^ 
 
 CL 
 
 ^ 
 
 g 5 
 
 & 
 
 <Tl 
 
 o 
 
 Eh 
 
 H 
 O 
 
 M 
 
 Ph 
 
 ft. 
 
 < 
 
 CO 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 cq 
 
 a 
 
 
 : 
 
 /Of SO 
 
LETTERS 
 
 ADDRESSED TO 
 
 M R JOHN GLAS, 
 
 IN ANSWER TO HIS 
 
 DISSERTATION on INFANT- 
 BAPTISM. 
 
 See, here is water; what doth hinder me 
 
 to be baptized? A&s viii. 36. 
 
 If thou bclievejl with all thine heart, thou 
 
 mayeft Ver. 37. 
 
 jl : — 
 
 By JlTeKibaiolvV^Leau, 
 
 GLASGOW, 
 
 Printed by Archibald M'Lean, Junior: 
 
 And fold there by R. Duncan, above GibforTs- 
 " Wynd, Salt-market; by W. Millar, oppofite 
 
 to the Guard, Edinr. and by G.Keith, and 
 
 J. Robinson, London. 1767. 
 
 [Price One Shilling.] 
 
in 
 
 P R E F A 
 
 TO aflign reafons, or make an 
 apology for the publifhing 
 of thefe letters, is altogether need- 
 lefs. If I have truth on my fide, 
 the importance of the fubjecl, and 
 the general inattention paid to it, 
 (efpecially in Scotland) will fuffi- 
 ciently juftify me: if 1 have not, 
 all apologies are vain. 
 
 It is indeed a pretty common 
 obfervation, That little benefit or 
 edification remits from religious 
 controverfies. Whatever truth may 
 be in this, with re f peel: to thofe 
 whofe cool indifFerency indicates 
 their having nothing at Hake, or 
 whofe unlimited charity is equally 
 courteous to truth and falfhood ; 
 A 2 yet 
 
iv PREFACE. 
 
 yet I cannot be perfuaded that this 
 obfervation is without exception. 
 The moft important revolution 
 that ever happen'd in the world, 
 was brought about by means of 
 eontroverfy, difputes and conten- 
 tion *$ and afterwards, when An- 
 tichrift had flam the witnefles, 
 quafh'd the eontroverfy, and curs'd 
 all around him into implicit faith, 
 thefe horrid chains of darknefs 
 were again burfl afunder by a free 
 inquiry into the Scriptures, and 
 a contending for the faith once 
 delivered to the faints. 
 
 But whatever may be faid of 
 eontroverfy, it may be prefumed r 
 that the perfon who can Hand 
 neutral in all religious difputes, 
 mull either have no creed at all, 
 or hold it very cheap. 
 
 A s the point of believer-baptifm 
 has been controverted for thefe fif- 
 teen 
 
 * Afts ix. 22. xvii. 17. and xix. 8, 9. 
 
PREFACE. v 
 
 teen centuries paft, I have not the 
 vanity to imagine, that any thing 
 here advanced will finally decide 
 the matter ; for 1 am fully pcr- 
 fuaded, that there are other princi- 
 ples of oppofition to truth in hu- 
 man nature than fimple ignorance. 
 
 My controverfy is chiefly with 
 Independents, who profefs to be- 
 lieve, That Chrift's kingdom is not 
 of this world j and that the carnal 
 birth does not diflinguifh his fub- 
 jeclrs, nor intitle to fpiritual privi- 
 leges : thefe, efpecially will difcern 
 the propriety of the arguments, 
 and feel their weight. 
 
 As for the national church, I 
 have little quarrel with her on this 
 head, it being equally reafonable 
 that the children of the flem mould 
 be counted for the feed, as that a 
 nation of this world lhoritd be 
 counted a vifible church of Chrift. 
 Por whilil it is fuppofed, that the 
 
 kingdoms 
 
vi PREFACE. 
 
 kingdoms of this world, which af- 
 fume the name Christian, do, in 
 fome fenfe, fucceed the Jewifh 
 Theocracy, and are interefted in the 
 covenant of circumcifion, it will 
 be hard to convince them, that the 
 command to circumcife Jewifh in- 
 fants does not equally warrant the 
 baptizing of theirs. 
 
 I hope the reader will not fatisfy 
 himfelf with carping at occafional 
 inadvertencies, but candidly confi- 
 der the fcope and force of the ar- 
 guments, and efpecially the fcrip- 
 tures adduced in fupport of them. 
 
 If what I have advanced in thefe 
 letters have a tendency to free any 
 of the fubjects of Chrift from hu- 
 man inventions, and roufe their 
 attention to the unerring rule, my 
 
 end is gained. 
 
 •» • 
 
 GENE- 
 
vii 
 
 GENERA 
 
 L CONTiNTr/ 
 
 LETTER T. Page i to 5. 
 Stow* remarks upon Ma. Gjlas's writings in genera!, 
 an J on bis Diflertation on Infant-baptifoi in par- 
 ticular ; with a brief Jiate of the fcripture view of 
 baptijhi. 
 
 LETTER 'TL 5 to 9. 
 
 Whether the denial of infant-baptifm necejfarily im- 
 plies a di/belief of the freedom and fovereignty of 
 divine grace, or not*, confdered. 
 
 LETTER III. 9 to 26. 
 
 Whether there be fcripture precept or example for bap' 
 tizing of infants : and whether infants may he 
 reckoned believers and difciples, or not ,• cotifidered. \. 
 
 LETTER IV. 26 to 34. 
 The argument from the apojlks baptizing whole houfes, 
 conjidered and refuted. 
 
 j LETTER V. 34 to 44, 
 
 $he argument from Afts ii. 38, 39. refuted. 
 
 LETTER VI. 44 to $6. 
 
 %he argument from 1 Cor, vii. 14. refuted. 
 
 LE Tz 
 
viii CONTENTS. 
 
 LETTER VII. 56 to 79.J 
 
 The argument from circumcifion, refuted; -with an 
 account of the two covenants, and their connexion 
 ivitfi-ih'e promifes made to Abraham. 
 
 LETTER VIII. 79 to 90. 
 The argument from Mark x. 13, 14 refuted. 
 
 LETTER IX. 90 to 101. 
 jffbort account of the origin and rife of infant -bap- 
 tifm. 
 
 LETTER X. 101 to in 
 
 The fcripture mode of baptijm vindicated* 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Page Lines from the head. 
 
 3 7 For infants, read infants 
 
 31 u For Coloffe, read Philippi 
 
 Jbii, ay D.Ie bap- 
 
 48 30 For apoftlefe, read; apoftle's 
 
 j 3 Note, /. j. For legit inwtefeed, read legitimate feed 
 
 78 19 For of, read off 
 
 8x 1 For thought, read though 
 
 £« t$ Dek here 
 
 £8 20 For believers, read believer's 
 
 LET- 
 
( I ) 
 
 L E T T E 
 
 m 
 
 S I R, 
 
 IT is now a considerable time fince I read and 
 confidered your excellent Treatife, entitled, 
 The Testimony of the King of Martyrs, 6r. 
 which I take to be a moft fimple and fcriptural il- 
 luflration of our Lord's good confeffion, which he 
 witnefled before Pontius Pilate, concerning his 
 kingdom, as diftinguifh'd from the Jewifh Theo- 
 cracy, the kingdoms of this world, and the falfe 
 churches that now bear that form. Holding the 
 analogy betwixt type and antitype in your eye, 
 the-fcnpture evidence beams in upon you from e- 
 very quarter to fupport the main point, whilfr 
 you, unfnackled by human fyftems, admit it in its 
 moft genuine and fimple meaning. 
 
 The reading of this excellent treatife gave me vad 
 fatisfaction, and prepofleffed me with a favourable 
 byafs in behalf of your other writings : fuppof- 
 log you ftill to purfue the principles upon which 
 you fet out, I was unwilling to admit any fuch fenfe 
 of your words as feemed to deviate from them. 
 
 B Tku* 
 
2 LETTER I. 
 
 Thus you may fee with what favourable im- 
 prellions X proceeded to perufe the reit of ycur 
 works : and, indeed, I was not difappoiotcd in 
 * many of your tracts, which contain a plain 
 and fcriptural view of the doctrine, order and 
 worfhip of the apoflolic churches, till I arrived at 
 your third volume, where I found a piece on Ca- 
 tholic Charity, and a letter, entitled, The Rule of 
 Forbearance defended, in both of which you difcard 
 all forbearance whatever, as a thing unwarrantable 
 in Chriftian churches fince the finiihing of the 
 New Teflament revelation, and fo confine the a- 
 pcftalic directions, on that fubject, to the pcculiar 
 difputcs that arcfe betwixt the Jews and Gentiles 
 about the lawfulnefs of meats and drinks. 
 
 When I compared this with what you had ad- 
 vanced before, on that head,,- in the Tejiimony of 
 ike King of Martyrs f, I could not but obferve a 
 rnanifeft inconfifkney betwixt them. However, 
 I was unwilling to judge rafhly in this affair, think- 
 ing it unlikely you fhould publifh contradictory 
 principles in one and the fame edition of your 
 works. 
 
 But, proceeding to your fourth volume §, I found 
 A Dijfertation on Infant Baptifm, which I confider- 
 <:d with care and attention ; and the rather, as I 
 was never fully {atisfied with any thing I had for- 
 merly read on that fubject; and being defireous of 
 
 further 
 
 * I fay, m<wv, becaufc there are fevera! things exceptionable, and 
 particularly a little truft in the fecond volume, entitled, Salvot'm 
 to a Believtr y $ Hoof'. 
 
 .f Pa-e us ; 1*4. § Page rpi, no, 
 
LETTER I. 3 
 
 further light into it, I had forne hope you would 
 produce fuch evidence in its behalf from fcripture, 
 as would remove my fcruples, cftablifh me in the 
 received opinion, and enable me to bring my in- 
 fants to baptifm in faith. But how great was my 
 disappointment when I found, that your main argu» 
 ments for the baptifm of rnftants flood in flat op« 
 pofition to the fcriptures, as well as to the molt 
 efTential points contended for in the Tcftimony of 
 the King of Martyrs ! However, it may be allow* 
 ed, that you have done it as muchjuflice as the 
 bounds of your tract, and the nature of the fubject 
 could well permit. 
 
 As the fubjecYof feripture-bnptifm has been but 
 little attended to in Scotland, and as you hare 
 contributed your part to thicken the darknsfs Lhat 
 had overfpread the\rninds of men about it, info- 
 much, that forne of your adherents have beaded of 
 this DifTertation as unanfwerable, 1 fliall, accord- 
 ing to my ability, follow you Hep by ftep through 
 the whole of your arguments, and accommodate 
 my anfwers to the nature and manner of them, 
 without either artfully evading their force, or 
 wilfully perverting their meaning. 
 
 I (hall conclude this introductory epiillc, by Hat- 
 ing what appears to me the fcripture vL*w of bap- 
 tifm. And, 
 
 i. Baptifm is an ordinance, infwtutcd by the 
 Lord Jefus Chrifr, under the new and better cove- 
 nant, which belongs only to the apparent fubjecls 
 of that covenant, upon the profeHion of their faith 
 B 2 in 
 
4 LETTER I. 
 
 in Chrift, and obedience to him ; being a fign and 
 representation to them of the cleanfing efficacy of 
 his blood, and regenerating operations of his Spi- 
 rit, and fo of their having communion with, and 
 conformity to him in his death, burial and refur- 
 reclion, by dying unto fin and living unto righte- 
 oufnefs. Matth, xxviii. 19. Acts viii. 37. Rom. 
 vi. 4. Col. ii 12. 
 
 2. The Name into which believers are to be 
 baptized, is that of the Father, Son and Holy Ghoft. 
 Matth. xxviii s 19. 
 
 3. The Mode or Manner of Baptifm is immer- 
 sion, or dipping of the body in water, as appears 
 from the proper acceptation of the Greek word, 
 and from the circurafrances of our Lord's baptifm, 
 Matth. iii. 16. and thole of the eunuch's, Afts viii. 
 
 3 8 > 39- 
 
 Now, whether infants are the proper fubjec'ts 
 of this ordinance or not, fhall be confidered in the 
 iabfcquent letters. Meantime, I sm, 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Your, be. 
 
 LET- 
 
LETTER IL 
 
 S I Ky 
 
 N the Introdu&ion to your Differtation on In- 
 fant-baptifm, you make an observation on ft* 
 veral quejiions and difputcs about baptifm. But I 
 have no concern with any thing there, excepting 
 the laft paragraph, where you obferve r 
 
 That ' the denying of infant-bapii'fm eomes of 
 
 * making the faivation by baptifm to lie i-n-fome- 
 « thing elfe than the thing fignified ; even that r 
 ' whatever it be, which diftinguiihes the adult 
 
 * Chriirian from his infant : though cur Lord ex* 
 ' prefly declares, that we mu'ft enter his kingdom 
 ' even as infants- enter it. The fir ft oppofitioa 
 
 * that we hear of to infant-baptifm, turn'd falva- 
 ' tion upon an entire fort of believing, whereof 
 
 * infants- are incapable ; whereas- there is not any 
 ' true faith, or fincere confeifion of the faith,, but 
 < that alone which acknowledges^ that faivation lies 
 'only and wholly in the thiiig hgnihed in baptifm. 
 ' And, if we enquire how that thing faves us-: ouv* 
 'Lord anfwers,. Juft-as it faves our infants. Th$ 
 ' denial of infant-baptifm muft have always pic- 
 
 * cceded from a difbslief of this.' 
 
 Anfw. i. If we maintain that elccl: infants ob- 
 tain faivation by the fovtreign free grace of God^ 
 B 3. toud. 
 
6 LETTER II. 
 
 through the fufFerings, death and refurrecYion of 
 Chrift, without regard to any outward ordinance, 
 how does it follow, that their falvation lies not 
 only and wholly in the thing fignified to the adult 
 in baptifm, but in fomething elfe ? 
 
 2. If we deDy infant baptifm, becaufe it is nei- 
 ther commanded nor exemplified in fcripture ; be- 
 caufe we know not who among them are the true 
 Jfrael ; and becaufe it cannot be a fign to them of 
 the thing fignified ; will it therefore follow, that 
 when they become vifible believers, and can dif- 
 cern baptifm to figure their falvation by the death 
 and refurreclion of Chrift • I fay, will it thee fair- 
 ly follow, that their falvation muft turn upon fome- 
 thing elfe than the death and refurreclion of Chrift 
 which is reprefented to them in that ordinance, or 
 upon any thing about therafelves diftinguifhing 
 them from infants ? Certainly no : that which 
 gives the anfwer of a good confcience to the adult 
 believer in baptifm, muft be the very fame thing 
 with that which faves elect infants. 
 
 j. If an explicit profeffion of the faith, a dis- 
 cerning of the thing fignified, and an engagement 
 to put off the body of the fins of the flefh, be 
 qualifications which turn the falvation of the adult 
 upon a different footing from that of infants, or 
 the thing fignified in baptifm ; then, by neceflary 
 confcquence, thefe qualifications are not to be look- 
 ed for in adults, either at baptifm or the Lord's 
 fupper. But if you plead for thefe things in a- 
 dults, does it jiot plainly fellow, that both b.iptifm 
 
 and 
 
L E T T E R II. 7 
 
 and the Lord's fupper are to them mofl pernicious 
 ordinances, fince they require fuch qualifications 
 as (according to you) ' make their falvation to lie 
 ' in fomething elfe than the thing fignified ?' But 
 the contrary is evident from fcripture. 
 
 4. Though we own, that the thing fignified In 
 baptifm faves infants juft as it faves adults, yet we 
 deny infant-baptifm ; for we diftinguifa betwixt 
 the thing fignified and the fign Signifying; the for- 
 mer is bellowed upon all the elect of God, whe- 
 ther adults or infants ; the latter, on thofe who 
 appear to be fuch, and can difcern its meaning, 
 who are only the adult. Again, we diftinguifh 
 betwixt the objects of Cod's everlqfting love and the 
 proper fubjebls of go/pel ordinances ; the firfl he 
 judges of by the rule of his omnifciency ; the laft 
 muff be judged of by the rules of revelation, or 
 the perfonal characters by which he hath pointed 
 them out in his word. To afTert then, That the 
 denial of infant-baptifm muft have always proceeded 
 from a dilbelief that falvation lies only and wholly 
 in the thing fignified in baptifm, is as untrue as it 
 is confidently afferted. 
 
 5. But then this afTertion Hands true upon your 
 plan, aud, like an arrow fhot perpendicular, reverts 
 upon your own head : for if • the denying of in- 
 ' fant-baptifm comes of making the falvation by 
 
 * baptifm to lie in fomething elfe than the thing 
 
 • fignified, ' then infant-baptifm is abfolutely ne- 
 ' cefFuy to falvation ; fince, otherwife, they muft 
 be baptized upon a felf- righteous plan, which can- 
 not 
 
8 LETTER I!, 
 
 not fave, but is oppofed to the thing fignifiedv 
 I afk then, is not this like placing falvation in fome- 
 thing elfe than the thing fignified, even in that, 
 whatever it be, which diftinguimes infants from 
 adult believers, and confines the thing fignified 
 to their baptifm ? Perhaps you are not aware of 
 this ; but did you really believe, that falvation lies- 
 only and wholly in the thing fignified, you could 
 never have imagined, that the denying of infant- 
 baptifm could any way affect this principle, or 
 make any difference in what faves. 
 
 So far were your forefathers from acknowledg- 
 ing, that • falvation lies only and wholly in the 
 * thing fignified,' that their main argument for in- 
 troducing the baptifm of infants, turrc'd upon a 
 fuppofed neccfiity of it to falvation. But they hid 
 not then learned to confine the falvation by bap- 
 i tifm to that, whatever it be, which diftinguifhes 
 the infants of believers from thole of infidels*, 
 though indeed they were at no lofs ; for the an~ 
 tient ncccjjity of baptifm to falvation, is by far abet- 
 ter argument than the modern covenant bolir.efs, or- 
 falvation to a believer's Boitfe. Nor can I fee how 
 infant-baptifm could ever take place upon fuch ar- 
 guments as are moftly ufed by Proteftants in fup- 
 port of it, at this day ; and therefore T think it ve- 
 ry ungrateful in modern Predobaptifts to fpurn at 
 that which gave them a being, and which is ftiil. 
 tacitely implied in their mo ft refined picas. 
 
 I am your, <&c. 
 
 LET- 
 
LETTER IIL 
 
 s i R, 
 
 I Have been carefully confidering the firit feclion 
 of your DifTertation, which contains a fcheme of 
 the controverjy, and Jl ate of the quejiion about fcrip- 
 ture precept and example. You lay, 
 
 1 The whole plea againft iafant-baptifm comes 
 
 * to this, That there is neither particular exprefs 
 1 precept nor indifputable example for it ia the 
 ' New Teftament, where baptifm is infeparably 
 
 • connected with a profeffion of the faith, which 
 « infants are not capable to make. ' 
 
 Anf. Though our whole plea came only to 
 what you mention, it would be fufficient to over- 
 throw infant-baptifm : for when we confider how 
 particular and exprefs God's injunctions were, with 
 refpeft to every circumfrance of the old covenant 
 rituals, we can never imagine, that fuch an im- 
 portant ordinance of the new covenant, would be 
 left, as a matter of doubtful difputation, to be ga- 
 thered only from dark and inconclufive hints, or 
 dubious confequences. 
 fo But the truth is, there is neither precept nor 
 example, direcl nor indirect, particular nor general, 
 exprefs'd nor implied, in either the Old Tefta- 
 ment or the New, ia favours of infant-baptifm ; 
 
 fo 
 
io LETTER III. 
 
 fo thai our plea againft it comes to more that you 
 imagine. 
 
 • All this (you fay) may be owned, at the fame 
 ' time that the inference from it is denied. ' 
 
 Here then you give up with exprefs precept and 
 indifputable example ; but then you deny the in- 
 ference, viz. That infants ought not to be bap- 
 tized ; becaufe you think, that, by the fame argu- 
 ment, we might debar women from the Lord's 
 fupper : for you fay, ' We can no more (hew, by 
 ' exprefs particular precept, or indifputable exam- 
 ' pie, that Chriftian women are included in the 
 f precept, Do this in remembrance of me, and, Drink 
 1 ye all of it, thsn we can prove, by fuch precept 
 ' or example, that Christian infants are compre- 
 * hended in the precept, Baptizing them. ' And 
 then you make no fcruple to aflert, That we have 
 the fame evidence for infants their being members 
 of Chrift's body, as we have of believing women's 
 being fuch. 
 
 This is fuch a nonfenfical evafion, that it is 
 fcarce worth while to take notice of it ; but as your 
 whole argument againft the necefiity cf precept 
 and example hinges upon it, it may be obferved, 
 
 i . That Chriftian women arc manifefted to be 
 fubjec"b of gofpel ordinances by a perfonal profef- 
 fion and character, anfwerable to what the fcrip- 
 ture requires ; but infants, as they can make no 
 fuch profeffion, fo the flefhly biith cannot deno- 
 minate them fubjects of baptifm, any more than it 
 can evidence their being born again . 
 
 2. The 
 
LETTER III. 1 1 
 
 2. The fcripture exprefly tells us, That there 
 is no diftin&icn of male and female among thole 
 who are one in Chrift Jefus, Gal. iii. 2%. whilfr. it 
 make a very wide diltinction betwixt the natural 
 and fpi'rhual feed, and (hews, that the former, as 
 fuch, have no right to the privileges of the latter, 
 Rom. ix. 6, 7. Gal. iii. 20. Now, if the fcripture 
 allows of no Jiftinclionof fexes in the one body of 
 Chrift, neither ought you to mufter up fuch a cbi- 
 mcrical diftincTion in order to confound a real one, 
 which ftill fubfifts betwixt infants and adult vifible 
 believers, with refpecf. to gofpel ordinances, as 
 both the vifible characters required, and the nature 
 and defign of thefe ordinances, (hew; 
 
 3. You cannot but be fenfible, that the precept, 
 Let a man examine himfelf, and fo let him eat, &c. 
 (t Cor. xi, 28.) include~s both fexes ; for the word 
 there tranflated Man, is not OCVY}^, which is re- 
 frri&ed to the mule fex in diftindtion from the fe- 
 male, but *av3p607rcg, which anfwers to the 
 Latin Homo, and comprehends both male and fe- 
 male, except where force particular circumftancc 
 in the text reftri<frs the fenfe. Here then the pre- 
 cept for eating the Lord's fupper is as exprefly di- 
 rected to Chriilian women as it is to men. But I 
 might have fpared myfelf this criticifin ; for I am 
 perfuaded, that the weakefl woman, that reads her 
 Englifh Bible, can be at no lofs to fee, that the 
 word Man frequently comprehends both fexes. 
 
 * Now (fay you) as foon as we begin to feek a 
 ' warrant for any fuch thing in this manner, we 
 ' mull depart from the principle that every oppofer 
 
 'of 
 
12 LETTER III. 
 
 * of infaut-baptifm fets out upon, viz. That fuch 
 
 * an exprefs precept, and iuch a plain example is 
 ' necefiary to fliew the warrant for it. ' 
 
 Anfw. So it feems you are obliged to depart 
 from precept and example at the very outfet of 
 your journey. Indeed, your wifdom is to be com- 
 mended ; for who would chufe to undertake a jour- 
 ney with fuch companions as every now and then 
 would be ready to trip up his heels, or plunge 
 him in the mire, when he had moll: occafion for 
 their affiftance ? Yet after all, you would have 
 profpered much better in your expedition, could 
 you have taken both precept and example along 
 with you in a friendly manner ; they would have 
 faved you many an artful ihift which you are o- 
 bliged to ufe in your progrefs. 
 
 I am not at all furprifed you (hould depart from 
 the principle we fet out upon; but it is very hard, 
 that, in fo doing, you fhould be obliged alio to 
 depart from the principle you yourfelf fet out u- 
 pon, in your departure from the national church. 
 In your fpeech before the commiffion of the gene- 
 ral afTembly, you give the following reafon for not 
 fubferibing the Formula, viz. ' becaufe I cannot 
 
 * fee precept or example in fcripture for the go- 
 ' vernment of this national church by kirk-feffions, 
 ' preibyteries, provincial and national fynods. 
 
 * And if it Ihould be my opinion, that it requires 
 
 * precept or example in God's word for fuch a go- 
 ' vernment, to warrant me to declare that it is 
 ' founded in that word ; — > — I fee no propofition 
 
 *ia 
 
LETTER HI. 1 3 
 
 ' in the public ftandards of the church that con- 
 
 * demns this *. ' 
 
 Now, Sir, I a(k, Why do you depart, in ftating 
 the controverfy about infaut-baptifm, from that 
 very principle, without which (by your own con- 
 feflion) you have no warrant to declare that it is 
 founded in the word of God ? 
 
 You take notice of another troublefome princi- 
 ple of the Baptifts, viz. ' That baptifm is infepa- 
 
 * rably connected in the New Teftaraent with ?, 
 
 * profeffion of the faith, which infants are not 
 
 * capable to make, ' 
 
 You might have anfwered this as the former, 
 by telling us, That we have no inflance in fcrip- 
 ture of women making an exprefs profeffion of 
 their faith before their receiving the Lord's fupper ; 
 and why (hould we require it of infants before 
 baptifm ? But this would be too bare-faced, and 
 therefore you fay, 
 
 * It may be owned, that baptifm cannot be a'3-* 
 
 * miniftered to any, but upon a confeffion by which 
 ' the baptized can be called difciples according to 
 ' the fcriptures : for it can well be faid, that in- 
 ' fants are to be baptized upon a profeffion of the 
 ' faith by which the fcripture warrants us to ac~ 
 ' count them difciples with their parents, as well 
 c as to look on them, with their believing parents, 
 c as holy and of the kingdom of heaven, or the true 
 
 * church, into which all Christians are baptized,' 
 
 * Glas's "Works, vol. I. p. szi. 
 
 C The 
 
i 4 LETTER III. 
 
 The neceflity of a profeflion in order to baptifm, 
 it feems, may be owned : but how can it be own- 
 ed, without denying baptifm to thofe who cannot 
 make a profeflion ? For this you have a curious 
 falvo at hand, without which you would never 
 have own'd it, viz. Though infants cannot pro- 
 fefs the faith, yet their parents can do it for them ; 
 nnd this warrants us to account them difciples, and 
 baptize them. This is indeed ftrange reafoning, 
 
 Difciples are made by teaching : 
 
 Believing parents are taught : 
 
 Therefore, Their children are difciples, and 
 may be baptized. 
 
 Was ever logic fo ridiculous, where a bare af- 
 fei tion, or begging of the queftion, is palm'd up- 
 pon us for a juft conclufion. 
 
 However, by granting that a profeflion is necef- 
 fary to infant-baptifm, you entirely overthrow 
 what you charge upon us in the introduction, elfe 
 you are guilty of the fame thing. For if you will 
 not baptize infants, without the profeflion of the 
 parents, then it is evident that you hold fomething 
 ne.ceflary to baptifm whereof infants are incapable, 
 even that profeflion which the parents make in 
 their (lead, and that faith of which it is the pro- 
 feflion. May we not then, with equal juftice, re- 
 tort, That the requiring fuch a profeflion of the 
 parent in order to the baptifm of his infant, comes 
 of making the falvation by baptifm to lie in fome- 
 thing elfc than the thing fignifkdj even that, 
 
 what- 
 
LETTER II!. 15 
 
 whatever it be, which the adult Chriftian mud 
 perform for his infant?, and which gives them a 
 right to baptifm in difiinction from the children of 
 infidels. 
 
 But I had alraoft forgot your fcripturc proof for 
 the difciplefhip of infants. 
 
 <por when the Judaizers fought to have the 
 « gentile Chriftians circumcifed to keep the law, as 
 
 • neceflary to their falvaiion by Chrift, Peter faid to 
 
 • them, Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the 
 ' veck of the difciples. But the Judaizers were feek- 
 
 • ing to have this yoke laid upon the infants of the 
 ' believing parents ; and therefore Peter, who re- 
 ■ ceived the command to baptize difciples, took that 
 
 • defignation to comprehend infants, and called 
 
 • them difciples with their parents.' 
 
 But though it be granted, that the infants of 
 believing Gentiles would be circumcifed with their. 
 parents, it is by no means evident, that Peter com- 
 prehends ihefe infants in the defignation difciples ; 
 for what other manner of expreffion is it natural 
 to think the apofile would ufe, upon this occafi- 
 on, though infants had been excepted in that de- 
 fignation ? If we look into the context, we (hall 
 find, that thofe whom he terms difciples, are cha- 
 racterized in fuch a manner as will not apply to in- 
 fants ; And certain men "which came down from Jw 
 dea taught the brethren, Sec, (Acts xv. iV) fo they 
 were brethren capable of being taught. God -which 
 thoweth the hearts, bare them vjitnefs, giving them 
 the Holy Gho/t, even as he did unto us ; and pat vo 
 C 2 dtf- 
 
16 LETTER III, 
 
 difference between us and them, purifying their 
 hearts by faith. Now therefore, why tempt ye God 
 to put a yoke upon the neck of the difciples, Sec. ver. 
 8, 9, 10. Now, can any thing be more plain, 
 than that the apoftle's argument againft circumcif- 
 ing the gentile difciples, turns upon the evidence of 
 their having received the Holy Ghoft, and of hav- 
 ing their hearts purified by faith ? The apoftle 
 James calls them, thofe which from among the gen- 
 tiles have turned unto Cod. If fuch then be the ac- 
 count given of thofe whom the apoftle terms dif- 
 ciples, it is plain, infants are not included in that 
 defignation, though, (according to the law of cir- 
 cumcifion) they might be circumcifed with their 
 parents. 
 
 Befides, it was not limply circumcifion, nor the 
 keeping of the law of Mofes, which Peter calls a yoke 
 that neither they nor their fathers were able to 
 bear ; for both they and their fathers had borne 
 this ; but it was the doclrine of its necefjity untofal- 
 •vathn, which was this intolerable yoke, as ap- 
 pears from ver. I, 5. 'Twas this which made the 
 law of Mofes a killing letter, a miniftration of death 
 and condemnation. To this doctrine the apoftle 
 oppofes falvation by the grace of the Lord Jcfus 
 Chrifl, ver. 1 1 . But this doctrine could be no fuch 
 yoke upon the neck of infants, who could not un- 
 derftand it ; it could neither pleafe nor grieve them. 
 Therefore it follows inevitably, that infants were 
 not reckoned by Peter amongft thofe whom he 
 terms difciples. 
 
 Further, 
 
LETTER ffl. 17 
 
 Further, you may confider how our Lord him- 
 felf defcribes his difciplcs in Luke xiv. 26, 27. 
 John viii. 31. and xiii. 35. and xv. 8. Thefe are 
 characters without which, he fays, no man can be 
 his difciple ; but thefe characters will not apply to 
 infants, and therefore the defignation difciples can- 
 not be given them. Befides, according to the 
 fcripture, difciples are made by teaching ; for the 
 word, in the original, fignifies a learner, or one that 
 is taught. But infants are incapable of being 
 taught ; therefore they cannot be difciples in the 
 fcripture ftile and way of fpeaking. 
 
 But then you fay, ' According to the commiffi- 
 ' on in Mark's gofpel to preach and baptize, infants 
 
 * muft either be reckoned with the believing or the 
 ' damned. For as to the believing there conneft- 
 
 * ed with baptifm, it is exprefly faid, He that Ic- 
 ' lievetb not Jhall be damned: and therefore if we 
 
 * cannot look on the infants of the faithful, dying ,■■ 
 
 * in infancy, as damned, we mufl look upon them, 
 
 * according to this fcripture, as believing, and fo 
 1 intitled to baptifm, here connected with the be- 
 1 lieving that includes them in diftinction from the 
 
 * damned. ' 
 
 Here, it feems, we are laid under a neceMIty of 
 judging the Hate of infants : if they are children of 
 believers, we mull reckon them with the believing 
 and faved ; but if they are children of unbelievers, 
 we mull, by the fame rule, reckon them with the 
 unbelieving. and damned, according to your view 
 of Chrift's commiffion. And this reckoning muft 
 C 3 be 
 
18 LETTER HI. 
 
 be of fuch as die in infancy ; for you own, there 
 may be occafion for another kind of reckoning with 
 refpect to thofe of them who arrive at an adult (late. 
 But, dear Sir, are you not as fenfible as any, that 
 there is not one fyllable in all that commiifion, ei- 
 ther of the infants of believers or infidels, dying in 
 infancy, or otherwife ? So that you muft go elfe- 
 where to eftablifh this notion. 
 
 We mult either, it feems, own, that infants are 
 believers, or reckon they are damned dying in in- 
 fancy ; but what if we fhould neither own the one 
 nor the other? The fcripture lays us under no 
 fuch neceffity of determining their ftate; but on 
 the contrary, fhews, that the fovereign purpofe of 
 God according to election will ftand, with refpeel: 
 to children that have done neither good nor evil, 
 whether they ever in this life arrive at a capacity 
 i c or knowing and believing the gofpel, or not ; yea, 
 whether their parents be believers or not : fo that 
 we reft this matter upon the fovereignty and good 
 pleafure of the righteous Judge, who hath mercy 
 m wham he xvilL Rom. ix. 18. 
 
 But I beg, Sir, you would confider into what ab- 
 surdities and inconfiftencies, your judgment of the 
 ilate of infants neceflarily involves you. As, 
 
 i. If you draw the falvation of the infants of 
 believers from thefe words, He that believeth and is 
 baptized Jball be faved ; you muft alfo, by the fame 
 rule, (as has been obferved) infer the damnation of 
 the infants of infidels from thefe other words, be that 
 believeth not Jball be damned, both being equally af- 
 firmed 
 
LETTER III. 19 
 
 firmed in this place. Now whether this be not as 
 harm and unmerciful ^ principle, as the popifh 
 damnation of unbaptized infant?, 1 leave you to 
 judge. 
 
 2. As the fcripture informs us* .-that many of the 
 adult children of infidels have been faved, it fol- 
 lows, that their falvation turns upon fomething 
 which they have done in their riper years, fince 
 (upon your plan) they muft have been damn'd dy- 
 ing in infancy. 
 
 3. Though you affirm the falvation of the chil- 
 dren of believers, dying in infancy ; yet you own, 
 that many of them fall (hort of it when they fur- 
 vive that Irate *. I a/k theo, what kind of falva- 
 vation muft that be, which can only be certainly 
 fecured by dying in infancy ; which may take wing 
 upon their firll: reflection, or wear out through 
 length of time ? Does that which faves dying in- 
 fants, lofe its whole efficacy on thofe of riper years ; 
 like certain medicines which are prepar'd only for 
 children, but can have no effect on grown perfons ? 
 Or, are they faved by free grace in infancy, but 
 conditionally when they grow up, and fo forfeit 
 their falvation by failing in the terms ? If (6, I 
 cannot help thinking, that you ftill hold a difference 
 betwixt that which faves infants dying in infancy, 
 and that which faves thofe who furvive that irate. 
 Upon this plan, happy were it for thoufands of 
 the children of believers if they never furvived this 
 infant falvation, fince they never attain the adult 
 one ! But dreadful is the ca& of the children of 
 
 infidels, 
 
 • Page *03. 
 
20 LETTER 111. 
 
 infidels, dying in infancy, who, as they have no 
 infant-falvation, never arrive at the age neceffary 
 for attaining adult- falvation ! 
 
 4. As you found this infant-falvation upon 
 the children's connection with their believing pa- 
 rents, I afk, what kind of connection rs it ? If it 
 be the flejhly connection, how can fpiritual blef- 
 fings be derived in this manner ? and if they be, 
 what hinders the children from reaping the benefit 
 of this connection in their adult flate, feeing they 
 are ftill the children of believing parents ? But U 
 is evident fpiritual bleffings come not by the fleftily 
 relation ; for Ifhmael was thus related to believing 
 Abraham ; but was he therefore counted for the 
 feed, and a child of the promife as Ifaac was ? Efau 
 was thus connected with believing Ifaac ; but was 
 he not hated whilft Jacob was loved, and that ac- 
 cording to God's purpole of election, before either 
 of them had done good or evil ? If the conuectioa 
 betwixt the believer and his infants be fpiritualy 
 how comes this to be diflblved when they grow up, 
 fb that even an Efau or an Abfalom may appear a 
 fon of perdition ? Decs a fpiritual connection 
 that entails falvation, wear out through length of 
 time ? And when is the precife time that this con- 
 nection ceafes, and the children fet up for then> 
 felves ? 
 
 But after all, perhaps yon will fay, you are only 
 pleading for that judgment of charity which we 
 ought to exercife towards the infants of believer?, 
 v/hilft you do not pretend to judge their real ftate*, 
 
 ■ 
 
LETTER III. si 
 
 as it is in the fight of God. But this cannot be 
 the cafe. For, 
 
 i. The text from which you form this judg- 
 ment, will admit of no diftincYion of this nature. It 
 is a real truth in the fight, purpofe and intention 
 of God, that he that bdieveth Jhall befavedi fo that 
 if the fcripture clafxss the infants of believers with 
 the believing, they (hall all as certainly be faved as 
 the fcripture declares it, or as God is true who 
 hath promifed it. However we, who cannot know 
 the hearts, may be deceived by mens profeffions ; 
 yet God will never deceive us by his open declara- 
 tions, which will Hand true whether we believe 
 them or not. He does not beg our judgment of 
 charity to his veracity ; but challenges our firmeft 
 belief upon our higheft peril. 
 
 2. The judgment of charity refpects our fellow 
 men, goes upon plaufible appearances, and implies 
 a poflibility of miftake. Now if God's open decla- 
 rations, with refpect to infants, be only a founda- 
 tion for our judgment of charity; then, for any 
 thing we know, we may be miftaken in our judg- 
 ment from thefe declarations, and that not only as 
 they refpeft the ftate of infants, but as they refpect 
 the foundation of our own faith and hope : for it 
 is abfurd to affirm, that the fcripture injoins full 
 aflurance of faith, whilfl it gives us no other foun- 
 dation for it, that what we have for our charitable 
 view of one another, in which, it (hews, we are of- 
 ten deceived. So that you fee 1 mull: either confi- 
 der you as determining the real ftate of infants, in 
 
 the 
 
22 LETTER III. 
 
 the fight, purpofe and intention of God, or as play- 
 ing fait: and loofe with the open declarations of the 
 God of truth. 
 
 If you fliould- reply, That the fcripture injoins us 
 to look upon infants in the fame light with their 
 parents ; fo that if we were aflured of the falvation 
 of the parents, we would be equally aflfured of the 
 falvation of their children. I anfwer, 
 
 This is contrary to fcripture facts. Abraham 
 was a real believer in the fight of God, and declared 
 to be fo ; yet the fcripture never injoins us to look 
 upon his fon Ifhmael in the fame light. Ifaac was 
 alfo a true believer, and an heir with Abraham of 
 the fame promife ; yet we are not allowed to pafs 
 the fame judgment upon his fon Efaa. David was 
 a man after God's own heart ; yet we are obliged 
 to form another view of his fon Abfalom. 
 
 If it be objected, that thefe did not die in infancy, 
 and fo are foreign to the point. I anfwer, 
 
 i. Does our Lord's commiffion in Mark's gof- 
 pel warrant us to believe they would have been 
 faved, had they died in infancy ? Or, docs any 
 other place in all the fcripture give the lcaft hint of 
 this ? Are we not exprefly told, that Efau was 
 hated, not only in his infancy, but before he was 
 born, having done neither good nor evil ? 
 
 2. If you believe that the purpofe of God accord- 
 ing to election will ftand, not of works, but of him 
 that calleth ; and that infants and adults are faved 
 on the fame footing ; how can you ever imagine, 
 
 that 
 
LETTER III. 23 
 
 that their dy'iDg, or not dying in infancy, makes 
 any alteration here ? 
 
 3. The utmolt that can be pled upon this point 
 is, that as fcripture does not determine the ftate of 
 infants dying in infancy, it is fafeft to, err on the 
 charitable fide. And, if this were all you plead for, 
 I fhould not difpute it ; though, for my own part, 
 I think it more eligible to have them entirely to the 
 judgment of God. 
 
 Upon the whole, I cannot but obferve a mani- 
 feft juggling in your argument from our Lord's 
 commiflion. Fhftj you take it for granted, that 
 infants, and particularly thofe of believers, are in- 
 cluded in that commiifion, for no other reafon, 
 that I can fee, but becaufe you would have it fo: 
 then, by a wonderful kind of logic, you con- 
 vert thefe infants into believers; which is indeed a 
 very great act of charity, fince otherwife, you tell 
 us, they would be damned. Infants being thus 
 logically converted and faved, their baptifm muft 
 follow, for it is there connected with believing. 
 But becaufe you were fenfible that both fcripture 
 and experience often cxpofes the deceit of fuch rea- 
 foning, you are obliged to fcreen yourfelf by the 
 death of the poor infants; well knowing, that as they 
 cannot expofe the fallacy in their non-age ; fo their 
 death will effectually prevent their ever doing fb. 
 Thus you endeavour to wrap yourfelf in darknefs, 
 and, in order to prove infant-baptifm, abandon all 
 medium of proof either pro or con. Thofe children 
 jhat furvive their infant ftate, and appear unbeliev- 
 ers. 
 
*4 LETTER III. 
 
 ers, you have nothing to do with, for two reafons ; 
 firft, becaufe they did not die in infancy ; and fe- 
 condly, becaufe adult children are not infants, as 
 you inform us afterwards. But all thefe little 
 Hocus Peats tricks are eafily detected, and ferve 
 only to (hew the weaknefs of your caufe. 
 
 I have been the longer on this point, as it is your 
 dernier refort, whither you fly for refuge upon 
 every pinching occafion j it may be called your 
 favourite depth, or the great "whirlpool of your whole 
 controverfy. 
 
 Before I conclude this letter, I would beg you 
 ferioufly to confider, That as we have no warrant 
 from fcripture to reckon particular infants with 
 the believing or the unbelieving, and fo to deter- 
 mine their ftate merely from the judgment we form 
 of their parents ; fo the fcripture is very eaprefs, 
 that Cod, from all eternity, hath elected fome to 
 everlafting life ; and it is enough for us to know 
 that the elect fhall obtain falvation, whether they 
 die youug or old ; have believing or unbelieving pa- 
 rent. ; be baptized in water, or unbaptized. Sal- 
 vation is of fovereign free grace, and takes place 
 not according to our age, fituation, or connections 
 in life ; but according as we are chofen in Chrift 
 before the world began, and the purpofe of him 
 who worketh all things after the counfel of his own 
 will. Thus in the cafe of Efau and Jacob, the chil- 
 dren being not yet born, neither having done any 
 good or evil, that the purpofe cf God according to elec 
 tion might Jtand, not cfivorhs, but of him that calleih, 
 
 it 
 
LETTER III. 2 y 
 
 it -was/aid, The elder jhall fctve the younger. Js it 
 is written, Jacob have I loved, but Efau kc%$, I frflf- 
 ed. What Jhall we fay then ? Is there iinrighiewfnefs 
 with God ? Far be it. For he faith to Mqftp, I &;'// 
 have mercy on whom I will have rfcfty, and I 
 will have compaffion on whom I will have eampeffon. 
 So then, it is not of him that ivilleib, nor cf him thai 
 runneth, but of God that fheweth mercy, Rom. ijr.. 
 ii, 16. Thus it appears inconfiftent with. 
 
 the fovereignty and freedom of divine grace, to 
 hinge the falvation of infants upon their connection. 
 with believing parents ; as, on the other hand, to 
 fuppofe a neceflity for the children of infidels their 
 being adults before they are capab'e fubjecls of it. 
 and it is no lefs inconfiftent with this rich grace to 
 fuppofe, that any of its objects will ever fall away. 
 With-great propriety then may the Chriftian fin^ ; 
 
 * Magnificent free Grace, arife, 
 
 ' Outlhme the thoughts of (hallow man; 
 
 * Sov'reign, preventing, all furprife 
 
 1 To him that neither will'd nor ran : 
 « Grand as the bofom whence thou flow'd, 
 
 ' Kind as the heart that gave thee vent, 
 « Rich as the Gift that God befrow'd, 
 
 1 And lovely like the Chrift he km. 
 
 * Know then, on no precarious ground 
 
 • Stands ' this rich ' grace and life to men; 
 ' For life now reigns in God's dear Son, 
 ' For us by' divine ' juftice flain. ' 
 
 Chriftian Sengs, p. 5, 13, 
 I am your, civ. 
 
 D LET- 
 
26 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 S I R, 
 
 YOUR next argument for infant-baptifm is 
 drawn from the apoflles' baptizing believers 
 and their hovfes, and runs thus ; 
 
 * The apoflles, in executing their commifTion, 
 ' preached falvation in Chrifl 'to a man and his 
 
 . » houfe. ' 
 
 jfnfw. They did fo; for Cornelius faid unro 
 .reter, We arc ALL here prefent before God, to hear 
 ,ad things that are commanded thee of -Cod. Acts x. 
 3.3. fo Peter preached falvation in Chrifl to them 
 .ILL. Likcwife, with refpect to the jaylor and 
 his houfe, it is faid, And they /pake unto /:i?n the 
 •word of the Lord, and to A LL that were in his 
 l.oitfe. And they could do no lefs; for they had a 
 «:om million to preach the gofpel to every creature. 
 Thus far then we agree. 
 
 •— — c And, according to this preaching, he that 
 * believed on Chrifl for his own falvation, believed 
 ' on him alfo for the falvation of his houfe ; for fo 
 ' his belief anfwered to that which was preach. 
 
 *ci.'- 
 
 Here is appropriation with a witnefs ! Whatever 
 ^proprieties the popular preachers are guilty of 
 
 in 
 
LETTER IV. £7 
 
 in their calls to the appropriating acl of faith, they 
 never, that I could learn, extended the faving be- 
 nefit thereof beyond the perfon's felf; but, accord- 
 ing to you, a man is not only warranted to ap- 
 propriate falvation to himfelf, but alio to his whole 
 houfe. If we look into the fubject of the apoftles' 
 preaching, we fhall find, that it did not refpect 
 any particular man's perfon or houfe; but was a 
 declaration of the free grace of God to finners, . 
 through the merits, atonement and refurrecticn of 
 his Son Jefus Chrift ; and that whofoever be'ifcvrd 
 this (hould be faved : but it was no part of their 
 preaching, that a believer's hcufe would be faved 
 npon his faith without believing themfelves ; and 
 therefore, fuch a belief was not required of any, 
 nor could it any W2y anfwer to that which was 
 preached. 
 
 You endeavour to prove, that the apcTHcs 
 preached falvation to a man's houfe if he alone be- 
 lieved, from the following fcriptures ;- who fhall 
 
 tell thee words whereby thou and all thy houfe ft>all b-j 
 faved. Acts xi. 14. Believe on the Lord Jefus Chrijt, 
 and thou fJjalt be faved and thy houfe* Acts xvi. 3 ( . 
 Here you cull out broken and detach'd fentence- 
 in order to avoid the connection, and then perch 
 upon the found of the words inftead of the fenfs^ 
 But it happens very unluckily for your ptir pofe, 
 that we are exprefly told thefe houfes believed. 
 themfelves as well as their owners. 
 
 The firit pjiTage relates to Cornelius and his. 
 
 houfe, concerning whom we are told, that he was 
 
 D 1 one 
 
2 9 LETTER IV. 
 
 one that feared God with ALL Us hcuf;. A£b x. 
 2. He and ALL his were prefent to hear Peter's 
 iermon, (vcr. 33.) in which there was not the Icalt 
 intimation, that his houfe would be faved upon 
 his believing; but the apofHc having fet before 
 them Chriit's life, de3th and refurre&ion, he con- 
 cludes thus; To him gave all the prophets ivitnefs, 
 that through his name, whofoever believctb on him, 
 Jball receive rsmiffion of fins ■ ver. 43. Then it fol- 
 lows ; While Peter yet fpake thefe words, the Holy 
 GmjlfcUon ALL, them that heard the word, ver. 44. 
 I\"ow, what era v:e gather from this, but that re- 
 jrnffion of iins is granted to all that believe;^ and 
 that the houfhold of Cornelius believed and receiv- 
 ed the Holy Ghofr. as well as himfelf ? And was 
 r.otthis the exact accomplishment of what the an- 
 gel had faid to Cornelius concerning the words 
 whereby he and all his houfe fhould be faved ? 
 
 The other paiTage relates to the jaylor and his 
 rjoufc. In anfwer to the queftion, What mnji I do 
 to be faved? it is faid, Believe on the Lord Jefus 
 Chrift, and thou foalt be faved, and thy houfe, A<fts 
 xvi. 31. This by no means implies, that the jay- 
 lor's faith would fave his houfe, or that he was 
 commanded to believe for the falvation of his houfe 
 as well as for his own ; but only, that his houfe 
 would be faved, as well as he, believing on Chrift : 
 and this fenfe is clearly ascertained by the event; 
 for they fpake unto him the word of the Lord, and to 
 all that were in his houfe, ver. 32. But why to ALL 
 that v/ere in his houfe, if he could have believed 
 
 ia 
 
L. E T T E R IV. 29 
 
 In their flead ? That all his houfe, as well £? hio 
 felf, underftood and believed the word which was 
 
 preached to them, is clear from ver, 34. -he Jet 
 
 me&t before tfom, and rejoiced, believing in Gal .ivit.J 
 ALL his houfe. Thus we fee how the }aylc# and 
 his houfe were faved. But you proceed ; 
 
 ■ And it is no lefs evident that they baptlz- 
 
 1 ed the believer and his houfe : Thus Paul ihys. 
 
 * 1 Cor. i. 1 6. And I baptized alp the hoifioii of 
 ' Stephanas, And it is faid of Lydia, Acts xvr. 1 5, 
 1 And when fie was. baptized and *hcr houfe ; ar.d ot 
 'thejaylor, ver 53. he was baptized, he and a! i 
 
 • his. ' ' 
 
 It is indeed no lefs evident that thefehoufes you 
 inftancc were baptized, than it is that they believed. 
 But the point tc> be proven is, whether infants or 
 others in thefe houfes were baptized upon the faith 
 of the parent. Unlefs you can make this appear, 
 the ba-ptifm of thefe houles makes nothing for your 
 purpofe. 
 
 The baptifn of the houihoIcT of Stephanas win 
 
 not prove this ; for the apoftle gives the following 
 
 account of that houfhdd, I befeech ycu, brethren, 
 
 (ye knew the hife of Stephanas, that it is fikfrft- 
 
 fruits of Achaia?, and that they have.additled ihevr- 
 
 felves to ~}he miniflry of the faints ) that, ye fibmie 
 
 yourfelves unto fuch, and t'o every one that hclpei'h 
 
 'with us and Jabourcth. r Cor. xvi. 15, i5. Hers 
 
 it is evident they were adults, fince otherwise they 
 
 could not miniff-cr to the faints, or help and labour 
 
 with the apoftks. This is further rsanifefted bv 
 
 D 3. thsir 
 
30 LETTER IV; 
 
 iheir being the firft-fruits of Achaia, concerning 
 
 which we read, and many of the Cornthians 
 
 hearing, believed, and were Baptized. A<fts xviii. 8. 
 Thele three words exprefs the beautiful order 
 which the apoflles obferved in executing their 
 commiflion ; they firft preached, and when thofe 
 who heard, believed, they then, and not till then, 
 baptized thtm. 
 
 The baptifm of the houfhold of Lydia makes 
 nothing at all for your purpofe, unlefs you can 
 make it appear (he had infants, and that they were 
 baptized upon her believing ; but this, I imagine, 
 you will not undertake; nor will the fcripture ac- 
 count o c her and her houfe admit this fuppofnion ; 
 And tain woman, named Lydia, a feller of pur- 
 
 ple, Cj y of Thyatira, which worfhipped God, 
 
 h'.a r d us ; wife heart the Lord opened, that fhe at- 
 tended \ the thb'gs which were fpoken of Paid, 
 a U\d u beifjle was baptized and her hcufe, &c. Acts 
 xv: ! \ 15. From nencc it wouLI appear, either 
 lr,t [h: rci . r Was tnarri : r that hir hvibacd 
 i.ai di ' ' ; for Cits feesns to be chief manager 
 in lb : H if '. J'sc: 1, ng p rplc 5 bi lu'e^, it is n. 1 
 . ■'. I itj fori; tore to denomin tc a houthcld by t. -: 
 w'- •: the '. Led with a ho&aad : it 
 
 it then to 1: i no mfaafrcjui.- 
 
 t I :> ; .tized. I-jt . ing the flipped 
 
 of. .-. ahufi ' an' chilorei hatw^teiu* 
 
 F^otr, k." "ar-o b »rovett) is it to be iman! - 
 
 i] br . ; ' ynVinls o ] \ ih '. ef 
 
 i ml . h N '■■ * 
 
 cage, 
 
LETTER IV. 31 
 
 refidence, to Philippi in Macedonia, where (he ap- 
 pears to have come with defign of felling her pur- 
 ple ? In ver. 40. it is faid, And they (viz. Paul 
 and Silas> went out oftheprifon, and entered into the 
 houfe of Lydia ; and -when they hadfeen the brethren, 
 they comforted them and departed. Now as we read 
 of no brethren in that city, but the houfholds of 
 Lydia and of the jaylor, fo their being comforted of 
 Paul and Silas, (hews them to be adults and not 
 infants. 
 
 Nor will the baptifm of the jaylor's houfe avail 
 your plea ; for as it is faid, that, believing on the 
 Lord Jefus Chrift, he and all his houfe fhould be 
 laved; and that he and all his were baptized; fo 
 likewife we are told, that they /pake unto him the 
 word of the Lord, and to ALL that were in his 
 houfe, prior to their baptifm ; and that he rejoiced, 
 believing in Cod with ALL his houfe. ver. 32, 34. 
 Now, Sir, can you tell me why the word ALL 
 may not be as comprehenfive in the latter as in the 
 former ? If the jaylor had any infants, they are 
 either excluded from the ALL that were baptized, 
 elfe they muft be included in the ALL that heard 
 the word, believed and rejoiced; which lafr, I think, 
 no rational man will affirm. 
 
 Here I would afk, What do you mean by a be- 
 liever's houfe ? Is it made up of infants, or of adults, 
 or of both ? If it includes both, then a believer's 
 wife and adult children are faved by his faith, and 
 fo may be baptized, upon this footing, as well as 
 his infants. If you fay, it includes only infants, 
 
 upon 
 
32 LETTER IV. 
 
 upon what fcripture do yon ground this diftinc- 
 tion ? Did not Abraham's houfe include adults as 
 ■well as infants; fervants as well as fons ; thofe 
 bought with his money, as well as thofe fprung 
 from his body ? And was not circumcifion exprefly 
 injoin'd, and actually admiDifterui to them all ? 
 Gen. xvii. 12, 13, 24, 25, 26, 27. Does not the 
 apoftle term thefe adult perfons who miniftered to 
 the faints, the houfe of Stephanas ? Who would 
 ever imagine, that the faints of Cefar's hcvflrJJ, 
 who fent their falutations to the church at ColoiTe, 
 were only a nurfcry of fucklings ? Col. iv. 22. Yet 
 this muft be fuppofed, if your argument have any 
 confiftency ; elfe it will follow, that adults as well 
 as infants ; infidels as well as believers ; wife as 
 well as children ; fervants as well as fons, muft 
 every one of them be b.iptized upon the fingle pro- 
 fcilion of the parent or rnafrer; for they are all in- 
 cluded in the fcripture ufe of the word houfhold. 
 You conclude your fir ft fecYion by faying, ' If 
 
 * we deny fcripture example for baptizing of in* 
 
 * fants, we muft fhft deny there were any infant3 
 
 * in thefe baptized houfes. And as we can plead 
 
 * no foundation in fcripture for that, it is too bold 
 
 * to fay, that there is no fcripture example for bar> 
 
 * baptizing infants. ' 
 
 Whether, from what has been fa Id above, it ap^ 
 pears moft agreeable to the fcopc of thefe fcriptures, 
 to fay there were, or were net infants in theie bap- 
 tized houfes, I leave you to confider at your leifure: 
 but if cvej- you fhould attempt to prove there weifc 
 
 infanta 
 
LETTER IV. '33 
 
 infants in thefe houfes, (which it concerns you 
 much to do) I hope you will guard againft all fu- 
 ture objections, by proving they alfo believed and 
 were baptized. Meantime, I defpair of either of 
 thefe being done in a hurry, and therefore (till af- 
 firm with boldne fs, that there is no fcripture ex- 
 ample for baptizing infants. I am, 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Your, &c. 
 
 LET- 
 
34 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 S I R, 
 
 I Now proceed to confider your fecond fec*tion> 
 which mews, that infants mujl partake of bap- 
 tifm from their having part in the promife of the 
 Holy Chofi unto ivhich Chriflians ere baptized; and 
 proceeds thus ; 
 
 • We fee in the very firfl call to thofe in Jerufa- 
 
 * lem to repent and be baptized in the name of the 
 
 * Lord Jefus Chrift for the remiffion of fins, the 
 ' prormfe of the Holy Ghoft, unto which they were 
 ' baptized, was to them and to their children ; 
 ' even them who had faid, His blood be on us, and on 
 
 * cur children. Peter faid to them, Acta ii. 38, 39. 
 
 * Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name 
 1 °f Jefus Chriji, for the remiffion of fins, and ye 
 
 * Jhall receive the gift of the Holy Chfl. For the 
 
 * promife is unto you (who are prefently called,) and 
 1 to your children (who are connected with you in 
 ' the condemnation,) and (in like manner as to you 
 
 * and your children, fo alfo) to all that are afar off, 
 
 * even as many as the Lord our God Jhall call. For 
 ■? 'as that promife of the Holy Ghofl was to as many 
 
 * as the Lord then called in Jerufalem, and to their 
 
 * children j fo it muft be to as many as the Lord 
 
 ' calls 
 
LETTER V. m 
 
 * calls afar off from thence, and to their children. 
 1 Now if they who repeut be baptized unto the pro- 
 ' mife of the Hoiy Ghoft, Acts xix, 2, 3. and if 
 
 * that promife unto which they are baptized, be 
 
 * to their children as well as unto them ; then cer- 
 
 * tainly baptifm, as far as it is connected with that 
 
 * promife, muft belong to their children as well as 
 ' to them. ' 
 
 It would be a fufficient anfwer to all this to fliew, 
 that this promife of the Holy Ghofl was made to 
 their children juft as it was made to themfelves, viz,, 
 to as many of them as fhould repent and be called 
 ©f the Lord ; for to fuch the apoftle reftri&s the 
 promife. However, 1 /hall confider more parti- 
 cularly, 
 
 1. The promife itfelf. 2. To whom it was 
 made. 
 
 1 . The promife which Peter had particularly in 
 his eye is that in Joel ii. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32. And 
 itjhall come to pafs afterward that 1 -will pour out my 
 Spirit upon allflejh, and your Jons and your daughters 
 Jhall propbefy ; your old men Jhall dream dreams, 
 your young men fjail fee vifions ; and alfo upon the 
 fervants, and upon the handmaids in thofe days will I 
 pour out my Spirit. And 1 wiUfhew wonders in the 
 heavens, and in the earth, bkod and fire and pillars of 
 fmoke : the fun Jhall be turned into darknefs, and the 
 moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the 
 Lord come. And it fhall come to pafs that whofocver 
 fhall call on the name of the Lord Jhall be delivered; 
 for in mount Zion and in Jerufakm fhall be deliver- 
 ance, 
 
36 LETTER V. 
 
 ance, as the Lord hath /aid, and in the remnant whom 
 the Lord/hall call. 
 
 This prophecy or promife may be confidered 
 either, 
 
 i. In a literal limited fenfe ; or, 2. In a more 
 general and extended fenfe. 
 
 1. In its literal and limited fenfe, it is an Old 
 Teftament promife of the Spirit, which was fulfil- 
 led in the apoftolic age ; as is evident from the mi- 
 raculous figns which were to attend it, fuch as 
 their fons and daughters prophefying, the wonders 
 to be (hewn in the heavens, be. and it was like- 
 wife to take place before the great and terrible day 
 of the Lord came in the deflruction of the Jewifli 
 church and Irate, foretold by our Lord, Matth. 
 xxiv. Mark xiii. and Luke xxi. Tea, the apoftle 
 exprefly applies it to that extraordinary effufion of 
 the Spirit which began on the day of Pentecoft, 
 This is that which was fpvkcn by the prophet Joel, 
 A£b ii. 16. and then cites the pafTage, You may 
 likewife fee how it is applied in The Tejlhnov.y of 
 the King of Martyrs, p. 57. near the foot. 
 
 Peter in his fermon proceeds to mew, in what 
 manner that promife in Joel came to be accomplish- 
 ed, ver. 22, — 37. viz. That God having raifed 
 that fame Jcfus whom they had crucified (according 
 as it was foretold by David in the fixteenth Pfalra,) 
 and being by the right-hand of God exalted, and 
 having received of the Father the promife of the 
 Spirit he had fhed forth that which they ihen faw 
 and heard. 
 
 Now 
 
L £ T T E R V. 37 
 
 Now thefe gifts of the Spirit, which were then 
 feen aad heard by the multitude, were miraculous 
 and extraordinary, and behoved to ceafe when they 
 had reached their end, i Cor. xiii. 8. And as the 
 promife, in this fenfe, will not apply to infants, fo 
 the apoflle could mean no more by the words ytur 
 children, than what the promife itfelf plainly ex- 
 prefies, viz. your fo?is and your daughters foall pto- 
 phcfy, Sec. Nor is it clear, that the apoflle applies 
 this promife to any other than the Jews and their 
 children ; for he had not as yet learned, that the 
 gentiles fhould receive the promife of the Spirit thro* 
 faith. But, 
 
 2. We may confider this promife of the Spirit 
 in a more general and extended fenfe, viz. That 
 gift of the Spirit which is abfolutely necefiary for 
 the regeneration and fancthication of all the peo- 
 ple of God in all ages of the world, and which is 
 bellowed upon all that arc Chi ill's, Rom. viii. <). 
 But how will it apply, in this fenfe, to all the na- 
 tural feed of believers ? That elect: infants may 
 receive the Spirit,' I make no doubt; but that all 
 the natural feed, of -believers obtain this, is mani- 
 feflly falfe^.and contrary both to fcripture and ex- 
 pcriencei Even thofe infants who receive the Ho- 
 ly Giro ft cannot be diftingiafhed from thefe who 
 do.mot, and fo cannot be the fuhjefls of baptifm, 
 which does not belong to them immediately as 
 elect, or as having the Spirit, but as evidencing 
 this in -the profeilion of their faith. 
 
 If the .promife cf the Holy Ghoft be made to ail 
 E the 
 
33 L E T T E R V. 
 
 the children of believers, then it will cither be ac- 
 complifhed, or not. If it be not accomplifhed, 
 how can we reconcile this with the character of 
 God, as a God of truth and faithfulnefs with whom 
 it is impoflible to lie ? If this promife be actually 
 made good, then none of believing Abraham's po- 
 sterity could ever have been rejected* for as he 
 had the Spirit himfeif^To all his natural children, 
 yea, his children's children to the latcft pofteruy, 
 muft alfo have the Spirit, otherwife the promife 
 would fail whenever the fucceffion of this gift was 
 interrupted. Hut the New Teftament demon- 
 strates that the greater part of Abraham's natural 
 feed were ddlitute of the Spirit and rejected, whilft 
 Tit the fame time it (hews, that God's word of pro- 
 mife to Abraham has taken effect, Rom. ix. 6. 
 Experience alio (hews us that the gift of the Spirit 
 is not hereditary under the New Teftament, and 
 that many godly parents have wicked children, 
 which could never be the cafe had God engaged 
 himfelf by promife to give them his Holy Spirit. 
 You yourlelf own -| , that the children ' may yet be 
 -' really irregenerate, and when adult appear to be 
 * fo; ' and that ' if the children become adult, not 
 ' adhering to the baptifmal profeffion, they have 
 ' no more the character of holy *.' Now certain- 
 ly you will not affirm, that irregenerate and unho- 
 ly psrfons have the Spirit. 
 
 If it fhould be faid, that the promife is conditi- 
 onal, and fo may juftly be fufpended till the con- 
 dition be performed ; then It will follow,, that no 
 
 infants 
 
LETTER VL 4? 
 
 heart, we muft efteem thefe brethren that have the 
 apparent characters of fuch; but if we be deceiv- 
 ed in infants, they can have no hand in this decep- 
 tion, and confequently it muft land upon the rule 
 that directs our judgment of them : and I am ra- 
 ther inclined to father fuch a rule upon you than 
 upon the fcriptures of truth, as I am Aire 
 
 1 The faithful true witnefs will sever deceive.' 
 
 3. If all the infants of believers are ' members 
 
 * of Chrift's church for which he gave himfelf, 
 
 * that he might fan&ify and cleanfe it with the 
 « wafhing of water, by the word ;' then they fhall 
 all certainly be faved ; for as the church you men- 
 tion is the fame with the general aflembly and 
 church of the firftborn which are written in hea- 
 ven, Heb. xii. 23. and as Chrift gave himfelf for 
 this church; fo none of its members can ever pe- 
 rifh or be plucked out of Chrift's hands. 
 
 4. But if ' thofe little children whom the Lord 
 / declares to belong to his kingdom, in diftinttioa 
 ' from the world,' fall away in their adult ftate, 
 as you fuppofe fome of them may §, then a per- 
 fon may be a real member of Cfhrift for a while, 
 and afterwards a child of the devil ; enrolled in 
 heaven ia the former part of his life, and, in the 
 latter part of it, blotted out of the book of life. 
 And if any one of thefe perifh for whom Chrifr, 
 gave bmfelft why may not all of thera ? Upon this 
 fcheme, what ground has any to hope that all o- 
 ther bleflings will be bellowed in confequence of 
 
 tfec 
 
4 5 LETTER VI. 
 
 the gift af Chrijl t Was the apoftle really out of 
 hi» logic when he argues, He that fpared not his 
 own Son, but delivered him up for us all, hovjjhall 
 be not with him affo freely give us all things ? — Who 
 Jball feparate us from the love of Chrijl ? If the peo- 
 ple of God mull not look upon the gift of God as 
 eternal life thro" Jefus Chrijl, what foundation is 
 left for their hope, unlefs it be a conceit of fome- 
 thing diftinguifhing abo»t themfelves (the work 
 and labour of love, if you pleafe) and after all, 
 who can truft his own heart ? 
 
 It might likewife be (hewn how this fcheme mi- 
 litates againft the doctrine of election, effectual 
 calling, the liability of the covenant, and the faith- 
 fulnefs of God. And tho' I am far from thinking 
 you intended any fuch thing; yet, upon reflec- 
 tion, you might eafily fee, that the fhifts you are 
 put to in fupport of infant-baptifm throw the 
 whokiabric pf redemption into rubbhh and ccn- 
 fufion.. 
 
 Mufl we then part with all thefe rich, fweet 
 and refrefhing doctrines to make way for infant-bap- 
 tifm ? Muft we give up with plain fcripture truths, 
 to make room for dubious confequences drawn 
 from undefined phrafes ? Sad exchange indeed ! 
 
 I fiiall nowconfider the fcopc of i Cor. vii 14. 
 
 It is evident from the firfl: verfe of this chapter, 
 that the Corinthians had writteu to the apoftle for 
 a refolution of fome doubtful cafes, amongft which, 
 by the apoftlcs aafwer, this feems to have been 
 
 one, 
 
LETTER VI. 49 
 
 one, viz. Whether it was lawful for a believer, 
 join'd in marriage with an unbiliever, to continue 
 in that relation ? Whether this doubt aroie from a 
 mifraken regard to Moles' law, Deut. vii. 3. and; 
 the example in t-zra, chap. x. or from what he 
 had written to them before, 1 Cor. v. 9, 10. is not 
 material to know. However, the apoftle decides 
 the matter thus, If any brother hath a wife that be- 
 lieveth not, andfhe be pleafed to diuell with him, let 
 him not put her away ■ And the woman which hath 
 an hnjband that believeth not, and if he be pleaf- 
 ed to dwell ivith her, let her not leave him. Thus 
 the matter ftands determined by the apoftle ; to 
 which he adds the following reafon ; For the unbe- 
 lieving hitfhand is fantlified by the wife, and the un- 
 believing wife is fantlified by the hufband : elf were 
 your children unclean; but now are they holy, Ver. 1 2, 
 
 Two things offer themfelves here to be confi- 
 dered. 
 
 1 . The fantlifi 'cation of the unbelieving party. 
 
 2. The holinefs of the children in confequence 
 thereof. 
 
 By the fanclification of the unbelieving party can- 
 hot be meant internal fanclification, or renovation 
 of mind ; for as the heart can only be purified by 
 faith, the perfon, in that cafe, woulJ be no longer 
 an unbeliever. Neither can we underhand it of 
 typical or ceremonial fanclification ; for this belong- 
 ed only to the firft covenant, which was then made 
 old. There remain only two fenfes in which thi s 
 F fanfti- 
 
So LETTER VI, 
 
 falsification of the unbelieving party can be un- 
 der flood ; 
 
 i. Injlrumental ' fanBif cation ; or fanctified as an 
 iDftrument of propagating a holy feed. Or, 
 
 2. Matrimonial fanUrfication, whereby the one 
 is enjoyed as a chafte yoke-fellow by the other, 
 without fornication or uncleanDefs. 
 
 The former of thefe fenfes you hold, in which 
 vou follow Mr. Thomas Goodwin; but that 
 fenfe will not at all anfwer the apoAle's purpofe, 
 which was to perfuade the believing Corinthians to 
 abide in their marriage relation with unbelievers. 
 For, 
 
 I. If the unbelieving wife (for inftancc) were 
 barren, then (he could have no fanclification ; for 
 as this fanctification is not for herfelf, but for the 
 children, in whom it terminates, how can it exift 
 at all if /he has none ? 
 
 1. Though the unbelieving wife fhould bring 
 forth children ; yet if thefe children fliould lofe the 
 character of holy in their adult ftate, in what fenfo 
 can we under/land the unbelieving wife fanctified 
 to bring forth holy children ? The fanctification is 
 not in herfelf, fhe being an unbeliever ; neither is 
 it in her children, they being irregenerate. Where 
 then is it to be found ? Thus, you fee, the apo- 
 ftle's argument would be founded upon fomething 
 very contingent and uncertain, and would have 
 left the believing Corinthians, in many cafes, at 
 liberty to put away their unbelieving correlates. 
 
 JDut it is evident the apoflle's argument was not 
 
 found- 
 
LETTER VII. S9 
 
 fpirltual feed of Abraham. This diftin&ion is co« 
 pioufly handled by the apoftle Paul in his epiftles 
 to the Romans and Galatians, in which he always 
 recurs back to the covenant made with Abraham. 
 This covenant was of a mixt nature, as appears 
 by the piomifes which it contain'd. For, 
 
 i. Herein God gave to Abraham the promife of 
 a. feed in whom all nations fhould be blefled, Gen. 
 xii. 3. and xxii. 18. and this feed was Chrifr, (jjal. 
 iii. 16. In this promife the gofpel was preached 
 unto Abraham, ver. 8. and in it lay the object 
 of that faith whereby he and his fpiritual feed a- 
 mong Jews and gentiles were bleffed with him, 
 ver. 7, 9. This is that promife which was con- 
 firmed of God in Chrift, and which the law could 
 not difannul, or make of none effefl, ver. 17. But 
 becaufe God defign'd to exhibit by, and among 
 Abraham's fiefhly feed an earthly pattern or exam- 
 plar of the heavenly things contained in this pro- 
 mife; therefore, 
 
 2. He made another promife to Abraham in 
 that covenant, viz. That he would multiply him 
 exceedingly, and give unto him, and to his feed , 
 after him, the land of Canaan, Gen. xvii. 2, 8. 
 This promife was temporal, and behoved to be 
 accomplished before the other, as it contained the 
 types and pledges thereof. Canaan typified the 
 heavenly inheritance ; fo the patriarchs underftood 
 
 it, Heb. xi. 8, 15, and Abraham's fiefhly feed 
 
 typified his fpiritual feed of all nations, Gal. iii. 7, 
 8, 9. even the children of the fpiritual promife, 
 who walk in the fteps of Abraham's faith. The 
 
 difference 
 
6o L E T T F R V!!. 
 
 difference betwixt thefe two feeds was rpified to 
 Abraham by Khmatl and Haac in his own f amily, 
 even as the two covenants were typified by Hagar 
 and Sarah, Gal iv 21. Now thele two promiies 
 laid the foundation of a twofold relation to God ; 
 the one fpiritual and eternal with Abraham's fpi- 
 ritual feed ; the other typical and temporal, be- 
 twixt God and Abrahams flefhly feed, which be- 
 hoved to continue during the period of the typi- 
 cal ceconomy, and no longer. 
 
 3. The ordinance of ciicumcifion belonged only 
 to the temporal promife, and the temporal typical 
 relation betwixt God and Abraham's feed accord- 
 ing to the fiefh : for though the covenant to which 
 it belongs be called an evcrlqfting covenant, Gen. 
 xvii. 13. yet this muft be undtrftood with the 
 fame limitation, as the earthly Canaan, promifed 
 therein, is called an evcrlqfting pofftffion, vcr. 8. 
 and xlviii. 4. the Aaronical priefthood, an ever- 
 lafling priefthood, Exod. xl. 15. and the yearly 
 typical atonement an everlajlmg Jlatnte, Lev. xvi. 
 34. Thefe temporal types are called everlajling 
 in relation to the antitype, in which this epithet 
 holds true. 
 
 Circumcifion is indeed called, afeal cf the righ- 
 teoufnefs of the faith ; but it was a leal only to Abra- 
 ham of his own faith, even the faith which he had 
 before circumcifion. This fcal he received in his 
 peculiar patriarchal capacity, and that only as fa- 
 ther of the faithful ; for the apoftle fays, Rom. vi. 
 11, 12. He received thefign of ' circumcifion^ a feal of 
 
 the 
 
LETTER VII. 61 
 
 the right ccufnefs of the faith which he had, yet being 
 tmcircumcifed : (for what end ?) that he might be the 
 father (of whom ? of all his fkfhly circumcifed 
 feed ? No : but) cf a 7 them that believe, though they 
 
 be not circumcifed ; and the father of circumcifion. 
 
 to them (of his natural feed) who are not of the cir- 
 cnmcifion only, but alfo walk in the fleps of that faith 
 of our father Abraham which he had being yet uncir- 
 atmcifed. i. e. That he might be the father of all 
 that believe, whether circumcifed or uncircumcifed. 
 Now if Abraham was not a father to his natural 
 feed, as fuch, in that refpedt wherein circumcifion 
 failed or confirmed to him the righteoufnefs of his 
 faith ; then circumcifion was not fuch a feal to his 
 natural feed ; nor could it be fuclra feal to infants 
 at eight days old, who had not that faith before 
 circumcifion; but refpccled only the temporal pro- 
 mife and relation, which prornife and relation had 
 a typical reference to the eternal promife, and the 
 fpiiitual relation arifing therefrom. 
 
 When God proceeded to fulfil the temporal pro- 
 mife, he did it by means of a covenant, even that 
 which he made with the whole nation of Ifrael, 
 when he took them by the hand to lead them out 
 of Egypt, Exod. xix 3. — 3. Heb. viii. 9, This is 
 called the old covenant (Heb. viii. 13.) on account 
 of the temporal rehuion betwixt the Lord and that 
 nation, which is now done away. — The law, (Heb. 
 x. 1.) od account of the law therein given to them. 
 -~-\ad the frfl ttftament, (Heb. ix. 15.) on ac- 
 G count 
 
& L*E TTER Vil. 
 
 count of the typical adoption, and the temporal in- 
 heritance. 
 
 It is evident that this covenant, and all its typi- 
 cal ceconomy, was founded on the temporal pro- 
 mife made to Abraham concerning his flcthJy feed; 
 fur all the temporal bleffings which Ifrael enjoyed 
 according to the tenor of che Sinaitic covenant, arc 
 alfo afcribed to that promife. The Lord refers to 
 it when about to give the typical redemption, 
 Exod. vi. 3, — 3. Their manifold deliverances from 
 the furrounding nations are afcribed to it, 2 Kings 
 xiii. 23. Neh. he. 7, 8, and pled from it, 2 Chron. 
 xx. 7. Yea, their typical relation to God as his 
 people, wherein the very effence of this covenant 
 confifled, is originally attributed to that fame pro- 
 mife, Deut. x>:ix. 13. As chcumcifion belonged 
 to the temporal promife and ficfhly relation, it was 
 alfo ingrofs'd into this covenant, Lev. xii. 3. and 
 fo behoved to vanun away with the covenant i'tfelf, 
 and all its other typical ordinances. 
 
 When the fulnefs of the time was come, and 
 God proceeded to fulfil the fpiritual promife, he 
 did it by means of another covenant, (by^the me- 
 diation of Chrift) wiih Ahraharn's fpiritual feed of 
 all nations. This is called ths new covenant, (Heb. 
 xii. 24.) in reference to the other, which was made 
 old, and the new fpiritual relation betwixt God 
 and that new nation, made up from among all na- 
 tions, kindreds and tongues. — The new tejiament, 
 (Ilcb. ix. 15.) on account of the true adoption and 
 the heavenly inheritance, of which Chrift the firft- 
 
 kcTK is bpth teftator and heir. 
 
 Thefe 
 
LETTER VII. 
 
 « i 
 
 Thefe are the two covenants of which the apo- 
 ftle fpeaks in Gal. iv. and Heb. viii. and ix. chap- 
 ters, and which were both included, by way of 
 promife, in the covenant made with Abraham. The 
 contrafl may be more fully flated in the following 
 manner: 
 
 Abrahamic Covenant. 
 
 Old Covenant, 
 i. The old covenant 
 was only a temporal re- 
 lation betwixt God and 
 a particular nation, 
 which is now done away 
 and come to an end. 
 Heb. viii. 13. 
 
 2. The old covenant 
 was carnal and earthly : 
 (1.) In its vjorfhip, 
 which flood only in 
 meats and drinks, and 
 divers wafhings, and car- 
 nal ordinances, Heb. ix. 
 10. 
 
 (2.) la its facrifices 
 of bulls and of goats, 
 which could never take 
 away fio, or purge the 
 conference, Heb. ix. 9. 
 and x. 4. 
 
 G 
 
 New Covenant. 
 
 1. The new covenant 
 is an eternal relation be- 
 twixt God and his peo- 
 ple from among all na- 
 tions, and is therefore 
 called an everlafling CO' 
 venant, Heb. xiii 20. 
 
 2. The new covenant 
 is fpiriiual and heavenly; 
 
 (1.) In its worfhip, 
 which requires a true 
 heart, faith, and a good 
 confeience, and to be per- 
 forrn'd in fpirit and ia 
 truth. Heb. x. 19, — 23, 
 John iv. 23. 
 
 (2 ) In its facrifice, 
 which is Chrift, and 
 which perfects for ever 
 them that are fanctified 1 , 
 Heb. x. 14, 
 
 2 Aer,*- 
 
64 LETTER VII. 
 
 Abrahamic Covenant. 
 
 Old Covenant. 
 (3.) In its mediator, 
 viz. Mofes. Gal iii. 19 
 
 (4) Tn its prie/ls, viz. 
 Aaron and his ions, who 
 were finful men, and 
 not furfered to' continue 
 by rerJbn of death. 
 Heb. vii. 23, 28. 
 
 (5.) In its /ancillary, 
 which was worldly and 
 made with hands, Heb. 
 Lx. 1, 24. 
 
 (6.) In its prcmi/s ; 
 they being carnal blef- 
 fmgs in earthly places, 
 and reflecting only a 
 profperous life in the 
 earthly Canaan, Deut. 
 xxviii. i, — 15. Ifai. i. 
 19. Jom. xxi. 43. 45- 
 chap, xxiii. 14, 15, 16. 
 
 (7 ) In its fubjefh, or 
 people covenanted ; ihc-y 
 
 New Covenant. 
 
 (3.) In its mediator, 
 viz. Chriir. Jelus, Heb. 
 xii. 24 
 
 (4 ) In its prie/l, viz. 
 Chi ill, who is holy harm- 
 lcfs, <bc. and abideih 
 piitfr. continually, ever 
 living to make intcrccf- 
 fion for us, Heb. vii. 24, 
 25, 26. 
 
 (5.) In its /ancillary, 
 which is heaven itfelf, 
 whereinto our great 
 high-prieft hath entered, 
 having obtained eternal 
 redemption for us, Heb. 
 ix. 12. 
 
 (6.) In its promi/cs ; 
 they being fpiiitual blef- 
 fings in heavenly places, 
 andxhicfly reflecting the 
 life to come, and the en- 
 joyment of the heavenly 
 inheritance. Eph. i. 3. 
 Tit, i, 2. Heb. viii. 6. 
 and xi. 16. 
 
 (7.) In its /ubjetls ; 
 they being the fpiiitual 
 
 A Bit A- 
 
LETTER Vir. 
 
 65 
 
 Abrahamic Covenant. 
 
 Old Covenant. 
 being the fte(hly feed of 
 Abraham, children of 
 the temporal promife, 
 related to God as his ty- 
 pical people, and to 
 Chrifr, as his kinfmen 
 according to the fleib: 
 which typical and fleihly 
 relation availed them 
 much for the enjoyment 
 of the typical and earthly 
 privileges of this cove- 
 nant : but as Hagar, the 
 bond-woman, was call 
 out with her fon born 
 after the fleflv,. fo the 
 covenant itfelf being an- 
 tiquated, its temporal, 
 typical privileges van i ill- 
 cd, its fubjects- were caft 
 out and difinherited ; 
 the fitfhly relation upon 
 which they receiv'd cir- 
 cumcifion, availed no 
 thing tor their partaking 
 cf fpiiitual privileges, 
 nor were they, as chil- 
 dren of this covenant 
 admitted heirs with the 
 G 
 
 New Covenant. 
 feed of Abraham, typi- 
 fied by the fkfhly feed ; 
 being chofen in Chrift 
 before the foundation c£ 
 the world ; predtftinat- 
 ed unto the adoption of 
 children, and redeemed! 
 by the blood of ChriiK 
 Thefe are the children 
 of the promife, who, in> 
 God's appointed time, 
 are born, not of bloody 
 nor of the will cf the 
 fk*lh, nor of the uill 
 of man, but cf God ; be> 
 ing born again, not of 
 corruptible feed, but of 
 incorruptible, even by 
 the word of God, which; 
 liveth and abide th fcr 
 ever : who have the lifar 
 of God written- in their 
 hearts, and all know him 
 fiom the leaft to the: 
 greatefl. Through this 
 work of the Spit it, they 
 believe in the name of 
 the Son of God, and by 
 the profeilion of the 
 3 AB&Ai- 
 
65 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 Abrahamic Covenant. 
 
 Old Covenant. 
 children of the free wo- 
 man, or new covenant. 
 Rom. ix. 4, — 9. Gal. vi. 
 15. and iv. 22, — 31. 
 
 New Covenant. 
 their faith, they appear 
 to be the feed of Abra- 
 ham, children of the free 
 woman, and heirs accor- 
 ding to the promife, to 
 whom belong all fpiri- 
 tual privileges, baptifm 
 among the reft. Eph. i. 
 4, 5 1 Pet. i. 18, 19. 
 John i 1 3. 1 Pet. i. 23. 
 Heb. viii. 10, 11. Gal. 
 iii. 26, 29. and iv. 28, 
 31. Acts ii. 41, 42. 
 
 From this contrail: it appears, that the old cove- 
 nant made with the whole nation of Ifrael, and all 
 the things eftabliihed thereby, were only earthly 
 patterns of things in the heavens, Hcb. ix. 23. 
 figures for the tim^ then prefent, ver. 9. (hadows 
 of good things to come, chap. x. 1. impos'd upon 
 the typical Ifrae! until the time of reformation, 
 ch. ix. 10. under which they were (hut up unto the 
 faith that fliould afterwards be revealed, Gal. iii. 
 -13. So that, abflracl: from their typical reference, 
 there was nothing fpiritual or heavenly in ihem. 
 
 And as this covenant was typical and earthly; 
 fo were the covenanted people. Nor was there 
 r.ny neceflity of their being regenerated in order to 
 their partaking of its privileges, feeing thefe privi- 
 leges were earthly, and luited to rnea in a natural 
 
 itete: 
 
LETTER VII. 67 
 
 ftate : but it was reouifite they fhould be the flefh- 
 ly feed of Abraham, obferve the letter of the law, 
 and have the fign of the covenant in their flefh by 
 circumcifion. 
 
 Though fome of the fl (lily Ifrael were likewife 
 of the fpiritual Ifrael; yet they were not fo by 
 their flefhly relation to Abraham, nor by the tem- 
 poral promife concerning his natural feed, to which 
 circumcifion belonged ; nor yet by the peculiar 
 typical covenant at Sinai foun.'ed thereon : but by 
 an election of fovereigi grace, and faith in the not- 
 able SEED or the new covenant, of which their 
 flefhly relation and temporal covenant was but a 
 type or earthly pattern. Pvom. xi. 5, 7. Heb. xi. 
 
 i3» 39> 4°- 
 
 As type and antitype hold the fame proportion 
 with fk-fh and fpirit, fhadow and fubffance, earth 
 and heaven, we muft always keep this diftinclion. 
 in our eye, when running the parallel betwixt A- 
 braham's twofold feed, elfe we will be apt to con- 
 found thofe born of the flefh, with thefe born of 
 the Spirit. And in this, I perceive, your miftake 
 lies : for your whole argument proceeds upon the 
 fuppolition, that the flefhly feed of New Teflament 
 believers are as really the fpiritual feed of Abraham, 
 as the infants of old Ifrael were his flefiily feed. 
 
 But it is abfurd to fuppofe, that the infant feed 
 of Abraham born of the flefh, did typify the infant 
 feed of believers born likewife of the flefh ; for 
 this would be only one flefhly feed typifying ano- 
 ther flefiily feed, and io would not aofwer to the 
 
 diflinc- 
 
68 LETTER VII. 
 
 diftimfcion that muft always be held betwixt the 
 type and its antiiype. The beafts facrifked under 
 the law, were not typical of any other beafts to 
 be facririced under the gofpel ; nor did the old. 
 covenant with the fkfaly feed, typify, that the 
 new covenant fhould be with another fleflily feed; 
 Unlefs then we fuppofe, that fhadow and fubftance, 
 fign and thing fignified, type and antitype, are of 
 the fame nature and kind, we muft of nece/fity 
 grant, That the natural feed of Abraham, born of 
 the ftcjh according to the temporal promife, typi- 
 fied nothing lefs than his fpiritual feed, born of the 
 Spirit according to the new covenant promife. 
 
 As baptifm belongs only to die fpiritual feed of 
 Abraham, it remains to be confidered, what it is 
 that diifinguifhes them from the world, and gives 
 them a v'fible right to this ordinance. 
 
 The fleflily birth lufficiently dhTmguifhed the 
 fu ejects of circumcifion ; for this was a thing visi- 
 ble, and the higheft evidence that could be had of 
 their being the fieihly feed of Abraham, to whom 
 that ordinance belonged; fo that I'fraelitifh infants 
 appeared as really to be the typical fkfhly feed at 
 their birth, as they could do in any after period of 
 their lives. But this is far from bung the co.fc 
 with the fpiritual' feed : for as regeneration is in- 
 vifible; fo the carnal birth, be it of whom it may, 
 is no proper index of it, nor can they upon that 
 footing receive bapufm. Becaufe, 
 
 i. That which is common both to the natural 
 and fpiritual feed can never difHnguiih the one 
 
 ficra 
 
LETTER VII. 
 
 6 9 
 
 from the other; but the fL-ihly birth is common 
 to both ; therefore it onnot diftinguifh them. 
 
 2. That which does not amount to the charac- 
 ter of the fons of God, cannot denominate the 
 fpiritual feed ; but the being born of blood, of the 
 will of the flefh, and of the will of man, (as are 
 the infants of believers as well as otheis) does not 
 amount to the character of the fons of God, John 
 \- 13. Therefore, &c. 
 
 3- If the fpiritual birth hath no neceiliry, na- 
 tural, or fcederal connexion with the flcfblv'birth, 
 then from the flefhly birth we cannot infer the 
 
 \ fpiritual ; but the being born again— from above— 
 of the Spirit— of God, is neither necelTarily, natu- 
 rally, nor fcederally connected with the flefhly 
 birth ; therefore it cannot be inferr'd from it. Not 
 heccjfarily ; for it is the fruit of fovereign free 
 election. Nor naturally ; for we are by nature 
 children of wrath. Nor fcederally, for the new 
 covenant is not with the natural offspring of be- 
 lievers, as the old temporal covenant was with the 
 flefhly feed of Abraham ; nor are we now permit- 
 
 ; ted to know any man after the flefh, 2 Cor, 
 v. 16, or to judge of their fpiritual ftate by their 
 flefhly relation to covenanted parents. 
 
 4. The natural feed of believers can no more be 
 counted for the fpiritual feed, than the natural feed 
 of Abraham ; but the apoflle tells us, that the chil- 
 dren of Abraham according to the flefh are not the 
 children of God, nor counted for the feed. 
 
 5. Though fome of the children of believers are 
 
 of 
 
7 o LETTER VII. 
 
 of the fpiritual feed, it will not follow they fliould 
 all be counted fo; any more thnn it will follow, 
 that becaufe fome of the flc(hly lfrael were alio of 
 the fpiri'ual lfrael, therefore they were all of the 
 fpiritual lfrael. And if they cannot all be counted 
 for the fpiritual feed, then none of them can j for, 
 in infancy, there is no vifible dillinclion betwixt 
 them. 
 
 6. If the fcripturcs demonftrate, that many of 
 the children of infidels are of the fpiritual feed, 
 whilft, on the other hand, multitudes of the feed 
 of the faithful are rejected as infidels ; then no 
 rule can be fixt for judging of the ftate ef infants 
 from the faith or infidelity of their parents » 
 but both fcripture and experience demonftrate 
 the farmer, as in the cafe of Ifhmael, Efau, and 
 Abfalom, and in the rejection of the Jews, and 
 conversion of the gentiles. Therefore, to judge, 
 of infants by the fkuV.y birth, or by the faith of 
 their parents, is not according to fcripture rule. 
 
 Thefe arguments ferve to (hew, that the infants 
 of New Teftament believers cannot be counted for 
 the fpiritual feed, as the infants of old lfrael were 
 counted for the flefhly feed; and that therefore 
 baptifm cannot be adminiftred to the former, as 
 circumcifion was to the latter, who were really 
 the flefhly lfrael, and appear'd to be fo. 
 
 I (hall only mention one thing more upon this 
 part of the argument, viz. That there was a par- 
 ticular, exprefs divine command for circumciling. 
 the flefhly feed at eight days old ; but there is nei- 
 ther. 
 
LETTER VII. 7 x 
 
 ther command nor example in all the word of 
 God for baptizing infants, or any but thofe who 
 appear, by the profeffion of their faith, to be the 
 fpiritual feed. 
 
 I (hall now follow you through the reft of this 
 fection. 
 
 ' For they [infants] are as capable of being 
 
 * born of the Spirit, as they are of being born of 
 < the flefli : ' 
 
 Anfw. Their capability is no argument. Are 
 they all really born of the Spirit ? Does fcripture 
 declare it ? Does experience ihew it ? 
 
 ' For who can deny the operation of God 
 
 ' upon them, that raifed Chrift, and begets the 
 1 adult to the faiih, to which they contribute as 
 ' little as their infants ? ' 
 
 Anfw. No one can deny, that God can cfthc/c 
 Jioncs raife up children to Abraham; but you your- 
 ielf own, that this operation is not actually exert- 
 ed on all the infants of believers, juft a little be- 
 low, where you fay, ' It is true, they may yet be 
 
 * really ^regenerate, and when adult appear to be 
 ' fo. ' Scripture and experience both ihew, that 
 they are but the feweft number, even of the chil- 
 dren of believers, upon whom this operation is 
 exerted. How trifling and weak then is fuch rea- 
 foning, God is able to regenerate infants, there- 
 fore they may be baptized ! According to this ar- 
 gument, all the human race may be baptized ; for 
 God is able to regenerate them. 
 
 r When it is aflced, how can infants appear 
 
 « to 
 
7 i LETTER VII. 
 
 * to be of the fpiritual feed ? it may then be afked, 
 ' how does a parent appear to be fuch an Ifraelite 
 
 * upon the very fiifl profefTion of his faith, by 
 
 * which he is admitted to baptifm ? ' 
 
 Anfiv. A parent appears to be a true Ifraelite 
 upon his filft profe/Iion, only in fo far as there is 
 ground to believe, that his profeffion agrees with 
 ihe belief of his own heart, and is the index of it : 
 but his profeffion can never make his infant appear 
 to be of the fpiritual feed ; becaufe there is no 
 connection betwixt his profeffion and the fpiritual 
 flate of his child, any more than there is betwixt 
 the flefhly and fpiritual birth. The parent does 
 not profefs the faith of his child, but his own faith; 
 and it is certain, that nothing is made vifible by a 
 profeffion, but that which is profeffed in it. There 
 is no fuch thing either exprefs'd or imply'd in the 
 fcripturc, as that infants appear to be the fpiritual 
 feed, by their being the natural feed of believers. 
 Abraham had never this honour with refpect to 
 his natural feed, though his faith was tried and 
 approven of by God the fearcher of hearts: how 
 then can we fuppofe, that profeffing gentiles fhould 
 propagate fpiritual children to Abraham by carnal 
 generation, and manifeft them fuch by profefling 
 the faith in their ftead, when he who was the fa- 
 ther of the faithful could do no fuch thing, un- 
 lefs we count the children of the flefh for the 
 feed, contrary to Rom. rx. 8. Gal. iv. 29. ? Abra« 
 ham's fpiritual feed walk in the fleps of his faith, 
 Rem. iv. 11, 12. and do the works of Abraham, 
 
 John 
 
LETTER VII. 73 
 
 John viii. 39. and thus appear to be the fpirituai- 
 feed. 
 
 You fay, * the word of God calls us to acknovr- 
 ' ledge them the fpirituai Iced by the parent's pro- 
 1 feilion. ' Yet there is no fuch call in all the 
 word but rather the reverfe : That which is born of 
 the fie fh, is fi<fi.\ John iii. 6. They are not all Ifrael 
 Vihich are of Ifrael, neither becaufe they are the feed 
 of Abraham are they all children, Rom. ix. 6, 7. 
 
 As for the parent's profeflion, it can never make 
 his infants appear to be the fpirituai feed, tho' it 
 makes them appear the flefhly feed of a true Ifrael- 
 ite : nor can it make them appear the children of 
 prcmufe, who are counted for the feed ; for there is 
 no particular promife made to believers (as was to ? 
 Abraham) that they (hall have a feed, and much 
 lefs a fpirituai feed. But as you feem to ground 
 this aflertion upon their being called My, 1 refer 
 you back to what has been already faid on that 
 head. 
 
 In the next paragraph you endeavour to (hew, 
 that the baptifm of infants will not infer their be- 
 ing admitted to the Lord's fupper : 
 
 1. Becaufe they are not by this acknowledged 
 as members of any vilible church, to which that 
 ordinance belongs; but only of Chrift's true 
 church, his body, which is invifible. 
 
 2. Becaufe the examples of baptifm in fcripture 
 always preceded adding to a church. And, 
 
 3 Becaufe, in (hort, they muft be capable per- 
 sonally to declare their purpole of heart to cleave 
 H unto 
 
74 LETTER VII. 
 
 unto the Lord in a church, before ihey can be ad- 
 mitted as members. 
 
 Kow tho' 1 agree with you in faying, that the 
 rnftances of baptifm in fcripture always preceded 
 adding to a vifible church, to whom the fupper 
 belongs ; yet your arguments for infant-baptifm, 
 are as ftrong for admitting them to the fupper : 
 For if we efteem infants members of ChrilVs true 
 church for which he gave himfelf, tie. why may 
 they not be admitted as members of a vifible con- 
 gregation, which is a reprefentation in miniature 
 of that true church ? Are they members of that 
 true church where no unclean thing can enter ; 
 and can they not be admitted into a fociety where 
 many hypocrites have, and fUll do enter ? Do 
 they all partake of the one New Teftament altar, 
 and can we refufe them the inftituted fign of that 
 altar, the Lord's fupper ? Is not this fomething 
 Tie * daring to exclude from the privileges of 
 * Chr'uTs kingdom, and church communion thofe 
 c who appear to be of the truth 2 ' 
 
 When it is afked, how can infants appear to be 
 members of a viilblc church ? It may then be alli- 
 ed, how does a parent appear to be fuch a mem- 
 ber, upon the declared purpofe of his heart to 
 cleave. rmt-o the Lord in it, by which he is admit- 
 ted as one ? And when it (ball be faid, That the 
 word of God calls us to acknowledge him as fuch 
 by that declaration ; then it (hall alfo be faid, (re* 
 totting your own argument,) that the fame word 
 cJls us to acknowledge his infuats as fuch, by that 
 fjuie declaration. 
 
LETTER VII. 7 j 
 
 Bat how, of all the -world, come you to fpeaX 
 of qualifications in order to partake of the Lord's 
 fupper, call it a declared purpofe of heart, <bc. Cr 
 what you will r Does not this lead us (according 
 
 • to you) to lay the ffrefs of our falvation upon 
 
 • foroething that we. do in the declaration of our 
 'purpofe of heart to cleave unto the Lord, and 
 ' fome holinefs about us whereof infants are inca- 
 pable ? ' p. iy8 Thus 1 think you are fairly in- 
 tangled in your own net ; for if you once diipenfe 
 with that perfonal profeiTion which the fcripturc 
 requires in order to baptifm, you muff likewife 
 gi\e up with that perfonal declaration rcquilite to 
 church-fellowfhip and communion in the fupper, 
 notwithstanding of all your diftinclions. But you 
 proceed : 
 
 ' Nor if we conuder what is now fa-id, * 
 
 {viz. againft reckoning the baptized to be members 
 of a vifible church) ' fliall we be able to afcribe 
 
 • the corruption of chriflianity to the baptjrfm o'i 
 1 chriftian infants, as it may be afcribed to the 
 ' making of Christians by baptifm. ' 
 
 Anfiu. Your arguments for infant-bapiifm will 
 equally hold for their receiving the fupper, (as 
 hath been (hewn) both which are a corruption of 
 chriflianity, as there is no foundation, for any fuch 
 practices in the fcripture ; and if tbefe infants you 
 would have baptized be not made chri/iians. by bap- 
 tifm, i am fure many of them are never made 
 chriflians in any other way, as their after con« 
 duel glaringly demonfrrates. 
 
 •■■ -■■ l The corruption of the chriftian religion 
 H % * came 
 
76 LETTER VII. 
 
 * came by deponing from the fcriptural profeiHon 
 ' of the faith upon which Oiiptiim w ,s admimJtcred 
 ' fiom the beginning 10 a man and his hoult, and 
 ' by fubfhtuting another protefliou in the room of 
 
 * it ; a profeffion that cannot inthle the profcffois 
 
 * to the fcriptural brotherly love as faints and 
 
 * faithful in Chrilt Jelus ; or as the fpiritual If- 
 « rati. ' 
 
 Anfax. You fay right: for to fubftitutc any pro- 
 "feflion in the room of a pcrfonal one, as it is not 
 fcriptural, fo it can never intitle to brotherly love 
 as faints, and mufr confeqnently introduce great 
 corruptions into the chriftian religion. So that I 
 may fafely challenge you or any man, to point out 
 a fitter engine in all the compafs of priefl-craft, for 
 advancing national churches cr nominal chriftiani- 
 ty, than that of baptizing-infants without a fcriptu- 
 ral profeffion, and by fubftituting the profeflion of 
 another in its Head. 
 
 ' Whereas the true primitive profeffion of 
 
 ' the faith, gives the profsffor and his houfe the 
 
 * character of holy and admits them to baptifm : 
 
 * And we fee unfeigned faith defending from a 
 
 * parent to her child and grandchild. ' 2 Tim. 
 
 sfnfiu. I have confidcred the fcripture doctrine 
 concerning a believer's houfe already, as alfo how 
 his children are faid to be holy, and have found 
 that it makes nothing for your purpofe : but to af- 
 firm, that ' unfeigned faith fhould defcend from a 
 
 * parent to her child and grand child, ' is fo grofs 
 a corruption of chriftianity, and fuch a manifefl 
 
 wrefting 
 
L E T TE-R Vti. 7? 
 
 wrefHng of the fcripture, that I cannot tell whas 
 to fay of a point which requires fuch abiurd con- 
 ceits to fupport it. The apoitles- words are, 2 Tim» 
 i, 5; When I call to remember ance the unfeign- 
 ed faith that is in thee, which dzvclir Jirji in thy 
 grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice ; and I am 
 perfuaded that in thee alfo. Here it is evident the 
 apoflle does not mean, that faith defcended from 
 Timothy's grandmother to himfelf, by virtue of her 
 being his grandmother ; (for then it would de- 
 fcend like hereditary qualities in the blood) biic 
 only that Timothy was enlightened in the know- 
 lege of the gofpel by the Spirit of God, even as his 
 mother and grandmother were before him ; which 
 might or might not be notwithfbnding the rlefhly 
 connection, as botli fcripture and experience plain- 
 ly evince. 
 
 ' If the children become adult, not adher> 
 
 * ing to the baptifmal profeffion, they have no- 
 
 * more the character of holy; but then they are- 
 
 * no more the infants of believing parents. ' 
 
 Anfiv. The icripture to which you refer for the 
 character of holy, is as applicable to them when 
 become adult, as when infants, and while unrege- 
 nerate as when regenerated : • but then they are 
 
 * no more the infants of believing parents. ' Very 
 right, Sir, adults are not infants; rhus far you 
 have difcovered tiuth: but pi ay, Sir, are not a- 
 dults children in fcripture fti'e,. though they Be not 
 injants ? Whether does the place, you refer to men- 
 tion infants or children ? Does a believers houie in- 
 clude none but injants in diflinction from adult 
 
 H 3 children? 
 
,73 LETTER VII. 
 
 children ? And whether is this a fcriptural diftino 
 tion, or an imagination of your own brain ? How 
 come you then, without a fcripture warrant, to 
 divert them of the character of holy upon any con- 
 sideration, as long as they are the lawful children 
 of believing parents ? 
 
 But though their adult ftate (hould difcover your 
 error as to the nature of that holinefs, you are very 
 far from owning it as yours; for you fay, ' ac- 
 ' cording to the fcripture, we mud look upon the 
 ' children of believing parents, dying in infancy, 
 ' as dying in the Lord. ' Strange ! that you 
 fhould father fuch fancies upon the fcriptures of 
 truth, when there is not one fyllable in all that 
 facred book that makes the leafr. dilUncYion ^with 
 refpect to falvation) betwixt thofe who die in in- 
 fancy, and thofe who arrive at maturity. But as 
 you were before obliged to ufe the diftinttion of 
 vifible and invifible church, to cut of the connec- 
 tion betwixt baptifin and the Lord's fupper ; fo 
 you are here forced to ufe the diftintfion of infant 
 and adult, to fupp^rt the credit of that imaginary 
 hlincfs, which you fay intitles infants to baptifm, 
 but vanifne? away in their adult ftate like a morn- 
 ing cloud which is difpell'd by the rifing fun. 
 
 Upon the whole, had you entirely dropt the a* 
 
 • poftolic 'diOincYion of the two covenants and a- 
 
 doptcd the popular plan of their identity, you 
 
 might have handled the argument from ciicumci- 
 
 fion more confiftently than you have done. 
 
 I am, Sir, Your, <bc. 
 
 LET* 
 
 i 
 
79 
 
 LETTER VIII. 
 
 S I R> 
 
 I Shall now proceed to your fifth fecYion, which 
 (hews, that the apoftles minding the Lord's admo- 
 nition as to infants, and primitive Chrijlians long 
 after them, did not fcruple upon baptizing them ; and 
 that it was the praUice in thejirfl ages. 
 
 In the firft part of this fecYion you recapitulate 
 your former arguments, and take it for granted 
 they are conclufive ; but as I have anfwered therh 
 already, I fliall not ftay here upon every particu- 
 lar. You begin thus ; 
 
 « If we believe Chrift faithful as a (on over his 
 « own houfe, we mull take the revelation of his 
 
 * mind and will as he is pleafed to give it, without 
 
 * ptefcrrbing to him the manner in which he 
 ' fhould make his will known.' ■■■ ■ ■ < 
 
 Anfiu. We are willing to take the revelation of 
 Chrift's mind as he has been pleafed to give it ; 
 but fince infant-baptifm has never yet appeared 
 to be any part of that revelation, you mud excufe 
 us though we do not follow thofe who take it from 
 .you as you are pleas'd to give it ; for it is ChrilVs 
 will and not yours we chufe to regard in this mat- 
 ter. But what connection has the faithfulnefs of 
 
 Chrift 
 
80 LETTER VIII. 
 
 Chrift with infant-bap tifm ? Do they Hand or fall 
 together ? Or does the denial of the latter, imply 
 a di (belief of the former ? Or do you think that 
 the obfcurity of the revelation about infant-bap- 
 tifm affords ground to queftion his faithfulnefs ? 
 If fo, let you and your brethren fee to it, who 
 have given occafion for fuch doubts : as for us, we 
 (till maintain, that the revelation of Chrift's mind 
 about baptifm is clear, exprefs and particular, and 
 fo have no ground to queftion his faithfulnefs on 
 that account. 
 
 ' When the fame temper from which the 
 
 ' fcruples at infant baptifm now proceed, fhewed 
 ' itfelf in his difciples, he was much difpleafed at 
 «it: The difciples rebuked thofe who brought 
 
 * infants to him, and their reafbns for this could 
 
 * be no other but fuch as are ftill ufcd by thofe 
 ' who forbid them baptifm,' 
 
 Anf-jj. If Chrift's difciples, (who even then bap- 
 tized more than John, John iv. i, 2.) had it m. 
 commifiion to baptize infants, as, according to 
 you, behov'd to be the cafe; then their reafons 
 could not be the fame with ours, who maintain 
 they had no fuch commifiion. Or if you imagine 
 the difciples thought infants incapable of ChrifVs 
 blefling, and fo forbade them to be brought, I 
 hope you will not affirm that this 'is any of car 
 reafons for withholding their baptifm. Wherein 
 then do our reafons agree with thofe of the difci- 
 ples ? 
 
 — — * And in the forefight of their felf-righte- 
 
 * OUS- 
 
LETTER VIII. 81 
 
 *ons and unmerciful principle touching infants^ 
 
 * forbidding them the firft fign ot union with him 
 
 * and his church, out of which there is no fa'vati- 
 
 * on, and perverting the fcriptures that mew their 
 ' church memberfliip, he faid, Suffer the little chil- 
 ' drcn to come unto me, and forbid them not ; for of 
 4 'fucb is the kingdom of God. Verily, I fay w:to you, 
 ' IVhofoever fhall not receivt the kingdom of God as a 
 
 * little child, hcfoall not enter thenin. And he took 
 
 * them up in his arms, put his hands on them, and 
 
 * blcffed them. Thus he fecured the church mem- 
 
 * berfhip of infants before his inftitutio'n of bap- 
 ' tiim, and thus he prevented the difputcs that 
 ' have arifen ii nee about infants; fhewing himielf 
 ' as the firff patron of their caufe againfl: difciples 
 ' oppofmg their being brought to him.' 
 
 Anf-w. Here you endeavour to reprefent the 
 Baptifls as felf- righteous and unmerciful, and that 
 becaufe they deny baptifm to infants : but there 
 can be neither felf-righteoufnefs nor unmerciful.- 
 nefs in denying what was never commanded to be 
 given, and which when given, can be of no ad- 
 vantage to them any more than the Lord's fupper. 
 However, we need not be much alarmed at the e- 
 pithet felf -righteous when applied by you, as it is 
 only one of your cant terms, which like Saul's 
 javlin you often in a pet throw at random againfl 
 the wall. As for what you fay of our unmcrci' 
 fulnefs in forbidding infants the firfr, fign of union 
 with Chrift and his church out of which there is 
 no falvation ; and of our oppofwg their being 
 
 brought 
 
82 LETTER VIII. 
 
 brought to Chrljl y thought there be not the kaft 
 argument in it; yet it ferves to ply and ftimfllate 
 the fondly feeliog hearts of pareQts for their in- 
 fants, and fecure them by this blind handle to 
 your fide. You are fendble, that the generality 
 of people are more influenced by found than rea- 
 fon. eipecially in things that take hold of their 
 paflions and natural affections; and here you avail 
 yourfelf of this weiknefs of human nature, by a- 
 laiming parents with the unmercifulnefs and cru- 
 elty of denying their infants baptifm ; as if it were 
 like dafhing them againlt the frones, or depriving 
 their fouls of falvation. Methinks I fee the fond 
 parent drown'd in tears at the very thought. 
 
 You confidently affirm, that it was in the fore- 
 fight of the denial of infant- baptifm, that our Lord 
 faid, Suffer the little children to come unto me, &c. 
 whereas our Lord neither injoins nor exemplifies 
 their baptifm in this place, when there was an op* 
 portunity of doing boih. But I {hall confider 
 the text more particularly. 
 
 And they brought young children to him that he 
 might touch them ; and his difciplcs rebuked thefe that 
 brought them. But when Jefusfaw it, he luas much 
 difplcafcd, and faid unto them, Suffer the little chil- 
 dren to come unto me, and forbid them not : for of 
 fuch is the kingdom of God* Mark x. 13, 14. 
 
 Whether thofe who brought the little children 
 were their parents or not, is not here faid. Their 
 end for bringing them, we are told here, and in 
 Luke, was, that he might touch them ; or, as Matthew 
 
 hath 
 
LETTER VIII. 83 
 
 hath it, put his hands on them and pray : but there 
 is no intimation of a defire they fhould be bap- 
 tized . 
 
 Next we have the cppqfition of the difciples to 
 their being brought. What their reafons were, 
 we cannot tell. It is likely they were intent upon 
 our Lord's difcourfe of marriage and divorce, 
 and did not chufe he fhould be interrupted at 
 that time, being, as they thought, better em- 
 ployed in teaching the multitude; not adverting, 
 that our Lord could inftruft by the example of a 
 little child, as well as by any other fimilitude. 
 But whatever were their reafons, our Lord cor- 
 rects them, faying, Suffer the little children to come 
 unto me, and forbid them not ; for offuch is the king- 
 dom of God, or, of heaven, as Matthew hath it. 
 
 By kingdom of God cannot be underftood any par- 
 ticular vifible church ; this you will readily grant. 
 It muft therefore be understood of Chrift's true 
 church for which he gave himfelf: and that elect 
 infants are fubjects of this kingdom, there can be 
 no doubt ; for no circumftances of age or parent- 
 age can hinder this, But then it muft carefully 
 be noticed ; 
 
 1. That the children of infidels are as capable 
 of being the Subjects of this kingdom as the chil- 
 dren of believers, for any thing contained in this 
 text. 
 
 2. All the children of believers are no more the 
 fubjecls of this kingdom, than all the children of 
 unbelievers, as has been already fhewn : how then 
 
 can 
 
84 LETTER VIII. 
 
 can the fubjects of baptifm be diftinguhhed among 
 the children of believers i This place makes no 
 diitin<ftion of children, cither by their parents, or 
 among themfelves. 
 
 3. ^s the children of believers are not all of this 
 kingdom ; fo many of thoie who are elected to it, 
 are not aFinally called in infancy ; but may fpend 
 a great part of their days in the courfe of this 
 World. Thus Paul, though he was feparated 
 from his mother's womb; yet it did not pleafc 
 God to reveal his Son in him, till he was on his 
 journey to Damafcus. Now baptifm does not im- 
 mediately belong to the elect, as fuck, (for thefe 
 arc only known to God,) but as atlually called, and 
 appearing to be fo. 
 
 4. Though Jefus Chrift, as the great prophet of 
 his church, can diftingui/b his people amongft in- 
 fants, as well as amongft adults, and blcj's them ; 
 yet this is no warrant for us to bring the infants 
 of believers indifcriminately to baptifm, as it is to 
 bring them to him for a blefling. 
 
 5. Our bringing them to Chtift for a blefiing, 
 though a duty ; yet it is his to give or withhold, 
 according to his fovercign and righteous purpofe ; 
 nor can we diftinguifti who obtain the bletTing in 
 infancy ; and though we could, it would b no war- 
 rant for their baptifm, without a divine command 
 or example ; for the blefling and baptifm are not 
 infeparably connected, as we may fee in this place, 
 where the children were blefs'd without being 
 baptized. 
 
 J3ut if we look a little better into the text we 
 
 may 
 
LETTER VIII. 8£ 
 
 may e ifily fee, tha' our Lord by thefe words, cf 
 fuch is the king bm of God, does not fo much in. 
 tend the perfons o c little children, as thofe who 
 refemble them in difpofitions , as is evident from the 
 following words, ' Verily, I fay unto you, wbofte* 
 ver Jhall not receive the kingdom of God AS a little 
 child, he Jhall not enter therein. And this fenfe is 
 confirmed by a parallel palTage, Mit. xviii. 2, 3. 
 Jefus called a little child, andfet him in the mid/I of 
 them, and [aid, Verily, I fay unto you, except ye be 
 converted and become A$ little children, ye Jhall not 
 enter into the kingdom of heaven. And adds, Who- 
 mever therefore jhall HUMBLE hbnfelf As this lit- 
 tie child, the fame is the greate/l in the kingdom of 
 heaven : And 'whofo Jhall receive one SUCH little 
 child in my name, rcceivetb me : And whojoever 
 fjjal! offend one of thefe little ones which BELIEVE in 
 me, it were better for him that a mVflone were hung. 
 ■:d about his neck, and that he were drowned in the. 
 depth of the fea. 
 
 Here it is evident our Lord ftiles thefe little chil- 
 dren, who are converted, and refemble fuch in hu- 
 mility, though they be adults in ngc ; for they are 
 defcribed to be fuch little ones as believe in him, 
 and are capable of being offended, fcandalized or 
 frumbled : and if we compare this with what the: 
 apoftle fays about offending the weak brother. 
 Rom. xiv. and 1 Cor. viii. we (hall find, that 
 though it will not apply to infants, yet it is a 
 neceffiry caution againft offending Cbrlfl's little 
 ones, or thefe who are weak in the faith. 
 
 X Nor 
 
66 LETTER VIII. 
 
 Nor does this fenfe of the place make onr Lord's 
 phrafeology any way uncommon ; for it was his 
 ufuai method to convey inftrucVien by fimilitudes 
 and metaphors, and to ufe the fign or metaphor 
 for the thing fignified, Thus he took bread, 
 blefTed it, and faid, This is my body ,• and of the 
 cup, This is my blood of the New Tejlament ; or, 
 This cup is the New Tejlament in my blood : So here, 
 Siffer little children to come unto me ; for of fitch is 
 the kingdom of God. i. e. They bear an inftruclive 
 refemblance of that humility, harmlefsnefs and 
 Simplicity which become my fubjects. And in af- 
 much as he blelTed them, we are warranted to 
 bring our children to him for the fame. But 
 there is no more ground here for the bnptifm of 
 infants here, than there is for bringing them to 
 the Lord's fupper. But you proceed : 
 
 * The apoftles kept this in mind when they 
 * executed his commiflion to them for fetting up 
 e his kingdom in the world : ' - — — • 
 
 Anfw. They kept in mind that his commiflioa 
 to them was firft to teach (or difciple) and then 
 baptize thoje who were thus taught f. 
 
 'For 
 
 f The words, Co ye therefore, and teach a'! nations, baptizing itiem 
 trCr Mat. xxviii. 19. is indeed a commiflion to teach all nations • 
 but not to baptize all nations; for baptifm is re(txi£ted to the relative 
 jironoun airvt, fleni, which is of the mafculine, and does not a- 
 £ree with irnvra tx t'3-vo, all nations, which is neuter; but to /*«- 
 f»'r«f, difciplcs, which is included in the verb /axSnTivrxm 
 tiach, cr, make dijaples. So the fenfe is, Teach all nations, bap- 
 t'ii'rig them that arc taught or mait dtjcifles fy teaching. 
 
LETTER VHI. 87 
 
 — — * For they took in the children with the 
 * parents, as we have feen. ' ■ » 
 
 Anfw. They took in thofe who profefs'd the 
 faith, whtther children or parents, as we have 
 feen. 
 
 — ' They preached falvation by Chrift to 
 ' men and their houfes ;' ■■- ■ ■ ■ 
 
 Anfui. They preached falvation by Chrift to all 
 that had an ear to hear, even to every creature, 
 But what is this to the purpoie ? 
 
 * They baptized believers and their hoafeSj 
 
 ' them and all theirs. ' 
 
 Anfw. They did fo, when their houfes believed 
 as well as themfelves ; for this was exactly agree- 
 able to their commiflion. 
 
 * And they left chriftian infants, as holy, 
 
 ' fo in the polTelTion of this privilege of Chrift'9 
 ' circumcifion. ' 
 
 Anfiv. They did n«t leave them holy in your 
 fenfe of it ; but argued from the received princi- 
 ple of their being ligitimate, that the marriage of 
 their parents behoved to be fo likewiie. Nor did 
 they leave them in the pofleilion of the privilege 
 of Ch rift's circumcifion, if by this you mean bap- 
 tifm ; for as they had not this in their com million, 
 fo we find they did not pracYife it in aDy of the 
 inftances we have of baptifm in fcripture ; neither 
 did they leave any directions about it. And if 
 you can argue from Phil. i. 1. that there ought to 
 be no officers in a chriftian church but BiJJjops and 
 I 2 Deacons, 
 
88 LETTFR VIII. 
 
 Deacons, you cannot, with any good grace, hinder 
 me to gather from Acts viii. 12 that none ought 
 to bf baptized but be'teving men and women. 
 
 Thus you finiih your fcripture arguments, in 
 the handling of which you have been obliged to 
 contradict yourfelf in evay thing material : and if 
 I were to judge of your real principles from your, 
 practice I would be led to think, that you hold 
 infant baptifm independent of any arguments you 
 have yet advanced : When you receive adult mem- 
 bers into your fociely, who have been baptized in 
 the church of Rome, or in the church of Scotland, 
 (which you efteem little better,) you neither baptize 
 them yourfdf, nor enquire whether they have been 
 baptized according to what you efteem the fcrip- 
 ture rule. With refpect to their parents, yon nei- 
 ther enquire into their faith, nor own them for 
 believers or true Israelites, and fo all the argu- 
 ments drawn from the faith of the parent, falvation 
 to a believers houfe, the promife being to him and 
 his children, £rc. are laid afide here. And 3S for 
 themfe'ves, you did not look upon them as difci- 
 ples, believers, holy, and of the kingdom of heaven, 
 victil fuch time as they perfonally profefs'd the 
 faith, and apply'd for admhTion into your fociety. 
 Thus all your fcripture arguments are cut offat once; 
 and therefore, fince you hold fuch baptifm valid, 
 it mufl be upon fome other foundation. What 
 occaficn, then, for all this wrangling, fqueezing, 
 and twilling of fcripture to fupport a point which 
 you can hold independent of it altogether ? Had 
 
 you 
 
LETTER VIII. 2* 
 
 you been fo ingenuous as to have confefs'd this, 
 it would have brought the c»ntroverfy to a fpeedy 
 iiTue j for then the only queftion would have been, 
 whether or not the fcripture be the only rule. 'Tiss 
 true indeed, you told in your firft fe&ion, that 
 you were obliged to depart from expreis precept 
 and indifputabte example y but who could ever 
 imagine, that you would alio practically depart 
 from your own fophtfrical and wiredrawa confe* 
 quences, and fo abandon fcripture altogether I' 
 
 Here then is a dilemtna from which there fs no 
 efcaping. Either you muft own, that you hold 
 communion with unbaptized perfons, or elfe inge- 
 nuoufly acknowledge, that your whole plea foe 
 infant-baptifm is nothing but a mere parade'; fee- 
 ing you can difpenfe upon occafion with every at* 
 gument you have adduced in its behalf* 
 
 Ianr, 
 
 S I R, 
 
 Your &c,. 
 
 E E. IT* 
 
§0 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 HAving followed you through your fcrip'ure 
 authorities for infant-baptifm, 1 (hall, in 
 this letter, make feme reply to what you obierve 
 from anticnt hiftcry. You fay, 
 
 ' That there was never any fcruple moved 
 
 ' about it till the end of the fecond century.' ■ ■ 
 
 Anfiv. Becaufe it had no being till about that 
 time, as fome of the mofi learned Fredubaptifts, in* 
 genuoufly cenfefs f . 
 
 4 lnd when we confider the oppofitioa 
 
 ' then made to it, we fhall fee how much it ferves 
 
 • to confirm it. We fhall fee that chriftian infants 
 ' were then in poffeffion of the privilege of bap- 
 
 • tifm, and that the firfl objection made to it arofe 
 
 • out of a manifefr departure from what the fcrip. 
 ' ture teaches moft plainly about baptifm, as well 
 
 • as from the fcripture doctrine of the grace of 
 
 • God. » 
 
 Anfvj. If this manner of arguing be of any 
 
 weight, 
 
 •f See Vanjleb'i Hi/lory of the church of Alexandria, Part i. e. 
 23. Lttdsv'h'.s Vives in his notes on AngusWn. de Civitate Dei, B- I. 
 c. 17. Snicents in his Tbefaur. Ec. fub Voce Suva?/?. CurceUaut 
 in his ReJ'%. Chrijlian. In/iitut> Lib. I. c, li.and in DifierL {cumd* 
 it P;:u:(. Org. Sett. }<i, 
 
L E T T E R IX. 9* 
 
 weight, then it mall recoil upon yourfelf with dou- 
 ble force ; for it can eafily be (hewn, that the an- 
 tient arguments for infant-baptifm were founded 
 upon a fuppos'd neceffity of baptifm to falvation ; 
 that it W3ihd awayoiginal fin ; that the grace of 
 God mull be denk-d to nx»be; and that the fins of 
 inhuus were eafier foi given than thofe of adults, 
 
 • rertullian, who wrote in the condufion of the 
 ' fecond century, is the firft that move* an objec* 
 ' tion again ft infant-baptifm. ' — — 
 
 Anfw. He was amongft the firft that had occafron. 
 
 « And he does this when pleading for the 
 
 * delay of baptifm even to the adult : for he would 
 ' have the unmarried profeflbrs of chriitianity to 
 ' delay baptiim, whether they be virgins or wi. 
 ' dows till they either marry or be confirmed in 
 4 their continency. He pleads for this delay of 
 4 baptifm from the prohibitions to lay on hands fud- 
 
 * denly, and to give that which is holy to fwine; 
 
 « and therefore he would have baptifm delay- 
 
 ' ed, according to the condition, dilpofition and 
 
 * age of each perfon. ' 
 
 Anfiu. It is not my bufinefs to defend Tertullian 
 in all his notions ; but certainly the above fcrip- 
 ture prohibitions were very much to his purpofe a- 
 gainft adminiftering baptifm to thofe who did nof 
 appear difciples by the fcriptural profeffion of their 
 faith, 
 
 -— — ' And he infifts for the delay, efpecially as 
 1 to infants, arguing for it m this manner, * What 
 
 (t neceffity 
 
92 LETTER IX. 
 
 " neceftity is there (fays he) for bringing the 
 " fponfors into danger, who being themfelves mor. 
 " tal, may fail of performing their promiies, or 
 " m2y be beguiled by the growth of an ill difpofi- 
 M lion ? The Lord indeed fays. Forbid them not 
 •-« to come to me. Let them come then when they 
 11 grow up ; let them come when they learn ' r 
 " when they are taught to what they fhould come 
 •' Let them be Cbriftians when they (hall be ca- 
 " pable to know Chrift. Why does the innocent 
 *' age haften to the remiiTion of fins? We would 
 " att more cautioufly in Lcular affairs : that to» 
 " whom the earthly inheritance Ls not given, the 
 " divine fhould be intruded ! Let them know to 
 " feek falvation, that you may appear to have 
 i l given it to one that feeks.' And for the delay 
 
 * of baptifm in. general, he further fays, ' If any 
 " underftood the weight o£ baptifm, they would' 
 " rather fear the attaining of it, than the delay*. 
 «* Entire faith is fecure of falvation..' 
 
 « Now was not this delay of baptifm as exprefly 
 « contrary to the fcripture example as auy thing 
 ' can be ? and did then the fir ft oppofition that we 
 ■* hear of among Chriftians to infant- baptifm, arife 
 •out of the fcriptures, or out of a plain contra* 
 « di&ion to the plaint ft fcriptures? And did not 
 «' the objection of this forefather of the forbidders 
 
 * of infants to come to Chrift, proceed upon the 
 4 denial of original fin, and the need of remiflioa- 
 
 * to infants ? And did it not plainly fuppofe, that 
 
 * our falvation lies in that about us which diitin- 
 f guifhes us from our infants j and- that it hinges; 
 
 unoa, 
 
LETTER IX. 9£ 
 
 ' upon a knowledge and a feckingof falvation,and an 
 ' intirenefs of faith whereof infants are incapable ? 
 ' If it (hall be alleged, that he was not in this a 
 ' forefather to thofe few commqnly called free- 
 ' grace Anabaptijis, who are only to be regarded 
 * in thisqueftion : may we not then fay, If thefe 
 1 indeed believe, that they cannot enter the king- 
 ' dom of God, but as the infants enter, he was 
 ' more confident with himfelf than they ? ' 
 
 Anfw. Though I do not intend to juftify Ter- 
 tullian in every thing; as it is a queftion whe- 
 ther the doctrine of original fin was clearly un- 
 derftood either by him or many of his cotempora- 
 ries ; yet I cannot help noticing that you moft e- 
 gregioully wrefl his words ; aa where you fay, he 
 forbids infants to c*me to Cbriji, when he only for- 
 bids their baptifm. Pray, Sir, have you not yet 
 learned to diiYirfguilli betwixt comii.g to Chrijl 
 and coming to baptifm ? Or do you think baptifm 
 is Chrijl ? Again where he fays, ' Entire faith is 
 } fecure of ialvation,' you confider him as main- 
 taining, that ' our falvation Jies in fomething 
 ' about us that diltinguidies us from our infants ;* 
 whereas he is only pleading for the delay of bap- 
 tifm from its not being abfolutely neceflary to 
 ialvation, (as was then alleged) that being con- 
 nected with faith, as we find, Mark xvi. 16. He 
 that believe tb and is baptized, Jball be faved; in 
 which place, you own f, the ftrefs is laid on bei 
 litving, and not on baptifm : fo that unlefs you 
 place falvation in baptifm, inftead of Chrift, and 
 
 faith 
 
 f Page ip>. 
 
>4 L E T T E R IX. 
 
 faith in his righteoufnefs, your cavils are moft 
 difmgenuous. 
 
 There are others of Tertullian's arguments 
 >vhich have never got a fatisfyiog anfwer to this 
 day; fuch as the danger of the fponfors; the ne- 
 ceflity of firfl teaching the perfons to be baptized 
 to what they fhould come, and thus engaging them 
 to defire baptifm and feek for it, before they obtain 
 it ; in which he feems to refer to our Lord's com- 
 miilion, Mat. xxviii. 18. 
 
 But it feems the few commonly czWcd free-grace 
 Anaiaptijls are lels confident with themfelves than 
 Tertullian was. How fo ? Becaufe ' they believe 
 * they cannot enter the kingdom «f God but as the 
 ' infants enter it,' and yet withold baptifm from 
 their infants. But where in all the world, does 
 this inconfiftency ly ? Have you yet (hown thefe 
 Anabaptifts from fcripture, that infants cannot en- 
 ter the kingdom without baptifm, or have the thing 
 Jignijied without the fign ? Have you pointed out 
 the particular infants that enter this kingdom in 
 dijiintlion from thofe who do not, and then (hewn 
 the fcripture precept or example for baptizing 
 futh ? And can you fee no confiftency at all in af- 
 firming, that many enter the kingdom of God, who 
 never were proper or vifible fubjec~ts of gofpcl or- 
 dinances • Once more ; Do you think the profei- 
 Con of faith which the fcripture requires in order 
 to baptiim, turns the profeflbr's entry into the king- 
 dom of Cod upon another hinge than the entry of in- 
 fants, who cannot make that profeilion ? If you 
 do, then the inconfiftency lies on your fide of the 
 
 queftios, 
 
L E T T E R IX. 95. 
 
 queftion, in requiring fuch a profeflion of the a- 
 dult. But I refer you back to my fecond letter for 
 a fuller anfwer on this head. 
 
 Now, Sir, as you have been fo kind as to point 
 out to the Baptifts their original, it will not be a- 
 mifs to draw your attention a little to that of the 
 Pjcdobaptifts. 
 
 That infant-bap tifm was very early introduced 
 into the church, is evident from Tertullian's op- 
 pofition to it about the latter end of the fecond 
 century ; but we have no authentic or diftinft ac- 
 count ©f the grounds upon which it was held, till 
 Cyprian's time, about the middle of the 3d centu- 
 ry, who writes largely in favours of it in his epif- 
 tle to Fidus, which epiflle was the refolution of 
 him and 66 bifhops gathered together in council. 
 The reafons for infant-baptifm, (and that too be.' 
 fore the eighth day) as expreft in that epiftle, are 
 as follow ; 
 
 ' That whereas none is to be kept back from 
 
 * baptifin, and the grace of God, much lefs new 
 
 * born infants, who, in this refpett, do deferve 
 ' more of our aid, and God's mercy ; becaufe in 
 ' the beginning of their birth they prefently, cryiQg 
 1 and weeping, do nothing elfe but pray. — The 
 ' mercy and grace of God is to be denied to none 
 
 * that are born of man ; for the Lord faith in the 
 ' gofpel, that the Son of man came not to deflroy 
 ' mens fouls, but to fave them ; and therefore, as 
 ' much as in us lies, if it may be, no foul is to be 
 ' loft ; and therefore all infants, at all times, are 
 'to be baptized. ■ -If any thing could hinder 
 
 ' from 
 
9* L£TTE^ IX, 
 
 4 from obtaining of grace, greater fin fhould hin- 
 4 der men of years from it ; now if grearc fins 
 4 hinder not men of years from it, but th it they, 
 4 when they berime, obtain forgivenefs. grace, and 
 4 baptifm, by how much lather is an infant not to 
 ' be forbidden, who being newly born, hath not 
 4 finned, except in that being born carnally accord- 
 4 ing to Adam, he hath contracted the contagion 
 4 of antient death in his fir ft nativity, who, in this 
 4 refpect, comes more eafily to receive remiffion of 
 4 fins, becaufe not his own fins, but another's are 
 4 forgiven him.' 
 
 Now, tell me, was not this innovation of infant- 
 baptifm as exprefly contrary to the fcriptures as a« 
 ny thing can be ? And did the firfr. arguments that 
 we hear of among Chrifrians in its behalf arife out 
 of the fcriptures, or out of a flat contradiction to 
 the plained fcripture ? 
 
 Did it not proceed upon the doclrine of univerfal 
 grace ; that baptifm confers the grace of God ; 
 that infants deferve this more than adults, as having 
 no fin of their own, but only Adam's, and there- 
 fore more eafily forgiven ; that they are eminent 
 in devotion, being continually praying in their 
 weeping and crying, <bc. And whar is this, think 
 you, but placing falvation in fomething elfe than 
 Chrift ? 
 
 If it fhall be alledged, that he was not in this a 
 forefather to the numerous nations of Proteftant 
 Pacdobaptifb, who are only to be regarded in this 
 queftion: may we not then fay, If thefe indeed be- 
 lieve that the falvation of infants lies only and tx'hol- 
 
L E T T E R IX. 97 
 
 ly in the thing fignified to the adult in baptifm, lie 
 was more confident with himfelf than they. But 
 to proceed regularly ; 
 
 About the latter end of the 2d century, an opi- 
 nion arofe, that without bapcifm there could be no 
 falvation ; whether this error was founded upon a 
 miftaken view of Mark xvi. 16, or John. iVi. 5. 
 (which were pled afterwards) cannot welt be de- 
 termined. However, this principle being once 
 admitted, (as appears from Tertullian's oppofition) 
 parents could not but take the alarm, and prefs 
 hard for the baptifm of their infants, left they 
 fhould die and be damn'd before they came to age. 
 But there was one thing that flood in their way, 
 viz. the inability of infants to make the lcriptursl 
 profeffion of their faith before baptifm : but alas ! 
 their infants might perifh ere they were capable 
 for this profeflion, unlefs fome expedient were 
 found out to fupcrfede it. What then could they 
 do in this fad dilemma, but find cautioners or 
 fponfors to proftis and engage for their children ? 1 
 For what fignified the breach of a divine com- 
 mand, in comparifon of the falvation of their in- 
 fants; Thefe are the fponfors which Tertulliar* 
 confiders as brought into danger: but the parents 
 were not then admitted as fponfors for their chil- 
 dren, unlefs they abftain'd from the marriage-bed 
 ever after: nor did they as yet baptize all infants, 
 but only fuch as appear'd weakly and in danger of 
 death §. 
 
 About fifty years after this, Cyprian and fixty- 
 K fx>: 
 
 ■§ Gregory Nazianzcn. Or-t. of JBapt. 
 
9 3 L E T T E R IX. 
 
 fix biihops give it the fanftion of a council : (for 
 it had then become cuftomary, when any piece of 
 fuperfrition was to be efhbliflied in oppofition to 
 the fcripture, to interpofe the authority of a coun- 
 cil for its more universal reception, though they 
 wanted the civil power to put their decrees in exe- 
 cution.) We have already feen the refolution of 
 this council and the judicious arguments upon 
 tyhich it was founded ; and we may be fure they 
 M'ere no way inferior to thofe ufed in Tertullian's 
 lime, when infant baptifm was firft introduced : 
 But it is evident that the arguments of modern 
 Paedobaptifts, were not as yet invented, at leaft 
 thofe of them upon which they lay moft ftrefs. 
 
 We find likewifc that in Cyprian's time they ad- 
 mitted infants to the Lord's fupper, as appears 
 from the ftory he relates of his giving the commu- 
 nion to an infant *: and this practice continued 
 in the church for 600 years, till it was at laft re- 
 jected by the council of Trent ; as is confefs'd by 
 Maldomt on John vi. Herein they were more 
 confident than the modern Paedobaptifts, for their 
 arguments are as flrong for the one as for the other, 
 
 There is little account of infant-baptifm from 
 Cyprian's time, till the beginning of the fifth cen- 
 tury, when we find Auguftine ftrenuoufly main- 
 taining it upon Cyprian's authority and principles, 
 '. 2. That infants are damned by reafon of origi- 
 m1 fin if they are not baptized; that baptifm re- 
 generates &c. But it is evident he paid no regard 
 to the faith or intention of thofe who brought 
 
 them 
 
 f pi his book D> Lotfi, mcntwntd by Auguftine, Eftjl 23, 
 
LETTER]*. '99 
 
 them to baptifm ; for he' faith, in his 23d epiftle 
 to Bonifacius, • Neither let that move thee that 
 
 * fome do not bring little ones to receive baptifm 
 « With that faith that they may be regenerated by 
 « fpiritual grace unto life eternal ; but becau e they 
 1 think by this to preferve or receive temporal 
 
 * health : for they are not therefore unrcgenerate ; 
 1 becaufe they are not offered by them with this m- 
 'tention; for necefiary minifhics are celebrated by 
 1 them, ' 
 
 Though they admitted fponfors to profefs the 
 faith ; yet the fponfor was not to profefs his own 
 faith, but the faith of the child itfilf; which was 
 done in this manner : The furety being aflce<?, 
 Doth the child believe ? reply 'd, He doth believe. 
 Upon which Bonifacius urgeth AugufUce to (hew, 
 how the fureties could be excufed from l}ing 111 
 fuch an affirmation, and is anfvvered, ■ He dotli 
 
 * believe, by reafon of the facrament of faith * 
 This wretched quibble may fufflciently convince 
 you, that the argument of the parent's faith wis 
 not then invented ; but that they held perfonalfahh 
 as a prerequisite to baptifm, though they admitted 
 a vicarious prcfejjion of it. 
 
 Auguftine, as well as Cyprian, admitted infants 
 to the Lord's fupper, and pled for it from Joha 
 vi. 53- t- 
 
 But after all it would appear, that, even in Au- 
 
 guftine's time, infants neither received baptifm nor 
 
 the Lord's fupper but when they nppear'd weaklv, 
 
 or in danger of death, and they were adminiflered 
 
 K 2 
 
 f Lib. 1. dc peccat. merit, ct rcmif. c. so. 
 
loa LETTER IX. 
 
 as well for the health of their bodies, as for the 
 fr-lvation of their fouls. Augufline's own baptifm 
 was deferred till he was upwards of thirty years of 
 age, though educated as a Chtiflian by his mother 
 Monica ; and he tells U9, ' that being young, and 
 ' falling fick, he defired, and his mother thought 
 ' to have him baptized, but upon his recovery, it 
 ' was deferred f ' Nor was his own fon baptized 
 till he was fifteen, with many others that may be 
 mentioned at that time. 
 
 Whoever confidcrs the authority thofe forefa- 
 thers of the Pixdobaptifts had in the church, and 
 the myfticifm, ignorance and fuperflition of thofe 
 times, needs not wonder that thefe idle dreams 
 ihould fpread and be fwallowed by whole nations ; 
 but it is furpriiiDg that it fhould be carried to the 
 ridiculous length of baptizing whole kingdoms, 
 apon the profeiTion and baptifm of their kings, 
 though they ilill remained baptized infidels. If 
 you lay you have nothing to do with fuch a prac- 
 tice, 1 reply, thafthe baptifm of whole houfes upon 
 •he pi ofcffioa of the patent's faith, is perfectly ana- 
 .'• gous to this, arid is nothing but a chip of the 
 fame block. 
 
 To conclude, as you have no foundation in 
 fcripUire for infant -baptifm ; fo, though you mould 
 rake the whole mire of antiquity, you will find 
 little to fupport the modern plan of it, which 
 ftands chiefly upon conceits that have been hatch 'd 
 amongPr Fro te flan t Fardobaptifrs within thefe 300 
 years. 1 am, .Sir, Your, fcc. 
 
 + Tern. 1. Coi.fcjf Lib. 1. c it. 
 
 J LET- 
 
101 
 
 LETTER X* 
 
 S I R, 
 
 I Now proceed to your Appendix, which con- 
 tains a diJJ'ertation on the manner of baptifm and 
 the fcripture fenfe of the word Baptifm. Here yoa 
 tell us, 
 
 • The oppofers of infant-baptifrn contend like> 
 ' wife for a different manner of baprifm from that 
 ' which is commonly pracYifed : which according 
 1 to them cannot be called baptifm : becaufe it 
 
 * does not at all fignify and reprefent union and 
 
 * communion with Chrift in his death and burial 
 ' by immerfion, or plunging, or dipping in water > 
 
 * nor in his refurrettion, by emcngingt>r riling up- 
 4 from under the water : and" becaufe it does not 
 
 * at all anfwer to the very fenfe and meaning of 
 1 the word Baptifm, which fjgnifks dipping, ii»- 
 ' merfing, or plunging. * 
 
 Anfw. I fuppofe you wilf: not deny that the 
 word, ficOITlfy, Baptize, piimarily and proper- 
 ly fignifies to immcrfe, plunge under, overwhe/nr, 
 and alfo to dip ; and that where It is put- for ivajjj- 
 ing, it is ufed in a fecondary, confequenti'a), and 
 more improper fenfe. If you deny this, yon op- 
 pofe not only the Eaptifts, but the beft Uxico- 
 K 3 graph c.i 
 
202 LETTER X. 
 
 graphers and critics that have ever writ on the 
 Greek language. But then it feems, 
 
 ' This cannot appear fiom fcripture to be the 
 
 * very fenfe and ufe of the word Baptifm there;' 
 How fo i * For the b«-ft way to find the fenfe of 
 
 * this word, as applied to the cale of baptizing 
 ' chriftians, is to obferve how the fcripture applies 
 
 * it to other cafes; and by this way the fcripture 
 
 * fenfe of it is found to be laa/bing, however that 
 ' be done.' and then you produce inftances where 
 the wa/bbig of hands, cups, tables or beds, dfC 
 is exprelVd by the word ba.pt/fm- 
 
 rfnfuh, i. Though the fcripture in fbme cafes 
 fhould ufe the word bagtifin,, where -wajhing muft 
 be undcrftood ; yet it will not follow, that the 
 word is fp to be underftood in Chrifiian bapti/m, a- 
 ny more than it will follow, that becaufe the word 
 faenjice h applied to our praife thank/giving and 
 good -works, Heb- xiii. 15, 16. therefore we mud 
 thus underihmd Chart's facrifice : thus you may 
 fee whereittpur rule would lead you. But I think 
 you had belt keep by the primary and proper fenfe 
 of a word till fome circumfhuices in the text lay 
 you under a ncceffi'y of understanding it other- 
 wife; and this you cannot pretend of Chriftian 
 baptifnt. 
 
 %. It is not denied that thefe things you men- 
 tion were vjajhed\ but the queftion is, whether- 
 wsre they not baptized or clipped m the act of uvt/&- 
 ing P if i'-.y were, then the word is properly ufed 
 *U11 : and I luppofe you will not uodertake to 
 
 prove 
 
LETTER X 103 
 
 prove they were only w&ftie&'by Jfrinkling or pour- 
 ing f. 
 
 t According to your own rule, hti, tize mud fig- 
 nify to dip ; for thus the origin,.! theme {3x7TT0J t 
 from whence [3%7TTlfyj is a derivative is appiied 
 in other places of loip'ure; as in Alat xxvi 23. 
 « He that. SfJL^Si'^/XC y dippeth his hand with me 
 • « in the difh,' &■ Luke xvi. 24. f Scud Lazarus, 
 ' that he (3a(pY) may dip the tip of his finger 
 
 * in water ' &c. John xiii 26 ' He it is to whom 
 ' I (hall give a fop, when 1 fiX\p2$, have dipped 
 
 * it.' Rev. xix. 13, ' And he was dotted with a 
 •avefture, fi&QCy.M$VCV, dirped, in blood.' 
 
 Your next argument is, at'hat, ' in the cafe of 
 
 * Chriftian bajtifm, ■waJhiSg ftands often in the 
 ' New Tefta-ment as another wc d for it, and as de- 
 
 * daring the import and fenfe of it,' of which you 
 give inftances from, Eph v. 26. Heb. x. 22. Tit. 
 Hi. 5. 1 Pet. iii. 21. icts xxii. 16. 1 Cor. vi. 11. 
 ' From thefe (you fay it may appear, that accord- 
 ' ing to the fcripture ufe of he word ba t : ; fm, 
 
 * immerfwn cannot be called baptifm, any otherwile 
 ' than as it is a mode of wafhing with water. ' 
 
 Anfivi 
 
 f ' If the Pharifees touched but the garments of the common 
 
 * people they were defiled and needed immerfion, and were obliged 1 
 ' to it.' Maimcnidcs in Mijii. ckig'gah. c. a. feci. 7. 
 
 i The more fuperftitious part of the Jews, every day before 
 m* they fat down to niear, -dipped the whole body ; hence the Pha- 
 
 * rifees admiration at Chrift, Luke xi. 38.' Scaliger de Emend* 
 Temp. Lib; 6. p. 671. 
 
 In the Jcwilh Mifnah, or book of traditions, it is faid, ' A bed 
 
 * that is wholly defiled, a man dips it part by part.' Gelim f 
 CiCSctJ. 14. 
 
104 L E T T E R X. 
 
 Anfvj. That -wafting ftands often as another 
 word for baptifm may be granted ; for a man is 
 wafhed when he is immerfed or dipped ; but that 
 wafhing in whatever manner, is ufed for baptifm, 
 I deny : for the body is not wafhed with pure 
 water, by fprinkling or pouring a little of it on the 
 face, as it is by immerjing or plunging it in water. 
 So that though immei lion be a mode of wafhing 
 with water ; yet it is not for this called baptifm j 
 but becaufe it is that very mode which is exprefs v d 
 by the Greek word j3^7TTi^<W, and no other. 
 Wa/hing is a general word, which includes various, 
 modes, and that of dipping among the reft ; but 
 dipping, by which this ordinance is exprefs'd, is a 
 particular mode, and cannot- properly include any 
 other. 
 
 1 The ancients, who added feveral ceremonies 
 
 * to the fimple infritutions of €hrift, and found 
 ' out fpiritual meanings to them* amongft other 
 ' rites added to baptifm, ufed this of dipping thrice. 
 1 But they did- not proceed fo far, in this way, as 
 ' to deny, that wafhing with water in any other 
 '.way is baptifm: for they ufed clinic baptifm, and 
 ' furely baptizing a fick man in his bed, was not 
 « burying him under water. Wafhing with wa- 
 ' ter, then, was from the beginning the fign in 
 
 • baptifm, in whatever way, or after whatloever 
 1 mode it was done. ' 
 
 Anfw. i. What reafon have you to find faulP 
 with the ancients for dipping thrice, fince you think 
 any manner of wafhing will do ? 
 
 2. Though they likewife ufed clinic baptifm, yet 
 
 they 
 
LETTER X, 105 
 
 they did not think it a proper rule for ordinary 
 baptifra, as you do; but excufed it by the plea of 
 urgent neceffity f; and they pretended to no evi- 
 dence for it from the New Teftament, but found- 
 ed it upon the ceremonial fprinklings of the law, 
 and the metaphor ufed by the prophet Ezekid] 
 chap, xxxvi. 25. But ftill they made a diftinclion 
 betwixt baptifmal warning, and the pouring of wa- 
 ter upon the lick * However, if you think the 
 ancient fuperftitious clinic baptifm a fufficient war- 
 rant for fprinklmg or pouring, 'tis at your ftrvice, 
 though it be among the other ceremonies, which 
 they added to the fimple inftitutions of Chrift. 
 lou tell us, * the common way of baptizing.is 
 not by fprinkling, as has been always falfdy al- 
 leged in this controvcrfy, but by pouring wafer 
 1 from the hand of the baptizer on the baptized.' 
 A very curious diftintfion indeed ! but what does 
 this make for your purpofe ? Why, « if the fcrip- 
 * ture calls pouring forth the Holy Ghoft upon 
 ' men, baptizing them with the HoJy Ghoft, then 
 ' pouring forth water on men, is baptizing them 
 « with water, in the fcripture ufeof the word bap- 
 'tifm.' r 
 
 Jn/w. So you hold by pouring, for its Similitude 
 to the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft : (I (hall remind 
 you of this in the fequel) but, according to this 
 manner of arguing, filling a, en w i tn water nuift be 
 baptifm; for they are faid to be filled with the 
 Holy Ghoft : giving men water mult be baptifm ; 
 
 for 
 
 t Cyprian. Epift. 6 9 . *? Magnum. • Cyprian. W; 
 
106 LETTEH X, 
 
 for the Holy Ghoft is faid to be given : and fprink~ 
 ling with water (notwithftanding your diftinclion) 
 ffiuft be baptifra ftill ; for the ordinary baptifm of 
 the fpirit is by fprinkling the heart from an evil 
 confcience. Thus baptifm with water may be ex- 
 plain'd to be any thing, every thing, or nothing. 
 
 ' Chrift was baptized with a baptifm, which 
 'was at his death ; but that baptifm was by water 
 ' and blood poured forth from his pierced fide up- 
 'on his dead body; and there was no dipping 
 'there.' 
 
 Anfw. Was the gufhlng of blood and water 
 from the pierced fide of Chad's dead body, the 
 thing he precifely meant by his baptifm, and 
 that in diftincVion from what he endured before 
 he bowed the head and gave up the Ghoft ? If fo ; 
 it will greatly favour fome ancient inftances of 
 baptizing dead bodies. But it is evident that the 
 baptifm wherewith our Lord was baptized at his 
 death, rcfpecled all that he fuffered whether in the 
 garden or on the crofs ; which fufferings arc cal- 
 led baptifm, not properly but metaphorically. The 
 Ffalmifi: ufeth metaphors of the fame import, 
 when fpeaking of Chrift's fufferings, Pfal lxix, I, 
 2. ' Save me, God, for the -waters are come in in- 
 to my foul. I fmk in deep mire, "where there is m 
 flanding : I am come inta deep waters, where the 
 foods overflow me. And was there no dipping 
 or immerfwg here ? And is not our being buried 
 with Chriff by baptifm, a fit reprefentation of 
 communion with him in his death and burial, and 
 our rifing again from under the water, a proper 
 
 fign 
 
fign of fellowship with hitn in his refurre&ion ? 
 Rom. vi. 3, 4, 5. Col. ii. 11, 12, 23. But in op- 
 pi) fition to this, you fay, 
 
 * Our communion with Chrift, and conformity 
 ' to him in his death, burial and refurrection, is 
 4 by the renewing of the Holy Ghoft,' &c. 
 
 Anfujy True ; but if you argue againft the fcrip- 
 ture mode of baptifm, becaufe it is not the thing 
 fignified ; you may likewife argue againft every 
 mode of it for the fame reafon ; and thus you wili 
 (hake hands with Quakers, who deny baptifm with 
 water, becaufe it is not the baptifm of the Spirit. 
 
 ' But if we look on the will of the infti- 
 
 * tutor exprefs'd in his word as the fole ground of 
 
 * the relation betwixt the fign in baptifm and the 
 ' Lord's Supper, and that which is fignified by 
 ' them ; we will not look for any fuch fimilitude 
 
 * in thefe inftituted figns as we do in pictures or 
 ' images.' 
 
 Anfvj. You have not yet (hewn that it is not the 
 will of the inftitutor there fhould be a rcfemblance 
 betwixt the fign and the thing fignified. On the 
 contrary, you have endeavour'd to (hew that there 
 is a refcmblance, when arguing for the mode of 
 pouring, which you found entirely upon its refem- 
 bfonce to the pouring forth of the Holy Ghoft upon 
 men : but whether you think it bears the fimili- 
 tude of a picture or image to this, I will not fay. 
 lnyourargumentfromCol.ii.il, 12, 13. you 
 affirm, ' That in place of the circumcifion made 
 [ with hands they [Chriftians] are buried with 
 
 « Chrift 
 
100 L. C 1: 1 £. J\ .A. 
 
 * Chrift in baptifm ;' and this you diftinguiuh from 
 the circumcifion of the heart, as the fign is dif- 
 tinguifhed from the thin^ fignified. Now, if there 
 be a burial in the fign, in diftinftion from the re- 
 newing of the Holy Ghoft, then that burial muft 
 be in water, for the fcripture informs us that the 
 fign is water. 
 
 * Shall we fay upon it, that the fcripture 
 
 * confines us fo to one manner of warning, that a- 
 ' nother way of it cannot be called baptifm ? ' 
 
 Anfw. You can fcrew matters even this fame 
 length upon other points, and ftand to it with bold- 
 nefs : but here it feems your right arm is weak- 
 ned, and you are willing to make a coalition that 
 will comprehend all the modes of wafhing that can 
 be thought on, and fecure their friendly intercom- 
 munity. The only fault you find with immerjicn 
 is its unlbciablenefs and want of charity to its 
 neighbours. Let me tell you, Sir, this is not a- 
 greeable to your ufual manner of writing when 
 confcious of truth upon your fide, which indicates 
 you have fome mifgiving of heart about your fa- 
 vourite mode. You allow immerfion to be one 
 mode of wafhing ; but then you cannot think to 
 be ccnfin'd to any one mode of it : But what 
 have you now made of Chrift's fimple inftitution ? 
 And what can the drift of all your arguments be, 
 but to throw the fcripture manner of baptifm into 
 ambiguity and darknefs, that fb you may accomo- 
 date the ordinance to the tender Irate of infants. 
 But what if after all we fhould Hill fay upon it, 
 that the fcripture has determined the manner as 
 
 well 
 
LETTER X. 109 
 
 Well as the fubjects of baptiftn ; and that the fcrip- 
 ture manner is baptifm in diflinclion from any o- 
 ther manner of wafhing that you may pleafe to ufc 
 upon improper fubjects ? 
 
 * The confidence of fbme in this matter is the 
 
 * more unaccountable, that they cannot be igno- 
 ' rant, it is impoffible to (hew, from the particular 
 
 * accounts of the Lord's baptifm and the eunuch's, 
 
 * that either of them were baptised otherwife than 
 ' by pouring water on them from the hands of the 
 ' baptizers. For if it mould be inferred from the 
 
 ' .' eunuch's going down into the water, and coming. 
 ' up out of it, (as it is alfo laid our Lord did,) 
 c that he was plunged ; the fame muft alfo be iaid 
 ' of PhHip the baptizer ; for the words are, They 
 4 went down both into the water, both Philip and the 
 ' eunuch ; and he baptized him. And when they 
 ' were come up out of the water.'' If thefe words,. 
 
 * fay any thing of dipping the baptized, they fay 
 
 * full as much of dipping the baptizer. Cut to a- 
 ' ny man that is capable of undei Handing words,. 
 « thefe words plainly fay, That being baptized 
 
 * with water is another thing than going down ia> 
 ■ to the water, and coming up out of it.' 
 
 Anfw. This paragraph is of a piece with the 
 reft, tending to fhew, that there is no certain rule 
 in fcripture for the mode of baptifm ; and this you- 
 do by throwing duft upon thefe circumflances by 
 which the fcripture mode is determined, whilfl at 
 rhe fame time, you can pretend to no foundation 
 in fcripture for the mode of pet/ring at all : fo that 
 your argument proves nothing ; but is an attempt 
 L to 
 
no L E T T E R X. 
 
 to -invalidate all proof whereby the manner of baj> 
 tifm can be determined either one way or another. 
 But this whole paragraph proceeds upon a grofs 
 mifhke; for we do not affirm, that going down into 
 the -water is the fame with baptifm or immerjion : 
 Philip and the eunuch might go to their necks in 
 water, and yet not be baptized. But I afk, why 
 went they down into the water ? Was it that the 
 eunuch might have a little of it pour'd upon him 
 from the hand of Philip ; Certainly no : for this 
 might have been done at the brink, without wet- 
 ing the foles of their feet, or the eunuch might 
 Bave been thus baptized in his chariot by a fmall 
 quantity of it in a veiTel. It is evident then that 
 the eunuch was not baptized by pouring of water 
 from the hand of Philip ; but in fuch a mapner, 
 whatever it was, as required a depth of water, to 
 obtain which, we find, they went both down into 
 the water, both Philip and the eunuch ; and this,, 
 though it was not baptifm, yet it was a necefTary 
 *tep in order to it. 
 
 Though Philip went down into the water as; 
 well as the eunuch, yet he was not thereby baptiz- 
 ed ; (as he certainly would, had any manner of 
 warning been boptifm) but he went down to per- 
 form that action upon another. What kind of 
 «<5lion then muft this be that Philip performed up- 
 on the eunuch, and that required they fhould go 
 both into a depth of water ? Can we think the Ho- 
 ly Gh3ft, in relating thefe circumfhnces, had no- 
 thing in view but what was accidental and fuper- 
 fluous ? No furely j they all concur to afcertaiu* 
 
 that 
 
L E T T E R X. in 
 
 that the action was immerfion, as they could be re- 
 quifites to no other mode ; accordingly it is faid, 
 SfiOLTrTl&EV, he immerfed him, Acts viii. 38. which 
 action required, that Philip fhould take hold of 
 the eunuch, bury him in the water, and raife him 
 up again from under the water. Thus you may 
 fee that the circumftances of the eunuch's baptifm, 
 tally exactly with the fenfe of the word fioCKTlfy), 
 to dip, immerfe or plunge. 
 
 Ner were thefe circumftances any way Angular ; 
 for our Lord was baptized in the river Jordan, 
 having gone down into it ; as is evident from 
 Mat. ii. 16, Mark i. 10. where we are told that, 
 after his baptifm, he came up out of the water. 
 Baptifm (or immerfion) requires much water; 
 and John alfo was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, 
 becaufe there was much water there, John iii. 23. 
 Whereas, had he ufed the mode of fprinkling or 
 pouring, he had no oceafion to make choice of 
 fuch a place. 
 
 To conclude, the moft learned and judicious of 
 the Pxdobaptifts, ever fince this practice took 
 place, have ingenuoufly confefs'd, that the fcrip* 
 ture mode of baptifm is immerfion, and the main 
 plea they have for fprinkling or pouring, is its fuit- 
 ablenefs to the tender bodies of infants. Thus 
 we fee one deviation from the fcripture rule intro- 
 duces another, till at laft the law of God be made 
 void by mens vain traditions. 
 
 I am, 
 
 S 1 R, 
 
 Your humble Servant, 
 
DEFENCE 
 
 O F 
 
 BELIEVER BAPTISM, 
 
 IN OPPOSI TION TO 
 
 INFANT SPRINKLING. 
 In a LETTER to a Friend. 
 
 BEING 
 An Answer to a Pamphlet, entitled, " Rc- 
 " marks on Scripture Texts relating to Infant 
 " Baptifm." 
 
 TOGETHER WITH 
 
 Some Strictures on Mr Huddles ton's Letters^ 
 and other Writings on that Subjeft, 
 
 Br ARCHIBALD 1 MCLEAN. 
 
 Gal, iii. 26. For ye are all the children of God by fafrh in Cbri/t 
 
 Jefus. 
 'Vcife*7. For as many of you at have been baptized into Chrijl, havp 
 put on Chrift. 
 
 EDINBU R^G H : 
 
 "Printed fcr, and fold by the Author at Edinburgh \ 
 and by Ja. Duncan, Mrs. Orr, and J. Bryce* 
 Bookfdlers, Giafgow. - 1 7 77* 
 
P R E F A C E. 
 
 A B r ° UT 1 fl Cven years a S°> T wrote an an- 
 fwer to Mr. Glas's Differtation on Infant 
 JSaptifin, in a feries of Letters addreffed to the 
 author My chief defign was to mow the In- 
 dependents of this country, that infant baptifin, 
 and the arguments which they ufe in fupport 
 of it, were not only void of all foundation in 
 fcnpture, but fubverfive of their own profeffed 
 doarinc, upon which they have feparated from 
 the nationa church. No dired reply has been 
 made to this by any in Scotland; but Mr. 
 Huddlefton, paftor of an Independent fociety 
 in Whitehaven, has attempted fomething of that 
 kind To this alfo a full and particular an- 
 ™Z ha _ s been written, but not publifhed. 
 
 i He following pages are written in anfwer to. 
 a recent publication, entitled, << Remarks on 
 bcnpture Texts relating to Infant Baptifm ;» 
 which I am credibly informed is the long flu- 
 died and mature produdion of an eminent 
 member of the fccond clafs of Independents at 
 Glafgow, and therefore may juflly be ' confi- 
 dered as containing the ftrength of their main 
 arguments on that fubjeft. I know not what 
 others may think of it, but for my own part 
 were it not that I know the author, I mould 
 be ready to fufpeft that it had been writ- 
 
 the ajJr* lr ° n u iCal ^ ° n the other ™e of 
 ridicule ™ a t0 CXp0fe the Caufe to 
 
 of Inv I n f de P endents are the moft mconfiftent 
 ot any fet of people upon this fubjedl. They 
 
 ofZt £ ^/ e ° pIe ° f the new tenant are 
 diflinguiihcd from thofe of the old, by their 
 
 a having 
 
w PREFACE. 
 
 having God's law written in their hearts, and 
 all ofthem knowing the Lord from the leaft 
 
 unto the ereateft, Jer. xxxi. 33, 34-r.?~ 
 "he fabielsof Chrift'skingdornare d.ft.ngu.lh- 
 
 ed from the world by their being of the truth 
 and hearing his voice, John xv.n. 37 tr" 1 ™* 
 the fpiritufl feed are diamguiflied f.om the 
 flefhly, by their being born again of the Spirit, 
 bv the incorruptible feed of the word John .... 5. 
 1 Pet i Tx t : And that this diftina.on .s only 
 vifibl'to'us in the profenion of jheu fa.th 
 Aasviii. 17. Rom.x. 9, io§. But whenever 
 Sej I tempt to eftablim infant bapt.fm hey 
 difreeard and fome of them even ridicule ||, all 
 toh&ons, and every vif.bleev.dencerf 
 them as felf-righteous, and refolve the whole 
 Sto tWs f.ngle g q ueftion Are they ^orn of be- 
 lieving parents? And though our Lord ana 
 toadies abfolutely deny that fuch b.r th can 
 diftinguim the true children of God as it did 
 the typical, John Hi. 5, 6 - Rom. ix. 6, 7, 8. 
 Tcor v. iS, if- y« all this goes for nothing; 
 xhey dm inf ft, that their being the natural feed 
 of be evers fufficiently marks them out as end- 
 j „ If rnd truly holy, and members of the 
 kingdom^ hea™ I <&, they chime in with 
 Aenafional church upon the great g**Vg* 
 nf her fudahed Cbriframly, and, in their bap- 
 rifm hold a moa intimate fellowfhip with her 
 PeAaPS it may be faid, that they make amends 
 for tto, and keep up their feparat.on from the 
 ,S lw refufme their children church com- 
 ; |^gpofe fe the faith, tot <tag 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 : only adding one inconfiftency to another i „J 
 .mpl.es either that they doVoi fi eve the 
 principles upon which thev baDti^th. 
 that the vifible members of ffi t fulZZ 
 are unfit to be members of thefe focieties which 
 
 . You who know your Matter's will in HA 
 
 CZn an Y d ° " n<>t ' fuffer a ™3 "f ex 
 riorta ion. You can amufe yourfelves with 
 Speculations on this point, and clearlv <T 
 the inconfiftency of the olfi Y * ?° W 
 
 but what have'you to fayTr^otfift 5 
 
 acknowledged ordinance of the Lofdlefe" 
 Examine narrowly your motives. Is kbSfc 
 
 upon the grand foundation of tS'S 
 fion before Pontius Pilate concern^ the l a 
 ture of his ; kingdom and fubjefl, as dlintift 
 
 formed this connpftinn j /V* ' QU Mve 
 neP-le^r 7^ ?' and fat down upon the 
 neglect of the firft ordinance of the o-oftil 3 
 
 now you cannot think of returning £t ' But 
 
PREFACE. 
 where do you ftnd an unbaptized church in 
 ^ Uhe NewVftament, or the leafl warrant for 
 hnWini communion with fuch i Are they good 
 cSns^Beitfo; but will their Chnftiam- 
 « tofuTyour difobedience ? Muft not each of 
 2LW» account of himfelf unto .Godf You 
 SKrit, for them Have rU ■ £ £ 
 It he the charity of the truth. Can tnere oe 
 "nv true charity in yielding up a p am ordi- 
 ranee of Chrift to the blindnefs, prejudice, or 
 wf nerverfenefs of men ? According to 
 ?his Ue P mo of themwe yield in this way, 
 !he ereater muft be our charity. But true cha- 
 Av can never clam with our obedience to any 
 o fthe laws of Chrift, nor lead us to foothe 
 others 1" the neglect of them ; on the contrary, 
 * influence's to ftudy their true m.ereft, 
 Id fct their duty before them both by word 
 t„d Sample. Difentangle yourfelves *ere- 
 fore from the infnaring influence of fuch a 
 corneaion. Hear the words of Jefus which 
 reclaims to all -en, and le^ each of them 
 have their proper weight •, « H ^ that be ,ev_ 
 « eth and is baptized, ihall be laveu. 
 Hear his command" to all who regard his an- 
 tWitv " And now why tarried thou ? anfe, 
 S'be baptized, and waft, away thy fins, 
 " calling upon the name of the Lord. 
 Edinburgh,? 
 M»vz<>. 1777- J 
 
A 
 DEFENCE 
 
 O F 
 
 BELIEVER BAPTISM, &* 
 In a LETTER to a FRIEND. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 I Received, your favour, inclofing a pamphlet 
 entitled "Remarks on Scripture Texts relate 
 " ing to Infant Baptifm." But I think you 
 might have excufed me from writing an anfwer to 
 it, fince all that is therein advanced has been more 
 than fufficiently refuted in my Letters to Mr. Ghs, 
 Reply to Mr. Huddlefton, and View of the Popha- 
 cies, which you have feen. Befides, when people 
 allow themfelves (as this author hath done) to 
 launch forth into the regions of fancy and con- 
 jecture, it is like hunting an ignis fatims to trace 
 them in all their vagaries. I find he aims a ftroke 
 now and then at my Letters to Mr. Glasj and 
 feems to be a little warm when he fays, " What 
 " are we that we fliould withftand God by refuf- 
 
 u ing baptifm to children*? We deceive th.e 
 
 " hearts of thofe who believe without proper evi- 
 " dence. and blind the minds of thofe who receive 
 " not the fimple fayings of Jefus ;" and he taxes u<? 
 as men deftitute of " found and fober minds f> 
 This is a very heavy charge; but as it does not 
 reach conviction to me on the one hand, fo nei- 
 -« A ther 
 
 * Page ]o. f P. ij, note. 
 
( 2 ) 
 
 i A*n it kindle refeirtment on the other. But 
 fZctt ^ «b« he and his brethren <hould 
 L fo much bemifted about the fubje£cs, manner 
 be fo mucn cannot fa , Uo c or- 
 
 ^'X i- of many other poinu of doc- 
 
 trine * „ uio» T fp^ is divided into four 
 
 TWS ^ tTt col £&.". ropoution, with 
 
 C^ffl^*-- ' ,ha11 ,h£,efore 
 
 his method, and begin wuh 
 
 PART I. 
 i, The ,- ml e children who make up the : kingdom 
 « of God, as it appears m th,s world may 
 
 .. b ;#i.4»'A'« fromoihci " 1,ttkc - 
 
 r „f ,hU he adduces Mark x. I3» '4- 
 
 • " «* T d ofj d^Not for mt own par,, I 
 « kingdom of God. No , ^ ^ 
 
 cannot fee the leaft f^_ k liculal . little 
 ,h= above P r °Pf7/V,. ■; fti „ sU i,hedbyChrift'« 
 children were indeed »'S W J d '^'' the J. and we 
 
 takingthenrt^-^^^fortab,; truth, 
 learn from the P?™f> c God 
 
 ^"^r^Vitat^ab^t^one little child 
 
 bUt ", f MhZfiei from another as belonging » 
 m ay be <W<mf »>/«<• affirmed in the 
 
 th at kingdom, wh.ch the thg^ ^ 
 
 Cl robbed toW him through four 
 
. ( 3 ) 
 
 obfervations, or rather imaginations, upon the 
 words. 
 
 Obf. i. " Jefus here fuppofeth, that the little 
 
 children who make up the kingdom of God, 
 
 " may be diftinguifhed from other little children." 
 
 — But wheie do we hear him fuppofing this ?— 
 
 " This much," fays he, «« is implied in the words, 
 
 " OF such." That is, we may fuppofe from 
 
 thefe two words, if we pleafe, that he fuppofeth it ; 
 and having converted this fuppofition of a fuppo- 
 fition into a certain truth, he lays it as a founda- 
 tion principle to build upon " From this " 
 
 fays he, " we learn, Fir ft, That they were the chil- 
 '* dren of vifible believers ; for one little child 
 " cannot be diftinguifhed from another, ftut as 
 
 " connected with its parents." It is probable 
 
 that thofe who brought the little children believed 
 at leaft that Jefus was as capable to blefs them as 
 Jacob, Mofes, or any other prophet ; but how does 
 the words of such, or any other words in the text, 
 teach us that little children may be diftinguifhed 
 as of the kingdom of God by their parents ? Our 
 Lord fays not a word about their parents, nor does 
 he give the leaft hint, that they are to be diftinguifh- 
 ed by their connection with believing parents, this 
 being only a figment of the author's own brain ; , 
 fo that if, as he owns, they cannot otherwife be 
 diftinguifhed, it follows, that they cannot be di- 
 ftinguifhed by us at all. But furely he will allow, 
 that Chrift can diftinguifh them, as in the inftance 
 before us, whether they are connected with believ- 
 ing parents or not. Another thing, he fays, we 
 learn from the words, is, " Secondly, That Chrift 
 1 is here fpeaking of the kingdom of God as it 
 v appears in this world." That is, he is not fpeak- 
 A 2 ing 
 
( 4 ) 
 ing of the kingdom of God as it confifts oi>ly of 
 the elect and faved, but as it appears in this world 
 to men, and is compofed of foolifh as well as wife 
 ■virgins, Mat. xxv. i. — 13. Of bad as well as good 
 iifhes, chap xiii 47.-50. But here he flatly con- 
 tradicts the account which Jefus himfelf gives of 
 the kingdom in the very next verfe, " Verily, I 
 '*. fay unto you, Yv'hofoever fhall not receive the 
 " kingdom of God as a little child, he fhall not 
 " enter therein," Mark x. 1 5. Lukexviii.17. or, as it 
 is exprefTed in a parallel paflage, " Except ye be 
 " converted, and become as little children, ye 
 " fhall not enter into the kingdom of heaven," 
 Mat. xviii. 3. which is of the fame import with 
 what he fays to Nicodemus, f< Except a man be 
 " born again, he cannot fee the kingdom of God. 
 " — Except a man be born of water and of the 
 ** Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
 " God," John iii. 3, 5. Since therefore our Lord 
 explains himfelf, and tell us that infants belong to 
 that kingdom of God, which none can enter but 
 Ajch-as are converted, born again, and receive it 
 as little children ; how conies our author to fay, 
 that he is here fpeaking of the kingdom as it op- 
 ■pairs 111 ibis world, into which hypocrites and falfe 
 profefibrs may and do enter ? Doubtlefs our Lord 
 knew his own meaning beft, and ilnce he hath 
 condefcended to explain it, it does not become us 
 to contradict him. Let it therefore be noticed, once 
 for all, that Jefus is not here fpeaking of the ap- 
 pearance of his kingdom in this world, but of its 
 ihvifible realuy, for to this only is converfion and 
 the new birth abfolutely nectffary. His next ob- 
 servation is-, 
 
 Obf 
 
( 5 ) 
 
 Ohf. 2. " He (viz Chrift) faith more on this oc- 
 <{ cafion than is allowed by fome who call them- 
 " felves his followers. He faith, that the kingdom' 
 u of God is of fuch little children, as the young. 
 
 " children that were brought to him." But we 
 
 are fo far from difallowing this, that we hold it in 
 a higher fenfe than the author, feems to allow. We 
 maintain, that the kingdom of God, as it is invifibh 
 and unmixed, is of fuch little children as thofe 
 brought to Chrift, and that all fuch (hall certainly 
 be faved ; whereas he only pleads, that they belong 
 to the appearance of it in the world, and that many 
 of them may fall fhort of falvation *. He obferves 
 that our Lord's words are not, <c Such are of the 
 " kingdom of God ;" but " Of fuch is the king*. 
 " dom of God." I own, however, that I am ra- 
 ther too dull to comprehend this diftinclion j for 
 I fuppofe the kingdom of God is of fuel) as are of it. 
 
 t( Obf. 3. He here fuppofeth that his difciples 
 " might have learned, from the revelation of God 
 tl which they then had, that the kingdom of God 
 " is of fuch little children as thefe brought unto 
 <* him ; for the difciples could not be in fault, if 
 " they were not afting contrary to divine refbla- 
 " tion ; and he mentions this as the revealed truth 
 " which they acted in oppofition unto, Of fuch is 
 '? the kingdom of God." — That the difciples were 
 faulty in rebuking thofe who brought the 'young 
 children to him is plain ; and that they a«5ted con- 
 trary to a prior divine revelation, is alfo clear from 
 Mat. xviii. 2.—^. Mark ix. 36, 37. Luke ix. 47, 48, 
 where, a confiderable ■ time before this, he had 
 taught them, that little children were of his king- 
 dom, and fo not to be defpifed. After this reve- 
 A 3, lation 7 
 
 '* Page a 7. 
 
( 6 ) 
 lation, it was certainly wrong in the difciples to 
 hinder fuch being brought to Chrift in- the days of 
 his flefh, even as it would be finful in us to forbid- 
 any to pray for his bleffing upon infants, now he is 
 
 in heaven : but what is all this to the point ?- 
 
 "■ From this," fays he, " we understand, Firft, 
 (t That thefe words of Chrift are the public inter- 
 " pretation of fuch paflages of the Old Teftament 
 '-' fcriptures as thefe, Pfal. lxix. 36. and cii. 28. 
 " Ifa. lxi. 9. and Ixv. 23. Jer. xxx. 20. Ezek. 
 (t xlvii. 22." . In thefe paflages much is faid of the 
 feed, offspring, or children of the church, and here 
 the author would have our Lord's words to explain 
 thefe children of infants in diftinclion from adults, 
 and cf the infants of New Tejlament believen in 
 diftinclion from all other infants- But neither 
 does Chrift's words here refer to fuch paflages, nor 
 do the paflages themfelves fpeak of children in 
 refpeft of their being infants, or the natural feul of 
 New Teftament believers, but in refpecl of their 
 bein? children of the church, which confifts both 
 of adults and infants, Jews and Gentiks, the na- 
 tural feed of believers and unbelievers, even all of 
 each of thefe who belong to the election of grace. 
 This I fhall briefly demonftrats. 
 
 It muft be granted that the children fpoken of 
 in the forementioned paflages, are the very fame 
 with thofe mentioned in Ifai. xlix. where we find 
 Zicn, upon the infidelity and rejection of the flefh- 
 ly feed of Abraham, complaining of her defolate, 
 childlefs and forfaken fituation. " But Zion faid, 
 i( The Lord hath forfaken me, and my Lord hath 
 Zi forgotten me," ver. 14. To this a moft com- 
 fortable anfvver is given from verfe 1 5. to 20 Then 
 1 the Lord proceeds to comfort her with refpect to 
 
 hex 
 
( 7 ) 
 her children ; « The children which thou fhalt 
 ** have, after thou haft loft the other," (i. e. after 
 the Jews fhall be caft off,) « fhall fay again in thy 
 w ears, The place is too ftrait for mej give place 
 " to me that I may dwell," verfe 20. At this un- 
 expected and numerous progeny, Zion is reprefent- 
 ed as wondering \ and indeed the New Teftament 
 fhows how much furprifed the believing Jews were 
 when they faw the accomplifhment of this ; fee 
 Afts x. 28, 45. chap. xi. 8. and therefore there is 
 a queftion about it in the prophecy as a myfterious 
 and puzzling matter to Zion. " Then ihalt thou 
 ' fay in thine heart, Who hath begotten me thefe, 
 ' feeing I have loft my children, and am defolate, 
 f a captive, and removing to and fro ?■ and who 
 " hath brought up thefe ? Behold I was left alone, 
 " thefe where had they been ?" verfe 21. To this 
 It is anfwered, " Thus faith the Lord God, Be- 
 " hold, I will lift lip mine hand to the Gentiles, and 
 " fet up my ftandard to the people; and they fhall 
 *' bring thy fons in their arms, and thy daughters 
 fhall be carried upon their fhoulders. And 
 :< kings fliall be thy nurfing-fathers, and their 
 " queens thy nurfing-mothers," &c. verfe 22, 23. 
 q. d I will caufe the gofpel to be proclaimed to 
 the Gentile nations, and will beget children to thee 
 from among them by the word of truth ; and as to 
 their natural birth, up-bringing,, and earthly pri- 
 vileges, be not concerned about thefe, for I will 
 caufe the heathen perform thefe offices to thy chil- 
 dren, and make the kingdoms of the earth as fo 
 many nurferies, and their kings and queens to be 
 •nurfing fathers and mothers to thera in common 
 "With their other fubje&s. 
 
( 8 ) 
 rn Ifa Uv. l ^B. the church is again comforted 
 with the promife of a numerous offspring. We 
 can be at no lofs to underftand what church is here 
 meant, for the apoftle applies the firft verfe to the 
 Terufalem which is above, and the mother of all 
 God's children, Gal. iv. 26, 27. which was typifi- 
 ed by Sarah the free woman: and, as when Sara* 
 was for a long time barren, till me was paft age, 
 and her womb dead, God promifed that fhe mould 
 be blefled, and be the mother of nations, Gen. 
 xvii. 16. fo her antitype here is addrefled, Sing, 
 « O barren, thou that didft not bear ; break forth 
 « into finging, and cry aloud, thou that d.dft not 
 « travail with child; for more are the children of 
 M th- defolate, than the children of the married 
 « wife, faith the Lord," ver. 1. q.d. However de- 
 folate, forfaken, and barren thou mayft at prefent 
 appear to be by the unbelief of the Jews; yet thou 
 lhalt bring forth a much more numerous ofispring 
 than the earthly Jerufalem, married to me by the 
 Sinai covenant, and typified by Hagar the bond- 
 woman. Therefore fhe is commanded, ver. 2. tc 
 make room for her numerous family, by enlarging 
 le place of her tent, fa. that fhe might no 
 doubt of this on account of her widowhood it is 
 faid to her, ver. 5. " Thy Maker is thy hufband, 
 « (the Loud of Hofts is his name), and by He- 
 f deemerthe Holy One of Ifrael, the God of the 
 « whole earth (hall he be called •,» and that in op- 
 pofition to his being the God of the Jews only 
 Rom iii- 29. fo that it is the Lord, the church s huf- 
 tnd that begets thefe children to her by the word, 
 of truth, (Jam. i. 18.) and hence it is faid, ver. 13. 
 £ Ll thy children fhall be taught of the Lord, *nd 
 J? great (hall be the peace of thy children. ihw 
 
( 9 ); 
 
 laft verfe is cited by our Lord, and he explains fhefe 
 children to be, " Every one that hath heard and 
 " learned of the Father, and cometh unto him," 
 John vi.45. 1'he apoftlealfo explains this prophecy 
 thus; " But Jerufalem which is above is free, which 
 is the mother or us all : for it is written, Rejoice 
 1 thou barren, that beareftnot; break forth and 
 " cry aloud, thou that travailed not; for the de- 
 ■ ( folate hath many more children than me which 
 hath an hufband." And if we enquire what kind 
 of children thefe are; he anfvvers, " Now we, 
 brethren, as Ifaac was, are the children 
 '* ofpromife:" So then, we are not the chil- 
 dren of the bond-woman, but of the free : i. e. 
 We believers in Chrift are the children promifed 
 in the prophets to the Jerufalem above, the anti- 
 type of Sarah the free woman, Gal. iv. 26, 27, 28, 
 31. Here then, is the New Tenement key, or pub- 
 lic interpretation of the prophecies refpefting the 
 children; from which it is plain, they are not cal- 
 led children on account of their nonage, or infant 
 Jiatej for Paul and thofe he writes to were not 
 children in that refpecl; yet, fays he, « We are 
 < the children." Nor are they fo called on ac- 
 count of their natural birth; for the Jerufalem which 
 it above, brings forth no children by that kind of 
 birth; yet he fays, fhe is « the mother of us all >» 
 and the nature of their birth is fully explained 
 John ,. r 3 . chap. iii. 3, 5j 6 . James i. 18. 1 Pet. i! 
 23. Neither is it became they are the feed of be- 
 lievers they are called children ; for thofe to whom 
 the apoftle applies thefe prophecies were moftly the 
 feed of Heathen infidels and Idolaters. 
 
 But thofe who are not fatisfied with the apofto- 
 hc explication of the prophecies, may pun upon the 
 
 pro- 
 
( io ) 
 prophetic ftyle, and plead, Thatthe prophecies fpeak 
 not only of the children of Zion as fuch, but alfo 
 of their children, in fuch exprcflions as thefe : — 
 « The children of thy fervants- their feed-their 
 « children," &c. and fo muft refpea not only be- 
 lievers, but alfo their natural feed. In anfwer to 
 which, I obfeFve, , 
 
 i That thefe promifes are all made, in the tint 
 inaance to the Jews. They are delivered by their 
 own prophets, and addreffedto that people in par- 
 ticular, who were the maternal church, among 
 whom God had not only a typical people, but aUo 
 a remnant according to the eleftion of grace, who 
 believed and embraced the promifes, and waned 
 for the confolation of Ifracl. The apoftle tells us 
 exprefsly, that to them, « belonged the covenants 
 « and the promifes," Rom. ix. 4 - and that in di- 
 ftinaion from the Gentiles, whom he defenbes as 
 at that time » aliens from the commonwealth or 11- 
 rael, and ftrangers from the covenants or pro- 
 
 • mife," Eph. ii. 12. Peter addrefling the Jews, 
 tells them, that they were the children meant m the 
 nrophets, « Ye are the children of the prophets, 
 ^Tnd of the covenant which God made with our 
 « fathers," Arts Hi. 25. and he fhews the convicted 
 Jews, that the promife of the ™*™^ n ^<*£ 
 fion of the Spirit mentioned in Joel was alfo P - 
 ■narily made to them. ■« The promife is unto you- 
 S and to your children, and to all that are afar 
 « off, even as many as the Lord our God mall 
 
 * call," Aas ii. 39- (*°r *^ r k ' ne ^ n0 * "J" 
 that the Gentiles (hould receive the Holy Ghoft. 
 till he learnt it afterwards in the mftance of Co* 
 
 nelius, chap, *. 44, 45) AcC ^fV ^ 
 2 that thefe promifes had thwjrf MCWKptyr 
 
 «( 
 
( i< ) 
 
 ment among the Jews. Chrift's perfonal miffion 
 was only to them, as he declares himfelf, " I am 
 " not fent, but unto the loft fheep of the houfe of 
 ** Ifrael." Thefe he calls the children, in diftinc- « 
 tion from the Gentiles, whom the ftyles dogt, Mat. 
 xv. 24 — 28. Hence alfo, during his perfonal mi- 
 niftry on earth, he forbids his apoftles to go into 
 the way of the Gentiles, Matth. x. 5, 6. and even 
 after his refurrection, when he extends their com- 
 miffion to all nations , he commands them to preach 
 the gofpelfirft unto the Jews, Luke xxiv. 47. This 
 the apoftle fays was necejfary, A£ls xiii. 6. and the 
 neceffity of it is explained, Rom. xv. 8. " Jefus 
 " Chrift was a minifter of the circumcilion, for the 
 * c truth of God, to confirm the promifes made un- 
 {t to the fathers," /'. e. he had his perfonal miffion 
 to the Jews, to vindicate God's faithfulnefs in his 
 promifes to their fathers by the prophets. Peter 
 having told them, that they were the children pri- 
 marily intended in the prophets, and in the promife 
 of the new covenant, fhows, the fulfilment in thefe 
 words, '* Unto you fir ft God having raifed up his 
 " Son, fent him to blefs you in turning away every 
 <£ one of you from his iniquities/' A6ls iii. 25, 26. 
 And Paul addrefling the Jews at Antioch, fays, 
 " We declare unto you glad tidings, how that the 
 " promife which was made unto the fathers, God 
 " hath fulfilled the fame unto us their chil- 
 M dren," &c. A£ts xiii. 32, 33. Thus it appears 
 that the promifes made unto the Jewi{h fathers, 
 had a primary refpedt unto their children, as 
 they are called in the prophecies ; yet not unto all 
 their natural children as fuch, for then that whole 
 nation behoved to be faved ; but only unto a rem- 
 nant of them according to the election of grace, e- 
 
 ven 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 venasmany of them as the Lord mould call, blefs/ ' 
 and turn from their iniquities, as the apoftles explain* 
 
 it. But, 
 
 3. In the prophetic ftyle, old Ifrael are not only 
 called fathers, in refpeft of the elect among their 
 natural children, but alfo in refpettof Gentile be- 
 lievers, who are likewife reckoned their children. 
 For proof of this, fee Jer. xxxi. 31, 32. " Behold, 
 " the days come, faith the Lord, that I will make 
 " a new covenant with the houfe of Ifrael, and 
 " with the houfe of Judahj not according to the 
 « covenant that I made with their fathers in 
 « the day that I took them by the hand to bring 
 « them out of the land of Egypt,'* &c. Here thofe 
 with whom the Lord made the old covenant are 
 called the fathers of thofe with whom he pro- 
 mifes to make the new covenant in Chrift's blood, 
 and which includes believing Gentiles as well as 
 Jews They are likewife fo called in the New Tef- 
 tament. In Heb. iii. and iv. the apoftle proves at 
 large, that the addrefs, Pfal. xcv. 7, 8, 9. refpefts 
 the New Teftament church, " To-day, if ye will 
 « hear my voice, harden not your hearts as in the 
 " provocation — when your fathers tempted 
 " me," &c. Here old Ifrael are called the fa- 
 thers of the people of God for whom the hea- 
 venly reft remains ; that is, the fpiritual feed of all 
 nations, who believing enter into reft. Again, 
 writing to the Corinthians, he fays, " Moreover, 
 " brethren, I would not that ye fhould be igno- 
 " rant, how that all our fathers were under 
 " the cloud, and paiTed through the fea," &c. 
 1 Cor. x. I. where we find old Ifrael ftyled the fa- 
 thers, not only of Paul who was a Jew, but alfo 
 of the believing Corinthians who were Gentile*. 
 
 Now, 
 
i 25 ) 
 
 griSMjlofce apoftolic explication of the prophe- 
 ts as well as types of the Old Teftament. We 
 cannot therefore go at firft hand to the prophecies 
 fa order to explain the New Te/lament by tl em 
 on the contrary, we muft enter them with the N^w 
 Teftament key, by which they are opened to us Z 
 exprefs quotations, doftrinc, or thehi/tory of -fate ■ 
 for the infpired and able miniftcrs of the New Te' 
 itament teach without a veil, an d ufe great plain- 
 nefs of fpeech, 2 Cor. iii. 12 r? tk- k • 7 
 ^n/% ti . £"•"•»*• 12, 13. lhis berne the 
 
 caie, I lay down the reverfe of our author's pofi- 
 fJon, and maintain, F 
 
 That the prophecies which went before concern 
 ing the calling of the Gentiles, and the chill 
 dren who fhould make up the Meffiah's king, 
 dorn^ muft be underftood according to, or 
 explained by, our Lord's commiffion to his 
 apoftles, , n connection with the fubfeouent 
 revelatinn. ^ 
 
 The beft commentary upon our Lord's commif 
 fion to h.s apoftles, is t heir practice i„ execu.uT 
 
 a*. Facts are always the plaineft and mo ft con- 
 v.ncing arguments. 
 
 I. Jefias commands them to « Go, and Boi* al! 
 
 the wo. Id, and /»*** (,V ? o/> c / to every creature » 
 chap. xv,. ,, Accordingly we find them golnta 
 bom every where teaching or preaching thfgoL 
 U nation' JeW !l and i ' fterWards '° ">e Gentlie of 
 
 .1. He commands .hem ,o %»/*, ,*„„ viz . &,£ 
 
 whom they fhould previoufly .each, or make difd! 
 
 Pies by teach.ng; for Mark hath it, « H e that be- 
 
 C " lievetb, 
 
( 26 ) 
 
 «c Utoetb, and is baptized." Let us now fee if they 
 always obferved this order, viz of baptizing only 
 thofe whom they had firft taught or made difciplcs. 
 Peter firft preaches the gofpel to the Jews, then 
 « they that gladly received his word were bap- 
 
 « tized," Aasii.41 rhi'ip, in the firft place, 
 
 preaches the gofpel to the Samaritans, and then 
 £ when they believed Philip preaching the things 
 
 - concerning the kingdom of God, and the name 
 « of lefus, they were baptized both men and wo- 
 l men," Chap viii. .2. -The fame Philip preach- 
 ed Tefus to the eunuch, but it was not till he /»o- 
 fefTed the faith, that he baptized him, ver. 35, 37> 3*' 
 
 — Peter firft taught Cornelius, his houfe and 
 TZl and it was not till the J»» Ghofl fell upon 
 them, and they magnified GJ, that they were bap. 
 
 ^J chao x 44-48. Paul and Silas firft lpake 
 
 ;;; e e tot P of thfLord to the jaylor, and to all that 
 vfere in his houfe, and when they believed it, they 
 were baptized, chap. xvi. 32, 33, 34- ; 
 manner, « many of the Corinthians hearing be- 
 
 ™ {jsvedt and," then it follows, they « were bap- 
 « tized " Aas xviii. 8. Thefe inftances demon- 
 ftrate, hat the apoftles adhered feittj to the or- 
 der of the commiffion , and I make bold to chal- 
 lenge all the Pedobaptift. in the world to produce 
 one fingle inftance wherein they deviated from this 
 order, or baptized any till they were prevunuly 
 made difciples by teaching. j»^i 
 
 1 They are commanded to teach the baptized 
 difciples, «,.... to obferve (keep or obey) aU things 
 vhatfoever he had commanded them, ihis lait 
 teaching is not only expreffed by a different -word 
 in the original, but differs in various other -refpefts 
 
 from the firft, and fo is not a tautology. I he fa 
 
 bas 
 
( 2 7 ) 
 has for its objcti all nations ; the Iaft only the bap- 
 tized difciples gathered out of the nations. The 
 
 defign of the former is to make difciples, or beect 
 unbelievers to the faith ; that of the latter is to in- 
 ftrua believers how they ought to walk and pleafe 
 God The fufjetl matter of the firft is the go- 
 fpel ; that of the latter, Chrift' s laws and ordinan- 
 ces. That the apoftles always timed this Iaft teach- 
 • ing according to the order ftated in the commiffion, 
 is alio plain from the whole of their praaice. As 
 they never baptized any but fuch as were firft made 
 difciples by preaching the gofpel to them ; fo nei- 
 ther did they ever teach men to obey the laws of 
 Chrift till they were baptized difciples. They ne- 
 ver fuopofed that any could obey the gofpel, till 
 once their minds were principled by the truth : nor 
 did they make any account of that obedience which 
 does not fp, ing from love, a pure heart, a good con- 
 science, and faith unfeigned. Wherever we find them 
 inculcating the obfervance of the all things Chrift 
 hath commanded, they addrefs themfelves only 4 
 to difciples, and draw the reafons and motives of 
 their exhortations from the principles of the go- 
 fpel, which fuch are fuopofed already to believe 
 lo evmce this, I might cite all the commandments 
 and exhortations of the New Teftament. f 
 
 C 2 Thus 
 
 fijhicfls of bant, 'An T \ ? u ' S plam ' that none are P'Opcr 
 
 Lo £ 4 P T S r h' JjlL" , may ™™***y *ft« receive Z 
 '• from E Lion ?hfr ^ 7> ° b J £clion tak « its »fe 
 
. , iW the apoftles executed the 
 Thus it is clear, that the P ^^ m 
 
 commiffion in all *W£". Mll „ „ould have 
 „hich it was delivered £tlwo . ^. d . fobedience m 
 been prepofterous, as we' ^ _ ^ . 
 
 them, to have done other w. -^ ^ ,„ 
 
 •<]„ is founded as well ,n the n difan . allg ed or 
 
 pohtive innhmion , and 1 canno b ^ 
 
 Lvcted, without thtovnn . ^^ ^^ 
 
 flon and abfurdlty, * plaining the corn- 
 
 fore to go to the P~ph«'» l ° ft ,&, lig ht of a can- 
 miffiou. This would be to ui f uffi tiently 
 
 a,e,ole.usfeethe m end,anfun offi I ^ ^ 
 
 " U;n ,r f U S ! toe apoVolic p'aaice entirely re- 
 Ihould remain, we «p 
 
 moves it. , „.nhecies concerning the children 
 
 Further, ' ! « P rC1) „l e Meffiah's kingdom as u 
 
 wh o ihould make up the £ aerftood accord- 
 
 appears in th.s «g*^3 , h e fubfeqoen. revcla- 
 
 jg to this comm.ff.on, » .,, „ , th , s 
 
 •ton E« nth ? P f ™ W» children but fuch a. 
 
 , co mmiff.on «&%™S* ot made difciples by 
 
 <■ „f tliencwVurth, end thc 
 
 tW/m is ibr Gfen of " e "\ • and fo the con- 
 
 m; Aas ii. ..J, j; G hriA the J«g fipnifitJ - b, 
 
 S»* ? H "hVt tpX belongs to none b». £* as an : 
 it is admUteJ, that »*? ^ and I i*, no h Lor< l's 
 
( 2 9 ) 
 
 *«j. Everyone that £&£ f^f <***» 
 ' *e Father, cometh unto me > fn* ^ ° f 
 they are all the children of God h f J'* 4 ^ for ~ 
 Jtfus, Gal. iii. 26 t,°; Go f ^7 faith in Chrift 
 
 -one as viable children of G^ Ltf 7^* 
 fciTed this faith. Such alfn V x. U ° h as P r0 " 
 
 - to be bapti J^o ^note 01111 ^^ 110 
 for u does not fay Bam,', r , "mmiffion i 
 
 >"ch or Mciph KteSS .1 i!dren firft > «"» 
 
 "•ary, it rum, « Tearh ,n • ; but ' on the «». 
 "-He ,ha, fcwtnd ST"* bap ' izin S *"* 
 •his .he wholeof theaoofto P '"•W** and «*h 
 Joflrine about L»5faS!jE^ ****** 
 
 " feith in Chrirt 'efts • V '' Cn of G °d by 
 
 " b==n baptized £"$*! ■ "**»* of » M have 
 Gal. iii. 2(5) %p ° Ulr,ft > have put on Chrifiy* 
 
 Enough, I am perfuaded i e 
 vinee any fitnpfc an 3 ^J*"» faid <° con- 
 ™ffi=nha S norefpeVt n ,, f rf ° n ' ""'the eom- 
 *- *«* a pi , ffi tt " '; b : P v " rm ° f "fan.*, and 
 "> as well as with the nronh - y Inconi Pa'ible with 
 
 '"• : *«* Hnfl tat route " hicb rehtc 'here: 
 fancies on tilis i lead . oot, « "f ftme of our author's 
 
 He gives us two views nf.i 
 « "Ipecls ■««,*„ J™ ^l com <niffion._,. As 
 
 ***** A tnoft euriou, d Ui n r l ?eaS ' M **^ 
 ■f the.apoftles were to r«S P ' &nft ' on 'ndeed!. As: 
 
 »bo m , hey were n ttw^^ 4 '^ °'h=rs 
 ev «.'s to ftow, ,h-, , h ' H,s 'n'emion, how. 
 bap,ifin of thofe wh"o a" ^f « "™ *£ 
 M Par. of lhis im in a a r ; "°' 'aught. Upon th 
 
( 3° ) 
 
 ; 5^ i 
 l- •, to hr underftood according to the 
 
 the Je WS> v,hod,dno .ard ^^ 
 
 aut) onty of J f^. I ^ ,„ lhe 
 
 stews, i 2-j-gtrs 
 
 apoftles would have had no apolUe, 
 
 Jews i for «^?fSXT5» *» were 
 fpeaks only of *e Gen e , JM ^ an 
 
 commiffioned to teacn «> , c miffion of 
 
 Gentiles; to preach ^T^-^Sm, <**■ 
 
 fins, in Chnfi-s ~~?«3&X 
 KiH ^/ 7eu^/em, Lnke »,v. 47 ^^ a 
 
 was commuted « h« gof£ » ° ^^ 
 
 „nto Peter , ,«« henr * go P ^ & ^ ^ 
 f t cn, as unto Paul, l»a > 7 ^ ff/yb „ 
 
 '-preached the gofpel, *°> h '( ^ is a wrong 
 0. GmiUn, Rom. t «• * • , After a ll, 
 
 .lew of the cotnnuffion, b «u P , , fa 
 
 what coneern has , ,» «« " his (econd Clew, v* 
 pofe we muft gather h. from h ^ 
 
 * " This C °T,f "deftood According to the 
 " «ptfcfr*, muft be una -r GeI> _ 
 
 « nits, and the a ro -ars in this world. 
 
 !ourfes to the' Jews- ^^StoSd only' & 
 ing the Jews mow he«J fc ^ (h 
 
 teach the Gent.les > Or ho ^..^ 
 
 »«tt« *»£"* r^^rfe, after all, -the 
 cover this we muft hat t >e-ou jahpgjj 
 
t 3t ) 
 
 author's paraphrafe, giving fl Jch a fenft of 
 
 l^ 39 a **a ° WnS tIle apoftIe him <^ did not' 
 under/land or .ntend , and no wonder, fo P i n 
 deed it is a very ftrange one « Ch» 
 
 m.fc of a ftandmg ,„ hi, kingdom as it appears 
 .n dm world, is un,o you, and ,„ your chiWren 
 and to them that are afar off, belonging to ,„ ' 
 nat.on in the fame way that it i. unto^u "tS 
 .s, to them and their ehildren : i„ this way it 
 unothoft whom theLord ourGodlhi y™ 
 
 •' ha e fheT nat ' 0n , ! f ° r ' he Gemi, « ■" to 
 have the fame privdeges with the Jews in the 
 
 kmgdom of Jefus."-The ripmtl „ , which ou 
 an her here rails the Jews ,„, j. f uch as th * °™ 
 
 he Meffiahs k.ngdom to believe, tha, they as the 
 chtldren of Abraham, and their earnal feed, ftoull 
 have a fanning n it, for this was the view they all 
 along had 1 of i, ; but when John the Ban, ft 
 preaches the k.ngdom of the Meffiah, he calls them 
 
 o repent of inch views, « Uegin no , to fty j£? 
 
 , T'"- 7;* We h " e A >"'»ham to our father" 
 
 I.uke ,„. 8.) or, in other words, We have a be- 
 
 hever to our father; for this c'an procure you 
 
 no ftandmg ,„ the Meffiah's kingdom Agree- 
 
 able to thts the apoftle fays, •< Henceforth knoSwe 
 
 no man after the flelh;",' «. We efteem no man 
 
 fiom Abraham or by any thing that conftituted 
 
 " „ r{ ,! , U 7 h ~" Thc '' ef0re > i »n7manbe 
 
 2 Co, v ',«' " (0r 'a'" him be) a n « v «* 
 2 Co, v. ,(S,.,y Ag aia the e K , hic Kh e 
 
 JOAkes them of a^*.^ % (as ^ ca] , s ;[) ia. 
 
 very. 
 
( 3* ) 
 
 i»" V\ Peter here men- 
 
 bY our author to be mj is here 
 
 *> i-^^»3SuiS- that L fpoken of 
 fpeaking of *c fame en daugh ters who 
 
 £ U ^-/^Sp" and prophecy. Mr.^d- 
 (hould receive the bpir r „ p eterfays , 
 
 dlefton obferveson thi panag , ^ 
 
 * and ^t^e^Xded in the,<prccedin g 
 
 " ^^^blktkehild^e^." But he might 
 *. you, fo all their litt ^ chu . 
 
 atfo have told us that the ^ th£nij 
 
 dren who caft out devn , to ? „ M ^ 
 
 .. By whom do )«wr *««"» ^^ifced from 
 & Here ^^^td^nnot be in- 
 thofe-homour Wad ^^.^orttegj 
 
 eluded in the P«cca.no X > §< ^ ^ chll . 
 this author's logic, mu ; U) « ftems to have 
 
 hadaveryjuft view of ^ c^ ^ ^ as 
 
 f, where he fays, in * ^ caU . and MM 
 
 « ' ma ny as the Lord our God m ^ 
 
 « can appear to us to J. th c al ^ ^ 
 
 « fuch as appear to ^' " \.j exhor ution to 
 
 u prea.hed, and to -^t makes Peter tell 
 
 M repentance "t- —gentiles were to have the 
 
 the Jews, that ^ 
 
 « fame privileges with tnem <{ j tfus „ 
 
 D . t ***** « Leuc " " Ta " Ca ^ 
 
 • Letters, p. *«• » "" 
 
 AfjaCo, Vol. ii. P- 33* 
 
stance, who w P °e ""N^ J*w s t0 re . 
 
 «™4. Inlhorr, h " ™J, C ' aW y° bear ,ha, 
 P-aphrafe, as ,' £ d ^ »« * framed his 
 ** addreffing b, .„, ™ ° ** that Pe Kr 
 he w as calling ,h em t0 «„!„, 7'""' and that 
 bf»t«l and ye, afie ,lf P -° d ba P ti2e > ** 
 *ere, bn, ,J V hTt,l "* We find "one bap, i2ed 
 --.ha, fin^ a ^ff~«' -4 and 
 ^ermi, me now, in mv ,,,'„ hWch ' ver - <»'• 
 
 'Jo verfes, The V voJ&Z\?uT 9h ™ h ,heft 
 '« of i„ Joel , is u P mo * of h Hob, Ghoft) fpo _ 
 
 *«>, even your f om '/?' ^ t0 J»" chil. 
 prophecy, Tcr . , 7 . and i, 1 ^'^ Who *** 
 **« Jerufalem, b", t '*£ Z Tl " y ° U wh 
 «« a ^ off from thence d 1 r J * ° f you wh o 
 ** i yet no, ,o all he T e ^ ^^ ,he ™' 
 femnan, aecording ,o ,L eUff ""?"' tat '° 'he 
 «• ^7- chap. xi. ,i l h .? a ' m of Sftee, (R om . 
 %'e« « .he P ^ ^ - 'he prophecy ar J 
 
 **' »• » I fo this promlft i t d <hMciU " 
 you, and your children, bo,,, 1/ °^ ""T «* 
 * the Lord our God (hall c "' and «""«*«, 
 you ; for he give* the H ,,/■',. *° ° 0ae dk of 
 oheyhim, chap. v ., 2 R^^l °" ,y <° ftch d 
 >«ed every one of yo„ i/Z "'"^ and he bap- 
 *>■■ 'he remiflion of fi's » J"™: n° f J rf »Chrift, 
 g'frof,heHolyGhoft a ; ", U ^ (haI1 "ceive ,he 
 He owns we .<ff; u C n ,n8, ° GodV P-'«- ; 'e! 
 " «»o covenant, „,/ £ ',/w "f «" "rning tIle 
 I =nd ,he new or be,,, S,n; " c ovenanf, 
 
 ^^'-'^eaofChri^tl^,^ 
 
,. heine conncaedwitU 
 .. t he feed of Ahnmam o^*"^ accol .ding 
 .. him who is of .he feed of A d .„__ H ad 
 
 . ,o the fleih, *« »""££". wha. he is to* 
 IU author eonndered p oper 7 ^ concef . 
 
 fion.he. hath entirely g r ^ ftand upon , 
 
 hiStelf pot from ev ry g ^ fi . 
 
 j, being impoffible for h he , down 
 
 ti ons confiftently v-nhthe pn ^ ^ ^ f 
 for infant bapt.fm s for t eg ,„„ of Chr.ft 
 
 plaee .o .he flelhly ta* .-£ £* 
 Snder .he new "-venam .hat eoM ». He 
 
 th e ear.hly kingdom nude ■ * ihe;r be;ng chrl . 
 m ak« h - good. an ev.den 
 
 ftians, as it was formerly or under th 
 
 he makesi. of g-^^^M no. duVmguiO. 
 oW covenants f° r *"L ' . bu t now, (aeeord- 
 ,he fpirimal feed of Abraham , whQm ^ 
 
 J .ohis doftrine) .. pom" - 
 Me t0 reekon .he .rue holy . ., Mr. 
 
 t Uual, everlaMng and ^ a yj ^ 
 Huddlefton afferts, ma Cpiriiual feed 
 
 !, Teftamen. bctto«- »«^, es> &, t hey are 
 .. of Abraham*. but n „ Be . 
 
 dimngui.hed by the nen y bu ^.^ , 
 
 .< lievers infants are dmin 10 be t he 
 
 „ tlling which ?«>^*Z» of .he mou.H 
 
 .. fpiri.ua! Iftaehv-* «g* th:n con fefs .he 
 
 .. to falvation t- D ° ' n _ How th en are .hej 
 
 fai.hwith.hemou.h. "° n of another - 
 
 diftinguidied? By he ° n fcffion rc fpeft all in 
 
 Very «U, and does .his o ^ , h 
 
 fan.s? No^-Howtheo* > froro othe 
 
 fants whom this confemon v infa „ t s 
 
 + Page 7t- 
 
( 3S ) 
 
 few;* * ** zsxsrsi 
 
 what is. ieeas, I know not 
 
 " which confift S b ;rktd*'^^™'-. 
 *' with thetfw w£' 1 , ° Ut ° f "" nations . 
 
 " Wi e v e withouf pro'er ' w he "' ,S ° f thofe "ho 
 " minds of them Z P ""' and blind the 
 
 - '»«. of ,L s ?„ oGod-r;; 1 t fimpk r £ 
 
 h « cites Matth. xii ? 4 , *' "".^dMinffioa 
 
 ««rf and &/£&«. , 7 ; hi f . WhKb , f P eaks of the 
 
 Matth. xxv . ,_ S ; '°. hs h « »»ght have added, 
 
 /.»/# virgins. 4 ' Ch fpeaks of the m ™ d 
 
 As the author's whole fr(.,. m . r 
 
 aH be eeeLniv ^^^g^ «» 
 cietv whirh f K« r • 7 «<»v ( _u. mis is that fo- 
 
 ../.; S S ,t'SV'"' tr""*-* 
 War, '*S«""*"X 
 
 no 
 
„„ hypoerite or uneleafthing ct» en-, Kev. 
 
 x xi 2 7- . . : - t v, s kingdom <i/)/»Mrj in ihts 
 - Wem TTnh op n proWion of the feWi 
 «»»"" s " o respondent fruits, and 
 f Jefus, wi.h *. .CO « P » fpeak hey 
 
 other way -, but as men d frQm 
 
 .hink, and as S 00 ^"*™'/^ further, as « 
 ^ .Tt no" e & j-adge the hearts of 
 
 neither can, nor are unbe lkvers may enter 
 
 ro en, hence hypocctes n<3 N»nM ^ ^ ^ . 
 
 into the arf «r,.«« of tins k "g con . 
 
 and fo our Lord reprefents n «h. , ^ 
 
 fiflres, d>c To *r* w * of whom are a SfiH*. 
 
 churehes of the f u» «. « eh ^ .^.^ 
 
 repre/enimion of that one u j 
 
 But to the point: to us 
 
 - Thofe whom the fenpture points 
 a- •.' ri,,.;ft'» kinadom as it appeals 
 as belonging to J Chi .ft. k tng ^ longing 
 
 this world, muft alfo be loofeea j iK 
 
 ,o the holy nation of -™*»* none bre . 
 obliged by the word of _ Godto ^ ac _ 
 
 thren, but fueh as r^«** T^,, f ame word, 
 
 cordingly. We are alfo *™£& faith of Chrift, 
 toefteem every one who p.ofeffes.^ 
 
 and appears under us mfluence t fGod> 
 
 ,****, but '" ';» *,^ n o whom Chrift died, 
 and to love themasb.e.men to diftin aion 
 
 We are not allowed here to make any 
 betwiat thofe who be ong " "^ who be- 
 Chrift's kingdom ^^J^ that are 
 ^r^Kuftw^n-tdoi.. ThiscH, 
 S^ S only to ^ *--K 
 ,hom he hath chofen, and who are ^^jjj 
 
( 39 ) 
 appearance rauft be efteemed by us his real fubjec"fe s 
 and belonging to the fpiritually holy nation of them 
 that are faved ; for this plain reafon, becaufe it is 
 the appearance of that vety thing. 
 
 What an unworthy view muft our author have 
 of the fubjecls of baptifm, and even of his own bre- 
 thren, when he diftinguifhes them from the fpiri- 
 tually holy nation of the faved, and cannot look 
 upon them as belonging thereto ! What can be the 
 foundation of his charity to them ? Does ever the 
 fcripture enjoin us to love a mere appearance, with- 
 out fuppofing its invisible reality ? But our author, 
 that he may avoid confounding matters, takes fpe- 
 cial care, all along, to let us know, that he does 
 not mean the reality, but only the appearance of 
 things ; and Co he is contending for a mere fhadow, 
 a thing of nought. 
 
 He comes next to what is commonly called 
 the mode or manner of baptifm ; but I fhall defer 
 the confideration of this, till I have difcuffed his 
 arguments about the fubjeCfs t and ^oceed at pre- 
 fent to 
 
 PART III. 
 
 !* The houfhold of Lydia were baptized when 
 " fhe made profeflion of the faith of Jefus," 
 Acls xvi. 13, 14, 15. 
 
 His meaning is, that her houfhold were bapti- 
 zed upon her Angle profeflion of the faith, with- 
 out being either taught, or making a profeflion 
 themfelves ; and his reafon for this fuppofition is, 
 that it is not particularly mentioned. But by the 
 fame rule of interpretation, we may deny that {h& 
 [ D 2 pro- 
 
( 40 ) 
 profefTed the faith herfelf before baptifm ; for nei- 
 ther is that particularly mentioned in fo many 
 words. Rom. x 10. however, is to him a fuffici- 
 ent prccf, that (he muft have confeffed the faith 
 with her mouth; and if fo, he cannot in juftice 
 blame us, though we fhould refer him to the com- 
 miffion as a proof that her houfhold were taught 
 and believed, before they were baptized ; efpecially, 
 .when this is corroborated and explained by the 
 whole practice of the apoftles, and the inftances of 
 all the other houfholds they baptized. He cannot 
 but allow, that it is a good and fafe rule to make 
 the fcripture its own interpreter, or to explain the 
 more concife and obfeure pafTages by fuch other 
 paffages relating to the fubject as are more full and 
 explicit; and if he admits of this rule in every o- 
 ther cafe, he ought certainly to- fhew caufe why it 
 cannot be admitted here. I appeal to himfelf, if 
 he has not purpofely fingled out this account of 
 Lydia's houfhold in distinction from all the reft, 
 for its very concifenefs, and as affording him, from 
 ksfilence, the greateft fcope for conjecture. Sure- 
 ly that muft be a bad caufe which obliges men to 
 fliun the light, and avail themfelves of darknels, 
 and fo oppofe what the fcripture fays not, to what 
 it pofitively and repeatedly declares. Taking ad- 
 vantage then of the filence of this paffage^ he con- 
 jectures, that Lydia's houfhold was all made up of 
 little children ; and then fhe muft have been an ex- 
 traordinary woman indeed, to have managed her 
 public bufinefs of felling purple, together with, a 
 family of helplefs infants, for it does not appear 
 fhe had a hufband at that time. If it be fuppofed 
 fhe had fervants to aflift her, then, for any thing 
 wc know, thefe may have been her bonfiold, ac- 
 cording 
 
( 4« ) 
 cording to the frequent life of that word in fcrip- 
 lure; fee Gen. xvii. 27. 1 Kings i. 9, it. 2 Kings 
 vii 9 1 1. But our author imagines they were in- 
 fants, becaufe when (he invites Paul and his com- 
 panions to her houfe, (lie ufgthis argument, If 
 S Y e have judged me faithfu*. whereas had they 
 bee'n adults, (he muft have {$ If ye have judged 
 us faithful, elfe (he mutt havFhad « a lugh fenfe 
 « of her own importance, and a great penury ot 
 « brotherly love." But perhaps (he knew that (he 
 had the only right, both by the law of God and 
 man, to invite them to her own houfe, and that m 
 her own name too, as (he was the miftrefs and head 
 of it, as well as proprietor of all the entertainment 
 therein ; and perhaps (he did this in the kind fim- 
 plicity of her heart, without imagining what bad- 
 conftruftibn would be put upon this aft of love 
 , 724 years afterwards. Suppofing her thoroughly 
 inftVaed in the Chriftian law of " efteeming 
 « others belter than ourfelves, and in honour pre- 
 « ferring one another," Rom. xii. 10. Philip, n. 3. 
 (for which (he had as yet very little time), yet it 
 could never enter into her head, that that law fet 
 afide her civil fuperiority of miftrefs over her (er- 
 vants, or her natural fuperiority of a parent, even 
 over her. adult children ;. fee Eph. vi. I, 2, 3, $i <V 
 7 8 Nor could (he ever learn, from any exhor- 
 tation in all the New Teftament, (fuppofingit then- 
 written), that (he was now deprived of the lo c 
 right of difpofing of her own ; of ufing hofpitahty 
 to faints and ftrangers ; and of preffing their ac- 
 ceptance Of her kindnefs, as an evidence that they 
 cfteemed her faithful to 'the Lord therein; fee 
 
 3 John ver. 5. ■ n. 
 
 The author does " not chufe to fay what muft 
 
 D 3 " hC - 
 
( 42 ) 
 " be afcribed to Paul and his companions, who- 
 K f. were conftraincd by this argument :" for it feems, 
 had they complied with her invitation as a teftimo- 
 ny that they efteemed her faithful, it would have 
 been fuch an atrocious fin in them, as is not fit to 
 be mentioned. But he ought to remember, that the 
 apoftles were not fo evil-minded as he would have 
 been in this cafe. They were not fo ungratefully 
 difpofed, as to fnap at the hand that offered them 
 a kindnefs, nor fo captious as to carp at expreffions. 
 dictated by a heart overflowing with love. 
 
 He fays, " We may learn from Jefus's words-, 
 " that her little children are here called her hou- 
 «' fhold j for, pointing at the little children who 
 " were brought to him ih the days of his flefh, he 
 " faid, Of Jucb is the kmgdcm of God." There are 
 fome aiTertions- difficult to anfwer from their ex- 
 treme abfurdity; and I am miftsken if this is 
 not one of them. Our Lord does not here men- 
 tion any perfon's houfhold whatever, far lefs the 
 houfhold of Lydia in particular; neither is he de- 
 fining the word houjhold, or reftricling its fenfe to 
 little children, contrary to its ufual acceptation 
 throughout the whole fcripture. His words are 
 not, Of fuch only are the houfholds of believers ; 
 but^ ." Of fuch is the kingdom of God." How 
 then can we learn from thefe words that Lydia had 
 little children, who are here called her houfhold, 
 and that in distinction from her adult children and 
 dbmeftics ? Noah's houfe confuted of his wife, fons 
 and daughters-in-law, and there were no infants 
 there, Gen. vii. 7. Abraham had a numerous hou- 
 fhold of fervants, whilft as yet he had no child of ' 
 his own, Gen. xiv. \q. chap. xv. 2, 3. Our Lord 
 fcy_Sj " A man's foes fhali be they of his own honfe- 
 
 "hold." 
 
( 43 ) 
 £>old,» Matth. x . 36 - does the word boufim 
 here mean little children? The word houfe 
 or houfhold, in fcripture frgnines fometimes a man's 
 kindred, lineage, and diftant pofterity, Luke i. 27 
 chap. ii. 4. fometimes a whole people or tribe Pfal 
 gxv. 12. and fometimes, a man's particular family,' 
 including his wife, adult and infant children, as 
 well as domefl.c fervants, as has been fhown : but 
 in no par; of the word of God does it fignify little 
 children in d.ftinaion from adults, this being on. 
 ly a conceit of fome modern Pedobaptifts, invent- 
 ed to fupport their caufe with the ignorant; but 
 which muft prejudice it with thofe who fearch the 
 lcriptures for themfelves. 
 
 Thcpaflkge itfelf, however, affords evidence 
 that Lydia s houfhold were adults ; for we are told 
 ver 40. that Paul and Silas " went out of the pril 
 Ion, and entered into the houfe of Lydia, and 
 when they had feenahe brethren, they comfort- 
 ed them and. departed." Now, infants cannot 
 be iuppofad capable of being comforted ; and whe- 
 ther it is mod reafonable to think that they com- 
 forted thefe young converts of Lydia's houfhold 
 whom they were now leaving behind them, expofed 
 to the hatred of their infidel neighbours, or thefe 
 hardy v Ct c ran , Timothy and Luke, their fellow- 
 travellers and labourers, who departed along with 
 themfelves, let the reader judge. This fame Ti- 
 mothy was fent back to comfort and ftrengthen the 
 Iheflalomans, a. little while afterwards, 1 Theff 
 lii. 1 — 8. 
 
 Our author farther affirms, that « the baptifm 
 
 c °u r C hou{hold of L V d '^ when fire profeffed 
 
 the faith, was agreeable to the doctrine which 
 
 Eaul taught; for he faid to believers in Je- 
 
 "-fuSj, 
 
( 44 > 
 ff f us> u The unbelieving hufband is fanaified W 
 « the wife, and the unbelieving wife is fanaified 
 « * the hufband ; elfe were your children un- 
 it clean," or common, « but now are they holy, or 
 « fet apart unto God." i Cor vii. 14. But what 
 has this text to do with baptifm ? The apoftle is 
 not here fpeaking a word upon that fubjeft, but 
 anfwering the fcruples of Chriftians about con- 
 tinuing in their marriage relation with infadels. rie 
 makes the apoftle to fay, that the children are ho- 
 ly as « fet apart unto God ;" whereas he is fpeak- 
 in* of a holinefr which is the refult of the unbe- 
 -lie°ving party's being fanaified or made holy 3 for, 
 fays the apoftle, « the unbelieving party hSd^ 
 » fled elfe were your children unclean." The 
 apoftle denies that the children would be holy, un- 
 lefs the unbelieving parent were fo alio ; and it is 
 certain, that no other holinefs can refult from, or 
 be thus conneaed with, the holinefs of an unbe- 
 liever, but what is of the fame nature with irfclf. 
 Mr Huddlefton, after having told us, that the un- 
 believing wife is fanaified to the hufband as his 
 food is, gives us his view of the holinefs of the 
 children thus, « But now are they holy, viz. as 
 « the Corinthians themfelves were holy, being 
 « wafhed, fanaified and juftified in the name of 
 « the Lord Jefus, and by the Spirit of God . 
 Let us try then how the text will read according to 
 this aloft; " The unbelieving wife is fanftifiedto 
 « th! hufband as his foci is ; elfe were youi : ch.l- 
 «< dren neither wafhed, fanaified nor juftificdin 
 « the name of the Lord Jefus, nor by the Spirit 
 « of God ' ' '" The very ftating of this, mani- 
 fefts its abfurdity a, once. The fame author prcn 
 
 •Letters, p. IS. 
 
( 4? ) 
 pofes what he calls a reasonable requeft, viz. " Let 
 ** a n y t^xt in the Bible, between the beginning and 
 *' the end, be produced where a perfon is faid to 
 " be holy, where a fpecial relation to God, or be- 
 .* ing devoted and feparated to him is not intend- 
 " ed *." — But without entering into fuch an ex- 
 tenfive fearch, I produce this very text under con-> 
 fideration, " The unbelieving hufband is fanctifi- 
 " ed (iyiarai, made holy) by the wife, and the un- 
 *' believing wife is fanctified (made holy) by the 
 " hufband ;" to which let me add his own fenfe of 
 thefe words, that " the unbeliever is fanctified to 
 " the believer as his food is f," and this gives a 
 full anfwer to his requeft ? until he iuform us what 
 fpecial relation to God unbelievers have by this ho- 
 linefs, and how they are devoted 01 -feparated to him 
 thereby. He fays, *' We have generally explained 
 " the fanclification here to intend marriage— but 
 " is it poflible we can be ferious in fuppofing the 
 '* apoftle would tell thefe Corinthians that had un- 
 *' believing wives, that they were married to them ? 
 (< or, did the Corinthians need to be told this ? %" 
 No ; but though they did not need to be told they 
 were married, yet they needed to be told that 
 their marriage was' lawful, elfe what was the 
 ground of their fcruple at all ? He is net telling 
 them they were married, but that their marriage 
 was laviful or holy, by fhowing them that the un- 
 believing party was fantlified (s») in that relation to 
 the believer, and fo not to be put away He alfo 
 mifreprefents our view of the uncleannefs and ho- 
 linefs of the children " We have (fays he) ex- 
 " plained the uncleannefs of the children to be 
 " baflardy, and the holinefs legitimacy '§ ;" and he 
 
 thinks 
 * inters, p. 71, f Ibid, p. 30. ^Ibid. ^ Ibid. 
 
( 46 ) 
 thinks the Corinthians had no occafion to be told, 
 their children were not baftards; for as they were 
 the children of marriage, they muft have known 
 them to be legitimate. But by baftards in this cafe 
 we do not mean thofe begotten betwixt perfons 
 fingle, or unmarried, but the iflue of unlawful mar- 
 riages, like thofe which fprung from an Ifraelhe's 
 marriage with a heathen. This is the uncleannefs 
 which the apoftle is fpeakingof; and as he makes 
 this uncleannefs of the children, to come from 
 the fuppofed unlawfulnefs of their parents marri- 
 age, fo does he make their holinefs to be the effect 
 of the lawfulnefs or fanctity of that marriage ; and 
 what kind of holinefs can this be but legitimacy, 
 they being begotten according to the law of God, 
 which is the ftandard of all holinefs ? 
 
 That the holinefs of the children here is of the 
 fame kind with that of the unbelieving parent, will 
 be further evident, if we confider, I. That the 
 apoftle infers the one from the other: "The un- 
 '* believing wife is fanctitfed ; — elfe were your chil- 
 " dren unclean; but now are they holy; M now it 
 does not follow from the parent's having one kind 
 of holinefs, that therefore the children muft have 
 another and higher kind ; but it follows clearly, 
 that if the wife or hufband is lawful, the children 
 
 muft be fo alfo. 2. The apoftle abfolutely denies 
 
 that the children would have this holinefs, unlefs , 
 the unbelieving parent («yi«r«») bad been fan ftified, or 
 previoufly made holy : " The unbelieving wife 
 f< hath been fan&ified ; — elfe were your children 
 " unclean." Now, if the holinefs of the children 
 be the effect of their being wafhed, juftified and 
 fanclified, it could never depend upon, or ftand 
 and fall with that inferior kind of holinefs afcrib- 
 
 ed 
 
( 47 ) 
 
 ed to the unbelieving parent ; for this would be to 
 make the very falvation of children to depend up- 
 on the lawfulnefs of their parents marriage ; but 
 if we underftand the holinefs to be legitimacy, it 
 is plain that this depends entirely on their parents 
 having been lawfully married. 3. When the apoftle 
 fays, " Elfe were your children unclean," he mows 
 what would have been the cafe, had the law of 
 Mofes been in force with refpecl: to their unbeliev- 
 ng wives ; but that law made the children unclean 
 ri no other fenfe than it made the unbelieving pa- 
 rent j therefore the holinefs which he oppofes to 
 :hat uncleannefs, and afcribes to each, muft be the 
 ame in both. 4. No other holinefs than legiti- 
 macy could fuit the apoftle's argument againft put- 
 ing away their unbelieving wives ; for the chil- 
 dren of even an inceftuous marriage may have the 
 lolinefs of the truth, while yet the marriage itfelf 
 Dught ftill to be diffblved ; but if the children are 
 awfully begotten, then the marriage muft have 
 peen lawful alfo, and therefore muft ftand. 
 
 Upon the whole, it is demon ftrably clear, that 
 :he meaning of the paflage is neither more nor Iefs 
 .han this, " Ye muft not put away your unbeliev- 
 ing wives, if they are willing to dwell with you, 
 (as Ifrael were obliged to do by their law of fe- 
 paration from the heathen, Deut. vii. 3.) elfe 
 ye muft put away your children alfo; for 
 that law claffed them with the unclean party, 
 and enjoined them to be put away, Ezra x. 3. ; 
 but now, under the gofpel, both the unbelieving 
 party, and the children begot with them, are 
 holy or lawful, even as the meats formerly for- 
 bidden are, ( 1 Tim. iv. 5.) that law being fet afide 
 
 ." which 
 
( 4* ) 
 4t which maide them unlawful or unclean." Now, 
 what has this pafTageto do with infant fpiinkling ? 
 
 Our author afferts, that H the children of believ- 
 " ing parents are repiefented in fcripture as forae 
 " way connected with their parents in the profef- 
 «* fion made by them j" and for proof of this cites 
 2 Tim. i 1 6. M The Lord give mercy to the houfe 
 •* of Onefiphorus ; for he oft refreshed me, and 
 *■ was not afhamed of my chain " So it feems 
 Paul could not pray for the houfe of Onefiphorus, 
 unlefs they had been connected with their parent 
 in his profeffion ! ! ! Does this deferve an anfwer ? 
 The houfhold of Onefiphorus were not infants, 
 but had made the profeffion themfelves, as is evi- 
 dent from his charging Timothy, in this very epi- 
 ftle, to falute them, chap. iv. 19. 
 
 .The author fays, children zrcfome way connect- 
 ed with their parents ; but does not tell us what 
 way. I will venture to do it for him The pecu- 
 liar connection betwixt a parent and his child is 
 entirely natural and carnal. If they are Chrift's, 
 they are in that refpect both equally children ; and 
 in relation to one another, in this connection, they 
 are not parent and child, but brethren ; in which re- 
 fpedt they are as much related to all the houfhold 
 of God as to one another. This connection has 
 nothing to do with the fiefhly relation, but is fu- 
 pernatural - y nor is it peculur to parent and child, 
 but is founded on that common union by which 
 every member of Chrift's body is connected with 
 him as the Head. 
 
 He concludes this part, by obferving, " That in 
 " the baptifm of little children we have a lively re- 
 " prefentation of this great truth, - As fin and 
 M death came from the firlk Adam to all his na- 
 
 " tural 
 
( 49 ) 
 *** tural feed, and even to little children, -without 
 '« any act or deed of theirs j fo righteoufnefs and 
 " life come from the fecond Adam to all his fpi- 
 "*• ritual feed, and even to little children in the 
 
 ** fame way" This feems to imply, that this 
 
 great truth is not fo properly reprefented in the 
 baptifm of believers, becaufe they can perform 
 fome aft or deed of their own to obtain righteouf- 
 nefs and life *. If there is any thing in this repre- 
 fentation peculiar to infants, it muft ly in this, 
 that as by the obedience of one many are made 
 righteous ; fo (according to our author) by the 
 profeflion of one man all his infants appear righ- 
 teous Thus the parent and his profeflion for his 
 houlhold, is a lively reprefentation of Chrift and 
 his vicarious obedience for the whole houfhold of 
 faith ! ! ! But then the other part of the reprefen- 
 tation is not quite fo lively ; for whereas by the 
 difobedience of one many are made firuiers, and fo 
 in their firft birth are (hipen in iniquity and conceiv- 
 ed tn Jin, the author teaches us, that children are 
 born holy by virtue of their connection with believ- 
 ing parents, and this may be conftructed by weak 
 mir.di as contradicting the doctrine of original fin ; 
 for every one will not be able to understand how 
 righteoufnefs and life fhould be tranfmitted to us 
 in the fame channel with fin and death. 
 
 Mr Huddlefton affirms, " That men have their 
 ct little children connected with them in the great 
 " falvation by the Lord Jefus Chrift, even as they 
 " are in the condemnation by Adam +." But this 
 contradicts a number of fcripture facts ; Adam 
 had a Cain in his family, Noah a Ham, Abraham 
 E an 
 
 • The Papifts have invented vmny lively representations, which 
 they hink more fignificant than thofe which God hath enjoined, 
 f Letters, p. *3» 
 
( 5° ) 
 an tthmael, and Ifaac an Efau, none of which 
 children the fcripture directs us to look upon as 
 connected with their parents in falvation ,and yet all 
 thefe were infants before they became adults. But 
 he has a falvo for this, viz. that the connection in 
 falvation continues only during their infancy, but 
 vani flies in the adult Mate. This hereditary falva- 
 tion, fleeting as it is, he makes peculiar to the New 
 Teftament ': " The promife (fays he) which is to 
 " believers and their children, belongs to the co- 
 •• venant made after thefe days; and it was never 
 c< faid to Abraham, thou (halt be faved, and thy 
 *' houfe *." Now, if we compare this with his af- 
 firming, that this promife " is the very teftimony 
 '• of the gofpel f," it rauft follow, that the 
 gofpel was not preached before unto Abraham ; 
 nor could his faith " anfwer to that which is now 
 " preached," or be fct before us in the New Tefta- 
 ment as the example of our faith, as in Rom. iv. 12, 
 23, 24. Gal. iii. 6 — 9. Neither can we, according 
 to this author, perceive Abraham to have been 
 of the kingdom of God ; for (fays he), " We per- 
 " ceive an adult perfon to be of the kingdom 
 ft of God, by his confeffing the truth to his own 
 " falvation, and the falvation of his houfe % " Lalt- 
 ly, according to this, we have no ground to be- 
 lieve there were any elect infants under the Old 
 Teftament ; for he denies that we have any other 
 foundation whereon to reft our opinion that there 
 are elect infants, but their connection with their 
 believing parents §j yet Abraham, it feems, had not 
 even this evidence. However, when we confider 
 all that has been advanced upon this falvation, 
 Abraham would be at very little lofs, it being a 
 matter not worth the contending for. 
 
 PART 
 • Letters, p. $3. \t-is. I P. 39- § P- 37- 
 
( 5* ) 
 PART IV. 
 
 « Baptifm is the figure correfponding unto the 
 '« prefervation, and vifible falvation of Noah, 
 " and feven more in connection with him in 
 " the ark, by water. — " Wherein few, that 
 " is eight fouls, were faved by water. The 
 « { like figure whereunto, even baptifm, doth 
 " alfo now fave us ; not the putting away of 
 " the filth of the flefh, but the anfwer of a 
 ■■ good confeience towards God, by the re- 
 « furreaion of Jefus Chrift." i Pet. iii. 20, 21. 
 
 Here our author runs the parallel betwixt bap- 
 tifm and the temporal deliverance of Noah and his 
 family from the flood, thus ;-&-" It agrees there- 
 « to as water is ufed in baptifm."— This we grant ; 
 for the apoftle fays, that eight fouls were faved 
 (tf iSotrof) through^ by, or rather in water, as the fame 
 original phrafe is rendered, 2 Pet. iii 5. So bap- 
 tifm reprefents not only our death and burial with 
 Chrift, but alfo our relurreaion with him, and 
 deliverance from death, Rom. vi. 4 Col. ii. 12.-^- 
 He fays, " It agrees thereto, as baptifm is afign of 
 <« the falvation that is ty Chrift." The falva- 
 tion of Noah and his houfe, by the ark in water, 
 was indeed a type of the falvation that is by Chrift ; 
 for the apoftle calls baptifm, and the falvation 
 fignified thereby its r*vrirj^>t) antitype. But it ought 
 to be noticed, that there is ftill fuch a difference be- 
 twixt them, as is betwixt Old Teftament types and 
 New Teftament ordinances. The redemption of 
 old Ifiael from Egypt, when they paffed under the 
 cloud, and through the fea, was alfo a type of bap- 
 tifm and the falvation fignified thereby j but that 
 E 2. . typical 
 
( 52 ) 
 typical baptifm was not into Chrifi-, but into Mofes j 
 and the falvation by that baptifm was not the falva- 
 tion by Chrift, but the temporal deliverance of an 
 earthly nation from Egyptian flavery. Even, fo the 
 falvation of thefe eight in water was in itfelf only 
 a temporal falvation from the deluge, and the pre- 
 fervation of a race of men, as well as of every 
 other animal, for replenishing the earth. But the 
 New Teftament baptifm has no temporal, typical, 
 nor even vifible falvation (as our author aflirms *) 
 connected with it, but is the immediate fign of the 
 fpiritual and invisible falvation by Chrift. It. dees 
 not fave from the flood, nor from Egyptian bon- 
 dage, nor by putting away the filth of the flefh, 
 like the legal bathings ; but by the death and re- 
 furreclion of Chrift ; and in this refpeel it efTential- 
 ly differs from thefe earthly deliverances being 
 their antitype, as the apoftle declares. All this, 
 however, is nothing to the point, and therefore he 
 adds, " It agrees thereto as the little children of 
 " belieyeis are baptized, and fo vifibly faved on 
 " account of their connection with their parents." 
 This is a ftrange afTertion indeed ! and fo far from 
 having any foundation in the text, that it is every 
 way contrary to it. The paflage informs, us that 
 there were but eight fouls faved in the ark, and our 
 author (as in the cafe of Lydia's houfhold) fup- 
 pofes they were little children ; but the fcripture 
 exprefsly tell us, that thefe eight puis were Noah, 
 his wife, his three fons, and their wives, fee Gen. 
 vi. 1 8. chap. vii. 7. chap. viii. 16. Surely thefe 
 married fons were not little children, neither were 
 their wives little children, nor were they Noah's 
 proper children at all. How then does the bap- 
 tifm,, 
 • Letters p. 26* 
 
( 53 ) 
 tifm of little children agree thereto, when there 
 were no little children there ? If it proves any 
 thing at all about the baptifm of a believer's chil- 
 dren, it proves too much, viz. that the adult chil- 
 dren of a believer muft be baptized on account o£ 
 their connection with him, for fuch only can agree 
 with Noah's ions : and it will alfo prove, that not 
 only a man's own adult children, but alfo his wife, 
 and the adult children of others, fhould all be bap* 
 tized upon his ilngle profeflion ; for without this 
 it cannot agree to Noah's wife and his ions wives. 
 But as the author does not admit that this paiTage 
 warrants the baptifm of adults upon the profeflion 
 of another, (though fuch are the only perfons here 
 mentioned), furely, with much more reafon may 
 we deny, that it warrants the baptifm of little chil- 
 dren, when we are fure there were none fuch 
 among them. In whatever refpect, therefore, bap- 
 tifm agrees with the falvation of thefe eight perfons, 
 it cannot be in having little children for its fubjecls j 
 
 and this is clear from the paffage itfelf : " Bap- 
 
 f< tifm doth alfo now fave us (not the putting away 
 ,f of the filth of the flefli, but the anfwcr of a good 
 '* confcience towards God) by the refurrection of 
 " Jefus Chrift." The anfwer of a good confcience 
 is the effect of faith in thrift, as delivered for our 
 offences, and raifed again for our juftification, and 
 confifts in the confcious fenfe of the remifiion of 
 our iins, peace with God, and freedom of a-ccefs un- 
 to a throne. of grace, which could never be obtained 
 by the typical facrifices or purifications, fee Heb. 
 ix. 9, 13, 14. chap. x. i, 2, 14, 19, 20, 21,22. 
 Now, baptifm being the fign of that purgation in 
 the blood of Chrift, which gives the anfwer of a' 
 good confcience, it cannot be adminiftered to anv, 
 E3 
 
( 54 ) 
 but fuch as appear by their profeffion to have their 
 confciences thus purified by faith in Chrift's blood, 
 of which infants can give no evidence. 
 
 To affirm, that little children are " vifibly faved, 
 ** on account of their connection with their pa- 
 " rents," is, in my opinion, a very felf-righteous 
 doctrine. It has been already fhown, that we can- 
 not, according to the fcripture, look upon any as 
 vfibly faved, without looking upon them as really 
 faved j — becaufe the former is the very evidence or 
 appearance of the latter; — becaufe we neither can 
 nor ought to diftinguifh them ; — and chiefly, be- 
 caufe Chrift hath purchafed no vifible falvation for 
 any, in diftinction from a fpiritual, evcrlajling, and 
 real one. If then children are vifibly faved en ac- 
 count of their connection with their parents, they 
 snuft alfo, in our eftimation, be really faved on 
 that account. This is fine doctrine indeed! 
 and, if it be not putting the parent in the place of 
 Chrift, it looks fomething like it. It can eafily be 
 conceived how children may obtain temporal de- 
 liverances in connection with, and even on account 
 of their parents fuch as the falvation from the de- 
 luge, and redemption from Egypt; but the gofpel 
 falvation comes by another connection, and muffc 
 be placed to another account. Will the author af- 
 firm, that he himfelf was even v'fihly faved ', (as he 
 calls it), on account of his connection with his pa- 
 rents •? and does he teach his children, that they 
 are faved on account of their connection with him? 
 If neither he nor his children can take the com- 
 fort of this connection for their own falvation, what 
 is he contending for all this time ? Surely that muit 
 be a falvation unworthy of the gofpel that cannot 
 be tiufled to. He fays, " Vifible falvation is by 
 
( 55 ) 
 « baptifm ; but real falvation is through the fhed. 
 " ding of Chrift's blood." If he means by this, 
 that baptifm is the fign of vijlble, but not of real 
 falvation by Chrift's blood, I have already fhown 
 this to be contrary to fcripture, an unworthy view 
 of the ordinance, and altogether abfurd. But if 
 he means, that baptifm it/elf faves vifibly, I afk, 
 "What does it fave from ? It does not put away the 
 filth of the flem, like the legal purifications, nor 
 does it fave the body from flavery or death, like 
 the typical falvations ; and the apoftle tells us, that 
 it cannot fave the foul, or purge the conferences 
 but by the death and refurrection of Chrift. —~ 
 What idea then (hall we affix to this vifib ! e falva=> 
 tion by baptifm ? — a falvation which he diftinguifhes 
 from real falvation by the blood of Chrift ; —a fal- 
 vation which does not advantage either foul or bo= 
 dy j — a falvation which muft not be trufted to, but 
 mocks our hopes, eludes our fearch, and flies our 
 grafp, like a bafelefs vifion. Is fuch a fancy as this 
 worthy of the God of falvation ? Is it even worthy 
 the name of falvation ? In fhort, it comports with 
 nothing but thefe other dreams and imaginations 
 with which the author has furnifhed out his whole 
 pamphlet from beginning to end. 
 
 Of the ACTION called BAPTISM. 
 
 Our author owns, that baptifm is dipping or 
 plunging in water, as the word frequently fignifies 
 this ; but then he thinks it bears another fenfe in 
 i Cor. x. 2. though he does not tell us what it fig- 
 nifies there. He then proceeds to aflert roundly, 
 that " Thofe who have water poured out or fhed 
 ei forth upon them, or are fprinkled with wateiy 
 
 "arc- 
 
( 5<5 ) 
 <c are baptized with water, according to the Ian- 
 " guage of the New Teftament ;" for this he cites 
 Mark i. 8. Acts i. 5. But none of thefe pafTages 
 fpeak of pour big or fpriukling water, but of bapti- 
 zing in it ; and the queftion ftill returns, What 
 does that mean ? This he thinks may be gathered 
 from baptifm in the Holy Ghoft, which is faid to 
 be pouted out, qt flxd forth upon men, Acts ii. i6 y 
 17 > 33- chap. xi. 15, 16. Should we remind him, 
 that the Holy Ghofr was fo poured out upon men 
 as to fill them with it, and that therefore, according 
 to this argument, they nvuft alfo be filled with wa- 
 ter in baptizing them ; he will tell us, that this is a 
 foclijh offer t ion, and that filling men with the Holy 
 Ghoft, and baptizing them therewith, are as diftincT: 
 as catife and efiett I Thus he proves that baptifm is 
 either plunging, pouring, or fpriukling. In oppo- 
 fition to which I obfervej 
 
 1. That the Greek word Bu^,^ Ut baptize, is never 
 ' tranflated into Englifh, when the ordinance of bap- 
 tifm is intended. Baptize is not a tranfiation, but 
 an adoption of the Greek word. The tranfhtors 
 were forbid to render it into Englifh in the inftruc- 
 tions they received from King James *, whereby 
 people are left to affix any idea to it which the cu- 
 fiom of the country fuggefts ; and fo, in this coun- 
 try, it is generally underftood to mean the fprin- 
 kling, or pouring a little water on the face of an 
 infant: whereas, baptize fignifits to drp y immerfe, 
 or plunge, in any thing, efpecially liquids, and in 
 this ordinance, to dip or immerle the body in water. 
 The Pedobaptifts themfelves generally acknowledge 
 this fenfe of the word, and that immerfion was the 
 
 prac- 
 
 • See a copy of thefe inftruftions in Lewis's hiftory of theEiigli& 
 trauflauons of the Bible. 
 
( 57 » 
 
 practice of the apoftles, and continued in the church 
 for at leaft thirteen centuries after. 
 
 All the methods by which the fenfe of any word 
 can be found, fix the fenfe of baptize to be hntner* 
 fion. Should we trace it to its primary root, or 
 follow it in all its derivatives and compounds \ 
 mould we confult all the Greek lexicons of any 
 note; or take the furer method of obferving its 
 conftant and uniform ufe in Greek authors and 
 tranflators, before the practice of fprinkling took 
 place, we mail find all agree in fixing this as- the 
 common and proper acceptation of that word, and 
 meet with no circumftance that will oblige us to 
 depart from it. 
 
 This word, like mpft others, may indeed fome* 
 times be ufed in a fecondary, figurative, or lefs 
 proper fenfe. Words are often chofen, not fo 
 much for their ftrict literal fignification, as for 
 fome analogy or ftriking fimilitude they bear to 
 the fubjea j but the proper fenfe of words cannot 
 he fixed from fuch ufe of them. Thus our Lord 
 reprefents his fufferings by a cup which the Father 
 had given him to drink, John xviii n. but the 
 nature of his fufferings will neither explain the 
 meaning of the word cup,, ncr the action of drink, 
 mg it. Thefe fufferings are likewife called a baptifm,. 
 Luke xii. 50. but from this we cannot fix the 
 meaning of that word, or the action thereby fig- 
 nified, as it is only figuratively ufed, to reprefent 
 the greatnefs of his fufferings, even as they are fet 
 forth in Old Teflament metaphors, by his finking 
 in deep mire, and coming into deep waters, where 
 the floods overflow him, Pfal. lxix. 1, 2. It isfaid 
 of Ifrael, that they " were all baptized unto Mofcs 
 " in the cloud, and in the fea," 1 Cor. x. 2. but. 
 
 IfraelV 
 
( 5* ) 
 Ifrael's being under the cloud and pafllng through the 
 fea y ver. I. (which was a wall upon their right and 
 left), though it was a kind of immerfion, yet it 
 does not determine with prccifion the meaning of 
 the word j for here was no action performed by 
 one man .upon another, as our Lord enjoins, nor 
 was there a clofe contact of the water with their 
 bodies, as there muft be in Chriftian baptifm. 
 
 It has been argued, that as baptifm in the holy 
 Ghoft is eXpreffed by pouring him out on men, there- 
 fore baptifm in water muft be performed by pouring 
 water on them. But the extraordinary effufion of the 
 Holy Ghoft is varioufly expreffed in fcrWure ; it is 
 called anointings filling with, giving of, pouring out 
 of the Holy Ghoft, and believers are faid to have 
 all been made to drink into one Spirit. Now, which 
 of all thefe expreffions alludes to the manner of 
 baptifm in water ? If it is faid, pouring alludes to it; 
 I afk, upon what authority is this affirmed ? The 
 fcripture does not call this expreffion baptifm more 
 than the reft. The truth is, all thefe are but dif- 
 ferent expreffions for the fame thing, viz. the gi- 
 ving of the Holy Ghoft; but none of them are ex- 
 preffive of the manner of that action called baptifm, 
 nor fo much as allude to it. P Airing in particular, 
 does not allude to the manner of baptizing, but to 
 that of miming ' t fee Acts x. 38. 2 Cor. i. 21. 
 1 John ii. 27. the manner of which was by pcttrittg t 
 fee Exod. xxix, 7. Mat. xxvi. 7. and it alfo alludes 
 to the watering of fields to make them fruitful, 
 for under this metaphor the effufion of the Spirit 
 is often fe*t forth ; fee Ifa. xliv. 3, 4. chap xxxli. 
 15. compared with Heb. vi. 4, 7, 8. 
 
 The extraordinary effufion of the Spirit is called 
 baptifm, not in ftiict propriety of fpeech, but in- 
 
( 59 ) 
 
 allufion to baptifm in water ; and, excepting in one 
 place, is always joined with it by a fimilarity of 
 phrafe. Thus Acts i. 5. u John baptized with wa- 
 *' ter; but ye fhall be baptized with the Holy 
 i' Ghoft;" where it is plain, that giving the Holy 
 Ghoft is called baptizing^ by a figure of fpeech bor- 
 rowed from water baptifm. Inftances of this kind are 
 innumerable in fcripture. Jefus calling Simon and 
 Andrew from their fifhing, fays, " I will make you 
 " rimers of men •" which is an exprefiion taken from 
 the employment they were then engaged in ; and, 
 as it would be very improper to explain the manner 
 of fifhing from the practice of the apoftles in 
 preaching the gofpel, it muft be equally fo to ex- 
 plain the action of baptizing in water, by the man" 
 ner in which the Spirit was given, for which there 
 are various expreifions befides that of baptifm ; 
 efpecially too as thefe expreflions are borrowed from 
 material things, and fo cannot ftrictly apply to the 
 Spirit. 
 
 The word b*«7«J« is rendered wafting in Mark 
 vii. 4. and it is aliedged, that the utenfils there 
 mentioned cannot be fuppofed to be plunged in wa- 
 ter. But if we look into the law about cleanfing 
 defiled veiTels, &c. we fhall find, this was to be 
 done by plunging or putting tbcm into the water. 
 " Whether it be any vefTel of wood, or raiment, or 
 " fkin, or fack, whatfoever vefTel it be wherein any 
 " work is done, it muft be put into water * Lev. 
 xi. 32. And though the Jews are blamed for their 
 fuperfiition in holding things unclean that were not 
 fo by the law, yet they are not accufed of ufing any 
 other method of cleanfing than the law prefcribed. 
 Mr. Huddlefton afferts, that the wafhing of hands 
 
 is 
 
( <5o ) 
 is alfo called baptifm, Matth. xv. 2. Mark vii. 3.* 
 but in this he is miftaken, for the word there is not 
 baptizo but nipto, which is the word ufed for wafh- 
 ing of hands ; and as for the baptifm mentioned, 
 Mark vii. 4. Luke xi. 38. it does not fignify the 
 warning of hands, but the bathing or immerfion of 
 the whole body. The baptifms mentioned, Heb. 
 ix. 10. were not every kind of warning, but the 
 divers baptifms prefcribed by the law for unclean 
 perfons, which were performed by bathing in water. 
 Thus Numb. xix. 19. — " and on the feventh day 
 " he fhall purify himfelf, and wafh his clothes, 
 " and bathe himfelf in water, and fhall be clean at 
 *' even." And the apoftle calls thefe bathings di- 
 vers baptifms, becaufe they were performed at dif- 
 ferent times, and for various kinds of uncleannefs; 
 fee Lev. xv. 5, 8, 1 1, . 3, 21, 22, 27. chap. xvi. 26, 
 28 chap. xvii. 15, 16. Numb. xix. 7, 8, 19. But 
 with refpecl to the manner of applying the blood, 
 water and afhes of the heifer, (Numb. xix. 17, 18.) 
 he does not call this bapvfm, but (rhantijmoi) fprinr 
 klmvy as it really was, Hcb. ix 13. 
 
 Had this ordinance included every mode of 
 washing, it would not have been expreiTed by 
 baptizo, but by lw>. as in Acts xvi. 33. 1 Cor. vi. • 1. 
 2 Pet. ii. 22. or nipto, as in John xiii. 6. 10. Matth. 
 xv 2. chap xxvri 24. or pluno, as in Luke v. 2.— 
 Had it been sprinkling, it would have been ex- 
 preiled by rbanttzo, as in Heb. ix. 13, 19. chap. 
 x. 22. and xii. 24. 1 Pet i. 2. — Had it been pour- 
 ing, then the word would have been cheo or cbuo, 
 as in Luke x. 34. Acts ii. 17. 33. chap 10. 45. But 
 as this ordinance is neither uaj})i>>g in general, nor» 
 the modes of fp) inkling and pouring in particular ; 
 
 fo 
 
 • Letters, p. 98. 
 
( 61 ) 
 fo it is diftinguimed from thefe by another term 
 and which has a different fignification, viz to dip 
 immerfe, or plunge. It is remarkable, that we have 
 .the three words, dtp, fprirMe, and pour occurring 
 fometimes in the compafs of two verfes, and di- 
 stinguished as three different fucceffive actions to 
 be performed upon the fame thing, which demon- 
 strates that they are not of the fame import. Thus 
 Lev. iv. 6, 7. " And the prieft mall (bzpfci) dip his" 
 " finger in the blood, and (profranei) Jprinkle of 
 *' the blood feven times before the Lord, and be- 
 ** fore the veil of the fandhiary,— and mail (ek- 
 « chei) pour all the blood of the bullock at the bot- 
 ** torn of the altar of the burnt-offering." Now 
 had the prieft prefumed to convert bap to here, into 
 /pr inkling or pouring, he would have perverted the 
 whole of this typical inftiiution, been guilty of re- 
 bellion againft the Lord, and might ju illy have ex- 
 petted immediate vengeance- and (hall we think 
 that the words of our Lord's commiffion are lefs 
 plain and determinate than thofe of the law, and 
 that we are at greater liberty to quibble upon, and 
 alter them at pleafure ? 
 
 The tranflators, in other cafes, have rendered 
 the primitive word bapto by the Englifh word dip, 
 wherever it occurs in the New Teftament; fee 
 Matth. xxvi. 23. Mark xiv. 20. Luke xvi. 24. John 
 xiii. 26. Rev. xix. 13. and had they in like manner 
 tranflated it when expreffive of this ordinance, 
 every one would have known what action our Lord 
 enjoins, when he %s, baptizing them. They would 
 then have feen, that men could no more be bapfi- " 
 zed by (prinkHUg or paring, than they could eat 
 the Lord's fupper by /leing or fmellt.g 
 
 1, Neither Jprinklmg nor pouring will make fenfe 
 
 when 
 
( 62 ) 
 
 when fubftituted in place of the word baptize. They 
 will not conflruct with («) in, or ( £ ,\-) into, one 
 of which is always affixed to the word baptize, when 
 the thing into which men are baptized is mention- 
 ed. For inftance, John baptized (Jv t* Upi*™) in 
 Jordan, or («'* TOvr i<?»*v»>0 into Jordan, Matth. iii. 6. 
 Mark i. 9. we have alfo (h iSxn) in water, («"» xuvpaTt 
 <*>'<?) in the Holy Ghoft, Matth. iii. 11. (us to ov*^«) 
 into the name, Matth. xxviii. 19. (iU ro» m«™) /«/<> 
 Mofes, 1 Cor. x. 2 "? x^r»») into Chrift, Gal. iii. 
 27. Rom. vi. 3. This then being the uniform ftyle 
 of the original, let us try what language it will 
 make with JprhMing or pouring. " Teach all na- 
 
 " tions, pouring them («j f ) into the name, &c. 
 
 " And were psured o( John in Jordan. 1 indeed 
 
 " pour you in water, — he mail pour you »« the Ro- 
 lt ly 01x0(1," &c. This is ftrange ftyle, and does 
 not make fenfe ; for it conveys an idea as if the 
 perfons themfelves were poured as liquids into any 
 thing. The like obfervation may be made on the 
 other paiTdges where baptifm is mentioned, fuch as, 
 « He that believethandis poured ,"&c. Mark xvi. 16. 
 *f —Into what then were ye poured f* Afts xix. 3. 
 &c. which anfwers only to liquids, not perfons. 
 But if we fubftitute the word dip or immetfe, which 
 is the true Englilh of the Greek word, then the 
 fenfe is clear. 
 
 Neither v/iUfprinkling do for the word baptize ; for 
 how would it found to fay, " Spt inkle them it; water, 
 «< fprmkle them into Jordan," &c. ? This conveys the 
 idea of any thing thrown in fmall fcattered portions 
 into water, and cannot fuit perfons. The tranflators 
 were fenfible of this impropriety ; and therefore, 
 jnftead of in or into, they have given us iviib * 
 
 to 
 
 • 'Ev canror be rendered with in the cafe of baptifm, becaufc 
 tb\ other word i)( cannot be fo rendered, 
 
( 63 ) 
 
 to make it agree with fprinkling, except in fuclx 
 places as it would not anfwer, fuch as Mattlu 
 iii. 5. Mark i. 9. Rom. vi. 3. Gal. Hi. 27. Actsxix 3; 
 and yet the original words are the fame in the other 
 parTages as in thefe. Tims it is evident, that pour- 
 ing or fprinkling fubftituted for baptifm, is both 
 contrary to fcripture, and all propriety of fpeech. 
 
 3. The circumftances of our Lord's baptifm, and 
 of the eunuch's, fhows it to be immeriion. Jefus was 
 baptized of John (i, ( ) into Jordan, Mark i. 9. for 
 he went up out of the water, and fo muft have been 
 down in it, Matth. iii. 16. "With regard to the eu- 
 nuch nothing can be plainer. They came firft ( ( r* 
 t< uJup) to, or upon a certain water, Acts viii. 36. and 
 this is all the length that fome will allow them to 
 have come ; but whether they will or no, the text 
 adds further, " and they went down both (« f to Cfap) 
 " into the water," ver. 38. where Philip baptized 
 him; and when this was performed, we have them 
 coming ('* ™ viaroc) *t 0uj j faQ water," ver. 39. 
 
 4. The places which John chofe for baptizing 
 prove it to be immerfion, viz. Jordan and Enon. 
 His reafon for chufing the latter place, we are 
 exprefsly told, was " becaufe there was much water 
 " there." John iii. 23. which could only be necef- 
 fary for immerfion. Some, however, have dimi- 
 nifhed the waters at Enon into fmall (hallow rivu- 
 lets, to prevent immerfion if poffible ; and no doubt 
 they would have done the fame with Jordan, if they 
 were not more afraid of a fneer, than of wrefting' 
 the fcripturesj for they would rather turn the 
 whole country into a dry parched wildernefs, than 
 fuffer John to immerfc any. But that we may fwell 
 thefe waters at Enon again to a proper depth, let 
 it be noticed, that the words ijt«Tttpnxx* t much wa^ 
 
 r 2 ler* 
 
( °4. ) 
 
 Vr, or many waters, are the fame that are ufed Rev. 
 i. 15. chap. xiv. 2. chap. xix. 6. which do not fig- 
 nify the purling or murmuring of fhailow brooks 
 or rivulets, but the boiflerous roaring of great wa- 
 ters like thofe of the fea, for it is compared to the 
 voice of mighty thunderings ; and that the land of 
 Canaan was abundantly fupplied with deep waters, 
 is evident from Deut. viii. 7. 
 
 5. The allufions which the apoftle makes to bap- 
 tifm point out the jnanner of the action. Chriftians 
 are faid to be baptized into the death of Chrift, to 
 be burial with hiin by baprifm, and therein alfo to 
 be rifen with him, Rom. vi. 3, 4 Col. ii. 12. But if 
 there were no kind of burial in baptifm, how could 
 it be alluded to as the fign of our burial with Chrift ? 
 In whatever fenfe we are buried, it cannot be in 
 baptifm, if there is no burial there; nor can there 
 be any propriety in mentioning baptifm as the fign 
 of a refurrection, if no fuch thing is to be feen in 
 it. But when we confider, that baptifm is a burial 
 in, and a refurreclion from water, the fimilitude 
 is ftriking, and thefe pafTages clear and fimple. Here 
 our author tells us, that " they are baptized into 
 *' the truth teftitied by the Three that bear record 
 tf in heaven concerning Jefus. This makes baptifm 
 H (he fhould have faid /prinklivg or pouring) apro« 
 " per reprefentation of his death and refurrec- 
 " tion, and of guilty men's having fellowfhip with 
 " him in his death and refurreclion " That is, in 
 fhort, the thing fignified makes any kind of fign a 
 proper reprefentation of it ! and, by the fame rule* 
 he might have told us, that we eat Chrift's flefh and 
 d'i k his blood by faith, and this makes any other 
 kind of fign, as well as eating the broken bread and 
 drinking- the cup, a proper reprefentation thereof. 
 
 But 
 
( 65 ) 
 
 Bat the main thing we fhould attend unto is the 
 will of the Great lnftitutor, who hath exprefsly 
 appointed the fign to be baptifm or immerfion, and 
 not fprinkling or pouring: any other fign than 
 this, be what it will, is not his ordinance, either 
 iii name or thing, and therefore can in no refpect 
 be a proper reprefentation, but a human invention? 
 whereby the law of Chrift is made void. 
 
 I am, Dear Sir, Yours, 6c. 
 
 ARCH. M'LEAN, 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 IT may not be improper to add a few more ftric= 
 tuies on what Mr. Huddlefton, and other?, 
 have advanced, which did not fall iii my way in 
 anfwering the Remarks) 
 
 It is but too common for perfons, when they 
 cannot confute their antagonift by fair reafoning, 
 to betake themfelves to reproach and invectives ; 
 nnd hence it is, that the charge of felf-righteoufnefs 
 is brought againft uo for denying infant fprinkling. 
 Mr Glas fays, that " The denhl of infant baptifm 
 tc comes of making the falvation by baptifm to ly 
 <( in fomething elfe than the thing fignified, even 
 u in that, whatever it be, which diftinguiihes the 
 M adult Chriftian from his infant, though our Lord 
 " exprefsly declares, that we muft enter his king- 
 
 M dom even as infants enter it.'' " This (fays 
 
 " Mb Huddlefton) interferes with every argument 
 " brought to fupport the denial of infant baptifm *. 
 " — Our denying infant baptifm becaufe we can- 
 " not fee them of the true Ifrael, will be followed 
 t( with this confequence, that we have fomething 
 < { about us which fhows us of the true Ifrael, that 
 
 F 3 " has 
 
 • Letters p. 36. 
 
( 66 ) 
 
 u has no refpeft to our infants entitling them to 
 " our regard as fuch Israelites *; — and this is in- 
 »' fiuenced by the notion that we become members 
 *' of this Ifrael by fome ability which diftinguifhes 
 
 u us from our helplefs infants |. The true rea- 
 
 u fon for not admitting infants to baptifm is, the 
 " effect of making our falvation to ly in that which 
 i( diftinguifhes us from them %J* 
 
 This argument (if it may be called one) reminds 
 me of what Bifnop Tillotfon fays of tranfubftanti- 
 ation; " It will fuffer nothing to be true but itfelf.'* 
 But how does all this prove, that Chi ift hath com- 
 manded infants to be baptised ? The queftion about 
 their baptifm muft be determined by fcripture, and 
 not by the felf-righteous difpofition of thofewho de 
 ny it; for fuppofe all the deniers of infant baptifm 
 weie nothing but e parcel of felf-righteous Phari- 
 fees, it would no more prove infant baptifm, than 
 Mr, Huddlefton's holding it, in connection with 
 the church of Rome §, will prove the contrary. 
 Self-righteoiifnefs can find accefs upon either fide 
 of this controverfy. It has a deeper root in our 
 hearts than to fhift its quarters upon our changing 
 fides in an argument, and can find its account even 
 3n contending for the truth. I have, however, in 
 my fecond letter to Mr. Gl'as, demonftrated, that 
 this charge is falie, in asfar as it relates to our rea- 
 fons for denying infant baptifm, which is all that 
 belongs to the merits of the caufe. 
 
 We firmly believe, and readily acknowledge, 
 that infants are as capable of. the grace of God, or 
 of .falvation, as adults are, and that adults are fav- 
 ed by that very thing which faves elect infants; 
 but fti'.l we deny that infants are proper fubjefts 
 of gofpel ordinances, luch as hearing the word* 
 
 bap- 
 
 * Letters, f age 37. t P- 38. |P<40. §P-34-. 
 
( 6 7 ) 
 tfaptifrh, the Lord's (upper, &-c. Thefe ordi- 
 nances were never intended for them in infancy, 
 nor are they capable of any benefit from them 
 He owns himfelf that infants cannot underfrand 
 or believe the gofpel * ; nor can they difcem 
 the thing fignified in baptifm, for this is the fame 
 with underftanding and believing the gcfpel. When 
 we fay that infants can reap no benefit by the ordi- 
 nances, we do not mean that they cannot be laved, 
 but only that thefe ordinances w& not the means 
 of edification to them as they are to adults The 
 benefit of baptifm, as well as of the word preached, 
 and the Lord's fupper, can only be enjoyed in un- 
 derftanding and believing what is therein repre- 
 fented ; for as the evident end of thefe ordinances 
 is to reprefent and fet forth fomething to us for 
 our inftruciion, edification, and comfort, thefe 
 ends are gained, only in fo far as the thing repre- 
 fented is difcerned and" believed, fee Heb. iv. 2» 
 Acts viii. 37. 1 Pet. iii. 21. 1 Cor. xi. 29 f. We 
 mufl not imagine that the water in baptifm ope- 
 rates in the way of a charm, as the Papifts believe 
 of their holy water ; or that the facred name of 
 Father, Son and Holy Gholt, is to be ufed as a 
 fpell, having no refpect to the underftanding of 
 
 the 
 
 * Letters, p. 54 57, 62. 
 f This Mr. Glas fairly owns, where he fays, " For this is the 
 «* nature of -the ordinances of divine fervice in the New Tefta- 
 «« ment, that they are not complete in the outward and nfible 
 « l action, which is no more hut the mean of engaging us in, or of 
 " exprefling outwardly, the fubftance of the ordinance, which is 
 •» fpiritua! and vifible : Thus baptifm is not complete in the wafh- 
 " ing of the body with water, without the fpwnkliflg of the heart 
 *' from an, evil cmfcience, which is the fuNftance of that-ordi- 
 •« nance, as we may fee from Pet: r's words, i Pet iii. tt. -- \nd 
 « v fo when a believer of the pofpel eats of the bread, and drinks of 
 ■«' the cup, without feafting with God, as has been fatd, upon 
 41 (Thrift's facrifice ; we m iy fay he did not eat the Lord's fupf er^ 
 3 V/jrks, Vol, IV. p. I74-, 175, 
 
( t* ) 
 
 the fubjeft. No ; it is an emblematical preach- 
 ing to the judgment of the perfon baptized, 
 and a comfortable pledge to him of the remif- 
 fion of his fins, and of his fellowfhip with Chrift 
 in his death, burial and refurrecYion, for the 
 flrengthening of his faith, confirming of his hope, 
 and fo to influence his love to, and obedience of 
 the gofpel. Though infants can reap no benefit 
 bygofpel ordinances, of which they know nothing, 
 yet they are at no lofs, fince the elect among them 
 obtain that falvation reprefented by them, as well as 
 the adult believer. Adults have no ground to glory 
 over infants en account of any thing they do in the 
 life of thefe ordinances, for the ordinances them- 
 felves hold forth no ground of hope to them, but 
 what is equally free and efficacious for the falvation 
 of infants who are incapable of obferving them. 
 
 We are charged with laying a felf-righteous ftrefs 
 on the profefilon of the faith ; but a profeffion muft 
 at leaft be fo far necelTary to baptifm, as it fatisfies 
 the baptizer (who cannot fearch the heart) that the 
 perfon is a proper fubject of that ordinance. And 
 in this we agree with Mr. Glas, who fays, '* By 
 " this profeflion only we (who cannot fearch the 
 *' hearts of men) are capable to know the mem- 
 
 " bers of Chriit in this world ; whilft that ap- 
 
 " pearance is to be feen in any perfon, there we 
 
 " muft fee a member of the body of Chrift So 
 
 '* far then as any continue in the confefiion of the 
 " word of the truth of the gofpel, as it is the word 
 " of God, and as it fandlifies them, diftinguifhing 
 (f them from the world, — fo far thtfy are proper ob- 
 " jects of that love which he requires towards the 
 ct known elect in his new commandment *." Now, 
 this is the place we afiign a profeflion, and all the 
 
 fcefc 
 • Ghs's Works, Vol. IY. p. 38, U8* 
 
( 69 ) 
 
 ftrefs we lay upon it with refpect to baptifm We find 
 that Philip demands it of the eunuch to clear his 
 way for baptizing him, Acts viii. 37 and Mr. Glas 
 fays, M that baptifm cannot be administered to any 
 •* but upon a confeffion by which the baptized caxx 
 u be called difciples according to the fcripture." 
 To fet afide the profeffion of the faith, by which 
 alone we can difcein who are difciples, (*' e. per- 
 fons inftrufted or taught in the truth, as the word 
 imports) would be to overthrow at once the whole 
 grounds of feparation from the world, or any me- 
 thod by which it could be effected. Mr. Huddlefton 
 himfelf owns, " that a profeffion of faith before 
 " baptifm does not indicate our difaffection to 
 fi the falvation reprefented therein *." A con- 
 defcending conceffibn indeed ! How then comes 
 felf-righteoufnefs to be connected with this profef- 
 fion in the Baptifts more than in others ? Becaufe, 
 "fays he, we " deny that this profeffion gives our 
 " infants the fame appearance of being in a ftate 
 " of falvation, and the fame title to baptifm it gives 
 " us ; for while this is the cafe with us, it is impof- 
 " fiblewe fhouldnot havefome felf-righteous ftrefs 
 «** refting upon our profeffion f," This is a very 
 Arrange reafon ! He blames us for laying too much 
 ftrefs upon a profeffion, yet when he comes to ex- 
 plain himfelf, the blame falls on the oppofite fide. 
 We hold, that a profeffion indicates only the faith 
 or ftate of the individual perfon that makes it, 
 and cannot anfwer for any other however nearly 
 related to him by blood ; whereas Mr. Huddlefton 
 thinks that a man's fingle profeffion is fufficient to 
 denominate the whole of his houfe holy and of 
 the kingdom of heaven, and fo fubjects of baptifm: 
 
 Now d 
 • Letters, p. $9. \ Ibid. 
 
( 7° ) 
 Now, I think, it requires very little penetration tr> 
 determine which of us lays the greateft ftrefs upon 
 a profeffion. Should a man's houfe, for inftance, 
 confift of ten perfons, our author would lay ten 
 times more ftrefs upon the parent's profeffion than 
 we can admit of. It is certain, the fcripture lays 
 more ftrefs upon Adam's fin, and (Thrift's obedi- 
 ence, than upon the fin or obedience of any other 
 individual that ever exifted ; and I leave you to 
 judge, whether he does not lay fomething of a fimi- 
 lar ftrefs upon the parent's profeffion. Does he 
 not make the parent a reprefentative of his houfe 
 in the faith and profeffion of the gofpel, even as 
 Chrift is of the whole houfhold of faith in his 
 finifhed work ? Yet this is the man that charges 
 felf-righteoufnefs upon thofe who dare not in their 
 confeiences build fuch a fabric upon their profef. 
 fion ! 
 
 But I cannot think he grounds his charge of 
 felf-righteoufnefs folely upon this foundation. 
 What he intends to infinuate is, that. we deny 
 infants are capable of falvation, and his reafon for 
 this can be no other than our denying them to be 
 capable of baptifm ; for he does not appear to un- 
 derftand how thofe who deny their baptifm can be- 
 lieve their falvation. Hence it is that he puts the 
 queftion, " Upon what does the author reft his 
 " opinion, that there are eleet infants to obtain this 
 " falvation in infancy,* ?" — Remove the baptifm 
 of infants, and the very bafis upon which he refts 
 his opinion of their election and falvation is over- 
 turned. Deny this, and it appears to him a " deny- 
 " ing that any infants can appear from fcripture 
 u . to be elected to this falvation f," When we fee 
 
 the 
 « letters, p. 37. f IU1. 
 
< 7i ) 
 the author gravely and earneftly combating his 
 own fhadow, in order to prove, what was never de- 
 nied, that infants as well a6 adults are of the king- 
 dom of heaven *, what propriety can we fee in all 
 this reafoning, if it be not his opinion, that to deny 
 the baptifm of infants, is the fame as to deny their 
 being of the kingdom of heaven ? Now, if we trace 
 this fentiment to its fource, we iliall find that it 
 proceeds from his making baptifm neceffary to fal- 
 vation ; for if he cannot fee how the falvation of 
 infants can be held without baptizing them, then 
 their baptifm and falvation muft be fo infeparably 
 connected in his mind, as that a denial of the 
 former, neceflarily implies to him a disbelief of 
 the latter. This is the only foundation upon 
 which his charge of felf-righteoufnefs can ftand 
 confidently. It is indeed the old argument upon 
 which infant baptifm was at firft introduced, and 
 upon which the Papifts and many ignorant Pro- 
 teftants hold it to this day ; and hence we may 
 account for the folicitude of parents to have their 
 infants chriftened (as they call it) when in dan- 
 ger of death. Now, if this be not placing falva- 
 tion in fomething elfe than the thing fignified by 
 baptifm, it looks too like it. The author perhaps 
 will be loath to admit this ; but (to return him his 
 own words with a little variation) " there wants 
 " but a fuitable occafion, with all his caution, to 
 " make this fully marufeft. Men are more ready 
 " to place that confidence in baptifm which be- 
 " longs to the thing fignified, than dire&ly to own 
 t( it; nay, they fhew themfelves very unwilling to 
 " own it, whilft all their reafoning for infant bap- 
 
 " tifm, 
 * Letters, p. ?j--9i. 
 
( 7* ) 
 "'* tifm, from firft to laft, ferves to demonftrate it. 
 " Let the pretended friends of divine iovereignty 
 " be gravely told, that their little children may be 
 <« members of the kingdom of heaven, and faved 
 " without their faith, and even without baptifm, 
 *' and it may open a view to the hypocrify of their 
 " friendfhip." 
 
 This author alks, u . Whether or not does the 
 ft appearance of Chrift's kingdom in this world 
 " include every age, as well as fort of men, that 
 " fhall obtain falvation through his fufferings, 
 'f death and refurrection * ?" To this I anfwer, 
 Though all the true fubjedts of this kingdom ap- 
 pear at one time or other in this world, (their bo- 
 dies being as vifible as thofe of others), yet they 
 are not all vifible to us in that reflect which deno- 
 minates them Chrift's fubjedts ; of fuch are cleft 
 infants who cannot, and many adults who do not 
 give proper evidence to us thereof; fo that here 
 is an age, as well as fort of men, which do not be- 
 long to the appearance of Chrift's kingdom in this 
 world> and jet obtain falvation through his death 
 and refurreclion. Thefe we call the unknown 
 elett, and agree with Mr. Glas in diftinguifhing the 
 known elect from them by the profefiion of the 
 faith. The appearance of Chrift's kingdom in this 
 world includes no age or fort of men of all the in- 
 numerable company that fhall be laved, but fuch 
 as confeA the faith, and give evidence to their fel- 
 low men that they know the truth. But we can- 
 not fay how great a multitude may be faved that 
 are not included in the appearance of Chrift's king- 
 dom in this word, both infants and adults. It is 
 
 pro- 
 • Letters, p. 37. 
 
( 73 ) 
 probable the greateft number of his fubjects are 
 jiot included in that appearance. 
 
 He afks farther, upon what we reft our opinion 
 that there are elect infants, fince we do not allow 
 that they are vifible fubjects of the new covenant * ? 
 Anfw. We reft our opinion and firm belief, that 
 there are elect infants, not upon their being the 
 children of believers, nor upon the faith and pro- 
 feffion of their parents, nor upon any paffage of 
 fcripture that infeparably connects the falvation of 
 a man's houfe with his own falvation j but upon 
 the fcripture doctrine of election itfelf; which 
 election, the apoftle fays, takes place before men 
 are born, Rom. ix. ir„ before the foundation of 
 the world, Eph. i. 4. fo that there muft be elect 
 infants, elfe there would be no elect at all, for all 
 mankind are infants before they become adults. 
 Election is not influenced by their having done 
 good or evil, but is according to the fovereign 
 good pleafure of God's will, who hath mercy upon 
 whom he will, Rom. ix. n, 15, 18. and hence we 
 conclude, that it will ftand as firm and fure with 
 regard to that part of the elect who die in infancy 
 as with refpect to thofe of them who furvive the 
 infant ftate, and fhow their calling and election by 
 their love and obedience of the truth But were 
 it our opinion, that election went upon what di- 
 ftinguifhes the adult believer from his infant, or 
 any thing done by man (whatever it be), then we 
 behoved either to deny the falvation of thofe who 
 die in infancy, or hold, with the Papifts,. that bap- 
 tifffl faves them, or, with the author, that they are 
 faved by the faith of their parents. Our Lord 
 fays exprefsly of little children, that " of fuch is 
 
 G « the 
 
 * Letters, p. 37. 
 
( 74 ) 
 " the kingdom of heaven,* Mark x. 4. This clear- 
 ly fliows, that there are elect infants ; and, for my 
 own part, I am much inclined to judge favourably 
 of the ftate of all infants dying in infancy. 
 
 He obferves, that the churches are exhorted to 
 " bring up their children in the nurture and ad- 
 " monition of the Lord, Eph. vi. 4. which does 
 **- not fuit with their being considered out of fix 
 <f Lord *." It is indeed the indifpenfible duty of 
 parents to bring up their children in the nurture and 
 admonition of the Lord, i. e. to give them fuch 
 correction and inftrudtion as the Lord hath enjoin- 
 ed in his word. They are their peculiar charge 
 by the very law of nature ; and the gcfpel obliges 
 Chriftian parents to ftudy the good of their fouls 
 as well as of their bodies, to fet a godly example 
 before them, and to inftxuet them in the doctrines 
 of the Chriftian faith : but how does this duty of 
 the believing parent prove that his children are in 
 the Lord, or the proper fubjedts of baptifm ? Were 
 not the apoftles commanded to teach all nations 
 the doctrine of the Lord ? Did not this fuit with 
 the nations being confidered out of the Lord ? Is a 
 parent free from all obligations of duty to his 
 children, unlcfs he can confider them as faved ? 
 The apoftle addreffing thofe who were married to 
 unbelievers, fays, " What knoweft thou, O wife, 
 * c whether thou flialt fave thy hufband ? or how 
 j we ft thou, O man, whether thou (halt fave thy 
 " wife?" 1 Cor.vii.16. evenfo it may be faid in this 
 cafe, What knoweft thou, O parent, whether thou 
 fhalt fave thy child ? When this appears to be the 
 cafe by the pi ofeffion of their faith, then muft they 
 be confidered as in the Lord ; then may they be 
 
 bap- 
 * JLetuirs, p. 31. 
 
( 75 ) 
 "baptized, but not before. But Eph. vi. 4. is fo- 
 reign to the point, for it fpeaks not of infant cliil-- 
 dren, but of fuch as are capable of admonition : the 
 word vvZiaiu fignifks to fix instruction upon their 
 minds. In ver. 1. thefe children are exhorted to 
 obey their parents in the Lord ; and in ver. 4. fa- 
 thers are forbid to provoke their children to wrath, 
 but to bring them up in the nurture and admonition 
 of the Lord ; fo that here are exhortations to- 
 mutual ditties betwixt parents and children, even 
 as betwixt hufbands and wives, mafters and fer- 
 vants, &c. which fhows that the children here in- 
 tended are not mere infants, but believing children, 
 vifrble members of the churches, and capable of 
 receiving and obeying the word of exhortation, 
 which he enforces from its being the firft com- 
 mandment with promife, ver. 2, 3. and a duty 
 well pleaflng to the Lord, Col. iii. 20. As to the 
 cxpreffion in the Lord, it does not intimate any 
 peculiar fpiritual connection betwixt a parent and 
 his children : Chriftians are exhorted to marry 
 only in the Lord, 1 Cor. vii. 39. wives to fubmit 
 to their own hufDands in the Lord, Col. iii. iS. 
 This phrafe fignifies, either that they'fhould obey 
 their believing parents who are in the Lord, and fo 
 it is an addional motive of obedience; or, that they 
 fhould obey in the Lord their parents, i. e. in the 
 fear of the Lord, manifesting their fubjection to 
 him in fo doing, and then it agrees, with the ex- 
 hortation to fervants, Col. iii. 22, 23. Eph. vi. 5. 
 6, 7, 8. 
 
 The argument from circumciflon feems to be al~ 
 
 moft given up by the Scots Independents. The 
 
 anonymous writer of the Remarks, has not fo 
 
 much as mentioned ir, and Mr. Huddlefton has 
 
 G 2 f.tpped 
 
(• 76 ) 
 fapped the very foundation of it, where he fays-, 
 " The promife which is to believers and their chil- 
 " dren-, belongs to the covenant made after thofe 
 " days ; and it was never faid to Abraham, thou 
 " inalt be faved and thy houfe *." Here he fairly 
 owns, that the covenant of circumciflon made with 
 Abraham, was not the fame with the new cove- 
 nant to which baptifm belongs, and confequently 
 he cannot argue from the circumcifion of infants 
 under the former, for the baptifm of futh under 
 the litter. But whilft he diftinguifhes the cove- 
 nants, he confounds the distinction of the feeds, 
 and fo makes baptifm to belong to the natural feed 
 of believers, even as circumcifion belonged to the 
 flefhly feed of Abraham. " As to what is obferv- 
 ** ed (fays he) of natural and fpititual, children and 
 ** parents are al'Ire, both natural and both fpiritu- 
 " al f.— The fleflily feed of New Teftament be- 
 '* lievers are really the fpiritual feed of Abra- 
 '* ham J." When we remind him, that the fpiri- 
 tual feed, or fons of God, under the New Tefta- 
 inent, are defcribed as " born not of blood, nor 
 '* of the will of the flefh, nor of the will of man, 
 
 " but of God," John i. 12, 13 that " the chil- 
 
 ft dren of the flefh are not the children of God, 
 " but the children of the promife are counted for 
 " the feed, — even the called, not of the Jews only 
 " but alfo of the Gentiles," Rom ix. S, 24.— that, 
 therefore we cannot henceforth know any man 
 after the flefh, or by his defcent from religious an- 
 cestors, as in the Jev/ilh church, but if any man be 
 in Chi iff Jefus he is a new creature, 2 Cor v. 16, 17. 
 he does not fcruple profanely to burlefque all fuch 
 icriptures, and afks, " Will the infants of believers 
 
 " being 
 • letters, p. 63. f P. 4$. I P. 73. 
 
( 77 ) 
 « beino- born of the flefh, prevent their being ty~ 
 « pified by Ifraelitifh infants ? Could thefc infants 
 « tvpify any other fort of perfons but what are 
 « born of the flefh ?-I fuppofe believers are the 
 « fame way born of the flefli that their infants are, 
 •« were they not therefore typified by Abraham s 
 « flefhly feed * ?" But the Holy Ghoft in denying 
 that rhe fpiritual feed are the children of the flefh, 
 or born of blood, &c. does not mean that they 
 come into the world in a different way from others, 
 or that they are without natural parents ; but tne 
 meaning is, that their natural birth, be it of whom 
 it may, can neither cor.Jlhute them the fpiritual feed, 
 nor difiinguilh them as fuch to us. The covenant 
 of circumcifion was made with the flefhly feed of 
 Abraham,.and fo their natural birth, by which they 
 - defended from him, fufficiently diftingtufhed them 
 m infancy.as the fubjecls of circumcifion V bin the 
 new covenant to which baptifm belongs,, refpetts 
 only the fpiritual feed who are born again ; and as 
 thtfe are not known to us till they profefs the faith, 
 it is demonstrably clear that they cannot be baptized 
 in infancy. Thus ftands the argument fvomcircym- 
 cifion, which, with the diftinAionof the covenants, 
 I have handled fully in my feventh Letter to Mr.Glas, 
 
 Nothing can be more agreeable to fcripture than 
 what Mr Glas advances upon the diftinaion of the 
 flefhly and fpiritual feed, through the greatcft part 
 of his writings. The whole of his excellent trea- 
 tife on the kingdom of Chrift as not of this world, 
 is founded upon that diftinaion. There he tells 
 us, that " The earthly birth, or that birth after 
 " the flefh, availed much in the ftate of the church 
 " ereaed at Sinai, as to the enjoyment of the pri- 
 q ~ « vileges 
 
 * Letters, p. 7> 
 
( 78 ) 
 i( vileges of it. But now, our Lord fays to Nico- 
 ** demus, Except a man be born again, (or from 
 " above), he cannot fee the kingdom of God." &c* 
 Would not any one think, that he here fets afide 
 the flefhly birth, or connection with believing pa- 
 rents, as of no account in the kingdom of Chrift ? 
 But it feerns he meant no fuch tiling ; for, by his 
 rule of diftinguifhing the infant fubjects of the 
 kingdom of heaven, he gives as much place to the 
 flefhly birth, as ever it had in the Jewifh church, 
 and fo builds again the things which he deftroyed, 
 But if his adherents will flill maintain, that he 
 keeps this distinction clear and confident, I would 
 be glad to be informed wherein it lies. The diftinc- 
 tion does not ly in this, that the holinefs of believ- 
 ers children comes not by natural generation ; for 
 neither did that of old Ifrael corns by natural gene- 
 ration, but by a covenant feparating them and their 
 feed to be a peculiar people to the Lord : — Nor does 
 it If in this, that the word of God declares ihe in- 
 fants of believers holy ; for fo does it declare thofe 
 of old Ifrael: — Neither does the diftir.cT.ion ly in this, 
 that the flefhly birth does not entitle to the fpiri- 
 mal privileges -of Chrift's kingdom ; for neither did 
 it entitle to the temporal privileges of fhe earthly 
 kingdom. Old Ifrael obtained the earthly inheri- 
 tance by the covenant made with their father Abra- 
 ham, Gen xv. io. abfrracc from this, they had no 
 claim to it upon the footing of their birth or righte- 
 oufnefs more than any other people, Deut. ix. 4, 
 5, 6. Wherein, then, did the flefhly birth avail 
 more formerly that it does now ? or what is the 
 foundation of the above diftinction ? If his argu- 
 ments for infant pouring (fo he leads us to call it) 
 
 held 
 • Glai's works, vol. . T . p, 5?.- 
 
fr 79 ) 
 
 hold good, it undeniably follows, that the earth!/ 
 birth, or that birth after the flefh, avails more la 
 the kingdom of God, than ever it did in the ftate 
 of the church erected at Sinai ; for then it could 
 only diftinguilh the flefoly feed of Abraham, who 
 were typically holy, and entitled to the temporal 
 privileges of the earthly kingdom ; whereas, un- 
 der the gofpel, he makes it to diftinguifluhey^/ViftM'/ 
 feed of Chrift, who are truly holy, and enti'tled to 
 the fpiritual and everlafting privileges of the king- 
 dom of heaven. 
 
 I fhall conclude thefe mifcelianeous obfervations 
 with a word or two upon Mr. Stuart's faft-day 
 Sermon on the kingdom of Chrift. Speaking of 
 the diftin&ion of Chrift's fubjefts from the world, 
 he fays, "They are fuch as knoiv the Father as he 
 " hath difcovered him ; — receive and are firmly 
 *' perfuaded of the divine authority in Chrift's 
 u words; — are brought into a delightful and com- 
 " placent union with one another ;,— are preferved 
 «* in this, and in union with God, by the words of 
 {< Jefus ; — through thefe too partake of his ■inef- 
 '* fable joy *." Diftinguifhing them from the fub- 
 je&s of the earthly kingdom by the nature of their 
 I'irib, he fays, that John gives an account of the 
 way that fubjecls were born to God under the law, 
 John i. to — 14. but that the new and heavenly 
 birth by which men enter into the kingdom of God 
 is fet forth in Chrift's difcourfe with Nicodemus, 
 chap, iii* 1—6 f. He diftinguifties alfo their hotif 
 fiefs : " Ifrael indeed was a holy nation ; but the 
 - " national holinefs of Ifrael was only outward and 
 " typical. They were a holy people by virtue of 
 " their defcentfrom the fons of Jacob, and by vir- 
 
 " tuc 
 
 * Pag«> P- «■ f P. 8. note. 
 
( 8o ) 
 
 " tue of their obfervation of the covenant made* 
 " with them at Sinai. But the holinefs of (Thrift's 
 " kingdom is the fubftance of this. All his fub- 
 "' jefls are really and internally, as well as ouu 
 " wardly holy *." He denies they can be diftin- 
 guifhed without charity .• " Outward appearances 
 « which fall fhort of proving perfons pofieiTed of 
 u charity, fliall no more mark them out, as once, 
 " the fubjecls of the kingdom of God f." He 
 rejects the diftinction betwixt the fubjects of 
 Chrift's kingdom as it appears in this world, and 
 the fpiritually holy nation of them that are faved a 
 as a diftinclion only fuked to a national church. 
 " The apoftles defcribe the kingdom of Chrift by 
 M names, privileges and characters, which do not 
 ef belong, nay, are oppofite to thefe which belong 
 " to the kingdoms of this world. They write to 
 " every particular congregation or church, and 
 " of them, as confirming of thefe, all of whom 
 <( without exception they judged to be the chil- 
 l( di-en of God, chofen, redeemed, called and fe- 
 
 " parated from the world. None, it is evident, 
 
 « were Chriftians in the fight or opinion of the 
 " apoftles, who they were not bound to think, 
 " and did not think, Chriftfans in God's fight J." 
 I confefs I was much edified and delighted with 
 his defcription of Chrift's fubjecls, and my heart 
 warmed in love to the author for the truth's fake, 
 which he fo clearly and boldly maintains through 
 
 the 
 
 * Page -. f ibid, 
 i Page, 8, 9. His brother, the anonymous Remarker on Scrip- 
 ture Texts, is, however, of a very different opinion, and charges 
 thofewho hold the above fentiment with "deceiving the hearts of , 
 •< thofc who believe without proper evidence, and blinding the 
 «' minds of rhofe who receive not the fimple fayings of the Son ot"- 
 »' Ged. ' ' But perhaps > this is one of the things on which thty ha'/s- 
 ttgrccd to differ. 
 
t 81 ) 
 
 the mod: of that Sermon. But how great was my 
 difappointment when I advanced to page 43d^ and 
 found him diftinguifhing the fubje&s of ChriiVs 
 kingdom by characters very different from the 
 above ! No fooner does he turn his thoughts to in- 
 fant baptifm, than his views of the kingdom are 
 immediately corrupted, and, lofing fight of the 
 grand hinge of the difference, he defcends into mere 
 trifling with the national church about fponfors, 
 tnfidrdi and found- it; gs ; as if the diftinclion betwixt 
 Chrift's fubjec~fo and the world flood in the faith 
 of their parents, or the legitimacy of their carnal 
 birth ! Alas, what a falling off is here ! 
 
 He cannot admit of fponfors " becaufe all the 
 " lines of argument in favours of infant baptifm 
 " ifTue from the faiih of fhe parent as their center ; 
 u but this device fuppofes the contrary, at leaft its 
 " doubtfulnefs *." Yet the device of fponfors is 
 far more ancient in the church called Chriftian than 
 the device of the parents faith, though both of them 
 are devices equally void of foundation in the word 
 of God with that other device for which they were 
 devifed. After all, what is the parent in this cafe 
 but a fponfor for his child in the ftricteft fenfe of 
 the word ? Are the fubjetts of the kingdom of 
 heaven then to be diftinguifhed by the faith of an- 
 other ? Does this diftindlion correfpond with any 
 of the above ? or rather, does it not overthrow 
 them, and make all that has been faid upon the 
 fubject much ado about nothing? Again, if in- 
 fant baptifm reft entirely on the faith of the parent, 
 then neither he nor his brethren can be fure they 
 have obtained Chriftian baptifm, unlefs they know 
 their parents were believers. 
 
 As 
 
 * Page 43. note, 
 
i »« ) 
 
 As to baftards and foundlings, where do we find 
 the New Teftament diftinguifhing the fubjects of 
 baptifm from thefe ? Does the legitimacy or ille- 
 gitimacy of 'the carnal birth make any difference 
 in the kingdom of Chrift ? The Jews indeed claim- ■ 
 ed a relation to God as his children, from their 
 being Abraham's feed, and not born of fornication, 
 like the unlawful iiTue of idolaters j but our Lord 
 repels their claim upon that footing, and gives them 
 to underftand, that unlefs they believed, continu- 
 ed in his word, loved him, and did the works cf 
 Abraham, neither the faith of Abraham their fa- 
 ther, (however diftinguifhed), nor the legitimacy 
 of their carnal birth, could avail them any thiDg, 
 as to the enjoyment of the privileges of his king- 
 dom, John viii. 31 — 45. 
 
 Upon the whole, we may affirm, that no man 
 can hold the diftinction of the kingdom of Chrift 
 from the Jewifh theocracy and kingdoms of this 
 world, in any confiftency with the arguments for 
 infant baptifm. This point, however trivial it may 
 appear to fome, is of fuch a nature as to affeft all 
 our ideas of that diftinction, and leaven the whole- 
 For, if we once admit the notion, that the fub- 
 jects, which compofe this kingdom, may be known 
 or diftinguifhed by any thing, be what it will, 
 which comes fhort of maoi.f&fUng their being of the 
 truth, believing it, loving it, hearing Chrifi's voice 
 and following him, this fingle fenttment, if followed- 
 out, will infallibly lead us to blend the kingdom of 
 Chrift with the world even in its vifible appearance, 
 and make all we advance to the contrary a jumble, 
 of inconfiftencies. 
 
 THE END.