannot help his caufe, in the minds of 
 thofe who confidcr the reafon why thofe infants 
 were brought to Chrift, It was not for inftruc- 
 tion J for they were incapable of that. It was not 
 for the cure of bodily dileafesj for then the difci- 
 ples would not have rebuked thofe that brought 
 them, becaufe they knew it was ufual for Chriil 
 to cure difeafes in all ages. — But they were the in- 
 fants of parents in covenant with God. Chrift 
 was then on the coafts of Judea^ as miniiler of 
 the circumcifion, Matt. xv. 24. and Rom. xv. 8, 
 If thefe infants were not in covenant, why did our 
 Saviour admit them ? He did not do fo, vv^hen the 
 Canaanitijh woman came wiih her child, Matt. xv. 
 26. But he admitted thefe little children upon a 
 common right, which belongs to the children of 
 believing parents, viz. becauie they were mem- 
 bers of the vifible church ; and therefore they had 
 a church privilege beftowed upon them. He laid 
 his hands upon them^ " according to an ancient 
 " rite of the Jewifo church in benedidions," and 
 blefled them. Now, tho' this was not brought 
 for a diredt precedent for baptifm in particular, 
 yet it is a clear precedent tor thofe church privi- 
 leges of which infants arc capable. None that are 
 vifible members of the church, may be denied 
 admiffion by baptifm. Thofe that are admitted 
 to one church privilege, may not be denied ano- 
 ther of which they are capable. And hofe th.rt 
 are admitted to church privileges are church mem-^ 
 
io8 APPEND! X. 
 
 bers. Our Saviour teaches us very plainly, that 
 the children of believers are, in a qualified fenfe^ 
 members of the vilible church • that this privilege 
 fhould be continued to them under the new dif" 
 penfation of the covenant as it was before. And 
 JcTus Chrifl: accepted the dedication of them as 
 the acS and deed of the parents ; therefore he took 
 it ill of thofe that forbid them, and that would 
 have excl. ded thofe whom he would have recei- 
 ved. His faying nothing about their being bapti^ 
 sed, is not at all unfavourable to the dodtrine of 
 infant- baptifm. It is enough that he has faid they 
 are members of the church. And if they were 
 not capcble of being admitted into the vifible 
 church, they would ftand without any vifible 
 ground of hope of their falvation, Eph, i. 12, 
 For any to conclude that a perfon is not intereft- 
 ed in the covenant of grace, is to doom that per- 
 fon to hell. By nature all are children of wrath -^ 
 and neither Mr. S, nor any other man, can find 
 out any vifible ground of hope for their falvation, if 
 -they are put out of the covenant. — He may indeed, 
 with Bellarminey fet up a limbus patrum^ as he 
 fights againfi iiifants with B.ellarmine\ weapons 5 
 for it is as evident as any cunclufion can follow 
 ii om its premifes, that infants dying without any 
 intereft in the covenant of grace, do perifh for e- 
 ver, unlefs there is a place in hell from whence 
 they are delivered, after fome proper time of pur» 
 gallon. And even Mr. S. if he believes that doc- 
 g:i;ine, I can hardly think will readily own it. 
 
 Upon my 5/^ argumeott, he fays, P. 31. that 
 *' I make baptlfm to bring infants mto, and feal 
 II them in ihe covenant oi ^^^ce/* Here agam 
 
APPENDIX. Top 
 
 tie impofes upon bis readers, and the Searcher of 
 'hearts knows his deiign in it. If the reader wiH 
 carefully look over the argument, he^rmy fee that 
 I have not given the leail colour for Mr. S. to af- 
 fert that I make iaptijm to hring infants into ths 
 covenant of grace. If I have aflerted any fuch 
 ^thing, why are not my own words produced to 
 prove it ? Mr. .S. mufl know, if he underftands 
 .plain EngliJJjy that 1 fay, the infants of believing 
 -parents are interefted in the covenant of grace, 
 :and therefore have a right of indu<5tiQn by the ia- 
 
 itiating token of the covenant, -Bat having af- 
 
 ferted that falfliood, he draws this inference frooi 
 •it, viz, ** Then all the children of believers who 
 ** are baptized, mufl be intitled to the blefSngs 
 ** of that covenant, which are juftiticatian, adop« 
 *■* tion, fan<3ification, and the gift of the Holy 
 ^' Ghoft/' ^r.— Now, if the premifes had been 
 ever fo true, the confequence is really no confe- 
 quence at all : for children may be interefl:ed in 
 the covenant oi grace, and never be juftified in the 
 iight of God, nor fandiEed by the Holy Spirit*— 
 Sandified indeed, they. are; but may be only a 
 federal fan^tification, as they ffand in a covenant 
 relation to God ; as thofe, Heh. x. 29. They are 
 feparated from the world, and dedicated to God 
 by covenant. — < — In this fenfe all the congregati- 
 on of Ifrael were holy, Corah and his followers 
 not excepted. Numb. xvi. 3, 9. There is a fane- 
 tification by dedication to God, and a fandificatioa 
 by the indwelling of the Spirit, In the former 
 fenfe, all the vifible church are fandified ; but the 
 indwelling of the Spirit is proper to ihi^m only 
 who are effe^flually called. in the former fenfe, 
 ' ibe infants of believing parents are fandiiied : God 
 
no APPENDIX. 
 
 has feparated them from the world, and requires 
 their dedication to him at the hands of their pa- 
 rents. But they may totally and Jinally fall away 
 from this grace of the covenant, thouih they fhall 
 never fall from the grace of efFcdual calling. 
 
 Whoever reads my ^th argument with care and 
 due attention, will plainly lee, not only that Mr. 
 S. has milieprefented me in what I have quoted 
 from him already ; but more grolsly in what fol- 
 lows, 'uiz. Page 32. ** As to the privileges of the 
 ** chri/iian church being lefs than the privileges 
 of the Jewi/h church, bec^^iife of the denial of in- 
 *' fsnt-baptiiiTi J it is mere noije without any jub" 
 fiance'* Aiid to prove this he fays that the bleffings 
 of the covenant were exhibited by types and £ha- 
 dows ; but now they (liine in their unclouded luf- 
 tre. — The JewijJ:) church was made up of lively 
 and dead materials, but the gofpel church, ofpro- 
 feffed lively materials. — Infants were circumcifed^ 
 and fo bound to kt^ep the whole law, from which 
 bondage they are delivered. — ^Andvhofe that have 
 leifureand opporturiv, may fee what he fays, and 
 many orher things in .1 book upon Scripture meta- 
 phors firff put out by B. i^,— Alter a long parade, 
 nothing to the purpofe in lia d, he comes to a j\.th 
 head, and fays, that we fay the Anabaftijii '* lelTen 
 ** the p'^ivileges of the gofpel, by not admitting in- 
 *^^ fants into the gofpel church, feeing the infants 
 ** of the 'Jewi were admitted into the Jewijh 
 " church." I take it for granted they are his own 
 words, becaufe he gives the credit of them to no 
 body elfe. But, iince he pretends to write againft 
 what I have printed, he would have difcovered as 
 jnuch honefty, if he bad kept clofe to my terms. 
 
 '^' ~~^ He 
 
APPENDIX. Ill 
 
 He»imuft know better than to fuppofe the church 
 of God, under the anicent difpenfation, was not as 
 truly a gofpel churchy as the church of God under 
 the prefent difpenfation. Why then ftiould he, a- 
 gain and again^ intimate the contrary, unlefs it 13 
 to deceive his readers ? To diihonour the fcriptures 
 of the Old leftament^ and to reprefent its promifes 
 fenfual and carnal ? Ur to take the infants of be- 
 lievers out of covenant with God, and fo, with the 
 Papifts, to conclude their damnation ? For with- 
 0!it doubt, all out of covenant with God are in a pe- 
 rii'tiing condition. Or does he intimate this to keep 
 the children of believers from baptifm ? I fuppofe 
 it is the lafl-. For he fays, P^^^33. " It was a 
 ** privilege to the children of the 'Jews to be ad- 
 " mitted into the Jewi/Jj church, in their infancy,' 
 ** by circumcifion : but it is no privilege to our chil- 
 *' dien to be admitted into the gofpel church by 
 ** baptifm." The fame his excellent Mr. Morgan 
 has laid before him. — But neither the one nor the 
 other has given any evidence of the truth of their 
 aifertion, unlefs pofitive afifertions will do for evi- 
 dence. They both confefs it was a privilege to the 
 children of the Jews ; and that they were admit- 
 ted in confequence of God's command : but offer 
 no reafon why it is not a privilege to admit the 
 children of believers into the vifible church by bap- 
 tifm, under the piefent difpenfation ; as it was to 
 admit them by circumcifion under the former.— 
 Why did not Mr. 5. or his champion, prove the 
 
 point, if it were proveable ? We have aflerted 
 
 the contrary, and are able to fupport our afl'ertioii 
 by good evidence. For, if it was the command of 
 God that they iliould be admitted into the church, 
 by the initialing token of the covenant, under the 
 
 former 
 
ii2 A P P E N D I X. 
 
 former difpenfation ; and if that command is nd 
 ■where repealed, (as I have already obferved) then 
 k is as much the command of God to admit them 
 How> as- under the former difpenlation* The 
 change o^ a token of the covenant, does not argue- 
 the change of the fubjed:, unlefs the law for ad- 
 Eiitting infants had been repealed. And if the 
 command continues in force, it muft be a privilege 
 to admit them ; for obedience to the command of 
 God,, flrongly infers^a privilege* 
 
 But, Mr. 5^. tells us, that " by baptizing our chil^ 
 ** dren and taking them into thegofpel church, vref 
 ** lefTen the glory of the building, which is to confift 
 of litjely flones, Gf«r." alluding to i Pet, i'l. 5. But he 
 " fays, our children are dead materials."-— Tho*, to' 
 purfue the metaphor in his own way, we have full 
 as much reafon to believe that numbers which he 
 and others plunge underwater, are dead materials, 
 as that the infants of believing parents are fo.— 
 But Mr. S. does awfully pervert the plain fenfe of' 
 the Apoftle, as will eafily be feen by confidering 
 his own words. To whom coming as unto a liiiing 
 S-tone ; L e. coming unto Chrift is the way and 
 condition, of being built as living flones. And 
 this was the cafe with feme to whom Peter wrote 
 this epiftle, but not with others. Some daily ap-^ 
 plied to Chrifl by faith for edification, as unto the 
 only foundation of all their fecurity, hope and hap- 
 pinefs; and they were as living Jlones^ being vital- 
 ly united to, and deriving virtue from Chrift, who 
 was their living and enhvening foundation; others 
 who profeffed Chrifl, like other hypocrites, lived 
 upon themfelves, and fo were as a dead weight 
 upon thofe. they, were vifiblj united- with.— -'Tis 
 
 indeed 
 
APPENDIX. Mj 
 
 indeed the beauty of the churchy under any dlA" 
 penfation of the covenant of grace, to have profef" 
 fors coQiing daily to Chrift, as tt) ^ living jhne^ 
 Did not the church in the wildernefs receive th'e 
 lively oracles of God^ by Mol^s, A£is, vii. 38 ? And 
 were not thefe oracles fpirit and life, to all that 
 received them by faith, as the word of the living 
 God ? And yet they did not mar the beauty and 
 glory of the church under that difpenfation, by 
 admitting their children. No : this was one part 
 of its beauty in their day. And fp the churchy 
 Under the prefent difpenfation, is built upon Chriftj 
 the living /lone ; and all true Chridians, that are 
 daily coming to him by faith, are lively ftones* 
 But this is no argument againft, but much in fa- 
 vour of admitting their children to baptifm. — >— 
 But Mr. S. fays, " I can't find it does children a^ 
 ** ny good to baptize them.*'— —And what if I 
 fhould fay, I can't find it does adult profefTors any 
 good to baptize them .? Would my ignorance be 
 an argument that they have no privileges fuperior 
 to them that are not baptized ? Would it do the 
 reader any good to find that I was very ignorant ? 
 or that I never attended properly to what the Scrip- 
 tures have taught us in this matter ? ■ What ad* 
 vantage had the Jtw ? His being circumcifed no 
 more fecured his falvation, than if he had been a 
 heathen. And yet Paul tells us, there was much 
 profit in circumcifiott) and that every way. Tho' 
 thefe outward privileges bear no part in the grounds 
 of acceptance with God ; yet, in the nature of means 
 and helps, the Jews had thereby many prerogatives 
 above the Gentiles, See Rom. iii. 1,2. Chap. ix. 
 4, 5. And the token of the covenant is as bene- 
 ficial under the prefent, as it was under the former 
 
 P dilpen-' 
 
114 APPENDIX, 
 
 difpenfation. And baptlfln, as a chriftian facr^* 
 ment, comes in the room of circiimcifion, Col. ii. 
 3 1,12. As circumcifion in the flefh was a fige 
 of fpiritual circumeifion, fo baptifm is the anfwer 
 of a good cotifcience towards God, Both thefe fa- 
 craments are a folemn obligation upon confcience 
 to return a fuitable anfwer to the demands of the 
 living God. Now, the fisnification being the fame, 
 baptifm mafl: come in the room of the former rite 
 of admiffion. The Apoflle tells us, not orly that 
 believers ihould partake of the thing fignified by 
 the rite of circnmcifion^ but that God has alfa 
 fubflitcted another external ordinance, of like ufe, 
 li. nification and defign, more fuitable to the fim- 
 plicity of the ftate of the church under the pre- 
 fent difpenfation.— But if the infants of believing 
 parents were not to be baptized, a flrong objedi- 
 on would arife asainft the glory of the church un- 
 der the new difpenfation of the covenant of grace^ 
 as to external and fpiritual privileges ; fince the 
 children of the Ijrd^Utes, under the former dif- 
 penfation, were tircumcifed as well as others. ■ 
 But the great difficulty with Mr. S. is, he does not 
 find it does children any good. He may confider, 
 if he has a heart to it, as one that muft give an 
 account to God, whether it is no hurt^ to fhut 
 thofe out of the covenant, whom God has taken 
 in ? — I may affirm, without boafling, that the ar- 
 .guments offered do fullv prove that the infants of 
 believing parents are included in the covenant, and, 
 by a divine command, they had a right to the in- 
 itiating token of it. — Alfo it has been proved, that 
 the law demanding the token of the covenant to 
 be adminiftered to infants, has never been revo- 
 ked : and therefore it mufl be as fully in force now 
 _ . .. -_ ^^ 
 
APPENDIX. 115 
 
 £S formerly, iinlefs Mr. S. or fome of his aiiabap- 
 tijl predeceffors have a fecret oxiwoijible warrant to 
 revoke it. How then will they anlwer it to God, 
 or a good confcience, that they de/pt'feihQiok^n of 
 thecovenant adminiftered to children, fince God has 
 enjoined it, and never repealed it ? Is it no duty nor 
 privilege to obey God ? Is it no privilege to be ad- 
 mitted and incorporated in the vilible,church ? No 
 privilege to be brouj;ht into a political nrvion with 
 Chrift ? No privilege that we and ours are his "j/- 
 fible fub]e6ls? No privilege to have a joint inte- 
 reft with all other members of the vifible church 
 in the providential care of its glorious head ? And 
 is not the whole Ifrael of God the proper objedl: 
 of fpecial providence ? See Pfal. cxxi. 4. Ifai, 
 xxvii. 3. Heb. i. 14. — Befides ; are not the mem- 
 bers of the vifible church the more fpecial objeds 
 of the promifes of faving grace ? particularly the 
 
 promifes in l/ai.Viv, 13. Jer, xxxi. 31. &c. ^ 
 
 Further ; is it no privilege to have the promifes 
 fealed and confirmed to them, in an external man- 
 ner ? May not our children, under a fenfe of fin 
 and danger, ground a plea for mercy, as they are 
 a part of God's Ifrael f It thefe things are pri- 
 vileges; then it is the glory of the church, under 
 the prefent difpenfation of the covenant, to have 
 the children of believers acknowledged, and feal- 
 ed with the initiating token of the covenant, as 
 much as formerly, 
 
 To my 6/,6 argument, Mr. 5*. objeds, i. That 
 " Ilhould have firft told my readers that Zaccheus 
 ** was a married man, and then proved it," and 
 the like of Ly^ia, P. 35. If Mr. S. underwood 
 bimfelf, and the rules of fair reafoning, he mnft 
 
 coufiucr 
 
ii6 APPENDIX. 
 
 conCidzr me as refpondent^ and himfelf as opponent^ 
 And then the labouring oar would lie upon hini 
 to prove, that neither Zacchem^ nor Lydia^ were 
 married ; or if they ivere^ they had no children. 
 Bat he knew that bat few of his admirers under- 
 flood the art of thinking, and much lefs the art 
 of reafoning and ranging their thoughts in words; 
 and therefore " mere noife without any fubftance,'* 
 
 would ferve his purpofe as well as any thing. 
 
 To fuppofe there were no children in their houfes, 
 is to take that for granted, which is impoffible to 
 prove. He knows, 1 hope, that as a /^/r refpon- 
 dent, I might put him to prove even that impoffi- 
 bility. But inftead of that, I would obferve, it 
 is certain that a man's or woman's houfhold, &c^ 
 ail along in the Old lejiament, fignify the whole 
 family, v^hich includes all the children of the fa- 
 mily. And there is no room to doubt, but when 
 Zaccheus began his praifes to God, and Lydia had 
 her heart opened to receive the Lord, they took 
 up the refolution of David refpefting the adult^ 
 viz. If they would tiof give in their names to 
 Chrift, they £hould nof dwell in their houfe^ nor 
 tarry in their fight ; /. e. they would reje(S them 
 from the number of their family. And as to the 
 infants of their houfe, they were baptized in the 
 right of their believing parents. As it was a well 
 J<:nown cullom among the Jews, to admit profe» 
 lytes into the church of Ifrael by baptizing them 
 and their whole families, inclulive of their infants, 
 there is a plain reference to this cuftom, where it 
 is faid Zaccheus and his houfe, Lydia and her hou- 
 fhold, and the Jailor and all his were baptized. 
 And it is remarkable, that in the j^Sfs of the A- 
 fojflesj, God's covenant with his people and their 
 
APPENDIX. 117 
 
 fised, and the application of the new teftament feal 
 of it to children, as well as to grown perfons, is 
 flrongly intimated, firft with refped: to the convert- 
 ed "Jeivs^ afterwards X.o profelytes of the gate ^ and 
 again to the idolatrous Gentiles. * I am not con- 
 cerned, however, in the prefent controverfy, whe- 
 ther Zaccheus or L)'dia were married ; or whether 
 they had children, the offspring of their own bo- 
 dies. It is enough that they had families, inclu- 
 ding children, that were admitted members of 
 the vifible church, and included in that covenant 
 which fays ** I will be a God to thee, and to thy 
 ** feed." They had boufliolds that were baptized 
 on the foot of the Abrahamick covenant. Some, 
 no doubt, were grown up, and inftruifted in the 
 knov/ledge of God, and of this covenant, in order 
 to have the token of it applied to them ; but there 
 is no more room to doubt but there were children 
 that were baptized in thofe houfholds than that 
 there were children in Abraham* s houfhold that 
 were circumcifed. Will any fliy, after Mr. S. that 
 none were baptized but fuch as heard the word and 
 rejoiced in God ? Anf. The adult in Abraham'^ 
 houfe were inflru<5led before thev were circumci- 
 fed : and li Zaccheus, Lydia and others, had adult 
 perfons, as probably they* had in their houfes, no 
 doubt they were, fome way or other, intruded 
 before they were baptized. But for any to fay that 
 there were no children baptized in the right of the 
 heads of thofe families, is really to affirm a thing a- 
 gainfl the general renorof the Scripture, which in- 
 cludes children in houfholds.— You will, perhaps, 
 fay, that all the baptized believed and rejoiced in 
 
 God, 
 
 • Fide Dr. Cuifff upon Ails liih Chapter. 
 
jiS APPENDIX. 
 
 God, as you fuppofs appears from yfBsxv'i, 34^ 
 But if you nnderftand the Greek no better than the 
 fmatterer Mr. S. repeatedly tells you of, you v.'ill 
 eafily fee that there is ro proof of all belie'ving and 
 rejoicing who were baptized. Greek ; Egaliiafa* 
 to panciki pepijietikoos to Tbeo. Englifli ; He be^ 
 lienjinz in God rejoiced all ever hiskonfe. It has no 
 reference to the faith or joy of his family ; but his 
 'onl)\ And therefore Mr. 5. has brought nothing 
 from the Scripture, of any weight, againft my laft 
 argument. 
 
 "What he fays {Page 39.) upon A0s ii. 29. is 
 s perverfion of the plain lenfe of the text. Peter 
 there tells his hearers, that if they repented and were 
 baptized, they might receive the pardon of their 
 iins, and warrantably hope for that bleffing : yea, 
 he tells them they ought to put in for it, as ever 
 they defired their own, or their children's happi- 
 nefs : " for the promife [Gen, xvii. 7.) and par- 
 ** ticularly the promife Ifai. xliv. '3. Ch. 59, 21. 
 *' runs, to you and yvur children,^* The bleffing 
 of the Abrahamick covenant is to come upon the 
 Gentiles, as well as the yews^ under this new dif- 
 penfafion of the covenant, the' at prefentthey [the 
 Jfws) are cut off: yea, it is to come upon all that 
 God fhail call unto the faith and fellowship of the 
 gofpel : the fame promife is to them and their 
 children, to be fulfilled in its proper feafon. The 
 fame promifes that w'ere unto the Jews are as ef- 
 fectual for any of the Gentiles. The promife fpo- 
 ken of looks to the covenant made with Abraham^ 
 and afterwards renewed thro' the ancient difpenfati- 
 on of the covenant, to Ifrael and his feed. Plence it 
 Reaches us, that the prefentdifpenfatipji of the fame 
 ~ CQvenant^ 
 
APPENDIX. ^ f9 
 
 covenant, Is fo far from repealing the promife^ 
 that it takes effcdt among believing Gentiles as well 
 as "Jews, And it is a thing incredible, that when 
 Gentiles are incorporated into the fame church 
 with the Jews which were not broken off from 
 the church, the Jewijh members fliould have a 
 ri<7ht for their children, and the Gentile members 
 have none for theirs. 
 
 Before I difmifs what Mr. S. has fatd upon the 
 text but jail: explained, I defire the ferious reader 
 to coniider what honefty or policy there is in fayingj^ 
 ** to argue that believing parents are to get their 
 *• children baptized becaufe the promife is to 
 them," is no better arguing, than, to argue, that 
 •' thofe v/ho are afar off arc to be baptized." I 
 fay, what poflible honefl: reafon can a man haver 
 for fuch blind talk as this is ? Does not Mr. ^. 
 know ; does not the very letter of the text teach 
 him and every man, that the promife refers to the 
 cail} Thofe whom the Lord calls -, tho' they may 
 now be afar off j tho' now they may be the poor 
 favages In Amef^ica j yet ivhen the Lord our God 
 (hall call them, the promife is to them and their 
 children : and therefore they and their children 
 will then have a right to the initiating feal of the 
 covenant. 
 
 But to proceed : I have fubjoined a fcrap of 
 church hidory to the account that is left us in the 
 bible, touching the dowtrine of infant-baptifm. 
 And to do Mr. 5. juflice, he has rightly faid Or i gen 
 was the firft I mentioned: but he objecfls, i. To 
 the time of his living, from Mr. Rees^ that he 
 flouriihed about 230 years after Chrift, I lliall 
 
 not 
 
'126 APPENDIX 
 
 not difpnte the time with him; but if any oft© 
 wants evidence of that matter, let him fee it in a 
 fmall piece upon baptifm^ wrote by the author of 
 a piece agiiinft Dr. Whitens Three Letters. His 
 fluthoiity is doubtlefs equal to what Mr. S. has 
 brought againft it. 2. He objeds that they are 
 not Origen'% own words, but a tranjlation of 
 him. *Tis readily acknowledged that in tranflating 
 Origen's works, fome things were added to what 
 Origen faid : but in his commentary upon the 
 Romans^ wherein he treats of infant- baptifm, it is 
 allowed that there are no additions made to his own 
 words. And here he fays, pro hoc et eccleJJa, &C. 
 /. e. *' For this alfo, the church had anapoftolick 
 order to baptize infants. *' And this abundantly 
 proves the baptifm of infants was the pradice of 
 his time. But let us mention fome of ear- 
 lier date. Particularly 
 
 yu/lin Martyr : he was arrived to matihood 
 before his converfion ; and afterwards lived td 
 write many things, which recommended him to 
 great efteem, and fuffered martyrdom, ^. Chriflii 
 166. This muft needs bring him very near the 
 apoftclick age, and not far from the middle of it. 
 IsJow, it is manifefl; that infant- baptifm was prac* 
 tifed in his day, from two things, 'uix. i. From 
 their giving children the eucharift. This was fo 
 common a pradice in the primitive church, and fo 
 well known in hiftory, that I need bring no autho- 
 rities to prove it. And infant-baptifm is evident 
 from thence, becaufe baptifm always preceeded 
 the Lord's fupper j none were ever admitted to it, 
 but fcch as were baptized. 2. From his laying 
 that there were then living perfons of 60 or 'jo 
 
 ... year& 
 
APPENDIX. i2t 
 
 years old, who were made difclples to Chrift in 
 their infancy. For " none could be confidered and 
 treated as di(ciples to Chrill from their infancy^ 
 without being from their infancy baptized :" for 
 all his di(ciples, or all that had their names enter- 
 ed into his fchool, were baptized by his exprefs 
 command. Matt, xxviii. 19* 
 
 ircnam was trained up in chriftianity from his 
 infancy to the age of a man by Polycarp bifhop of 
 Smyrna, And this fame Polycarp fiiifered mar- 
 tyrdom at Smyrna, fays Eufebeus, about the year 
 J 66. Soon after this, Irencsus, who was a prieft, 
 was created bifliop of Lyom. And according tc» 
 authentick hiftory he mud have lived fome years 
 before the apoftle 'john died. This Irenceus com-^ 
 pofed many things, in Greek, againfl herefies* 
 The Greek is loft j but we have a very ancient L^/m 
 tranflation of them* Among other things he fays^ 
 Omnes enim venit per femet ipjum fatvare j omnes in-^ 
 qiiam, qui per eum renafcuntur in deum, infantes 
 etparvuks^ etpueros etjuvenes j /*. e^ " Chrift came 
 ** to fave all perfons by himfelf ; all, I fay, who by 
 ** him are regenerated, or baptized unto God, 
 " INFANTS and little ones, and boys and youths." 
 It is juftly oblerved from Dr. WaWs hiftory of in- 
 fant-baptifm^ that the word renafcor is moft fami-^ 
 liarly ufed to fignify baptized, and particularly in 
 the writings of Irenaus. And it is well known 
 that the word infantes fignifies children before 
 they come to the ufe of reafon. Hence it follows 
 that infant-baptifm was pradtifed in his day ; and 
 there is no room to doubt but he knew the pra(5tice 
 of the apoftles in this matter, lince he lived fom? 
 Ifears in John'% life-time. 
 
 Qi^ Again 3 
 
til A P P E N D I X. 
 
 Again ; with little variation from the piece ^n 
 infant -baptiim^ wrote by the author of the an- 
 fwer to Dr. White's Three Letters, I fhali mention 
 ftertulliany who flourifhed chiefly under the reign$ 
 ©f Severus and Antoninus Caracalla^ from the year 
 194 till tow^ards the year 216. This fame T^ertuU 
 lian appears^ from many of his writings, to be very 
 'whimjical^ and a man greatly afi'eSfing fingolarity» 
 He " is the only perfon^ among the ancients, who 
 *' advifes to defer the baptifm of infants, estcept in 
 
 ** cajes of neeeffity^ or in danger of death *^ And 
 
 again ;, he afksj " why does that innocent age 
 ** make fuch hafte to the remiffion of Sins? (/. e, 
 ** to the laver of baptism) What occafion is there, 
 ** except in cafes of neceflitv, that the fponfors, or 
 *' Godfather i^ be brooght into danger ?" Now^ 
 if infant-baptilm- had not been pradifed in thole 
 days, how fhould it come into the mind of the 
 inoft whimfical perfon m the world to write a- 
 gainft it .? His queftions, and defire to have it put 
 off for a leafon, unlefs in cafes of necefiity^ are e- 
 vident proofs of th€ pra£tiee, 
 
 I might now offer you the tefl^imony of Cy^ 
 prian^ who lived about i 50 years after the A- 
 poltles, and has left his teftimony for the pTa6lice 
 in his day, (De lap/is^ fedion j,) But as he lived 
 in the time of the Synod of 66 Bifhops which I re- 
 ferred to in my 6fh argument, it may be more 
 convincing to give you a brief account of their re- 
 fult, in an fwer to one Fidus, v/ho was alfo a bi- 
 fhop. Flis fcruple was, whether, in any cafe, infants 
 fhould be baptized before the %th day, according 
 to the law of circumcifion under the former dif- 
 penfation of the covenant ? To which that S^nod 
 
APPENDIX. 125 
 
 anfwers, " ^antum veto ad catifam infantium 
 
 ** pertinet^ &c • Longe aliud tn cmcilio nof- 
 
 ** tro omnibus vifum eft ; &c.^ Qsterum fi 
 
 *' homines impedire alt quid ad confecutionet7i gra- 
 tia pojjet," &c. The fubftance of thofe parts of 
 the relult referr'd to, is as follows, viz. *' As for 
 
 " the matter oi infants, whom you faid, were not 
 
 " to be baptized within the jecond or third day of 
 
 '* their nativity, — it hath appeared to us in our 
 
 '* council, quite contrary j no one maintained your 
 
 *' opinion, but we all judged, that the mercy and 
 
 ** grace of God was to be denied to no man. 
 
 ** But if any thing can hinder men from baptifm, 
 
 *' it will be heinous fins that will debar the adult 
 
 ** and mature therefrom % and if thofe who have 
 
 '* finned extremely againfi: God, yet if afterwards 
 
 " they believe, and are baptized, and no' man is 
 
 ** prohibited from this grace, how much more 
 
 ** ought not an infant to be prohibited, who be- 
 
 *' ing but juft born, is guilty of no lin, but of o- 
 
 " rigina!, which he contracted in Ad.^m ? 
 
 *' Wherefore, dearly beloved, it is our opinion, 
 
 " that from baptifm none ought to be prohi- 
 
 " bited by us, which as it is to be obferved and 
 
 *' followed with refpedt to all -, fo efpeciaily with 
 
 *' refped; to infants^ and thofe that are butjull 
 
 " born." 
 
 Hence, tho' Mr. S. can*t find a word in all the 
 firft writers, in favour of infant-bapcifm, it appears 
 to a demonfi:ration, that infant-baptifm was 
 the conftant pradice of the church in thofe times. 
 For, Fidus does virtually acknowledge that infant- 
 baptifm was pradifed in the church ; nor did he 
 fuggeft the leafl fcruple about the propriety of it j 
 
 b'jt. 
 
124 APPENDIX. 
 
 fcut, as It came in the room of circumcifion, his 
 Icruple was, whether it (hould be adminiftred be- 
 fore the eighth day. Nor did any one of all that 
 Synod make the leaft queftion of it, but fpake of 
 it as a thing univerjaily pradifed. The decree 
 of that Synod., refpeded the fcruple of Fidus whe- 
 ther an infant (hould be baptized xh^ fecond or third., 
 Or whether it {hould not be deferred till the eighth 
 day ; and not whether they fhould be baptized in 
 their injancj. *^ And as this was but about 150 
 ** years after the apoftles, there is no room to 
 ** doubt but fome of tliofe bifhops were baptized 
 •' juft after the apoftles days i and, at the time of 
 *' their baptifm, many were alive, who knew the 
 ^* apoftles themfelveSj and their pra<5lice in this 
 J' point.'^ 
 
 We might quote Clemens Alexandrinm^ ^^^g\ 
 iSlazian., Bafil^ Ambroje^ Chrylcjiom^ and a cloud 
 «)f witneftes, to {how that infant- baptifm has been 
 ■conftantly pradifed .from the very beginning of 
 chriftianity : but confidering Mr. S. has offered 
 nothing from the ear lie ft writers, that can be of 
 any weight with the judicious reader, it is appre- 
 hended that fufficient li^ht has been offered, to 
 make it manifeft, that infant baptifm was pradifed 
 in the church, from the apoftles to the 3 J century, 
 about the time Mr. S. without proof, endeavours 
 to perfuade his readers it took place. — ' — And from 
 that time to this it has been pradifed in the church i 
 nor was it difputed, except in fome few inftances, 
 until the ^th century. What he fays (Page 41.) 
 from Mr. Stemiet concerning a profeflion of holi- 
 ;iefs, has been fully anfwered already. We don't 
 pre^^nd but th? adult ufed thsn^ as now^ to make a 
 __ __ profeflio^ 
 
APPENDIX. I2J 
 
 profeffion of faith before baptifm. But what of 
 Sill that ? Will it follow from thence that the in- 
 fants of villble believers were not baptized ? Or 
 what if two or three inftances in a hundred years 
 could be found that had fcrupled infant- bapiilra, 
 (which is not the cafe in the earlieft ages of chrif- 
 tianity) even that would prove nothing againll the 
 practice of the whole church. 
 
 
 Upon the whole : It appears that infant-baptifai 
 was p radii fed by the whole church in the apolloiicic 
 age ; and that it continued, without interruption, 
 down to the time our learned writer fays it begun j 
 —That it was pradifed by thofe that could hav(2 
 no reafonable doubt in their minds how the apofties 
 Yra<ftifed in their day ;— And therefore, that the a- 
 pofties themfelves had taught and pradtifed the 
 fame, and confequently, that when they fpake 
 and wrote of baptizing houfholds, they always in- 
 cluded the children of fuch families. What a 
 
 ihameful impofition, therefore, is it upon mankind, 
 to affert, or fo much as to infinuate, as if antiquity 
 was againft infant-baptifm ? If Mr. S, •' believes 
 ** himlelf,'* in fuch repeated infinuations, and has 
 read the hiftory of the earliefl times and praflicc 
 of the church, after the apoftlef, never man read 
 hiftory to lefs good purpofe, as every one may fee, 
 who will take due pains to examine ancient prac- 
 tice. And it will be no more than a well grounded 
 confidence that I now affirm, from the days of 
 John the baptift, unto this very time, the church 
 of Chrift has been polTefs'd of thi;? great privile:;e 
 V)ithout interruption, tho' flie has often been alLuU- 
 ^d by the adverfanes of the truth. \i this afHr- 
 ][i;atiorj is no: ji)ft, 1st Mr. 5, in hi? next, vciicbfviic 
 
\i6 APPENDIX. 
 
 to fbow his readers when it was not an ufage of 
 the church. 
 
 I kt. nettling further, except aifumbg airs an4 
 vain repetitions ; but what I have fuihciently noti- 
 ced till he comes to remark upon what I offered 
 from Rom^ iv. 1 1 . Upon which he tells nie,it is time 
 for me to learn that neither circumcilion, nor bap«* 
 tifm, is any where in Scripture called a feal of the 
 covenant, Sc Circumcifion '* v^as a feal to A* 
 **= brabam : but not to his poflerity," (See Pag€ 
 44.) 
 
 Anf. As Mr. S. he^?M with criticifing upon 
 word^ to he leems dilpoicd to go on —No doubt 
 lie expeded to giiin great advantages from my ig- 
 norance and his eminent fkili in the languages.— 
 Nor i'> he alone in denying baptifm to bt* a ieal of 
 the covei>ant of grace. Belkrmiyi(\ and [he whole 
 crowd of hiipapifficat foUowtrrs have faid the fame 
 
 before him, Bnt let us confider whether the 
 
 FapiJIs muft not fail in this matierj even tho' Mr« 
 B» ileps La to fappoi't them. 
 
 Perhaps thefc great men confound \k\t fea! of the 
 Spirit, and the feal of the covenant of grace ; or, 
 at lealf, coniid.^r them of equal extent, when they 
 deny baptifm to be a feal. But if they deny it from 
 thencCj to fay the moft favourably of them, they are 
 under an unhappy miftake : for, the feal of the 
 covenant is a privilege of the vifible church j but 
 the feal of the Spirit is a privilege of the inviiible 
 church. The feal of the covenant belongs to the 
 whole houfe, in which there are vcffels of honour 
 g-Ud dilhonour 5 but the feal of the Spirit is proper 
 
APPENDIX. 127 
 
 <mly to fuch as are marked out by God to the day of 
 redemptien. The fcal of the Spirit is abfolute and 
 infallible -, but the leal of the Govenaiit is condi- 
 tional. 
 
 I am fendbfe that the Anttmmians join with the 
 bellarmineaji Papifts, m faying there is no conditi- 
 onal feal of grace. But if it be fo, how can Mr. 
 S, or any of his brethren, adminifter either baptifm, 
 or the Lord's fupper, to any of their people, whom 
 they know not that God the Father hath fealcd 
 by his Spirit, or will ever lave from* fin and wrath ? 
 Or win Mr. 5. fay, that he, or any other man, or 
 a whole congregation,, or the elders of a church, 
 can determine who it is^ that God has feakd and 
 will fave ? Whatever he may fuperflttkujly ima- 
 gine, in his hearty he will not venture to fay, that he 
 does not adminifter facraments condhionaliy, as 
 th€ privilege of the vifible churchy belonging to- 
 thofe that make a vifible profefliony whom he 
 knows rK)t that God has juftified or will ever fave. 
 
 But is it not pofiible that Mr. 5. fhould flip in- 
 to this error, from taking every thing upon trufi 
 that his friend Bellarmine has written upon the 
 point? If it be fo, " it is time for him to learn"' 
 better ; and therefore I will tell him, that both 
 the Hebrew and Greeks rendered in Englijh a Seal,. 
 iignrfies ajign whereby a thing is confirmed. And 
 TO SEAL, is tojign with [ome mark, whereby fome 
 things or perfons may be known from others. If 
 Mr. S. fcruples this account, he may take his He^ 
 brew Bible, and examine Ezra ix. 38. Chap. x. i, 
 Jer. xxxii. 10 — 14, 44. and his Greek Tcftament, 
 and read i Cor» ix. 2. Rom. xv. 28. Joh?i vi. 27. 
 
128 APPENDIX* 
 
 ^c. &c. If he is acquainted with thefe kngtia* 
 ges, and efpeGJally if he is a mafter of them, and 
 examines impartially, perhaps he will find and 
 confefs, that I have given him as good an account 
 as he might reafonably exped of " a fmatterer/' 
 ■ — — But will he yet fay, that a feal always fuppo- 
 fes that the thing fealed is fulfilled ? If fo, I afk 
 him, what is meant by obligations under hand 
 and feal ? What are we to underftand by the co?2^ 
 dition of an obligation in a bond, unlefs the con* 
 dition is doubtful ?- — He may alfo confider, whe- 
 ther the feal of circumcifion was not only for the 
 confirmation of God*s promifes unto Abraham and 
 his feed, but of their obligations to be the Lord's, 
 as well as to afiTure him of being a partaker of the 
 righteoufnefs of faith ? 
 
 '' But, It feem?, Mr* S. has found out that cir« 
 cumcifion was a feal to Abraham, but not to his 
 
 pofierity. Herein alfo he follows after Bellar-^ 
 
 mine. But this popiffo (hift will not ftand the teft i 
 for, Paul brings in circumcifion to be a feal of 
 the righteoufnels of faith^ as a proof of juflificati- 
 on by faith alone, which could be no evidence at 
 all, if it had been proper to Abraham, and not to 
 others, — And befides ; what (hall we fay of Mejes^ 
 who refers circumcifion to the covenant. Gen. xvii. 
 7. If circumcifion was a feal to /tbrahaniy and not 
 to his feed, then the covenant was with Abraham^ 
 and not with his feed, which contradicts what 
 Mo^es. has exprefsiy taught us. — And let Bellarmine*% 
 followers confider how they will clear themfelves 
 of feveral abfurdities, which they involve them- 
 felves in. Particularly j if circumcifion was a feal 
 to Abraham only, then the covenant with Abra-^ 
 
 ' h(irn^ 
 
APPENDIX. 129 
 
 ii^m, and the covenant with all other old tefla- 
 ment believers efjentially differs, the one from the 
 other. Ahrabam and new tciiament believers may 
 poffibly be under one covenant; bat old teftament 
 believers muft, according to this fcheme, be un- 
 der another covenant effcntially differing therefrom^ 
 and confequently there muft be, at lealt, two co- 
 venants of grace.— Again ; if circumciiion WaS a 
 feal to Abraham only, then Zacharias^ expound- 
 ing the Ahrahamick covenant, [Luke i. 69 — 75.) 
 and God's oath unto Mraham and David^ 1 efptdt- 
 jng falvatioTi by Jefus Chrift, grofsly miiied it s 
 for, according to this fchenie, he fliould have li- 
 mited the mercy to Abraham only, and not have 
 extended it to all that followed him, even all that 
 came out of Egypt. According to Mr. S, Za- 
 cbarias ihould have faid that *' the fathers, who 
 *' were under the cloud, and palTed thro' the fea, 
 " had not the fame promife that Abraham had 5 
 " and that God did not remember his holy cove- 
 *'* nant, nor the oath he fv/ore unto Abraham." 
 Y ea; according to them, Abraham and all. 
 Chriftiafls are ia Chrift; but all other believers are 
 under the law, without Chrift and without hope;; 
 even MoJ^s himfelf mull: be fadly miftaken, when 
 he put the greateft evils attending religion, and the 
 greateft worldly profperity in the balances, and 
 then concluded that the heavieft contempt And 
 perfecution which the Ifraelites fuffered, and he 
 was liable to fuffer, were preferable to the great- 
 eft emoluments of a- fruitful land, and a fplendid 
 
 Egyptian court. Further ; it will follow from 
 
 this wonderful plan, that Abraham and Chriftians 
 have the kingdom of God and (hall be faved 5 but 
 the reft of the J^wSj poor fouls, had nothing bet- 
 
 R ter 
 
130 APPENDIX, 
 
 ter than the land of Canaan for their portion. 
 Such a? thefe, and fame other, were the abfurdi- 
 ties which Bellarmine plunged himfeli into; and 
 Mr. S. zealoufly following after him, feems " will- 
 *^ ing to fay almafl any thing, rather than confefs 
 *' the truth/* 
 
 Mr. 5. P* 45. undertakes to prove by command 
 or example^ that women have a right to the Lord's 
 fupper. To this end he adduces j^Bs'i. 13, 14. 
 Chap, ii. 41 — 47. Chap. V. 9, 14. Now, altho" 
 we make no doubt but women may have a right 
 to the Lord's fupper; yet lam fure he has brought 
 neither exprefs command nor example to prove it. 
 The utmoft that can be proved, relpeding wo- 
 men, from the firfl quotation, is, that the difci- 
 ples continued in prayer together, in the prefence 
 of fome women. — And as to tht fecond^ it is not 
 certain from the letter of the text, that one fingle 
 ■wom.m was of the number of Peter's converts. 
 And although both fexes are mentioned in 'he laji 
 text referred to, there is not a word about the 
 Lord's fupper. To what purpofe then, does Mr. 
 S. amufe people with a pretence of having brought 
 an exprefs command or example, to prove that 
 w omQn Jhote/d, or did, receive the Lord's fupper? 
 Thoui^h we fairly argue their right, by way of 
 confequence, yet he has brought no proof of their 
 rijht, either from precept or example, nor any 
 thing- tending thereto. — And he is as lame in his 
 proof of the change of the babbath, from the fe- 
 venfb to the Jjrfi day of the week. Inaeed, were 
 I to read a perfect flran^er upon the change of 
 the Sabbaih, that Ipake fo indifferently about it, I 
 fhould thiiik he did not hold the morality of the 
 
APPENDIX. 131 
 
 fourth command ; but that It is a good thing f )r 
 Chriliians to meet together fome day, or part of 
 a duy, in a week, for (ome religious duties. And 
 in as much as we find the Apollles fometimes met 
 on the firft day of the week, and it is ufual for 
 Chriliians to do fo now-a-days, it is well to meet 
 
 on that d.iy. Truly, if my proof of infant- 
 
 baptifm was no better than this, I fliould think it- 
 high time to drop it. 
 
 P. 47. Mr. S. tells his readers, that I have told 
 them of three covenants of grace ; one with Je- 
 fus Chrift, one with Abraham^ and one with Eve, 
 And if by Noah's I mean a covenant of grace, 
 then, he fays, I have told oi Jour. And then, 
 once more, tells his devoted readers, that they may 
 eafily fee what confufed notions I have of the co- 
 venant. He does not fay that I make out a fifth 
 covenant, to take in thofe Ejauitcs^ who have de- 
 fpifed their birth-right. 
 
 Nor am I fo profufe of charity as to think he 
 believes himfelf, when he fays 1 have told the 
 world of /'/rd'f covenants of grace. But the ilraits 
 he was brought into, together with his fliuffles_, 
 and the light he has received from Jeptits^ he has 
 left for the amufement of his readers. M his evi- 
 dence was as full and clear as his confidence, I 
 could not fland before him : and if his confidence 
 had been as little and low as his evidence, he 
 would never have expofed himfelf to the contempt 
 of intelligent readers. What if I had reckon- 
 ed up Mofes and all the prophets, befides the ma- 
 ny thoufands of believers under the ancient dif- 
 pcnfation of the covenant } No doubt, accord- 
 
132 APPENDIX. 
 
 ing to the method in which he has begun, he 
 would have entertained his readers with eonfident- 
 ly afferting, that I had told of fo many covenants 
 of grace. I am not convinced by ridicule, that 
 calling Eve the mother of all living, not fo niuch 
 becaufe all mankind defcended froxxi her, as be- 
 caufe (he was a covenant mother, as Abraham was 
 the covenant father of us all, was a blunder. Nor 
 is the thought derived from Rom€\ but agrees with 
 the moft renov/ned Proteflants, as any one that 
 is able may fee in Synop, Crk. Pol. on Ge}2, iii,. 20. 
 l^on dubium efi^ quin ad promijurd femm refpexit^ 
 ideo Ts'T] vocat^ q. d. vivi fie atr teem, quod mOtrtu- 
 urn genus hominum per ipfius partum vivificandum 
 Joret. As Eve was the caufe of death to all that 
 live, fo (he, as well as Abraham and David, was 
 the root of him, who is the author of liie, and 
 of all thofe bleffings of the covenant of grace, 
 both to herfelf, and to all her pofterity, that they 
 do or {hall enjoy. Many are included in this co- 
 venant, becaufe they are vifibly in Chrift, who 
 will be caft out at laft. Many have been caft out> 
 as Cain and Ijhmaei were 5 and many others caft 
 themfelves out, by profanely renouncing the cq- 
 venant they were taken into with their parents. 
 'Tis true, Mr. .S. tells his readers, again and again,. 
 that if all were taken into covenant, all would he 
 faved J /", e. go to heaven : but this ahfurdity has 
 been made manifeft already. And therefore, whea 
 he fays, " fo that we fee the covenant of grace 
 *' which was revealed to Adam, Abraham, Ice. 
 " did not include their children," it is well he did 
 not add, that we fee this by fcripture light ; for, 
 according to the light fhining in the Holy Scrip- 
 tures^ no man living can fee but the children of 
 
 *~ believers 
 
APPENDIX. 133 
 
 believers are included with their parents in the 
 4:Gvenani of grace. 
 
 P. 4§. Mr. S. oppofes me for faying, fbe cQve^ 
 nafit is the foundation of ordinances j and gives this 
 for a reafon of his oppoiition, viz. " It is God's 
 " eornmand which gives being to them." But 
 allowing it is the commjind that, gives being to 
 them, what will he gain by it ? We have granted 
 that, had there been no inftitiition, it would have 
 been prefumption to liave figned the cove- 
 nant with the feal of circumcifion under the for- 
 mer, or with that of baptifm under the prefent 
 difpenlation. But what is that to his purpcfe ? 
 Was the covenant the foundation of the inftitution, 
 or was it not ? If it was, then the covenant is the 
 foundation and reafon of the command. But if he 
 will fay it was not, then let him deal with M^Jes 
 for telling us that the covenant is the reafon or 
 foundation of the inftitution, Gm. xvji. 9,. ?o. 
 Jibraham was in covenant many years before God 
 inftituted the fign of circumcilion as a feal of the 
 covenant ; but when he ordained that feal to be 
 put to it, it had refpedl to the covenant as the rea- 
 fon or foundation of it. And when the initiating 
 feal of the covenant was changed from ciFcumeifi- 
 on to baptifm, this was by a divine command ; 
 and as the inftitution of circumcifion had relation 
 to the covenant j fo the prefent inllitution of bap- 
 tifm i§ founded on the covenant. 
 
 Mr. 5*. feveral times reprefents me as writing 
 with a bitter fpirit, and fevere reflections upon the 
 Anahafti^S in my application, — I am willing that 
 Piould fpeak for itfelf 3 and the reader will judge 
 
 whether 
 
134 APPENDIX. 
 
 whether his cenfure does not arife from my plain 
 dealing being contrary to his intereft. — If I fhould 
 attempt to make any alteration in my way of wri- 
 ting, and fiill wrote faithfully, I am jealous he 
 will fay that i am yet more vile, and villify me the 
 
 more for well-doing. ^If the reader is heartily 
 
 delirous to lay alide all prejudices, and go into fe- 
 rious and impartial enquiries into the will of God, 
 refpeding the grand dodrine 1 have defended, and 
 the application I have made, there is reafon to 
 hope, he will have that divine affiflance, which 
 will enable him to judge right, both of my argu- 
 ments, and my defence ; and alfo, of that afi'u- 
 mingand captious fpirit, which is written as with 
 fun-beams in Mr. «S's performance. I readily grant 
 ■ that, in compliance with Solomon's advice, I have 
 ufed a little feverity in this appendix, left tame- 
 nefs fhould encourage arrogance, and he fhould 
 think " mere noife v^ithout fubftance," was real- 
 ly unanfwerable ; or leaft he il ould think pretences 
 to pity might fervc as a fufficient cloak to any evil 
 defign. 
 
 I fhould now clofe my appendix, but that Mr. 
 S. attacks me for a marginal note, which was in my 
 Jirji edition. And i. He feems loth to have the 
 fed: reprefented as re-baptizers-, and fays they don't 
 
 hold to it. If they don't hold to it, I am forry 
 
 they pradife it, and make 2ijchijm in the body of 
 Chrift thereby. But this is a flagrant truth, that 
 they fo fence, limit, gua'd and reflrain their com- 
 munioft, and require thofe conditions of all whom 
 they admit, that men mufl put out their eyes, or 
 Jin againft their conjcience, or not be admitted to 
 their communion. The only hindrance. that ob- 
 
 flruds 
 
APPENDIX. 135 
 
 ftru^ls the freedom of external communion Is whol- 
 ly owing to themfslves. They deipife and fet at 
 naught z\\n\S!\xn churches, merely on account of a 
 particular fn"de of baptifm, which they have not 
 yer proved ejjential to the being of that holy ordi- 
 nance. 
 
 Mr. 5. attempts to prove it from the word hap" 
 tizo ; and tells us that Scapula renders baptizo, by 
 mergo, feu immergOy ut qua timjndi^ aut abluendi 
 gratia aqu<^ im?nergimus, to dip or plunge, ^c. 
 Or mergo , fubmergo J obruo aqua^ to plunge, plunge 
 under, overwhelm in water. Very good ; but why 
 has he kept back a part of what Scapula has (aid ? 
 Is it to hide the truth from thofe that can't exa- 
 mine that Greek Lexicon \ Whatever his motive 
 was, he takes only what he thought would ferve 
 his turn, and leaves the reft. Scapula exprefsly adds, 
 item abluOj lavo, which, if he does not know, 
 doubilefs his voucher knows muft fignify, to wafh 
 off, put off", waih one's felf or another perfon. — 
 and Schrevelius, as he allows, renders the word 
 baptizo^ by lavo, as well as mergo^ to wafli, as 
 well as plunge. 
 
 And as great criticks in Latin and Greeks as ei* 
 ther of the former, fay the fame, and more. Van 
 Maftricht fays baptijma fignifies lotioneniy ablutio" 
 nem, i\w<^ a/per fi<>ne, iiwQif?ij?ierJiojie -, /. ^. wartiing, 
 ablution, whether by alpeyfion, or by immerfion, 
 Pol. Synop. Crit. on Mark vii 4. fays baptif- 
 mous^ non femper tinElionem, aut immerfionenij fed 
 inter dum Lotionem t ant urn y vel etiam aiperfionem^ 
 denotatat. i, e. the Greek word baptifmous^ does 
 not always denote dipping, diving, or immerliom, 
 
 but 
 
x^6 APPENDIX. 
 
 but fometimes Wafhing only, of even afperfioOe 
 And again ; vel aqudB affujime^ 'uel tmmerjione : i. e, 
 by effalion, or immeriion. Grotius fays, ebaptifthi 
 idemelt ae enipjdto tas kiras^ Luke xi. 38. i. e, it 
 is the fame in fignification with the Greek ufed for 
 
 "waihing the hands. Symfon, a very learned 
 
 Lexichographer^ fays, baptizo is taken for any kind 
 of wafliing, rinling, or cleanling, even where there 
 is no dipping at all ; and adds, that baftifm im- 
 porteth no more than ablutim, or "wajhing. — Nor 
 can the word fignify more, in many fcriptures. 
 Let us attend to one or two. See Matt. xx. 2i* 
 Can you bear--^to be baptized with the baptijm that 
 1 am baptized with f Here it ought to be obferved, 
 that the queftion is not what kind of baptiftn, of 
 fufferings Chrift had to go through ; but what 
 baptifm or fufferings he endured before his lafl 
 hour. And we all may know that he was mocked^ 
 fpit uporty bruijed^ beaten^ &c. Now, thefe and 
 fuch like places can by no means reprefent p!u'n^ 
 ging, without offering Violence to the plain literal 
 fcnfeof them. So that i Cor.t, 2. Andwere^U bap" 
 iized unto Mofes in the cloudy and iti the Jea» 
 Taking the familiar fenfe of the words, eVery 
 man would be ready to fuppofe, " that the I/ra' 
 *' elites were fprinkled here and there, with drops 
 *' of water from the Sea, as they paffed along, and 
 ** from the cloud that w^as fpread over them.'* 
 By which, fays Dr. Guife from a learned commen- 
 tator, the facrametit of baptifm might be more e- 
 vidently lignified. And fo, it muft refer to the 
 adminiftration by fprinkling, and not by im- 
 meriion 5 fince the Egyptians, that were drown- 
 ed in the fea, were baptized by the waters co- 
 vering them^ rather than the Ijraelites^ that 
 
 " ~ ~ """ went 
 
APPENDIX. 137 
 
 went on dry land, and could be no other way 
 wadicd, than with drops that might fall from 
 
 the cloud and the dafhing of the waves." 
 
 Hence it appears that baptizo does not make im- 
 merfion effenti^il to the being of chriftian baptifm, 
 becaufe, according to great and learned chriftian 
 writers, it does fignify ablution, afperfion and 
 washing, where there is no dipping at all, as well 
 as immcrfjon. 
 
 I beg the readers patience, while I turn afide 
 once more, to meet my antagonift in his learned 
 criticifm^ upon the word autou. He tells us, it is 
 a pronoun relative, and that its antecedent, in Atls 
 xvi. 33. is the jailor in perfon and not in cBion. 
 The Greek ftands thus, Kai ebaptifthe autos^ kat 
 oi autou pantes parachrema. Beza renders it, 
 et baptizatus eji ipfe^ et cmnes domeliici illius 
 iilico ; I. e. he himfelf was immediately baptized 
 and all his domefticks. Montanus renders it, et 
 haptiz^atus eft ipfe, et omnis domus ejus continuo ; /. e. 
 he was baptized, and all his houle forthwith. I 
 advife Mr. S, to get the help of fome of his bre- 
 thren, better acquainted with relatives and antece- 
 dents than himfelf, before he writes again, even 
 tho' it fhould be againft a fmatterer, left the un- 
 learned reader fhould be amufed with " mere 
 ** noife without fubftance.*' 
 
 <( 
 
 But to proceed : Mr. S. an<.s whether " it is not 
 evident that Chrift was baptized of John in the 
 " nvev Jordan?" and quotes Mar. i.g. Anf. No: 
 it is not evident ; for eis ton Jordanen, may as 
 properly be rendered at Jordan, becaufe the pie- 
 poluion eis very commonly ftgnifies at^ as well as 
 
 S in. 
 
138 APPENDIX. 
 
 in. And fo the prepofition apo^ Matt. Hi. 16J 
 might as well be renderedyrcw, 2L%aut cf^ the water. 
 And it -would not make fenfe to render it, out of\ 
 in many places J particularly 7W^/^. i. 17. Ch. i8„ 
 8, o. Heb. V. 7. and elfewhere. Hence, no-' 
 thing can be certainly determined from thefe pre- 
 pr.fitions, as to immerfion being effential to bap- 
 tifiri. 
 
 Neither dare Mr, S. venture it here ; but runa 
 to the ufage of the church at the beginning of 
 chriftianity. To this end he brings a cloud of 
 witneffes, and lays, (P. 53.) they " all give in that 
 •;' immerfion was the primitive mode of baptifm.'* 
 By this, I fuppoie, he would have his readers be- 
 lieve that all thefe authors witnefs that immerfion 
 was univerlally pradifed in the beginning of chrif- 
 tianity. Therefore I defire the reader to obferve, 
 I. Nothing that he has adduced from theni 
 makes it appear that the pradice was univerfal^ 
 or that they thought it was fo : the utmoft that 
 can be gathered from thence, is, that, in thofe hot 
 countries, they did fometimes baptize by immer- 
 fion ; or that it was not uncommon to adminifler 
 in that way. But, 2. It is certain that Mr. Bur- 
 kitt (one of his witneffes) never meant to fuggeft 
 that it was an univerjal pradlice ; for he exprefdy 
 fays upon A5is ii. 41. *' We need not enquire, 
 *' whether the apoftles did it by dipping or fprink- 
 *' ling, both being lawful j but this may be faid, 
 *' it is hard to guefs bow luch a quantity of water 
 i^' could be brought to the place, as might ferve 
 " tor the decent dipping of 3000 perfons in fo fhort 
 *' a time. And, upon fuppofition that the water 
 l^. was not brought to them, but they went dowix 
 
APPENDIX, 139 
 
 to that ; baptizing fo many by dipping, would 
 have required a Vv^eek rather than a day to dil- 
 
 patch it in." -And again, upon A£ls xvi. 33. 
 
 e obferves, " how improbable it is that the jai- 
 lor and his houfliold were baptized by dipping. 
 
 St. Paul, who was newly wafhed, and 
 
 his fores dreffedj occafioned by ftripes, cannot 
 be fuppofed either to go out himfelf, or carry the 
 jailor and his family, in the dead of the night, 
 to a river or pond to baptize them ; neither is it 
 in the leaft probable, that St. Paul himfelf was 
 baptized by dipping : fee ABs ix. 18, 19. The 
 context may convince uSj that he was baptized 
 in his lodgings, being fick and weak, ha- 
 ving failed three days, and being in a very low 
 condition, partly by his miraculous vifion, and 
 partly by his extraordinary fafting j it was no 
 ways probable that Ananias fhould carry him 
 out to a river in that condition^ to plunge him 
 in cold water. Dipping then, furely, cannot be 
 fo effential unto baptifm, as for want ot it, to 
 pronounce all the reformed churches through- 
 out the world, to be null and void, as fome a- 
 mong us do; and. it may as well be fuppofed 
 that the other witneiTes did not rnean that dip- 
 ping was univerfal." From whence the rea- 
 der may eafily fee that authors may fuppofe it was 
 not very unufual to dip in baptizin:^;, when they 
 are far from fuggefting that it was an univerjal^xiiZ-* 
 tice. And therefore it is -a. fallacious impofitiori 
 upon the publick to bring authorities to prove an 
 univerjaly which were defigned only to ihow fome 
 particulars, and not an univerfal pradice. 
 
 Upon the whole : nothing appears from the 
 
 word 
 
140 APPENDIX. 
 
 word baptizo ; nor from the prepolitions eh or apo'^ 
 nor from primitive pradtice, that immerlion is ef- 
 fential to chriftian baptifm. Confequently it is nO' 
 toriouSj that thofe are guilty of fchifm, who pro- 
 nounce the baptifm of the reformed churches no 
 chriftian 'ba;ptifrn, merely becaufe they do not 
 pradtife immerfion. What fhall be faid then, of 
 thofe who profefs to be well acquainted with the 
 origmaiiextj and with the ancient modes of admi- 
 nillration, who infinnate into the minds of the il- 
 literate that our baptifm is no no chriftian bap- 
 tifm ; and fo perfuade many to renounce it as a 
 mere nullity ? Where fhall we find the lead rea- 
 fon to hope they are not feeking themfelves, and 
 driving on a party defign againfi: Chrift and his 
 dear caufe ? Is fetting up an uninftituted mode, 
 as efTential to the being of an ordinance, the way 
 to promote the common caufe of chriftianity ? Or 
 is it not rather, to take off peoples minds from the 
 moft concerning matters, and fet them to contend 
 for that which has nothing in it ? 
 
 For a clofe of the argument concerning the fin- 
 fulnefs of perfons renouncing their lawful baptifm j 
 fufFer me to addrefs thofe who have lately fubmit- 
 ted to be re-baptized, efpecially in the adjacent 
 towns. My addrcfs {hall be nearly in the words of 
 a very w^orthy clergyman of the ^/>//<;o/'^/ church, 
 
 upon the like occafion. " Allow me then, in 
 
 *' the name of my Gr fat Mast f p , and for the 
 ** honour of his holv infHtutions, which have been 
 " {hamefully proOituted by fome of you lately in 
 *^ this neighbourhood, to expoftulate the cafe with 
 " you. I befeech you ferioufly to confider, both 
 '^^ the fin committed againit God^ and the fcan- 
 ~ ' — "^ «« dal 
 
APPENDIX, 141 
 
 ■*' dal given to good men. By renouncing your 
 ** former baptifm, you have renounced your firfl 
 ** dedication to God, and your former covenant 
 *' relation to his Son Jefus Chrifl. You have dif- 
 •* own'd that you ever were the vifible members 
 *' of his body : you have profaned a folemn ordi- 
 ** nance of God, and taken his holy Name in vain, 
 ** You have condemned all the proteftant church- 
 *' es throughout the world, who decry this prac- 
 *J tice of yours as an abomination." 
 
 Confider, I befeech you, how fliamefully you 
 are fallen, and bring forth fruits meet for repen- 
 tance. Why have you precipitated yourfelves 
 into this evil ? " The particular mode of admi- 
 " niftering baptifm is not pofitively determined 
 " in the Scriptures : it cannot be afcertained, ei- 
 ** ther from the fignification of the word, or from 
 " the lignificancy of the ceremony, or from the 
 " command of Chrift, Not from the fignificati- 
 " on of the original word, for that fignifies ^«- 
 " fiorij and afperfion^ as well as immerlion. Not 
 " from the (ignificancy of the ceremony, forpour- 
 '* ing water on the perfon baptized, is as fignifi- 
 '* cative of pouring out the blood of Chriil:, and 
 '* pouring forth of the Spirit upon a Chriftian, as 
 '* dipping can be.— — Nor do we find any com- 
 '* mand from Chrift to make it appear that any 
 ■' particular mode of adminiilration, diftinguifh- 
 '* ed from all other modes of adminiftration, is 
 ■' eflential to baptifm. We are required to bap- 
 
 * tize with water, in the name ot the Father, 
 
 * and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft : but 
 
 * we find no command, either for the meafure 
 
 " and 
 
142 A P P E N D I X. 
 
 *' and quantity of the water, or for the manfi'sr 
 *' of applying the water in baptifm." 
 
 Confider, I befeech you, what has been th^i 
 firfl: moving caufe of your falling into this great 
 error ? Was it intereft, to fave your money j or 
 was it ftrong prejudices againft your minifter j or 
 was it wild enthufiafm^ as was evidently the cafe 
 in Qermany ? Let what will be the caufe, is it 
 not great pity that an uncommon degree of zeal 
 fl^jould be manifefled about a mode of adminiflra- 
 ftion, efpeeially, fince nothing can poffibly be af- 
 certained as to a particular mode, either from th« 
 v/ord baptizo^ or from the fignification of the ce- 
 remony, or from the command of Chrift ? Do 
 you begin to fay, as one lately faid, be dipt or 
 damned ? * Is all true religion expiring ; will it 
 foon be gone, unlefs you renounce all chriftian 
 churches for the fake of a mode, which no man li- 
 ving can prove eifential to the being of chriftiaa 
 baptifm ? O take heed how you fet up a particu- 
 lar mode of an inftitution at your own pleafure, 
 when it is in its own nature indifferent. If any 
 liave faid to you, the Lord jaith that immerlion 
 is elTential, they ha'ue fpoken canity ^ and you ren* 
 der yourfelves vain in believing them. 
 
 * The zeal of fuch a teacter agrees with the AnalaptiRs in 
 the Low-Countries, A. D. 1^55. Who pretended to be the 
 only true church, and declared that falvation could not be hc» 
 ped for, out of their comnaunion. See Braba?if^ Hift. vol. i. 
 
 FINIS, 
 
ERRATA, 
 
 Page 21. line 7. for rules read rule, P. 23. I. 3!^ 
 for were broken off r. were not broken off. P. 30. 
 I. 21. for Thus X, Ihis. P. 42. I. 5. for 1 am able 
 r. lam not able, P. 43. 1. 8. for happy r. unhappy^ 
 P. 68. I. 10. for effufion r. affufion, P. 72. 1. 3*;;' 
 for the Scriptures r. thefe Scriptures, P. 77. 1. r,, 
 for the r. ^/j. 1. 5. for if/>f/^ r. thofe. P. 89. 1. 3. 
 for and iii. 5. r. Frov, iii. 6. I. 23. for frangii 
 X, Jin§it, P. 121, 1 25. for Watts" r, fVaU's, 
 
 r