fy 
 
 ^^m£zM 
 
 
 4 
 
 &>* 
 
 
 >)m< 
 
 
® PEINCETON, N. J. *" 
 
 Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Agnew Coll. on Baptism, No. 
 
 5cB 
 
 /a 573 
 
A Compaffiotiate Vie a for Infant* : 
 
 OR, 
 
 W* T.TTTTT7R \ % 
 
 /* 
 
 ETT E 
 
 //& 
 
 k 
 
 s i K, 
 
 IAD I feen your Reflexions on Mr. 
 Wall, foon enough ; I might have pub- 
 liuYd my Remarks, in my * Survey of 
 Infant-Baptifm : But fmct in has hap- 
 pen'd otherwife, I hope you will ex- 
 cufe my frequent References x to that, 
 to fpare me the Pains of Tranfcri- 
 bing. 
 
 I intend not to plead for every Thing Mr. Wall has' ad- 
 vanced, nor to animadvert on all your Reflections ; but 
 to let this unhappy Controverfy, in the bed Light I am 
 able. 
 
 'Tis convenient, before I enter on the general Debate, 
 to take Notice of Tome warm PafTages in your Second 
 
 Letter. 
 
 ? tis 
 
 Printed for M. Lawrence, at the Aneel in the Poultry. 
 
(4) 
 
 * Tis, you fay^ of the EfTence of Baptifm, that the 
 Perfon be adult and. dipped. 
 
 There is nothing more fataTor finful in the Manage- 
 ment of a Controverfy, than the running Matters to an 
 Extream, and unnecefTarily crowding Circumftances into 
 the Eflence of a Thing : This is the ready Way to alienate 
 Affections, and perpetuate the Controverfy. 
 
 And you efpecially ought to have been very cautious, 
 and not prefum'd to le^fuch a Paffage as this come from 
 you, without clear Authority from God's Word ; for what 
 is it in Effect, but averting, that the greateft Number of 
 pious Chriftians, in this and many Ages, have % liv'd and 
 dy'd without the Sacrament of Baptifm ? 
 
 Before an Article of this Importance had been brought 
 into your Creed, you ought certainly to have aflign'd a 
 better Reafon for it, than faying, ** That for you and your 
 Party, to grant ptfrs a fufficient Baptifm, wou'dbe acknow- 
 ledgm§/Cwo Bapttfms, againft the exprefs Declaration of 
 the Apoftle, Ephef. 4. 5. One Lord, one Faith, one .Baptifm. 
 
 I don't fee, Sir, why this Text fhou'd teach you to deny 
 our Baptifm, any more than it teaches us to deny yours; for 
 'tis but . affuming a little of your Warmth and Affurance, 
 and we can unbaptize you all by faying, That for us to 
 grant yours a fufficient Baptifm, would be acknowledging 
 Two Baptifms, againft the exprefs Declaration of the Apo- 
 ftle, that there is only one Lord, one Faith, one Baptifm. 
 
 Befides, you could not have built fuch an uncharitable 
 Notion upon a more improper Text, than this ; for 'tis 
 plain from the preceeding Verfes, that the very Defign. of 
 the Apoftle s mentioning it, was to unite, and not to divide 
 Chriftians. The Apoftle alfo fays, there is but 0?ie Faith, 
 and muft all be Infidels, therefore that don't jump exactly 
 with you, in their Credenda ? If different Circumftances 
 of Faith may con lift with One Faith, why may not your 
 BapEifm and ours pafs for One, notwithftanding the diffe- 
 rent Circumftances ? 
 
 But, finally to determine this Point, let Exod. 4. 24, 25, 
 %6. be impartially weigh'd. And it came to pafs, by the 
 Way in the Inn, that the Lord met him, (i. e. Mofesj and 
 fought to kill him. Then Zipporah took. & /harp Stone, and 
 cut off the Fore-skjn of her Son, and caft it at his Feet, and 
 faid, Surely A bloody Husband art thou to me. So he ter 
 
 him 
 
 m »■ > ■■■ \ ''-'■ » ■» i< ." ' 1 1 j ■ 1 ■ .-in. j ! . 
 
 ? Page 7%. 80. •* p. 84, 
 
(5) 
 
 him £<?--~ The Circumftances of Adminiftring this Sacra- 
 ment, were more irregular than ours can be fuppos'd to 
 
 be; fo*> 
 
 i . Suppofe we devote our Children too foon to God, yet this 
 is more excufable than Mofes* s doing this too late. If a Law 
 mould be made, that Parents fhould bring their Children 
 exactly at Sixteen Years of Age, to fwear Fidelity to 
 King GEORGE ; which would be more unacceptable to 
 his Majefty, the bringing them federal Years before that 
 Age, or the deferring it till feveral Years after ? Now the 
 latter of thefe, with Refpect to God, Mofes was guilty of; 
 for he had been Forty Years in Midian, and was now 
 Eighty Years of Age, as appears from Mis 7. 23, compa- 
 red with v. 30. and confequently his Son was not very Young 
 when circumcis'd. 
 
 2. What Mofes did in this Cafe, was contrary to his 
 Light and Knowledge ; for the Order to c'ucumcife at 
 Eight Days old, was delivered (Gen. 17. 12) in fuch plain, 
 and exprefs Terms, as to leave no Room for Mofes to fup- 
 pofe it might be poftpon'd : But if we baptife our Children 
 earlier, and with another Mode than Gcd requires, 'tis 
 as Gen. 20. 5. in the Integrity of our Hearts, and Inno- 
 cency of our Hands : For we find an Order in the Old Tefia- 
 went, that Infants mould have the Seal of the Covenant, 
 and the New Teftament has no Intimation of its Repeal : Nay, 
 it invites us to believe that 'tis not repeal'd; "for it ac- 
 quaints u$, that Chrift has a great Efteem for the Children 
 of Believers ; and has added new Privileges to the Chri- 
 ftian Church ; and confequently never meant to take a- 
 way from them that ancient and valuable Privilege of 
 their Childrens receiving the Seal of the Covenant. By 
 thefe and other Hints, does the New Teflament invite us to 
 believe, that this Order was never repeal'd, but is as much 
 in Force as ever. And then as to the Mode of Baptifm, 
 we are not fatisfy'd, that Immerfion was praclis'd by the 
 Apoftles in Judea, and lefs (till that Chrift mould expedfc 
 it from us, whom Providence has caft into a colder Cli- 
 mate, where we cannot pradfcife it, but we muft run coun- 
 ter to his fuperior Order, I will have Mercy, and not 
 Sacrifice. 
 
 3. Another Circumftance of this Cii£umcifion was, that 
 neither of the Parents intended it at this Time, but were 
 frighted into a Compliance by the Lord's meeting Mofes 
 in the Inn, and feeking to kiil him, becaufe he had not 
 
 cir- 
 
. ... < 6 > 
 
 circumcis'd his Son. Obedience when extorted, is nothing 
 near fo delightful to God, as that which we are prompted 
 to by our own Inclination. 
 
 4. 'Twas Zjpporah officiated on this Occafion. Suppofe 
 therefore our Mode of Baptifm is irregular, )et this Step 
 of her's was, I humbly conceive, more irregular; for we 
 make Ufe of the fame Element as is required ; but her 
 Sex was quite different from that which God appointed to 
 adminifter Circumcilion. 1 * See Gen. 17. Chap. 
 
 Thus were there feveral Circumftances in this Circumci- 
 fion more irregular than ours can be iuppos'd to be in Bap- 
 tifm. And did the Lord therefore make a meer Cyphre,and 
 Nullity of it? No, for 'tis laid in v.' z6. So the Lord let him 
 (Moles) go. The Lord diftinguifh'd between the irregular 
 Circumftances, and the EfTence of Circumcilion 3 and tho* 
 he cou'd not approve of the Former, yet he was more graci- 
 ous than to reject and difown the Latter: Which, compar'd 
 with your Treatment of us, confirms the Prudence of David's 
 Choice, 2 Sam. 24. 1 4. Let us fall now into the Hand of the Lord, 
 (for his Mercies are great) and let me not fall into the Hand of Man. 
 
 The other warm Paffages I would note, are your faying 
 * That none can be true Members of the Chriftian Church, unlefs 
 they are firji taught, and then baptis'd by Dipping *cm into the 
 Water, And that all others have no Title to Church-Member - 
 Jhip, but fhoudbe difclaimd. 
 
 'Twou'd in my Opinion, have been more commendable 
 if at leaft fome of the Chanty you exprefs for the Heathens, 
 had been referv'd for us. t As you open'd the Gate of Hea- 
 ven to them 'twas unkind to fhut the Church Dooragainft 
 us. What, tho' they are not engag'd againft you, as we 
 in the Controverfy of Baptifm, yet this Partiality ought not 
 to have been the Refentment. The Scriptures and not 
 Paflion, mould have had the Afcendant, and dictated to 
 you. Now how eailly could I turn you to A'cis 26. 18. 
 Upm. 10. 13, 14. 1 The/. 2. 16. and many other Texts, 
 which feem to exclude the Heathens from Heaven ? But 
 what Paflage is there in all the Sacred Paffages which o- 
 blige you to exclude vour FtWow-Chrijtians from the 
 Church > 
 
 There is nothing eiie wanting to cure you of this Sple- 
 netick, Unchurching Difclaiming Humour, than fome Por- 
 tion of King He^ekjah's, and the Apoftle Paul's Spirit. What 
 
 * P. 77, Si. + r- 4 : -°- 
 
i 7 ) 
 
 What Manner of Spirit this pious King was of, you may 
 read, 2 Chron. 30. 18, 19. For a Multitude of the People, even 
 many of Ephraim, and ManafTeh, IfTachar, and Zebulun, 
 had not cleanfed themfelves ; yet did they eat the Pajfover other- 
 wife than it was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, fay- 
 ing, The good Lord pardon every One that prepareth his 
 Heart to feck, God, the Lord God of his Fathers, the? he be not 
 cleanfed according to the Purification of the Santtuary. 
 
 How different was this Behaviour from yours ! He^ekjah 
 did not difclaim the fincere Ifraelites ; nor exclude them 
 from the Paflbver; but intreated God to pardon their im- 
 perfect Preparation for that Sacrament. And this was no 
 rafh Pity, but what the Lord approved of; for 'tis imme- 
 diately added, And the Lord hearken d to Hezekiah, and hea- 
 led the People. 
 
 The ApoftJe Paul, was alfo of the fame Spirit, 1 Cor. 3. 
 I, &C. And I, Brethren, could not fpea\ unto you, as unto 
 Spiritual, but as unto Carnal, even as unto Babes in Chrifi. I 
 have fed you with Mill^, and not with Meat ; fir hitherto ye 
 were net able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are 
 yet carnal : For whereas there is amgng you Envying, and Strife, 
 and Divifions, are ye not carnal, and walk, as Men ? For while 
 one faith, I am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollos, are ye 
 7iot carnal ? 
 
 In which there is obfervable, 
 
 That tho* the Corinthians were fuch # as the Apoftle could 
 not fpeak unto as unto Spiritual, but as unto Carnal, even 
 as unto Babes in Chrift ; yet, 
 
 1. He ftiles them Brethren. He did not renounce all 
 Chriftian Relation to them, becauie they were not of the 
 fame Growth in Religion as himfelf. 
 
 2. He dealt tenderly with them. He did not impofe 
 Terms of Communion, which their weak Stomachs could 
 not digeft. He did not fet Meat before them, and tell 
 them they mud eat that or ftarve : No, but he fed them 
 with Milk, and not with Meat : He acquiefe'd in their 
 Belief of eafy plain Truths, till they were able to appre- 
 hend the pore difficult and abftrufe. 
 
 Why then may not we be own'd as weaker Brethren at 
 !eaft ? And why muft your Baptifm be cramm'd down our 
 Throats, or elfe we not tafte of the Lord's Supper? 
 
 There is farther obfervable in. this Text, that the Apo- 
 ftle argues from the Envying, and Strife, and Divifions, that 
 were among his Corinthians, one faying, I am of Paul? and 
 
 an- 
 
(8) 
 
 another, I am of Apollos, that they were Carnal, and walk'd 
 as Men. 
 
 Admire not yourfelves therefore, for having a Shibboleth 
 to diftinguifh your Party ; and let us have fome better E> 
 vidence of your being Spiritual, and walking as Chrift ians, 
 than faying, I am a Baptift, I am for Believers Baptifm, 
 I am for Dipping ; for the Apoftle has taught us that fuch 
 diftinguifhing Marks and Clamours are an Argument of 
 your being Carnal, and walking as Men. 
 
 But the Apoftle not only in this Text, but elfewhere 
 difcovers the fame condefcending Spirit, and recommends 
 it to all Chriftians, fym. 14. 1. Him that is weak, in the 
 Faith receive you, but not to doubtful Difputations. Is not 
 this the very Reverie of your Practice ? You won't receive 
 us as Chriftians, but you will even compel us to be prefent 
 at your doubtful Difputations; for how common is it for 
 your Vifits to be fpent in Controverfy ? Alas ! how often have 
 thofe nobler and more profitable Themes, the unfearchable 
 Riches of Chrift, the Beauties of Holinefs, and the Joys of 
 Heaven, been forc'd to lacquey to the Difputes of Bap- 
 tifm ! But, if the Apoftle can be heard, you muft receive 
 us as Chriftians, and not receive us to doubtful Difputati- 
 ons. This was a Subject the Apoftle was fo taken with, and 
 fo delirous of imprefling on our Minds, that he continues 
 it thro* this 14th Chap, and begins his next with faying, We 
 then that arc ftrong ought to bear the Infirmities of the iVeak^ 
 and not to pleafe ourfelves. And urging this very clofely in 
 the fubfequent Verfes, he concludes with thefe melting Ex- 
 preflions at v. 7. ZVIiercfore receive ye one another, as Chrift al- 
 io received us, to the Glory of God. 
 
 This was the Spirit of King He^ekjah, and the Apoftle 
 ?c.ul $ this is that Spirit the Scriptures recommend, this is 
 the Spirit you want, and till you get it, we muft fay, as our 
 Lord on another Occaiion, you know not what manner of Spi- 
 itt you are of. 
 
 Hitheto I have proceeded on the Suppofaion, that the 
 Miftakes of Baptifm were on, our Side: But let us now - 
 eater upon the Scrutiny, on which fide they really are. 
 
 You fay a: the Beginning of your Third Letter, That as 
 the Controverfy ftands between you and us, it may be caft 
 under Two Heads : One relating to the Mode of Baptifm;' 
 whether it is to be adminiftred only by Dipping: And the 
 other (which muft be handi'd more' fully), is, who are the 
 true Subjeds of it;' whether adult Perfons alone, or Infants 
 alfo. But before thefe Heads are diredtly treated on, you 
 
 art- 
 
(9) 
 
 artfully endeavour to prepoflefs your Reader, by ihfinua* 
 ting, that, 
 
 41 i. One would wonder a Thing of this Nature fhould 
 " be capable of fo much Difpute : For if it is not infti- 
 41 tuted, it ought not to be practis'd ; and if it be inftituz- 
 " ed, it fhould feem importable for any not to fee it 
 
 " 2. Our Enemies allow, that as far as the Scriptures 
 " are clear in the prefent Cafe, our Practice exactly agrees 
 41 with cm — 
 
 The former of thefelnfmuationsis invidious, and by a Pe- 
 ri phrafis reprefents us as Knaves or Fools ; and this is not 
 the only Place where you flily pafs the fame Compliment 
 upon us: But blefTed be God, that the judicious Writings, 
 and pious Lives among us, will eafily wipe off this Afperli- 
 on. And as thefe are more common with us, than with 
 you, according to your Way of arguing, your Baptifm is 
 not inftitured, nor ought to be practise! ; for if it fhould 
 feem impoifible for any not to fee ir, if it be inftituted, it 
 fhould much rather feem impoffible for the far greateft Part 
 of judicious and pious Cbrifiians not to fee it: 
 
 As to the latter thing you iniinuate ; 'tis a Conceifion I 
 never met with, as I remember, in any of our Side. If 
 you can name fuch, they have either unwarily exprefs'd 
 themfelves, or they did very ill to oppofe you. For my 
 own part, I wou'd throw away my Pen this Minute, and 
 fubmit to your Baptifm, were I fatisfied, That as far as the 
 Scriptures are clear in the prefent Cafe, your Practice ex- 
 actly agrees with 'em. 
 
 But, to be free with you, Sir, my prefent Thoughts are," 
 That your Practice of Dipping is Antifcriptural • for it 
 don't appear in Scripture, that any were Dipt ; or if this 
 cou'd be made out, yet Mat. n. 7. is a Prohibition of this 
 in our Part of the World, where Health and Life wou'd b$ 
 expos'd. 
 
 Nor are my prefent Thoughts of your Practice of Bap* 
 tizing rhe Adult at all more favourable; for I take it to be 
 of Humane Invention, and my Reaibn is, becaufe I can- 
 not find one Precept, nor Inftance, nor juft Confequence 
 in the Sacred Records, which favours you. There are, I 
 know, ieveral Texts you commonly quote on this Occafion, 
 fuch as Mat. 3. 6. Mat. 18. 29. Mark, 16. 16. Acts 8. 12, 
 But thofe Texts are nothing to your Purpofe 5 for 'tis cer- 
 tain,they exprefly fpeakonly of Perfons who were converted 
 while Adult from Judaifm or Gentilifm$ and when we 1 ar£ 
 
 B eoi>» 
 
( 10 ) 
 
 concerned vvich fuch, we make Repentance and Faith the 
 previous Terms of Baptifm ; So that as far as the Scriptures 
 are clear in the prefent Cafe, our Practice exactly agrees 
 with 'em. But where, in thefe Texts, or any other part of 
 the Bible, is there the ieaft Hint of baptizing Perfons Adult, 
 who were Born after their Parents had embrae'd Chriftia- 
 nity ? And yet this is your Baptifm ; and 'tis this you ought 
 to juftifie by fome Precept, Inftance, or juft Confequence 
 in Scripture, and not put us off with Texts that relate to 
 the Baptifm of Jem or Heathen. What is this, in effect, 
 but to equivocate, and alter the Terms of the Difpute ? 
 Wou'd it be fair to argue from its being faid, Atls 22.28. 
 That the Chief Captain was made free when Adult, and 
 with a great Sutn obtained this Freedom, that the Apoftle Paul 
 was not Free Born ? And wou'd not you fmile, if a Party of 
 our modern Jews fhou'd ieparate from their Body, and fet 
 up Adult-Circumciiion, and, to fupport the Fancy, fhou'd 
 produce all the Texts in the Old Teftament, which fpeak 
 of Adult-Circumcifion ? Pray excufe us therefore, if we 
 infift upon fome folider Proof of your Baptifm, than Texts 
 which fpeak of the Baptifm of Jem and Heathen ; for what 
 is this to the Infants of Chriftian Parents ? 
 
 But 'tis time, Sir, to leave your Exordium, and more di- 
 ftinctly obferve your management of the controverted Points. 
 
 The firft Thing you propofe to treat of is, the Mode of 
 Baptifm : And you alferr, * It Jhould be only by Xmmerfion. 
 
 The Arguments you produce are, 
 
 I. That in all Authors, both Sacred and Prophane, /W/« 
 and #mt7i£* ha-ve no other fignification but to Dip. 
 
 II. The Practice of John the Baptift, Chrift, and his A- 
 poltles. 
 
 III. The Practice of the Primitive Church. 
 
 IV. The Determination pf Learned Moderns. 
 
 Thefe Arguments are enough, and more than enough, 
 if they can be fairly made out to favour you: But your 
 Reflections have not done this. 
 
 As to the Signification of the Greek Words in Debate ; 
 your own Book confutes, your Aflertion of their flgnifying 
 only to Dip; for you give us feveral Inftances where you 
 confefs they cannot figiiifie to Dip. And fpeaking of one 
 of thefe Inftances, you tell us, * That the Word /W]i£«> 
 perhaps, does not fo neceflarily exprefs the Action of put- 
 ting 
 
 - — ' ■ I ■■»» »■■■ I " ■ ■■ ■ 
 
(II ) 
 
 ring under Water, as in general a Things being in that 
 Condition ; no matter how it comes fo, whether it is put 
 into the Water, or the Water comes over it ; tho' indeed, 
 to put it into the Water is the moft natural way, and the 
 moft common, and is therefore ufually and almoft conftantly, 
 but it may be not neceflarily imply 'd. 
 
 Your Medium to reconcile thefe Contradictions is, That 
 the Greek Words are here u(ed Figuratively, and the Au- 
 thors alluded to the Dyers colouring of things by Dipping 
 them in the Dye ; and that the Extravagance of the Ex- 
 prerfion muft be qualified by wo-^ *W»« underftood. 
 
 But this Solution is not able to extricate you ; for 'tis 
 Arbitrary, and deftructive to your Caufe. 'Tis Arbitrary ; 
 for 'tis a Queftion whether they who ufed thefe Greek 
 Words were fo far acquainted with the Dyers Art, as to 
 know that they dipt things to Dye them ; or if they were, 
 it don't follow that they muft in thefe Places allude to it ; 
 for how often do we ufe the word Dye without ever allu- 
 ding to the Dyers Art ? But the Solution is not only Arbi- 
 trary, but alfo Deftructive to your Caufe ♦ for don't it e- 
 qually warrant us to plead, That as our Lord's Expreftions 
 in the other Sacrament were to be taken Figuratively, fo 
 the Word Baptize muft be taken in this, and the Qualify- 
 ing. Adverb *<rmg be underftood ? Nor is your * E- 
 vafion of the PafTage you cite from Ariftetle confiderable ; 
 for 'tis no matter whether that Coaft was wholly or in part 
 cover'd with the Tide, 'tis enough that eaTi'igi&xt there 
 fignifies to Pour, and not to Dip ; for you more than once 
 grant, f That being totally Immers'd does not affect our 
 Difpute; for the Queftion is not about the Whole, or a 
 Part of the Subject, but whether the Greek Word figni- 
 fies only to Dip or any thing elfe. 
 
 I cannot but here obferve what an Unhappinefs it is to 
 imbibe an Error; for this leads us into a Labyrinth. The 
 Paffages you cite are plain and eafie, if vou will but admit, 
 that the Greek Words in Difpute, like feveral others, have 
 various Acceptations : But by confining them only to Dip, 
 you occafion your felf a World of Trouble, and after all 
 cannot extricate your felf; tho' no Man could diicover 
 more Inclination ; for you make Mahomet go to the Moun- 
 tain, when you perceive that won't come to him : 'Tis a 
 
 B 2 Max, 
 
 * 1 tige 116. t />• J3S> MP> 1*8, !7i. 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 Maxim with youi that /W3»$y fignifies only to Dip ; but 
 becaufe 'twould be abfurd to fay the Coaft was Dipt, 
 therefore you drop your Maxim, and very gravely tell us, 
 IThat the Word perhaps does not fo neceffarily exprefs the 
 Action of putting under "Water, as in general a Thing's 
 being in that Condition, no matter how it comes fo, (3c 
 
 How thefe Expreflfions, with the other I juft hinted about 
 the Whole, or the Part, will be reliftYd by your Party, I 
 (cannot determine: But were I fure they wou'd approve of 
 them, and act accordingly, I might here clofe the Difpute 
 about the Mode of Baptifm. 
 
 But however, left they fhould not, 'tis convenient to 
 trace you farther. 
 
 In your Fourth Letter you Appeal to the Criticks to 
 determine the Senfe of flarl'ifr But two of the fix you 
 cite, vi%. Conflantine and Stephens, you * confefs, don't 
 think ic fignifies only to Dip: and how many other Criticks 
 t>e of the fame Mind ? Befides, the Inftances you . havp 
 quoted do invalidate all the Criticks can fay of its fignify- 
 ing only to Dip ; for Criticks are of no Note where Au- 
 thors are manifeftly againft 'em. 
 
 You next f prefent us with the Septuagint, and Apocrypha. 
 But I have that to object againft their Authority which 
 you frequently do againft our Quotations of the Fathers, 
 vi%. That the prefent Editions are fo corrupt, that we can- 
 not be certain whether the Words in difpure were in the 
 Original Editions. 
 
 I have aifo farther to object, That you take it for 
 granted P**™ and /hcxil£» are ufecl by thefe Au- 
 thors, as Synonymous Terms ; whereas, of the Twenty 
 five Places you fay you have met with thefe Words, four 
 only have /W](£y, and 'tis a oueftion whether in any 
 of them it fignifies to Dip. The firft P'ace is i Kings 
 5. 14. Our Tranflation has, Dipped himfcif Seven Times : But f 
 with fubmiflion, I conceive it might better have been tran- 
 flated, Then went he down, and teajhed Seven Times in Jordan. 
 My Reafon is, becaufe what was here done by Naaman is 
 faid to be according 10 the Saying of the Man of God : Now 
 the io.ver. informs us, that was, Go and vrajh in Jordan Se*. 
 ven Times. 
 
 Indeed you f. pretend that Sn^ and \a\D fignifie only 
 to Dip: But if you read Gen. 43. 31. not to turn you to 
 
 more, 
 
more, you may fee you are miftaken as to the former ; and 
 the Text we are upon feems to intimate you are miftakea 
 in the latter ; for the Leprofie of Naarnan feems from v. n. 
 to be only in one little part of his Body, and that vifible. 
 And therefore Elifoas Order might be like that of our 
 Lord's to the Blind Man, John 9. 7. Go wafh in the Pool of 
 Siloara. u c* Take fome Water out of the Pool with your 
 Hand, and wafh off the Clay from your Eyes. So here, 
 Take fome Water out of Jordan, and wafh the Leprous 
 Place Seven Times. 
 
 And that which may farther incline us to think this is the 
 true Senfe of this Text is, becaufe there was an Order Lev. 
 14.7. That the Leper who was to be cleanfed, fhould be 
 iprinkled upon Seven Times. 'Tis true, the Circumftances 
 between that Order and Elijhas are different ; but that 
 might be occafion'd by Naarnan s being an Heathen. 
 
 The next Place you refer to is Judith 12. 8. And that 
 Judith did not dip herfelf, is plain from the 7th Chapter of 
 the fame Book ; for as all the Fountains of Waters had a 
 Guard of Soldiers attending Night and Day, left the Be- 
 (ieg'd fhould get any Water, Judith wou'd never dip herfelf. 
 
 Ecclefiafiicus 34. z6. is the laft Place in the Apocrypha 
 you mention. The Words are (* you fay) in your Tranfla- 
 tion ; he that wafheth him/elf becaufe of a dead Body, and 
 toucheth it again, what availeth his Wafhing ? 
 
 The Warning here alluded to, is that which the Law en- 
 joyn'd, Numb. 19. 9, 18. 
 
 That Sprinkling was one Part of the Purification, you 
 cannot deny; but Bathing the Body, you fancy, was ano- 
 ther, and the principal Part, and 'tis to that therefore you 
 fuppofe the Words refer. But, Sir, with your Leave, the 
 Sprinkling was the principal Part of the Purification ; for 
 the Sprinkling is call'd the Purification for Sin, v. 9, 17. 
 The unclean Perfon is threatned, v. 13, 20. to be cut off 
 from Ifrael : For what ? for not Bathing feimfelf > No, but 
 becaufe the Water of Separation was not fprinkled upon 
 him. And the Apoftle, Heb. 9. 13. mentions only Sprink- 
 ling. So that, according to your own Way of arguing. 
 Sprinkling being the principal Part of this Purification, 
 £*t7<$$i©- more immediately- refers to Sprinkling. 
 
 The next Evidence you produce, is the New Tejlament - 
 but I am forry you mould repreient it t as unreafonable 
 
 to 
 
 , • . • * ' ■ ~ • 
 
 * Page X4$. t /•• I79» 
 
( »4) 
 
 to make this the beft Interpreter of the Word Baptize, or 
 ■fiaffititt as ufed in itfelf. 
 
 Speech is, * you confefs, continually altering, and de- 
 pends upon Cuftom. And to underftand what you mean 
 by Pxdobaptifts in your Book, fhall I turn over Homer, Pin- 
 dar, Ariftopbanes, &c. or confider in what Senfe 'tis taken 
 in your Book ? Would it not be abfurd to collect Palfages 
 out of thefe Grcel^ Poets of p*Ji» or fixJliga fignifying 
 to dip, and thence infer, that by Pxdobaptifts, you mean 
 fuch as dip Infants into the Water ? 
 
 *Tis plain therefore, that nothing can fo well explain 
 this Controverfy as the New Tcftament itfelf. 
 
 Now there is not one Place in the New Teftament, where 
 /W]i£« does evidently fignify to dip ; for in all fuch Pla- 
 ces (&**i» is us'd. And 'tis obfervable, that tho' Judas's 
 Dipping his Hand with our Lord in the Dim, is related by 
 Three of the Evangelifts, and in fomewhat different Ex- 
 preflions, yet they all agree in /3*jr/» to dip : Which inti- 
 mates, that whatever thefe two Greeks Words may be in o- 
 ther Authors, yet in the New Teftamcnt, they are not Sy- 
 nonimons. 
 
 You pretend | That Marl^j. 3. unlefs they wath Mfc*. 
 up to the Elbow, or Wrift, muft imply Dipping. Pray 
 read £ Godwins Mofes and Aaron, or go to the Portuguese 
 Synagogue, and obferve how they warn before they enter 
 the Synagogue, at a Cock juft before the Gate, and fee 
 your Criticifm confuted. 
 
 Your tt Animadverlion on Mr. Wall's Interpretation of 
 Marl^, 7. 4. is not fair ; for Lev, 1 £. 32. may perhaps only 
 intimate, that fuch Things mould be wafti'd with Water ; 
 for fome of the Veffels might be too large to remove and 
 put into the Water. Befides, Lev, 1192. fpeaks of a Pu- 
 rification which God commanded ; and was when a Thing 
 was polluted by fome unclean creeping Thing falling on it, 
 when Dead : But Marl^j. 4. fpeaks of an Humane Inven- 
 tion ; and upon I don't know what Occafion. 
 
 You alfo will have it, § That the Warning mentionM 
 Marl^j. 4. Wrfjen they came from Market, was Dipping them- 
 Jelves all over. Dr. Pococl^, as you obferve, denies this, and 
 calls in the whole Body of Rabbins to his Afliftance. 
 Againft which you oppoie the Opinion of Vatablus and 
 Gtotius, as if they were better acquainted than the Rabbins, 
 
 with 
 
 • ■■■ H i 1 1 III I 1 1 1 ■ ' .. ■ ... 
 
(-5) 
 
 with the Jewiflo Guftoms. Nor is Lev, iz, 6. an Explica- 
 tion of this Text ; for that is a Command of God, this a 
 Tradition of the Elders; that refers to the Sons of Aaron, 
 this to all the Jews ; that refpects the Eating of Holy 
 Things, this common Meals. The Ccnftitutions, Jofefbus; 
 &c. are alfo nothing to your Purpofe ; for they mean a 
 particular Sect ; whereas St. Marl^ fpeaks of all the Jem, 
 as is plain from the 3. i\ 
 
 You aflert * That the Warning the Hands cannot be in- 
 tended in the 4. v. becaufe 'tis mention'd in the 3. v. But 
 why not, Sir, (ince 'tis common, firft to mention Things in 
 general, and then give a particular Inftancej efpecially, 
 when, as in this Cafe, the Inftance will help us to form 
 clearer Ideas of the Thing ? 
 
 The Laft Text you urge of this Nature, is Heb. 9. i&2 
 Which t you fay has no Allufion to the Sprinklings under 
 the Law. But as the following Verfes feem to be explica- 
 tory of this, and mention divers Sprinklings, without a 
 Syllable of Dipping, we have more Reafon to conclude 
 thefe Sprinklings are meant by divers Warnings. Nor is 
 it harm, as you * fuggeft, to call Sprinkling, Warning; 
 for Luke 7. 44. Mary wapod Cbrifts Feet with her Tears, and 
 were not tbqfe Tears dijiilld or Jprinkfd on Cbrift's Feet ? 
 
 What now can be laid of theie Texts out of the New 
 Teftament, but that they are rather againft you, than in your 
 Favour ? 
 
 But to clofe this Head, the Apoftle Paul certainly under- 
 ftood the Signification of .Q*niig*, and he ufes it, not to 
 dip, but to fprinkle or pour, in 1 Cor. 10. 2. And were aft 
 bapti^d unto Mofes in the Cloud, and in tbe Sea. The Apo- 
 ftle refers to the Israelites PafTage thro* the t\ed-Sea t when 
 they fled from Pharaoh ; for in their PafTage the Cloud 'tis 
 probable diftill'd upon them, and the ftrong Eaft Wind 
 which then blew (Exod. 14. 21.) might fprinkle them with 
 iome of the R^d-Sea Water, from the Top of the Surges, 
 mention'd v. 22. and therefore the Prepofition c* mould be 
 tranflated with, as 'tis frequently elfewhere, particularly 
 Mat. 3 . 1 1 . 
 
 But I fhall add no more here, concerning the Ufe of the 
 Word fixifiifa in the New Teftament, becaufe what I have 
 farther to fay, may more fitly be brought in when I confi- 
 der your next Argument for Dipping, which I now pro- 
 ceed to. 2. You 
 
 * Page 16$. t f* *^9 • t P- ! 7°' 
 
(i6) 
 
 ■ i. Yoti appeal to the Pra&ice of Jahn the Baptjft, and 
 the Apoftles. 
 
 The Tests you cite on this Occafion, I have taken No* 
 tice of, in my * Survey. But here let me add, that as to 
 much Water, in John 3. 23. I defire you to read 2 Chron. 
 32. 4. So there was gather d much People together, who flopped 
 all the Fountains, and the Brook,, that ran thro* the midft of the 
 Land, faying, why Jhould the Kings of AfTyria come and find 
 much Water ? 
 
 Would it not be a curious Criticifm to obferve from the 
 Mention of much Water here, That He^ekiah and his Sub- 
 jects took all this Pains to prevent the Affyrians Dipping 
 themfelves ? What Child but may give a truer Account of 
 the Matter, and fay, 'twas to prevent their having Water 
 to drink ? How can much Water therefore (John 3. 23 J be 
 an Argument that St. John dip'd in Baptifm ? Let it but be 
 confider'd how fcarce Water was in many Parts of Canaan ; 
 how hot the Climate, and how numerous the Company at- 
 tending on Johns Miniftry ; and 'twill appear there was 
 Need enough of much Water where John baptiz'd, not to 
 dip his Followers, but refrefii them. 
 
 As to Mark. 1.5. How common is it for Perfons to go 
 into a River without dipping themfelves ? And I have in 
 my Survey, hinted at fome Reafons why St. John might go 
 into a River to baptize, tho' he did not dip. Befides, 'tis 
 not evident, that St. John took his Pro/elites into the River $ 
 for this Paffage, were all bapti^d of him in the Rjver of 
 Jordan, may iignify no more, than if any, fpeaking of the 
 Picdobaptifts, fhould fay, they baptize in a Font, or a Ba- 
 fon ; which is not to be underftood, that we baptize by dip- 
 ping into the Font or Bafon, but that we make ufe of the 
 Water therein. 
 
 As to Acts 8. 38. It may note no more than that there 
 was a Defcent to the Water, like Judges 7. 4, 5. And the 
 Lord [aid unto Gideon, the People are yet too many : Bring 
 them down unto the Water, and I will try them for thee there — 
 
 So he brought down the People unto It be Water Now this 
 
 was not to dip the People. 
 
 Befides, as I have obferv'd in my Survey, fuppcfe they 
 both went into the Water, yet this don't prove that the Eu*> 
 nuch was dip'd ; for Philip was not then dip'd ; and yet as 
 much is faid of him as of the Eunuch, about going down in- 
 to the Water, and coming up out of the Water. As 
 
(i7) 
 
 As to fytn. 6. 4. Col, 2. 12. 'tis only a Suppofitiori, lh«i 
 the Mode of Baptifm is alluded to, and we might- as wel! 
 urge E%ek 36. 25. in favour of Sprinkling; for the Pro- 
 phet refers to Gofpel-Times ; and why may not he allude 
 to the Mode of Baptifm in faying, Then -will 1 fprinkle clean 
 Water upon you, and ye fhall be clean ? This Conjecture is 
 more probable than yours; for Baptifm had been inftituted 
 and practis'd fome Years before Chrlft's Burial ; and 'tis 
 farther obfervabJe, that the Burial and Refurre&ion the A- 
 poftle fpeaks of, was, thro* the Faith of the Operation of 
 God, Col. 2. 12. But Perfons maybe dip'd, and yet not 
 thus bury'd arid rifen again. 
 
 You fee now, Sir, That thefe Texts don't make it our> 
 that the Practice of St. John and the Apoftles was Dipping. 
 
 But however, fuppofe thefe Taetts and Ten Thoufand 
 more, had clearly reprefented to us, that their Practice 
 was Dipping, yet this could be only underftood of their 
 more ufbal Practice, and not of what they did on extras 
 ordinary Occafions, fuch as Sicknefs, Diftance from much 
 Water, cold ClimateSj and the Inhabitants unaccuftomed to 
 Bathings. Somewhat I have faid of this in my * Survey, 
 and have nothing to do more, but to anfwer your two Ob- 
 jections. 
 
 One is, f That 'tis raft to fuppofe the Apoftles, on ex- 
 traordinary Occafions, alter'd the Mode. The other is, £ 
 That Mat. 12. 7. won't juftify our Sprinkling, if the Texts 
 you produce favour Dipping. 
 
 As to the former ; pray what Rafimefs is there in fuppo- 
 ling, that the x^pofties were baptiz'd, tho' the Scripture is 
 (ilent ? And their altering the Mode on extraordinary Oc- 
 casions may as fairly be fuppos'd ; for did they make free 
 with the 4th Commandment to refrefh their Bodies, in a 
 a Cafe of Extremity, Mat. 12. i. and wou'd they be more 
 fqueamifh, in the like Cafe, to alter a Mode, that the Souls 
 of their Converts might Le refrefli'd by Baptifm ? 
 , As to your othei Objection, that Mat. 12. 7. won't jufti- 
 fy our Sprinkling, if the Texts you produce favour Dip- 
 ping. 
 
 I anfwer, that 'tis fold Mat. 12.4. 'Twas lawful only 
 for the Priefts to eat the Shevp-bread. And Exod 20. 10. But 
 the Seventh Day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God : In it thou 
 fhalt ?iot-do any H 7 crl{. Are any of your Texts fo exprefs as 
 
 C ' thefe? 
 
 * Page \j, &c. \ p % a©o. ± p. 19*0 
 
( i8 ) 
 
 thefe ? And yet thefe had tacit Exceptions of Cafes of Ne- 
 ceflity, as is evident from our Lord's pronouncing David 
 and his Apoftles innocent. Mat. 12. 7. And don't this prove, 
 that all the Texts you bring, muft at leaft have a tacit Ex- 
 ception ? • And confequently in our cold Climate, the Ex- 
 ception is pleadable, and our Sprinkling is juftify *d by 
 Mat. ix. 7. 
 
 * You pretend, that this Text will juftify the not Ad- 
 miniftring Baptifm at all, but not a varying the Mode, in 
 Cafes of Neceflity. But how ftrange a Conftru&ion is 
 this ! If David and the Apoftles had fafted, and our Lord 
 had brought this Text to juftify it, there had been then 
 fome Colour for what you fay : But as David did eat the 
 Shew-Bread, when he could get no other ; and the Apoftles 
 pluck the Ears of Com on the Sabbath-Day, rather than 
 they would faft, and Mat. 12.7. is brought to juftify them; 
 'tis prepofterous to fay they will warrant our OmiiTion of 
 Baptifm, but not excufe our varying of the Mode. 
 
 What you have advanc'd therefore, has neither prov'd, 
 that Dipping was the Apoftolical Practice ; nor, if it had 
 been, that in extraordinary Cafes, another Mode is not 
 lawful. 
 
 Permit me now to offer fome Things which render it at 
 leaft probable, that the Apoftles never dip'd. 
 
 1. 'Tis certain, whatever fome learned Men have fan- 
 cy'd, the Apoftles did not baptize naked. Exod. 20. 26. 
 'tis faid, Neither Jhalt thou go up by Steps unto mine Altar, 
 that thy Nakgdnefs be not difcoverd thereon. And certainly 
 to ftrip, and march naked into the Water, wou'd be as im- 
 modeft. But without fuch Supposition, how could they 
 be dip'd, who were baptiz'd? For they wou'd not care 
 tp be dip'd in their wearing Cloths, and in the Apoftles 
 Days, where could they have a Withdrawing-Room, and 
 baptifmal Garments ? 
 
 2. The ancient Seal of the Covenant, Circumcifion , 
 was apply 'd but to a Part of the Body. 
 
 3. 'Tis fuch a Thing as never was heard of, to have a 
 Seal cover the Whole of the Writings which entitle us to 
 ■an Eftate : The Seal affix'd to a fmall Part is fufficient. 
 
 4. Our Mode does at leaft equally reprefent the End 
 and Defign of Baptifm, and has none of the Inconvenien- 
 ces which attend Dipping, fuch as Fatigue and Tempta- 
 
 tation 
 
 * Page 196. 
 
( i9) 
 
 tion in the Minifter ; Drerfing, and Undrefling, Blufhing, 
 Confufion, Frights, and almoft Suffocation in the Profelite, 
 But my intended Brevity requires me to confider the nexi 
 Evidence you call, vi%. 
 
 3. * The Practice of the Primitive Chrijlians. 
 
 But as to this I object, 
 
 1. That, if I miftake ribt, Tcrtullian is the Antienteft 
 Authority that can be depended on, and that you \ confefs , 
 is. not antient enough. Befides, Dr. Beveridge has produced 
 a Palfage out of him, in Favour of Sprinkling, and cujujli- 
 bet Aqux. is not, as you pretend, an invincible Bar againft 
 the Doctor's Conftruction ; for cujufllbet feems to be fu- 
 perfluous, if Water was not then fprinkled in Baptifm. 
 And, that earlier than Novatian Perfufion was, at leaft in 
 extraordinary Cafes, practised, is evident from what Corne- 
 lius his Rival in a Letter, as cited by £ Du Pin, fays; for 
 he mentions a previous Order of the Church about it. 
 
 2. § You confefs Innovations were very early brought 
 into the Church, and as a Trine Immerfion, Anointing 
 the New-baptiz'd, and giving them Milk and Honey, &c: 
 are ufually mention'd in thofe earlier Days with Dipping, 
 'tis probable they are of the fame Original. 
 
 3. The Antients at leaft in extraordinary Cafes baptiz'd 
 without Dipping. 
 
 This appears from the Order I juft now took Notice of; 
 and you own ** That about the Middle of the third Cen- 
 tury there is Mention made of Sprinkling. But you tell 
 us, that what they did in Cafes of Neceflity won't warrant 
 our general Practice ; and that even in fuch Cafes the Va- 
 lidity of the Baptifm was much queftion'd. 
 
 As to the Former of thefe, the fame Principle on which 
 they proceeded in Cafes of Necefficy will warrant our general 
 Practice; for in our Part of the World, 'tis dangerous ma- 
 king the Experiment whofe Body can bear Dipping. If it 
 be faid, we muft truft God in this Cafe, I refer you to my 
 tt Survey for an Anfwer. And truly I don't find your own 
 Minifters have a ftrong Faith in this Article ; for 'tis not 
 every One will venture into the cold Water, but this Part 
 of their Office is fhifted off to fome of their hardier Bre- 
 thren. 
 
 C 2 As 
 
 * Page 190. t />• *° 6 ' * Vo1 ' *.« P- J 44- Ecc - *$$* $ £• 
 397>398, 543- ** P- *°7- tTi , -i9>3^. 
 
As t,o the Antients queftioning the Validity of Clinical 
 Baptifms $ 
 
 I anfwer it feems rather to be from the Fears left fuch 
 Perfons were not fincere Converts, than from any Scruple 
 about the Mode ; for becaufe they defer'd Baptifm in a 
 Time of Health, and defir'd it on a rick Bed, when they 
 defpair'd of Life, there was Room for Sufpicion. But 
 none of the Antients carry'd this Matter fo far as to rebap- 
 fc tize fuch. And Cyprian thinks the Scriptures are in Favour 
 of Sprinkling, particularly Numb 19. 13. Nor is an Argu- 
 ment drawn from that Text fo trifling as you reprefent; 
 for if God hirnfeif appointed Sprinkling to be the Mode of 
 Purification under the Law, can it be unpleafant to him, 
 at leaft in extraordinary Cafes, to ufe this in Baptifmal 
 Purification ? 
 
 * You fancy Cyprian had feme Scruples about this Mode, 
 becaufe in his Letter to Magnus, he leaves it to every One 
 to think and act in the Cafe, as he fhould judge fit. But 
 fuch a Way of Expreflion was ufual with Cyprian, as Du 
 Pin t obferves, and the Apoftle has recommended it, I{cm* 
 14. Chap, to all Chrifiians. And how happy would it be 
 for the Church of Chrift, if your Controverfies were thus 
 rnanag'ri ? 
 
 ^ You farther obferve, that Cyprian, in this Difpute, is 
 Hlent as to feveral Arguments now in Vogue. Your De- 
 iign in this, is to render them contemptible : But if this 
 Method will do ir, I hope you will excufe us, if we com- 
 pare your Reflections on Mr. f&tjl-s Hiftory of Infant-Bap- 
 tifrp, with what TertuUian fays on the Subject, and flight 
 all the Improvements you have made. 
 
 The Inftance you bring of the Emperor J Conjiantine, can 
 be but of little Service to you, becaufe 'tis not early enough, 
 and he was of a peculiar Temper, as appears from his In- 
 tention to be baptiz'd in Jordan, and Deferring his Bap- 
 tifm till Old Age. Befides, as he dy'd a few Days after 
 his Baptifm, Vis not improbable but Dipping might increafe 
 his Sicknefs, and haften his Exit, 
 
 There is one Argument more you ufe, and that is, 
 4. The Determination of learned Moderns. 
 But in fuch a Cafe as this, they are no farther to be re- 
 garded,, than they can produce Authority for what they 
 fay. Beiides ; how few of the Learned will affert, that the 
 
 An- 
 ■ — ■■■ — — — »— ■— t ■ - - • 
 
( 21 ) 
 
 Antlents only dipp'd ? And are they not almoft unanimous, 
 that Dipping is not neceffary in our Northern Regions ? 
 
 Thefe, Sir, are the brief Remarks I thought fit to con> 
 municate to you, on that Part of your Book which relates 
 to the Mode of : Barkifm : And, in my next, I defign to 
 confider the other Point in Debate, vi\. Who are the true 
 Subje&s of Baptifm ; whether Adult Perfons alone, or In- 
 fants alfo ? 
 
 I am, Sir, yours, &c. 
 
 Letter II. 
 
 S I t\ 
 
 TN my Former I gave you my Thoughts, as to the Mode 
 f- of Baptifm : Permit me in this to do the fame, as to 
 the Subjects of Baptifm. 
 
 'Tis my Opinion, that the firft Thirteen Pages of your 
 Sixth Letter might have been fpar'd ; for, Mr. Wall * you 
 confefs never meant to deny, that Infant-Baptifm was in 
 Scripture. He has Recourfe to the Practice of the Jews, 
 and the Primitive Church, to explain, not exclude the 
 Scripture. In fhort, he had no other Defign in this, than 
 you had in turning us to the Greeks Authors, to explain 
 fiair'iige* in the New Teftamcnt. 
 
 . And truly the reft of your Sixth Letter is, what I can- 
 not but complain of $ for you unfairly ftate the Matter by 
 Infinuating, | That our Argument is, Chrift has no where 
 forbid us to baptize our Children, and therefore we may 
 do it : This is onjy to relate one, and conceal the other 
 Part of our Argument ; for what we infift on is, that, as 
 the Infants of ProfefTors once had, by Divine Authority, 
 the initiating Seal of the Covenant, and Chrift never re- 
 peal'd this by prohibiting their Initiation in the ChriftUn 
 Church, therefore we are oblig'd to baptize our Children. 
 
 Compare this Way of Arguing, with Anthonys Preach- 
 ing to a Congregation of Fifties, and the like pretty Allufi- 
 ons ypu wou'd expofe us by, and tell me who has difcover- 
 
 ed 
 
 f ?age 2.15, iz6. t t- *32» 
 
(22) 
 
 Cd the greater Weaknefs. In our way of arguing we ap^ 
 peal to a Law which you own was made, and we believe 
 was never repeal'd : And how are your Allufions pertinent, 
 except you can make the fame Appeal ? 
 
 Your Seventh and Eighth Letters, are taken u_p about the 
 Extent of Mat. 28. 19. 
 
 But I have to remark: 
 
 I; That what you fay don't prove, that Children may 
 not be included in fu«$«T«W?«. 
 
 II, That fuppofe they are not included in it, yet that 
 t Word don't exclude them from Baptifm. 
 
 III. That Mat. 28. 19. is more in our Favour than in 
 yours. 
 
 t. That what you fay don't prove, that Children may 
 not be included in pMUtm\*. 
 
 Under the Law, when Parents were profelited, their 
 Children were alfo deem'd Pro/elites ; for they had imme- 
 diately a Right to Circumcifion ; and the Jemjh Writers, 
 as Mr. Wall obferves, * ftile Children Pro/elites, tho* the 
 Etymology of this Word might as well be objected, as that 
 in Difpute. And why then, under the Gofpel, may not 
 our Children be deem'd Difciples? What Confufion would 
 it make in Books, and Converfation, if the Senfe of Words 
 were to be taken from their Etymology? And in particular, 
 our School-MiftrefTes muft not when ask'd, how many 
 Scholars they have ? reckon thofe that are yet too young 
 to learn, but they are to be mention'd under fome other 
 Denomination. 
 
 When you can make it out, Sir, that our Children are 
 not Difciples, I will confefs your Etymology has fome 
 Weight in it j but till then, I may, I hope, entertain what 
 Thoughts I pleafe of it. And you are the more concerned 
 to make this out, becaufe if our Children are Difciples, 
 then Mat. 28. 19. is an exprefs Command for Infant-Bap- 
 tifm. 
 
 The next Remark is, 
 
 2. That fuppofe Children are not included in fAecB-oTtuovP.t, 
 that yet this Word don't exclude them from Baptifm. 
 
 See my f Survey, or rather perufe your Explication of 
 3ohn-$.'$. for the Diftinclion you ufe there, is applicable 
 to Mat. 28. 19. And who can return a folider Anfwer to 
 what you advance, f. 248, 249. than that which you your- 
 
 ielf 
 . . — ~ 
 
 * Page 49, 51. t P' *°> &c> 
 
(2?) 
 
 felf have done, p. 420. In this Latter you tell us, that tho* 
 fuch Texts as John 3. 5. fpeak in general, yet Infants can. 
 not be excluded from Heaven by them^ for the Conditi- 
 ons of Faith, and being born of the Spirit, mud refer to 
 the Adult, and not to Infants who are incapable of perform- 
 ing them. In this Cale you allow that thefe Conditions, 
 tho* mentioned in the fame Verfe with Salvation, and made 
 Terms of it to the Adult, yet Infants are not concerned 
 with them, but may be faved without them, as being in- 
 capable of performing them. And is it fair then to argue 
 from the Word Teach, in Mat. 28. 19. and the Incapacity 
 of Infants to be taught, that therefore they are not to be 
 baptiz'd ? Why may it not here be faid, that Teach is to 
 be underftood as a Term or Condition of Baptifm only to 
 the Adult ? 
 
 My other Remark is, 
 
 3. That Mat. 28. 19. is more in our Favour than in 
 yours. 
 
 This is evident, becaufe you cannot deny but the Infants 
 of ProfefTors once had a Right to the initiating Seal ; and 
 when this Seal was exchanged, there was no Bar put in a- 
 gainft them by Chrift, at leaft in our Opinion. But as to 
 your Baptifm, vi%. of the Adult Seed of ProfeiTors, when, 
 and where, fhali we find it in God's Word ? The Texts 
 you commonly produce are, as I have already hinted, no- 
 thing to your Purpofe, becaufe they fpeak of Perfons con- 
 verted from Judaifm, or Gentilifm to Chriftianity, when 
 Adult y and we ftrictly oblerve thofe Rules when we are 
 to baptize fuch. 
 
 So that after all the Stir you have made about Mat. 28. 
 19. we have a better Claim to it than you; for the Old 
 CommiiTion to initiate did include Infants, and the New 
 One having no Exception of them, is to be fuppos'd equal- 
 ly extenfive. But neither the Old or New Commimon re-? 
 commends your Subjects of Baptifm. 
 
 Your Ninth Letter has feveral Objections againft MrJ 
 TVali's Argument for Infant-Baptifm, that is fetch'd from 
 the Jews Initiating both Pro/elites and their Infants by Bap- 
 tifm. 
 
 One of your Objections is, * That the Authorities Mr, 
 Wall cites, are not ancient enough ; for the Mifchna was 
 not compil'd till about One Hundred and Fifty Years after 
 the Deftru&ion of Jerufalem. But, 
 
(24 ) 
 
 feut, Sir, With your Leave, this Authority is antient £- 
 nough ; for whatever Innovations have been made in the 
 Jewijh Religion fince our Lord's Days, fuch is their Averfi- 
 on to the Cbriftians, that they would never have been be- 
 holden to them for an Innovation. If before our Lord's 
 Inftitution of Baptifm, as a Sacrament, the Jews were not 
 us'd to initiate their Pro/elites by Baptifm, they would have 
 difdain'd to Cet up this Practice afterwards. 
 
 You again object, * That none of the Jewifh Wri- 
 tings Mr. Wall cites, fay any Thing of the Jews Baptizing 
 their Pro/elites before or in our Saviour's Time. 
 
 The Solution I have given to the former Objection, will 
 avail here : To which I muft add, that your Memory fail'd 
 you in, faying, that. none ot the Jewifh Writings Mr. Wall 
 cites, fay any thing of the Jews Baptizing their Profelites 
 before our Saviour's Time ; t for Maimonides is cited by 
 him, as fpeaking of many Profelites being baptiz'd in Da- 
 vid's and Solomons Time ; and the Talmud, as faying, thaf 
 Jethro, Mofess Father in-Law, was made a Profelite by 
 Circumcilion and Baptifm. 
 
 You farther object, £ That there is no Neceflity to un^ 
 derftand the Mifchna in Mr. Wall's Senfe. 
 
 But, Sir, the Commentaries on the Mifchna, you confefs, 
 feem to favour him; and why muft the Jews be fuppos'd 
 worfe Interpreters of the Mifchna than Dr. Gale ? Befides, 
 even your Interpretation is as favourable for us ; for if the 
 Native Jews, becaufe of fome Pollution, were baptiz'd, as 
 well as circumcis'd, Profelites ftood in more Need of fuch 
 a Purification. 
 
 You next object, § That the Antiquity of the Practice 
 is render'd dubious by the Difagreement of the Bobbins. , 
 
 Is it Equity, Sir, to oppofe Two Perfons to a Cloud of 
 Witneifes? And befides, thofe Two are mifreprefented j 
 for they no where exprefly deny, that Profelites were initia- 
 ted by Baptifm : Nor do the Parages you mention, exprefs 
 any thing of this Nature - y for they may ridicule our Sacra- 
 ment of Bnptifrn as an unaccountable and fanciful Ceremo- 
 ny, and yet approve of their own Baptizing of Profelites : 
 Don't fome of your Friends, nay, you yourfelf ridicule 
 our Baptifm ? And muft I infer, that yoit don't baptize 
 your Pro/elites. But fully to convince you of this wrong In- 
 nuendo, the Baptizing of Pro/elites is in the Talmud, and 
 
 ydw 
 
 * tage}i*> 334. if. 44. 45. * />. }i8. §^.}^. 
 
( *5 ) 
 
 you • tell us froth Kauderus, that it is enjoyn'd under 
 fain of Death, that no One prefume to deny any One 
 Thing written in the Talmud, and consequently the Two 
 Jewifh Authors you refer to, did not deny this. 
 
 You alfo objedfc, f That if the Bobbins had unfverfally 
 aiTerted in fo many Words, that the Jews did always ufe 
 to initiare their P ufe! ties by Baprifm ; and that St. Join 
 and Jefus Chrift borrow'd the Ceremony from them, you 
 fhould nevei thelefs think it the greateft Follv and Madnefs 
 in the World, to believe it on their fole Authority. 
 
 But, Sir, this Objection can't concern us, becaufe we 
 don't believe this on the fole Authority of the Rabbins, as 
 will appear by and by. Befides, fuppofe we did, the Rea- 
 fons you afTign, are not fufficient. 
 
 i. You fay, the Rabbimcl^ "Writings have many Roman- 
 ces and BiiUphemies. 
 
 But you give us no Instances ^f this in the Mifchna; or 
 if you had, 'twould not in this Cafe have invalidated the 
 Teftimony ; for don't the ClaJJickj abound with Romances 
 and Blafphemies., and yet we credit their Account of the 
 Greeks and Roman CuftomS. 
 
 2. You fay, feveral of the Rabbins were notOrioufly 
 wicked ; and, among other their Impieties, did cor/upt 
 and alter the Sacred Scriptures. 
 
 But, Sir, tho' our Lord charg'd the Scribes with corrupt 
 Glofles, yet never with Corrupting the Text. Tis gene- 
 rally own'd by Proteftants, that the Jebs have always been 
 folicitous to preferve the Original of the Old Tcjiamcnt 
 pure and uncorrupt ; and this appears from the indefatiga- 
 ble Pains of the Maforites. Jufiiii Martyr, indeed, accu- 
 fes them of Corrupting the Text; but the Reafon is, he 
 was only Converfant with the Septuagint, and the Jews de- 
 claring, that the Hebrew in fome Places differ'd from that, 
 he fancy 'd they had corrupted the Hebrew: whereas the 
 Brrara were in the Septuagint. 
 
 Belides, what Proof is there, that the Rabbins, who men- 
 tion the Baptifm of Pre/elites, were fuch impious Wretches? 
 Or if this could be made out, yet don't we ciedit the worft 
 of Perfons in Cafes where they are under no Temptation; 
 to deceive . ; What were the Morals of Virgil, Ovid, &c. 
 and yet we readily aequiefce in the Account they give of 
 the Roman Cuftorrrs ; and therefore the Evidence of the 
 
 D fyh-. 
 
 I ■ m _ _ . _ I i». « i ■ li Hi I I ■■ I — 
 
 * Page 3$o^ f p. |4J. 
 
( 26 ) 
 
 Rabbins in this Cafe is credible, becaufe they rather lay un- 
 der a Temptation of Blotting this Baptifm out of their 
 ^Writings, than falfely inferting it, as it feems to approach 
 unto the PradHce of the Chriftians, whom they deteft. 
 
 3. You fay, fome learned Men fpeak contemptibly of 
 the fybbjns. 
 
 Pray, Sir, read Cartwight's Epiftle prehVd to his Anno- 
 tations on Exodus: and you will fee his Opinion of the 
 Bobbins, and that of the moft learned Perfons of his Time. 
 And the famous Mr. Hugh B>cugbton * declares, the t\ab- 
 bins.ave ufeful to underftand both the Old and Neve Tefta- 
 vients, and he that cannot ufe them, fhould not tranflate. 
 
 Nay, the very Perfons you quote, as fpeaking contemp- 
 tibly of the P^bbins, do in this Cafe admit of their Au- 
 thority. Dr. Lightfoot in particular has thefe Exprefllons, 
 " f If Baptifm, fays he, and baptizing Infants had been a 
 " new Thing, and unheardof till John the Baptift came, as 
 " Circumcihon was, till God appointed it to Abraham, there 
 " would have been, no doubt, an exprefs Command for Bap- 
 " tizing Infants, as there was for Circumcifing 'em. But 
 " when the Baptizing of Infants was a Thing commonly 
 [1 known and ufed, as appears by unconteftable Evidence 
 u from their Writers ; there need not be exprefs AfTertions 
 " tnat fuch and fuch Perfons were to be the Objects of Bap- 
 " . tifm ; When it was as well known, before the Gofpel be- 
 *' gan, that Men, Women, and Children were baptiz'd, as 
 " it is ro be known that the Sun is up, when, (3c 
 
 4. You fay, That Chrift and his Difciples give us the 
 word Character of the t\abbins'znd Governors of the Jcves 
 that 'tis poifible ro conceive. And that Marl^j. 8. reaches 
 exprefly the Thing in Difpute. 
 
 But, Sir, tho' our Lord and his Difciples gave them but a 
 very indifferent Character, yet that is more favourable 
 than you can vouch fafe them, and fuch an One as may 
 invite us to liflen to what they fay in the prefent Cafe, 
 Mat. 1%. I, 2, 3. Then fpak? Jefiis to the Multitude, and to 
 his Difciples, faying, The Scribes and the Pharifees fit in Mo- 
 les Seat. All therefore whatfoever they bid you obferve, that cb- 
 fervc nnd do, &c. 
 
 Nor does Mar\f. 8. reach exprefly the Thing in Dif- 
 pute • for the Wafhing of Pots and Cups, is only exprefs^d 
 
 in 
 
 * Page 7c 0. Of bis Works in Folio, -J* Harmony on John 
 
(27) 
 
 in particular. And truly our Lord's not mentioning the 
 Baptifm of Pro/elites on this Occafion, is an Argument, 
 that 'twas not a Tradition of the Pharifees, but a Divine 
 Inftitution ; for otherwife our Lord would rather have 
 inftanc'd in the Baptifm of Pro/elites, than in the Wafhing 
 of Pots and Cups, this being the bolder Step of the Two, 
 as Teeming to reprefent Circumcifion as an imperfect Ini- 
 tiation. 
 
 You in your Tenth Letter undertake to prove, that there 
 was no fuch Thing as Baptizing the Jewijlo Pro/elites. 
 The Arguments you ufe are, 
 i. * The Silence of the Scriptures. 
 But, Sir, is it not plain from John i. 25. That the Jews 
 had a Notion of Baptifm previous to the Practice of John 
 the Bapift ? For how e\Ce could they ask him, why .bapti- 
 zed thou then, if thou be not that Chrift, nor Elias, nei- 
 ther that Prophet? 
 
 And are not the Apoftle's Words very exprefs 1 Cor. 10. 
 1, 2. Moreover, Brethren, I would not that ye frould be igno- 
 rant, how that all our Fathers were under the Clcud, and all 
 faffed thro' the Sea, and were all baptij'd unto Moles in the 
 Cloud, and in the Sea. 
 
 Befides, the Texts that fpeak of Purification by Water 
 do in effect command the Baptifm of Pro/elites ; tor if the 
 Native Jews were not pure enough to approach unto God, 
 till thus purify 'd, the Pro/elites requir'd a fclemn Purificati- 
 on by Water. 
 
 2. Another Argument you ufe is, f That there is no In- 
 ftance or Mention of this Baptifm, in any other authentick 
 ancient Hiftory. Jcfepbus, Pbilv, Gan%. in the Accounts of 
 the Profclytifm of fome, they have mention'd Circumcifion, 
 without fo much as Glancing at this pretended Baptifm. 
 But, Sir, why muft the Silence of thefe Authors be infill- 
 ed on, when the Mifchna is fo very exprefs } Thefe only 
 aded the Part of Hiftorians, and 'twas not their Bufinefs 
 to take notice of all Cuftoms: 'Twas enough to mention 
 the Circumcifion of Pro/elites, becaufe that, as £ you ob- 
 ferve, was a great Badge of a Jew : That alio was moft 
 contemn'd by other Nations, and therefore 'twas fit to 
 declare, that the Profelites fubmitted to it, and did not 
 think it difjionourable. But, as for Baptifm, that was 
 fpoke againft by none, nor was it the Prerogative cf a 
 
 D 2 Jew ; 
 
 " I————— H I HI 
 
 * P'tei'S- t />• 37°. * £-3*4- 
 
( 2 8) 
 
 J«p ; for the Chriftiant baptize, and even the Heathen had 
 a Sort of Baptifm among them : And to what Purpofe 
 therefore fhould thefe Hiftorians mention the Baptifm of 
 their Pro/elites ? 
 
 3. * You argue from the Apoftle's taking no Notice of out 
 Baptifm being like that of the Jews, but comparing it with 
 the being baptlz'd unto Mojes in the Cloud and Sea. 
 
 This, Sir, according to my Hypothec's, is a Confirmati- 
 on, that the Jews did baptize their Pro/elites ; for I derive 
 that Cuftom from the Ifraelifes being baptize! unto Mofes, 
 as you may fee in my f Survey, 
 
 Befides, what Occafion was there for the Apoftte to tell 
 the Chriftians of his Age, that our Baptifm was like that 
 of the Jews, when they had ocular Demembration of ic-J 
 'Twas much more affecting for the Apoftle to ftep feveral 
 Ages back, becaufe the Scripture had recorded God's pu- 
 nifhing them for their Sins, tho' they had alfo been bapti- 
 zed. And this would caution Chrijtians not to truft to the 
 Protection of Baptifm, while they went on in Sin. 
 
 4. You fay, ^ that feveral Authors of Reputation, efpe- 
 pally the Antients, take no Notice of this Jewijh Initiation, 
 
 I mail not ftand to examine the Truth of thir ; for fup- 
 pofe, Sir, it be fo, 'tis nothing to the purpofe; for how 
 few of the Antients underftood Hebrew? And confequently 
 were Strangers to the Jewijh Books. Or if they had been 
 jever fo well acquainted with this Jewijh Initiation, yet 
 what Occafion had they to mention it in the Writings they 
 have left behind them ? How rare a Thing would it be in, 
 pur Days, for a Cbriftian Author to intimate any Th'mg of 
 this Nature, were it not for the unhappy Controverfy of 
 Infant-Baptifm ? 'Tis fufficient, that the antient Jewijh 
 Writers have tranfmitted this Practice to us j for they cou'd 
 ijot defjgn to i'mpofe on us. 'Tis ftrange, that the Silence 
 of others muft determine this Practice of the Jews, againf): 
 the exprefs Declaration of the Jews themfelves. 
 
 But while you are on this Head, § you charge us with 
 Prejudice, Partiality and Inconfiftency, in faying, Baptifm 
 was borrow'd from the Jewijh Initiation, and yet that it 
 fucceeds Circumcifion. 
 
 In my poor Opinion, Sir, 'tis no Inconfiftency to fay a 
 Practice is borrow'd of one Thing, and fucceeds another. 
 "Jhe Jews have even to this Day a Cuftom, that, upon fo- 
 
 lerrm 
 
 ■■ ■iiiiiiwiiw ii ww i nn 11 1 1 i r -»— ■ » 1 , ■ , ,. , MI w— w mmm j ^, 
 
 f /'i'JTi* tf*9- t>-m. 5 $p.}7?. 
 
( 29) 
 
 lemn Occafions, the Matter of the Family blefTes Bread 
 and the Cup, and diftributes them to the Family : And 
 from this Cuftom, the Learned generally conclude, our Sa- 
 viour borrowed the Sacrament of his Supper, and yet we 
 fay, this Sacrament fucceeds that of the Paflbver. So our 
 prefent Cuftom of Fighting with Guns, was borrowed from 
 the Germans ; and muft we not fay therefore, Guns fucceed 
 our antient Bows and Arrows ? 
 
 You farther object, * That fuppofe the Jews from Mofes 
 to our Saviour's Time, did thus receive their Prufelites by 
 Baptifm, yet it can do no Service to the Caufe of Paedo- 
 baptifm; for, 
 
 i. What Proof is there except from the Bobbins, that 
 Infants were fo admitted ? 
 
 This Proof, Sir, is fufficient ; for under what Tempta- 
 tion could they lie to deceive us ? The Thing alfo fpeaks 
 for itfelf 5 for if Circumcifion and Baptifm, were the Initi- 
 ation of the Parents, why muft it be fuppos'd, that the In* 
 fants were initiated only by Circumcifion ? They muft be 
 impure if their Parents were, and confequently ftood in 
 Need of the fame Purification by Water. 
 
 But you add, 
 
 2. That even fuppofe Profelites and their Infants were 
 ufually initiated by Baptifm ; will it therefore follow the 
 Chrifiian Baptifm muft be exactly the fame, and adminiftred 
 to the fame Perfons ? By. no means. How dangerous 
 and pernicious this Confequence is, appears from the Han- 
 dle it gives the Socinians, Quakers, and Libertines, to explode 
 the Ufe of this Sacrament altogether among the Offspring 
 of Chriftian Parents — Mr. Wall takes notice of this Dif- 
 ficulty ; but I think he fays nothing to evade the Force of 
 it, and only notes that both Sides allow the Neceifity of 
 this Sacrament, £$c. 
 
 You muft, Sir, have read Mr. Wait too curforily, or 
 elfe you could never have faid this of him ; for in \ two 
 Places of his Book, he delivers that which in effect folves 
 this Difficulty. Tho' the Jews (fays he) nor their Children 
 were baptize!, but only Prefeiitcs under the Law; yet they 
 cannot be exempted now, becaufe inRefpe&of zheCbriftian 
 Religion the Jews themfelves have the fame Need of be- 
 coming Prcfelitesy and of being baptiz'd, that other Nations 
 have. The Gofpel has concluded all under Sin; and St. Paul 
 
 fpeak- 
 
 t Page 38O0 t 5H' 
 
fpeaking of this very Matter of Baptifm, fays, that in Re- 
 fpect of it, there is neither Jew nor Greeks i. e. there is no 
 Difference between them. The Jews themfelves do feem 
 to have underftood that when the Chrift came, their Nati- 
 . on muft be baptiz'd as well as others : And therefore they 
 ask'd John (who baptiz'd Jews) why baptizeft thou then, if 
 thou be not that Chrift, nor Elias? &c. 
 
 Thus far Mr. Wall. To which let me add, that Dr. Ham- 
 mond, Bifhop Taylor, Mr. Walter, and fome others of the 
 Learned, do apprehend, that not only the Children of Pro- 
 /elites, born before the Profelitifm of their Parents, were 
 baptiz'd, but fuch alfo as were born afterwards : Nay, that 
 the Children of Native Jews were baptiz'd -> and if Co, your 
 Objection vanifhes. But fuppofe it otherwife; and yet the 
 Socifiians and other Sectaries can take no Handle from our 
 Way of arguing, becaufe we affert, that our Lord appoint- 
 ed Baptifm to fucceed Circumcifion, and in fo doing, has 
 appointed, that all the Infants of ChrijUans mould be bap- 
 tiz'd, whatever the Practice was as to Pro/elites. 
 
 I wifti therefore, you don't rather harden the Socinians, &c. 
 in their Contempt of Baptifm, by your Denial of Baptifm *s 
 fucceeding Circumcilion ; for what Argument can fo erfectu- 
 ally make it out, that Baptifm is a ftanding Sacrament in 
 the Church, as this of Baptifm 's fucceeding Circumcilion? 
 
 You farther object, that according to the Principles of 
 the Pjcdobaptifts themfelves ; there is no manner of Analogy 
 between this pretended Jewifo and the Chriftian Pardobap- 
 rifm : For the Jews, they fuppofe, baptiz'd the Parents 
 together with the Infants born to 'em, before their actual 
 Projclitifm; but on the contrary, thofe born to Chriftian Pa- 
 rents before their Converfion to Chriftianity, are accounted 
 an unholy Seed, and not capable of Baptifm, as Dr. Wliitby, 
 
 and rnoft Pccdobabtifts are of Opinion Again, tho' the 
 
 Jews fhould be allow'd to have baptiz'd the Infant Children 
 of Pro/elites, it no more follows we muft do fo too, than 
 that we ought to admit 'em to the other Sacrament, be- 
 caufe the Jews caus'd their Infant Children to eat of the 
 Pafchal Lamb. 
 
 Let fuch, Sir, anfwer the former of thefe Objections, 
 who are affected with it; for the Controveriv we are 
 upon is not. If Children are at their Parents Converfion 
 to Chriftianity, come to Years of Difcretion, they are not 
 to be baptiz'd by Virtue of their Parents Faith, as is evi- 
 dent from Mat. 3. 7, 8, 9. But when he (John) few many of 
 
 the 
 
(5i ) 
 
 fix? Pharifees and Sadducees come to his Baptijin, he f aid unto 
 them, O Generation of Vipers, who hath warned you to flee from 
 the Wrath to come? Bring forth therefore Fruits meet for Re- 
 pentance. And think, not to fay within your/elves, we have Abra- 
 ham to our Father. — This Text, I own, excludes Adult Chil- 
 dren from being baptiz'd by Virtue of the* Parents Faith ; 
 but I don't fee in Scripture any Thing againft the Non- 
 Adult : And this Scruple is, in my Mind, much as reafona- 
 ble, as if we mould deny to give a Perfon Poffeflion of an 
 Eftate, becaufe his Father purchas'd it after he was born. 
 
 As to what you fay of Infants eating the Pa/chat Lamb ; 
 you ought to have turn'd us to fome Place of Scripture that 
 requires this. It feems from Sam. i. 21, 22, 23. That 
 Hannah did not think Samuel was oblig'd to eat the Paflb- 
 ver; for how elfe could fhe juftify her keeping him at 
 Home, when Elka?iah her Husband, and all his Houfe 
 went up to Shiloh to eat the Paflbver > And the Jews genei 
 rally allow that none were oblig'd to this, till they were 
 Thirteen Years and a Day old. 
 
 So that if any Infants did eat of the Pafchal Lamb, it 
 was not Qudpa/chal, but as a common Meal, even juft, as 
 when any Bread or Wine is left at a Sacrament, it may be 
 given to Children. 
 
 3. You fay, * whatever might be the Practice of the 
 Jews, we need only go back to St. Johns Baptifm, which 
 there is more Reafon to think was the Patern of Chrift's 
 than a Jewijh Ceremony, becaufe he was our Saviours 
 immediate Fore-runner. 
 
 This, Sir, is no better than trifling ; for even St. Johns 
 Baptifm was borrow'd from the Jcwifb Ceremony you 
 fpeak of. Nor is there any Thing lpoken of St. Johns 
 Baptifm, that can be fairly turn'd againft Infant-Baptifm ; 
 for Mat. 3. 5, (£c. AHs 19. 4. are to be underftood as Pre- 
 requifites only of the Adult. 
 
 The Jews infifted ofi much the fame Pre-requifites from 
 their Adult Profelites, before they would baptize them; 
 but they baptiz'd Infants without fuch Pre-requifites. And 
 what is there faid more in thofe Texts of Baptifm, than is 
 laid in Deut. 30. 6. Jer % 4. 4. Deut. 10. 16. ^pm. 4. 11. of 
 Circumcifion ? And yet it would be abfurd to argue from 
 thefe Texts, that Infants were not circumcis'd ; becaufe 
 they had not the Repentance and Faith which thefe Texts 
 
 fpeak 
 
(JO 
 
 fpeak of. And efpecially I wonder how any can read fyml 
 4. n. where Circuracifion is call'd a Seal of the Hjghteouf- 
 nefs of the Faith, which Abraham had jet, being uncircum- 
 ci/d ; and yet exclude Infants from Baptifm, becaufe 4 
 they had not actual Faith. For no Text in the New Tcjla- 
 tnent, has that plaufible Appearance of Faith's being the 
 efTerrtial Term of Baptifm, as this for its being fuch of Cir- 
 curncifion J and yet 'tis plain, Infants were circumcis'd. 
 
 4. You fay, * in the laft Place, to fix the Matter 
 entirely, this Cuftom of the Jews to initiate all Pro/elites 
 and their Children by Baptifm, allowing the Fad: to be e* 
 ver fo certain, was at belt only a traditionary Ceremony 
 from the Bobbins — The Rabbins themfelves tacitly confefs 
 this, in arguing from the legal Warnings ; and exprefly in 
 that very Determination of the Difpute between t\ab. Eli- 
 e\ar, and ]{ab. Jofhua, which our Antagonifts conftantly 
 quote, in thefe Words ; But the wife Men pronounced, that 
 till he were both circumcis'd and baptis'd, he was not a Profe- 
 lite. For this makes it appear, they derived the Practice 
 only from the Authority of their Elders, as may be feen by 
 comparing thefe Words with Maimonideis clafTical Diftrl- 
 burions, particularly his Third and Fifth. 
 
 'Tis, Sir, fomewhat ftrange, that you fhould make the 
 Habbins arguing from the legal Warnings, a tacit Confefli- 
 on, that they thought the Baptifm of Profilites a traditiona-* 
 ry Ceremony, when they have exprefly declar'd the con- 
 trary. You f introduce Mr. Hilt, as faying too, the Lc- 
 vitkd Wafhings anfwer our Baptifm : And muft this be 
 interpreted a tacit Confeilion, that Mr. Hill thought our 
 Baptifrn a traditionary Ceremony ? 
 
 Nor do your claffical Distributions help you out; for 
 pray read Mr. £ Wall's Anfwer to Sir Norton Knatchbull 
 on this Occafion. Befides, don't the wife Men pronounce 
 the farne of Circumciiion as of Baptifm ? And fhall I 
 rherefore compare this with the claflkal Diftributiqns, and 
 fay the Rabbins deriv'd the Practice of Circumciiion only 
 from the Authority of the Elders ? 
 
 Thus, Sir, have I given you my Thoughts of this Jew- 
 ifh Baptifm, and fnould now proceed to the Practice of 
 the Primitive Church, but I would not be too tedious, 
 and fhall therefore refer ve that for, my next. 
 
 1 am, Sir, &c«? 
 
 * Page 387. t i>' 57?' * lntrodu&ioni />.- 6i> 6f. 
 
Letter IIL 
 
 ILJAving examin'd in my Laft, your Reflections on the 
 Jewi/k Baptifm, I propofe in this to do the fame, as 
 to the Practice of the Primitive Church* 
 
 Your Eleventh Letter begins with a long Preamble for 
 and againft the Fathers, that you will and you won't admit 
 their Authority : This I guefs was done with fome Poli- 
 tick Defign, perhaps to fecure a Retreat, if you faw Occa- 
 (ion. But not to infift on this. 
 
 Let us fee what you produce from the Fathers. 
 
 The firft you cite, is St. Barnabas^ and you are angry 
 with Mr. Wall for omitting him. 
 
 Pray, Sir, reconcile this with the , Animadverfion you 
 make on Mr. Wall, for -citing the fpuribus Conftitutions of 
 the Apoftles, * and how (fay you) he can make them of a- 
 ny Authority then, I leave his own Confcience to anfwer. 
 Unhappy Mr. Wall ! if thou leav'ft out St. Barnabas** E- 
 piftle, which Dr. Gale \ owns to be fpurious, thou arc 
 charg'd with being unfair ; whereas for citing the Confti- 
 tutions, thou art tax'd with Unfairnefs. 
 
 But if this, Sir, was criminal in Mr. Wall, why did 
 you imitate him ? And pretend to impofe a Paflage as St, 
 Barnabas 's, which you knew was none of his? Befides, 
 there is nothing in the Paflage againft Infant- Baptifm ; for 
 the moft you can make of it is, that the Adult are meant 
 there. 
 
 But that I may at once anfwer this, and all other Paffa* 
 ges you cite from the Fathers, except Tertullian, let me 
 propofe to your Coniideration, 
 
 i. That in thofe early Days of Chriflianity, Adult Bap- 
 tifm was more common than now, becaufe of the nume« 
 rous Converts from Judaifin or Paganifm. 
 
 2. That this preteaded Letter of St. Barnabas, and all 
 the antient Letters, Books, and Sermons, were addrefs'd 
 to Perfons of riper Years ; and is it any Wonder then, 
 that the Expreflions fuit fuch ? 
 
 3. May not Expreflions of the fame Purport with thofe 
 you bring from the Fathers, be eafily collected from our 
 
 E Let- 
 
 * Page 19, 20, t P- 373» " 1 . ' 
 
( 34 ) 
 
 Letters, Books, and Sermons ? What Minifter among us, 
 but may fay what you cite from St. Hermas ? viz. * And I 
 fay unto you all, vphofoever have receivd this Seal, kgep Sim- 
 plicity, and remember not Affronts, &c. 
 
 You infinuate, Sir, f That we are at a Lofs to know, 
 why Infants are baptiz'd ; and you argue ftrangely about 
 Bapti fro's Clean Gng from Original Sin. 
 
 We never,. Sir, told you we were at fuch a Lofs ; and 
 you may read the important Ufes of Infant-Baptifm in my 
 % Survey. And, as to Original Sin, it may be pardon'd, 
 and yet not eradicated, I^om. 7. 17. Now then, (fays the Apo- 
 ftle) it is no more I that do it, but Sin that dwelleth in me. And 
 pray, Sir, are your Votaries perfect: after Baptifm? Is 
 Sin, as to them, eradicated I If not, why muft the Cor- 
 ruptions which Children difcover, as they grow up, be 
 made an Argument againft Infant-Baptifm ? 
 
 You next prefent us with what you § call an impregna- 
 ble Fortrefs of Antipaedo-baptifm, vi%. 1 Pet. 3. 21. The 
 like Figure whereunto Baptifm doth alfo now fave us, (not the 
 putting away of the Filth of the Flefh, but the Anfwer of a good 
 Confcience towards God) by the i\cJurreftion of Jefus Chrift. 
 
 You might, Sir, eafily make this Text coincide with In- 
 fant-Baptifm, if you would but ufe the fame DiftincYion 
 here, as in John 3. 5. and as the Apoftle, who was Adult, 
 is one of thofe fpoken of, there is all the Reafon in the 
 World, to read the Verfe thus, The lil^e Figure, whereunto 
 Baptifm doth alfo now fave us (Adult,) not the putting away of 
 the Filth of the Flefh, &c. 
 
 Befides, what Dr. PVlritby obferves, of St. Paul's fay- 
 ing as much of Circumcifion, I{om. 2. 29. as St. Peter does 
 in this Text of Baptifm, is very juft, and too cogent to be 
 evaded by what you have intimated, vi%. But with Sub- 
 miffion to the Doctor, I am (fay you) of Opinion the Cafes 
 are not at all Parallel. For the Baptifm which faves is ex- 
 prefsly defcrib'd and limited to be, 1. Not the putting away 
 the Filth of the Flefh ; but, 2. The Anfwer of a good Confcience. 
 Whereas St. Paul's Words do not import that the only Cir- 
 cumcifion which fav'd, was 1. Not the Circumcifion of the 
 Flefh : But, 1. The Circumcifion of the Heart and Spirit. 
 Or however, there is certainly this Difference, that St. Paul 
 <ioe$ not fpeak of Circumcifion. 
 
 Mor 
 
 Page 430. f p. 403, 404. £ p. ii, &c. § p. 416. 
 
Nor Is there any Room to diftinguifh between the old 
 and new Difpenfation ; for the Apoftle addreffes himfelf to 
 Jews, who had not as yet been told that Circumcifion, as 
 to them, was abolifh'd, fee Acts 21. 20, f$c. and even on 
 this Occafion the Apoftle fays, Circumcifion veriiy profitetb if 
 thou keep the Law. So that confider it as it was Argumentum 
 ad Hominerriy and the Words are of the fame Import, as if 
 Circumcifion had been then as much in Force -as ever. 
 
 Befides, the Doctrine the Apoftle Paul preaches in this 
 Chapter of the Circumcifion of the Heart, is but the fame 
 which had been preach'd under the old Difpenfation, as ap- 
 pears from Deut. 10. 16. 30. 6. Jer. 4. 4. 
 
 The next Scripture you glofs on,* is * Mat. 19. 14. And 
 you fancy thofe Children were brought to Chrift to be 
 heal'd, or to prevent PofTefiion. * 
 
 But, Sir, you may equally fuppofe the fame of Jofepb's 
 having Ephraim and Manaffeb to Jacob, Gen, 48. 1, 13, 14. 
 I have read of the Papijis ufing Holy Water to prevent 
 Pofleflion ; but the Scripture is filent as to any being brought 
 to Chrift for this Purpofe. Nor were they brought to be 
 heal'd ; for there is not a Syllable of thier Indifpofition, or 
 Cure : And how unnatural would it have been in the Dis- 
 ciples, to be angry with Parents for bringing their lick 
 Children to be cur'd ? 
 
 But what, Sir, mould incline you to put fuch a Constru- 
 ction as this upon the Defign of thefe Children being 
 brought to Chrift ? For be the Defign of the Parents what 
 it will, our Lord's faying on this Occafion, That of fuch 
 is the Kingdom of Heaven, does effectually prove what 
 we aim at, vi%. That the Infants of Profeifors are in Co- 
 venant. 
 
 Do you put {uch a ConftrucYion on it to prevent our in- 
 ferring from this Text, that the Profeflbrs in our Lord's 
 Days believ'd Children were capable of Spiritual Bleifing ? 
 We will excufe you of that Trouble ; for we will only re- 
 fer you to fuch Texts, as Luke 1. 15. 41, 44. where John 
 the Baptift is faid to be filled with the Hoiy Ghoft, even 
 from his Mother's Womb ; and to leap there for Joy of 
 Chrift. 
 
 All that we expect therefore, is, that you would prove, 
 that Chrift's Deportment towards thefe Children, don't 
 evince their being in Covenant. Somewhat ot this Nature 
 
 E 2 you 
 
you have * attempted, but with what Succefs X mail ndw 
 confider. 
 
 But tho' (fay you) it will be readily allow '&, that Infants 
 are capable of receiving the Kingdom, it can in no wife 
 follow, that this means nothing elfe but their Fitnefs to en- 
 ter into Covenant. This is dire&ly begging the Queftion. 
 If by Kingdom of Heaven, were meant the Church of 
 Chrift, there might indeed be fome greater Colour for the 
 Do&or's Way of arguing : But if it means only the King- 
 dom of Glory, as it plainly does, then the Do&or's Argu- 
 ment is grounded on a Miftake; for tho* Infants are Sub* 
 jects of the Kingdom of Glory, it will not on that Occafi- 
 on appear neceflary for em to be baptized, in order to 
 qualify 'em for that Glory : On the contrary, it rather 
 follows, fince as Infants they are Subjects of that Kingdom, 
 they have no need of this Ceremony to give em a Right 
 which they have already. — — t Befides, if the Kingdom 
 did mean the Church, how does it appear Infants were to 
 be admitted into it by Baptifm? Baptifm is the only Way 
 of admitting Adult Perfons, but it is no where prefcrib'd 
 to Infants. I mould rather imagine from the Words, that 
 if Infants are to be admitted at all, by any Ceremony, it 
 muft be only by laying on of Hands, and by Prayer; for 
 neither our Lord's Words, nor his A&ions, give us Room 
 to think of any other. 
 
 Thefe Sir, are your own Words, and the Remarks I 
 make are, 
 
 i. That for ought you have faid, by the Kingdom of 
 Heaven, may in this Text be meant the Church of Chrift. 
 $ You refer us indeed to its Parallel, Marl^ 10. 15. And 
 note, that the Church Militant cannot be meant, becaufe 
 of this Sentence, He /hall net enter therein. But is there 
 not the very fame PafTage in John 3. 5? And yet you make 
 no Scruple to § aflert, that the Church Militant is intended 
 there. 
 
 And if the Church Militant be alfo meant here, then 'tis 
 apparent Infants are to be admitted into it by Baptifm, for 
 there was but one Way, under the Law, of admitting into 
 the Church both Adult and Infants, and why muft there 
 be more under the Gofpel ? Our Lord's Words and Acti- 
 ons on this Occafion don't intimate, that if Infants are to 
 be admitted at all, by any Ceremony, it muft be only by 
 
 lay- 
 
 *t*£<4)}* t/>.*34- *jM?4- §t><W- 
 
(?7) 
 
 laying on of Hands, and Prayer ; for thefe Children were 
 not now admitted into the Church, but had been before 
 this, at the Converfion of their Parents, with whom -al(o 
 'tis probable they were baptized. And you might as well 
 have pretended to declare, that rti#; Church of England, 
 don't admit Infants into the Church by Baptifm. But, that 
 you rather imagine, that if Infants are admitted at all, by 
 any Ceremony, it muft be only by laying on of Hands, and 
 by Prayer ; for neither the Bifhop's Words at the Confir- 
 mation of Children, nor his Actions give us Room to think 
 of any other. 
 
 2. Thar if the 'Kingdom of Glory be meant in this Text, 
 'tis you, and not we, Sir, that directly beg the Queftion ; 
 for what Inference can be more natural, than that Infants 
 are Members cf Chrift's Church on Earth, if they are Heirs 
 of Glory ? What ! fhall Chrift own them in Heaven, and 
 mall we difown them in Earth! are they of the Number of 
 that glorious Society at Death, and fhall we exclude them 
 from cur Society while living? Are not they capable of 
 entering into Covenant with God? Gen, 17. 7. Dent. 29. 
 10, 11, 12. and why mould we then treat them as. if they 
 were incapable ? 
 
 3. That I am furpriz'd at thefe Exprerlions of yours, li^ 
 For tho' the Infants are Subjects of the Kingdom of Glory, 
 it will not on that Occafion appear neceflary for 'em to be 
 baptizd, in order to qualify them for that Glory : On 
 the contrary, it rather follows, fince as Infants they are 
 Subjects of that Kingdom, they have no need of this Ce- 
 remony to give em a Right which they have already. 
 
 1 thought Baptifm did not give a Right to Glory, but 
 was a Seal affix'd to our previous Right, Upm. 4. 1 1 . And 
 what you have, Sir, here advanc'd againft Infant-Baptifm, 
 is as applicable to Adult-Baptifm ; for Faith in Chrift is 
 the Term of Adult-Baptifm : But our Lord fays, John 6, 
 4.7. He that believeth on me hath everlr.fting Life: Ergo, fays 
 the Quaker in your Language, Since as Believers they are 
 Subjects of that Kindom, they have no need of this Cere- 
 mony to give em a Right which they have already. 
 
 Your Twelfth Letter begins thus. 
 SIR, 
 H^HE fir ft Century of Chriftianity J have already dijjratch'd, 
 ■ And am now to examine the Second ', 
 
 And 
 
, (38) 
 
 • And you pleafe yourfelf with the Thoughts of Juftin 
 Martyr being the firft of the Ancients, we produce for In* 
 fant-Baptifm. But I fh all give an Anfwer to this when I 
 come to TertuMart. Only at prefent Jet me obferve, That 
 even this is earlier than you can produce againft Infant- 
 Baptifm; and therefore fo far we have the Advantage of 
 you. 
 
 But let us hear the Sentiment of Juftin. 
 
 One PafTage you take Notice of is, * That the Holy 
 Martyr, arguing againft the Ceremonies of the Law, takes. 
 Occafion to oppofe to the carnal Circumcifion, that which 
 is Spiritual ; and this, we being Sinners, thro' God's Mer- 
 cy have received (fays he) by Baptifm j and every one Is 
 permitted to receive it in the fame "Way. 
 
 From this PafTage, Mr. Wall ventures to infer, that Ju- 
 ftin thought Baptifm was to Cbrijlians inftead of Circumci- 
 fion. But you think this Inference very unfair. 
 
 To adjufi this Matter therefore, Sir, let it be confider'd, 
 
 i. That this PafTage is much of the fame Import with 
 Col. z. ii, ii. the Explication of which I have given in my 
 ■J Survey. 
 
 2. The Martyr is arguing with Trypho a Jew, about Cir- 
 cumcifion ; and to what Purpofe is Baptifm mention'd on 
 this Occafion, if the Martyr did not think it was to Cbrijli- 
 ans inftead of Circumcifion ? 
 
 There is a great deal of Force in the Words, if we take 
 rhem as thus, You Jews boaft of receiving fpiritual Circum- 
 cifion by carnal Circumcifion ; and tho' we have not this 
 carnal Circumcifion, yet we are even with you ; for by 
 Baptifm we receive fpiritual Circumcifion: Baptifm is that 
 to us, and conveys that to us which you pride yourfelves in 
 as to Circumcifion. 
 
 3. Your firft and fecond Objections againft Mr. WaH, 
 only prove, that Juftin don't in this Place call Baptifm fpi- 
 ritual Circumcifion ; but aot that Juftin did not think Bap- 
 tifm was inftead ot carnal Circumcifion. And your Third 
 Objection is in Effect a Proof, that Juftin and the Primitive 
 Church in general held this Notion of Baptifm ; for did 
 not they believe the fame of Baptifm as of Circumcifion, 
 that it was a Type of fpiritual Circumcifion ? 
 
 But you afTert, Sir, £ that if Baptifm fucceeds to us in- 
 ftead of Circumcifion ; yet this don't affect Infant-Bap- 
 tifm : for, 1. In- 
 
 * Page 443. -J- />. \6 y 17. $ p. 451. 
 
<?9) 
 
 i. Infants were order'd to be circumciz'd under the 
 Law ; but were not order'd to be baptized under the 
 Gofpel. 
 
 2. That if Infants muft be baptized, becaufe they were 
 circumciz'd, and Baptifm fucceeds Circumcifion, fo it e- 
 qually follows that Infants muft be baptiz'd on the Eighth 
 Day, and Women muft not be baptiz'd. 
 
 As to the former of thefe Objections ; if the Infants of 
 Profeflbrs are Difciples, as we conclude them to be, then 
 Mat. 28. 19. is an Exprefs Order to baptize them. Belides, 
 as r.hey were once order'd to have the initiating Seal, and 
 the New Tftament has not repeal'd this Order, 'tis as much 
 in Force as ever, and the Silence of the New Heftament 
 which you urge againft us, is in this Cafe/ equal to a Com- 
 mand. I think in your Explication of Mat. 28. 19. you 
 wou'd illuftrate it by referring us to the Extent of Laws ; 
 permit me therefore to tranfcribe a PafTage which I have 
 lately read in Dr. Ayliffes Antient and Prcfent State of the 
 Vniverfity of Oxford, which may, in my Opinion, anfwer 
 what you have faid there, and here too. The PafTage is 
 this : * " If the King incorporates a College by one Name, 
 " and afterwards incorporates the fame by another Name ; 
 " fuch College ought to ufe their Name according to the Se- 
 " cond Incorporation ; and yet they continue their PoffefTions, 
 ^ Rights and Privileges which they had by the other Name. 
 
 To apply this, Chrift Jefus once incorporated his Church 
 by the Name of the Jewijh Church, and afterwards incor- 
 porated the fame by another Name, vt\. the Chriftian 
 Church ; the Church ought to ufe their Name according 
 to the Second Incorporation ; and yet they continue their 
 Pofleflions, Rights and Privileges, which they had by the 
 other Name ; except fuch as are evidently repeal'd by the 
 Second Incorporation, of which Sort it don't appear, the 
 giving the initiating Seal to Infants is to be reckon'd : Nay, 
 there are feveral Reafons which may incline us to belie ve, 
 this was not repeal'd by the Second Incorporation, fome of 
 which I have hinted in my t Survey. 
 
 But, belides this PafTage of Dr. Aylijfe's, let me farther 
 note, that we prefs the Obiervance of the Lord's Day, 
 from the Fourth Commandment. And why is this, but be- 
 caufe this Day is to the Chriftian Church, what the Seventh 
 was to the Jewijh, and fucceeds that - 9 and therefore the 
 
 fame; 
 1 
 
 * Vol. 1. Page 8, t >• U 9 & c « 
 
( 4 o) 
 
 fame £aw obliges the Obfervance of the Lord's Day ? And 
 as Baptifm is the fame to the Chriftian Church, as Crrcum- 
 cifion to the Jewijh, and fucceeds it, what are the Command* 
 to circumcife, but fo many Commands now to baptize ? And 
 why may not we prefs Infant-Baptifm from the fame Texts? 
 
 In a Word, fuppofe Infant-Baptifm to be obfcurely deli- 
 vered in the New Teftament: Nay, that the New Teflament is 
 abfolutely (ilent about it 5 and yet we have better Authori- 
 ty for Baptizing Infants, than you have for the Subjects of 
 your Baptifm ; for we write after the fair Pattern of God 
 himfelf, who gave Infants the initiating Seal ; and can ap- 
 peal to an Order in the Old Teftament, which we don't find 
 repeal'd in the New. But fhew us an Order or Inftance in 
 either of the Teftaments in Favour of your Baptifm, u e. 
 of fuch who, tho' born of Chriftian Parents, had their Bap- 
 tifm defer'd till Adult. 
 
 As to your other Objection of the Baptifm of Womenj 
 and the Eighth Day 3 I have in my Survey given a Solution. 
 And that is a very fair one, which you have intimated ; 
 but they'll tell us (t fay you) the Apoftles vary'd in thefe 
 and fuch like Particulars, which is Warrant enough for 
 them to do fo too. This you wou'd fain evade, by faying, 
 and the Apoftles vary'd alfo in another Particular, vi%. 
 that whereas Infants were us'd to be circumcis'd, they ad- 
 mitted none but the Adult to Baptifm. Bur, Sir, this Eva- 
 fion won't do; for 'tis a Petit io Principii. We can turn 
 you to Acis 8. 12. 16. 15. which exprefly declare, the Apo- 
 files baptiz'd Women ; but you never yet have found that 
 Text of Scripture which intimates, that the Apoftles admit- 
 ted none but the Adult to Baptifm. 
 
 'Tis true we have not in the New Teftament, fuch exprefs 
 Inftances of Baptizing Infants, as of Women ; but the 
 Reafon is, there was not the fame Occafion. *Twas con- 
 venient Women mould exprefly be mention'd, becaufe 
 -they had not the former initiating Seal, Circumcifion ; but 
 as Infants had us'd to be thus initiated, upon the Exchange 
 erf the Seal, 'twas fufficient, that no Exciufion of them was 
 mention'd - y for that is a tack Acknowledgment, that their 
 Right to Initiation is continued. 
 
 And 'tis obfervable, that the Scripture is very fparing in 
 exprefs Inftances of Infant-Circumcifion ; for in that fo- 
 lernn and general Circumcifion which we read of, Jojhua 
 
 5. iho' 
 
 * Page 17, 1 8. f f- AV, ■ 
 
<40 
 
 5. tho' no doubt Thoufands of Infants were clrcumcisd 5 
 yet there is no exprefs Mention of them, but^ they have 
 one common Name with their Parents. And in the Old 
 Teftament, I remember but one exprefs Inftance of Infant- 
 Circumcifion, vi^. Ifaac, Gen. 21. 4. and why then muft 
 Perfons be fo curious, and peremptory, for Inftances of 
 Infant-Baptifm in the New Tejlamcnt ? If there is but one 
 exprefs Inftance of Infant-Circumcifion in the OldTeftamcnt, 
 why mould it feem ftrange if there is never an exprefs In- 
 ftance of Infant-Baptifm in the New? 
 
 You * next attack us with Jujiin Martyr's- Silence in his 
 Apology, as to the Baptifm of Infants. This youlook up- 
 on as a formidable Argument ; for you twit us with it riot 
 only here but in your t firft Letter. 
 
 This Silence, you fay, is ftrange. 
 
 1. Becaufe Jujiin introduces the Account he gives 
 the Emperor of Baptifm thus; left, fays he^ if I mould 
 leave out this, I might feem to deal unfairly in fome Part 
 of my Apology. 
 
 2. His mentioning Infant-Baptifm might have been uietut 
 to remove all Sufpicions of their Murdering their Children, 
 wherewith they were falfely charg'd. 
 
 3. His fpeaking of Baptifm in fuch Terms as agreed only 
 with the Adult. 
 
 The firft Reafon you aifign, Sir, anfwers itfelf ; for Jt)- 
 ftins ExprefTions difcover his Defign to fav as little as pof- 
 fible or Baptifm, becaufe the Heathens did not reflect en 
 Christians for that, and 'twould have been needlefs therefore, 
 and contrary to his intended Brevity to have mention'd In- 
 fant-Baptifm. 
 
 The fame Anfwer deftroys your third Reafon t Only let 
 me add, iW fpeaking to an Heathen, what little he fa'id 
 of Baptifm, mould be to inform him how they initiated 
 fuch Heathens a* embrae'd Chriftianity. 
 
 Your Second Reafon is of no Force ; for, 
 
 1. It fuppoles that Jufiin muft needs hit upon every Ar- 
 gument that comes into Dr. Gale's Mind. 
 
 2. If Dr. Gale had been then Jiving, and fuggefted this 
 Argument to Jv.fiin, he probably had not inierted it in his 
 Apology ; for the Antients had a fhortef, and more affe- 
 cting \Vay of anfwering this Calumny, <vi\. They appeal'd 
 to all that were ever prefent in their Aftemblies, whether 
 
 F they 
 
 * ^454- t />• 15- 
 
<4* ) 
 
 they could give a fmgle Inftance of the Chriflians Murder- 
 ing their Children. This Argument might (hame their E- 
 nemies, and fill them with the utmoft Confufion : But that 
 which you fuggeft might perhaps render the Chriflians 
 more fufpicious ; for the Heathen had fome Ceremonies 
 preparatory to their flaying their Sacrifices ; we read of the 
 Prieft of Jupiter bringing Oxen and Garlands unto the 
 Gates to be a Sacrifice, Acts 14; 13. and in * Godwins 2ty- 
 man Antiquities, we meet with a Ceremony of pouring 
 Wine mix'd with Frankincenfe, upon the Bead's Head, 
 juft before he was flain for Sacrifice ; and therefore the 
 mentioning of Infant-Baptifm, in this Cafe, might have 
 been tum'd upon the Chriflians by the Heathens, as a Pre- 
 parative to the Murdering of their Children. Befides, the 
 Heathens knew that the Chriflians were themfelves baptiz'd, 
 and if this Confideration would not prevent the Heathen 
 fufpecting them wicked enough to perpetrate fuch a Crime, 
 why fhould the Confideration of their Baptizing their 
 Children, make them entertain more charitable Thoughts 
 of them ? 
 
 t The Pafl'ages you cite from Juflin againfl Mr. Wall, if 
 they don't prove, that the Chriflians of that Age, us'd the 
 Word Regeneration for Baptifm, they do however make it 
 appear, that by regenerated they meant fuch as had been 
 baptiz'd, which is Tantamount. And therefore, where 
 we read in the Ancients of Infants being regenerated, YiS 
 the fame Thing as if they had told us they we're baptiz'd. 
 
 One Inftance of this Nature £ you take notice of in Ir*- 
 7ixus. His Words are, He (i. e. Chrift) came to Save all Per- 
 fons by himfelf; all I mean, who by him are regenerated 
 unto God, Infants, and Little Ones, and Children, and 
 Youths, and Elder Perfons. 
 
 Againft this PafTageyou object, 
 
 1. 'Tis a Queftion whether it be Genuine, becaufe the 
 latter Part of the Chapter, from whence the Words are 
 taken, ("peaks as if Chrift liv'd till above Fifty, and that this 
 Account was receiv'd from St. John and other Apoftles ; 
 whereas in the Beginning of the Chapter, he fays, Chrift 
 was baptiz'd at Thirty, and enumerates but Three PafTovers 
 afterwards. 
 
 2. That we have not Ircnaus's own Words, but only a 
 Tranflation of 'em, and that very corrupt. 
 
 3. That 
 
 Page 66. f /) / 4 5 S , * />. 465, 
 
( 4?) 
 
 $. That 'tis a Miftake to think by regenerated is meant 
 baptiz'd. 
 
 4. That Infants does not necefTarily fignify here Young 
 Children not capable of Reafon, but may be extended to 
 all under Ten Years, and fome of that Age may be capable 
 of Baptifm. 
 
 As to the former of thefe Objections ; 'Tis not impoffi- 
 ble but fuch an Account of Chrift's Age might be receiv'd 
 from St. John. See John 8. 57. Thou art not yet Fifty Years 
 old. Would they have faid thus to Chrift if they had not 
 thought him pretty near that Age > Befides, let it be conli- 
 der'd, that he was Thirty when baptiz'd, and was Forty 
 Days in the Wildernefs, and compare this with John 14. 9. 
 li. 25. and judge whether Chrift was not longer on Earth 
 than the more common Opinon is. Mr. Dodwell\ Computa- 
 tion, as you obferve, varies from that which is more gene- 
 rally receiv'd. 
 
 But, you fay, Iremtus contradicts himlelf, becaufe in the 
 Beginning of the Chapter, he fays, Chrift was baptiz'd at 
 Thirty, and enumerates but Three Paflovers afterwards. 
 
 Petavius's Solution which you take notice of, Sir, has 
 never yet been anfwer'd, and you ought not to have re- 
 jected it without aligning a Reafon. 
 
 Befides, I have collected more Contradictions than one 
 out of your Book, (which 'tis no Matter to trouble the 
 World with, but you, if you pleafe, may have a Copy of 
 them) and why may not hen&us be guilty of Inadvertency 
 as well as Dr. Gale ? However, if you won't fuppofe this, 
 there is this Medium, the Inconfiftency may be fpurious, 
 and yet this Paflage for Infant-Baptifm may be genuine. 
 
 And this brings me to your Second Objection, vi%. that 
 we have not Irencvus's own Words, but only a Tranflation 
 of 'em, and that very corrupt. 
 
 The PafTage, Sir, we are now upon, is very pertinent, 
 and becoming Len.cus ; nor is there any Colour to fuppofe 
 it was inferted by another Hand. 'Tis your common Me- 
 thod to evade the Authority of the Fathers, by faying, 
 they are but Tranflations. But till you can prove in the 
 PafTages we bring, the Tranflators have vary'd from the 
 Original, we have certainly the Advantage of you, who 
 have neither Originals nor Tranflations of thofe early 
 Times on your Side. Is it not ftrange, that all the Trans- 
 lations mould favour us > What were there no Antipgdobap- 
 tifts then to tranflate the Fathers ? 'Tis unaccountable that 
 
 F 2 the 
 
(44) 
 
 the Verfions fhould thus in general run againft you if the 
 Originals did not (o too. But, 3. You fancy, that Irenaus 
 by regenerated don't mean baptiz'd. 
 
 What I have before hinted of Juflin, is as far as I can 
 obferve, true of frenzus, viz. That he never calls any Re- 
 generate, but fuch as have been baptiz'd. And Two of the 
 PafTires you * cite, do efpecially favour this Obfervation, 
 vl\. His (tiling Mat. 28. 19. a Commiffion to regenerate 
 unto God. And fpeaking of fome Heretickj, he fays, they 
 deny'd the Baprifm of Regeneration to God—- You in- 
 deed flatter yourfelf, f that you have met with a Paflage 
 to the conrrary ; but, upon a Scrutiny, 'twill appear, that 
 the Paflage is none of Irenxus's, but the Sectaries, and is on- 
 ly mention'd by him in order ro confute it. 
 
 As in other Places therefore, hcnceus by regenerated 
 means fuch as have been baptiz'd, there is the greateft 
 Probability, he ufes the Word in the fame Senfe here. 
 
 4. You object rhe Word Infants does not neceflarily (ig- 
 nify here Young Children not capable of Reafon, but may 
 be extended to all under Ten Years, and fome of that Age 
 may be capable of Baptifm. 
 
 But, Sir, 'tis improbable that Infants mould extend to 
 Ten Years of Age, becaufe little Ones and Children are 
 mention'd as Stages between Infants and Youths, and fo, 
 according to your Account, a Perfon may be a Parent be- 
 fore he himfelf deferves the Title of a Child. 
 
 Befides, as Irenaus has us'd the Word Indefinitely, if Dr. 
 Gale, will make Infants afcend to Ten Years of Age, we 
 may defcend with it as low as we pleafe, and fav, a Child 
 of a Week old, may be intended by the Expreiiion : Nay, 
 we have mere Reafon to do this ; for there have been in- 
 numerable Inftances of fuch being baptiz'd, by Virtue of 
 their Parents Faith ; but what (ingle Inftance have we of 
 an Infant not quite Ten Years old baptiz'd, by Virtue of 
 his own Faith ? If there were any fuch Inftances in henx- 
 us's Days, they were certainly fo rare, that Was not 
 worth while to diftinguifti them from little Ones, they 
 might very well ha' been thrown in'O that Clafs. 
 
 But, finally to determine this Point, you muft, Sir, ei- 
 ther grant that Infants is to be here taken as we generally 
 ufe it, oj deny that Chrift came to lave Infants; for Ircnx- 
 vi having faid Chrift came to fave all Perfons by himfelf^ 
 
 adds 
 
 *gf'."- W '.J ■J ' .- ' L,- ' k „ ! »■ ' " 'I I ■■ j \ I I I'll" ■■ - — 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 adds by Way of Explication ; all I mean, who by him are 
 regenerated unto God, Infants, and little Ones, and Chil- 
 dren and Youths and Elder Perfons. 
 
 Upon the Whole therefore, this famous PafTage is ftill 
 a Thorn in your Sides. And pray remember what you 
 have told us, * that Irenaus you believe was acquainted 
 with Polycarp, who had familiar Converfe with St. John, 
 and others who had feen the Lord. This is the Man who 
 fpeaks of Infants as baptiz'd. He was no African Bifhop, I 
 afTure you, but has this Character given him by -your old 
 Friend Tertullian, \ lrenceus omnium DoHrinarum curiofijfi- 
 mus Explorator. 
 
 You begin your Thirteenth Letter with a PafTage of Pa- 
 lycrates. But, with SubmifTion, 'tis nothing to this Con- 
 troverfy 5 for it only denotes his natural Age, and ought to 
 be read with a Parenthefis, vi%. I therefore, Brethren (who 
 am Sixty Five Years old) in the Lord. The Apoftle Phil, 
 1. 14. ufes the very fame Phrafe for Chrifiians. 
 
 Befides, if his natural Age had not been intended, what 
 you mention is no Proof of his having Chrijtidn Parents ; 
 for tho' other Branches of the Family were Qhriftians, yet 
 it don't follow, the Branch he belong'd to was. And even 
 this Paffage, if it did not denote bis natural Age, would 
 incline me to guefs, he was once an Heathen, and relates 
 how many Years he had been converted. 
 
 The £ next you take Notice of, is Tertullian, There 
 are fome Expreflions of his which render it dubious, whe- 
 ther he was abfolutely againft Infant-Baptifm! But 'tis 
 not worth while to traverfe it ; for, what Article of the 
 Chriftian- Faith, but has had its Opponents ? You § menti- 
 on earlier than this, a Sect that deny'd all Baptifm. An4 
 if our Age has fo many Antipxdobaptifls, what wonder if 
 formerly there was Tertullian ? Nor is it unhappy for our 
 Times, that Tertullian did oppofe Infant-Baptifm 5 for, by 
 this the Sentiment, and Practice of the Church of that 
 Age, is more particularly tranfmitred to us; and we may 
 learn, that they look'd on Infant-Baptifm as of Sacred In- 
 stitution. 
 
 This you wou'd evade by faying, ** had it been the fet- 
 tled Practice and Judgment of the Church, and what they 
 thought was fupporred by the Authority and Tradition of 
 the Apofties, it can ? t be imagin'd that Tertullian mould' ven- 
 ture 
 
 P Page6o. Du Pin. -\ p. 469. $ p. 508. §^.496. **£. 510, 
 
( 4« ) 
 
 ture to oppofe itl Or if he did, that he fhould employ iio 
 more Pains to excufe what feem'd to contradid the Do- 
 drine and Pradice of the Apoftles and the whole Church. 
 But, Sir, did you never read, that this very Man ventu- 
 red to defert the Church, and oppos'd her in feveral Arti- 
 cles ? And why might he not give a Specimen of his Tem- 
 per in the Article we are upon ? Nor can you be infenfible, 
 that the firft Starters of a Notion feldom fay fo much as 
 their Party afterwards. Dr. Gale is more copious on this 
 Subject than Tertullian, thro* the Afliftance of many others ; 
 but if Dr. Gale, as Tertullian, had firft advanc'd it, perhaps 
 his Reflections had been as brief. 
 
 There are feveral Things which render it probable, that 
 in Tertullian s Time, and the preceeding Ages of 'Cbriftiani- 
 ty, Infant-Baptifm was the general Pradice of the Church, 
 vi\, 
 
 i. Tertullian, does not call it a Novelty, nor the Pri- 
 vate Opinion of a Sect j but fpeaks of it as a Thing gene- 
 rally pradis'd. 
 
 a. None of his Contemporaries, nor Predeceflbrs ever 
 fpoke againft it, fo far as we can learn. 
 
 3. Origen, his Contemporary, who liv'd in another Part 
 of the World, fpeaks of Infant-Baptifm as the Pradice of 
 the Church, and fays, the Church had it from the Apo-' 
 ftles. 
 
 4. Not long after TertuHians Death, vi^. Anno. Chrifli 
 254. Infant-Baptifm is fpoken of in an African Synod, of no 
 lefs than Sixty Six Bifhops, as then generally pradis'd. 
 
 In a Word, tho* Moderns have prefum'd to queftion the 
 Antiquity of Infant-Baptifm, the Antients did not dare to 
 do it. Pelagius certainly had a greater Opportunity of do- 
 ing this, than any now a Days; for he lived above Thir- 
 teen Hundred Years ago ; and he would gladly have em- 
 braced fuch an Opportunity; for he was miferably gall'd 
 with this Objedion, what need have Infants of Baptifm 
 except they have Original Sin > If he could have us'd the 
 Dialed fo common among you, he might eafily have (i- 
 lenc'd his Adverfaries; but poor Man, tho' he liv'd lb 
 vaftly nearer the Apoftles than you, yet he never under- 
 ftood, that Infant-Baptifm was not of Gofpel Inftitution, 
 but an Innovation of fome thick-skulfd Africans. He was 
 fuch a Novift in Ancient Hiftory, and fo unacquainted 
 with the new Difcoveiies made by our Antipadobaptifls, 
 
 that 
 
(47) 
 
 that he, like an Ignoramus, fays, • he was not againft In- 
 fant-Baptifm, nor he never heard, no not even any impi- 
 ous Heretic!^ or Seftary that was. And who is there (b Igno- 
 rant as to deny Infant-Baptifm ? Of who can be fo impi- 
 ous as to hinder Infants from being baptiz'd ? How very 
 different is this Stile of Pelagius from that of many Authors 
 in our Age ! and how happy was the Church then, to have 
 no Dijfenters in this Point of Infant-Baptifm ! how much 
 Heat bad been avoided ! how much Time might better 
 have been improv'd, if till this Day Chriflians had known 
 nothing of this Controverfy ! to which I may add, how 
 many Texts of Scripture had then efcap'd the ConftrudHon 
 
 is now put upon them ! particularly the i Cor. 7. 14. 
 
 Elfe were your Children Vnclean ; but now arc they Holy. What 
 but an Hypothecs could infmuate, that the Legitimacy of 
 Children is here meant, and not their Federal Holinefs ? 
 And yet this Conftrudion you undertake to t defend. 
 
 In order to come at the true Senfe of this Text, it muft 
 be coofider'd, that, as the Beginning of this Chapter in- 
 forms us, feveral Cafes of Confcience had been lent by 
 the Church of Corinth to the Apoftle for his Refolution ; 
 and in this -and the following Chapters they are refolv'd. 
 One of thefe Cafes feems to be, whether if of a marry 'd 
 Couple, the one embrac'd Chrijlianity and the other did 
 not, the Chriflian might cohabit with the other and not 
 be fpiritually defU'd and render'd unfit fcr Gofpel- Ordinan- 
 ces ? Now the Text we are upon contains the Argument 
 which the Apoftle ufes to refolve this Cafe. For the unbe- 
 lieving Husband Cfays he) is faneiifyd by the Wife, and the 
 unbelieving Wife is fantiifyd by the Husband : Elfe were your 
 Children Vnclean ; but now are they Holy. 
 
 If thefe laft Words are to be underftood in your Senfe, 
 I don't fee how they affecT: the Cafe ; for, what Coherence 
 has the Legitimacy of the Children with the Spiritual Pu- 
 rity of the Parents ? The Children may be legitimate, and 
 yet the Parents impure and unfit for Gofpel Ordinances. 
 
 Befides, if the Legitimacy of Children were here meant, 
 the Apoftle would never have wrapt up his Mind in fuch 
 ./Enigmatical Terms, as Vnclean and Holy : Terms never 
 taken in any fuch Senfe in the Old nor New Tejlament ; but 
 would have exprefs'd himfelf in the fame common and ea- 
 
 ; " ; <V 
 
 * Wall, Page igj, t ?• $*$> $ l $* 
 
fy Terms, as Hek 12. 1 3. But if ye he without Chnjlifement, 
 
 whereof all are Partakers, then are ye Bajiards and not Sons. 
 
 Thefe Confiderations are fufficient to difcard your Senfe 
 of this Texr, whereas ours is confirm'd by both thefe ; for 
 according to our Sen(e the Apoftle's Argument runs thus, 
 Do not you Chrijiian Parents look upon your Children as 
 Holy i.e. in Covenant, notwithstanding one of the Parents 
 be an Heathen ? And if Children thus defcended, are in 
 this Senfe Holy, and are not made Unclean by the Heathen 
 Parent, confequently the Chrijiian "Wife or Husband, who 
 partakes of lefs of the Nature of the Heathen Confort than 
 the Child does, cannot by fuch a Relation be made Un- 
 clean, or deem'd out of Covenant, or unfit for Gofpel Or-* 
 dinances : But rather, the unbelieving Husband is fanclifyd 
 by the Wife, and the unbelieving H r ife is fantlifyd by the Hus-> 
 band, i. e. in fome Senfe, fuch a Perfon, for the fake of 
 their Relation, may be faid to be in Covenant ; at leafi 
 fo far, as not to hinder the Conveyance of Federal Holi- 
 nefs to their Children. 
 
 To illuftrate this Matter : If one of the Royal Family 
 matches with a Perfon of a common lixtracl:, the former 
 does not hereupon defcend, but the latter afcends, and is in 
 fome Senfe made one of the Royal Family; efpeci '! in 
 this, That the Children of fuch are equally Heirs Ar .. rent 
 to the Crown, as if both Parents were Originally or by 
 Extract of the Royal Family. 
 
 As in this Cafe the Royal Perfon does, if I may fo fpeak, 
 Royal ize the Confort; even fo the unbelieving Husband is 
 fa?iftif/d by the Wife, and the Wife by the Husband. And as 
 the Children of fuch a Royal Pair are accounted of the 
 Royal Family, and enjoy the High Privileges of it ; even 
 fo the Children, where one of the Parents is a Chrijiian, 
 are not Unclean, but Holy, i. e. not out of Covenanr, but 
 in Covenant, and are to enjoy the High Privileges of it. 
 
 By this Time, 1 hope, you fee how natural and eafy 
 the Construction we put upon this Text is ; and not only 
 the Topick the Apoftie is upon confirms our Construction, 
 but we can turn you to other Texts of Scripture which ufe 
 the Terms Unclean and Holy to exprefs Perfons in or out 
 of Covenant. Read Ifa. 52. 1. Acts 10. 28. Dcut. 7. 6. Deut. 
 14.2,21. 
 
 Nor does what you object on this Occafion make againfl 
 our Construction ; for tho' feminal Holinefs is not meant 
 in the former Part of the Verfe, yet it may in the latter. 
 
 Yoil 
 
(49) 
 
 You might as well pretend, that ABs 22. 28. feminal 
 Freedom is not meant in the latter Part of the Verfe, be- 
 caufe 'tis not (6 in the former. 
 
 And as to the Baptizing of fuch Children whofe Parents 
 are neither of them Chriftians, this Text don't meddle with 
 it, but only determines what is to be done where only One 
 of the Parents is a Chrifiian. Tis evident indeed from this 
 Text, that where both the Parents are Heathens, the Chil- 
 dren by Defcent are Unclean ; but if thefe, during their 
 Minority, are adopted by Chriftians, as was the Cafe of 
 fuch whom you fpeak of as circumcis'd under the Law, 
 they may by Virtue of their new Relation, be accounted 
 Holy, and be baptiz'd. 
 
 I fhall clofe my Thoughts of this Text with obferving, 
 that it feems to intimate, that Infant-Baptifm was then ge- 
 nerally known. For the Apoftle, in order to remove their 
 Scruple of Cohabitation with Unbelievers, refers them to 
 their Children being in Covenant ; which (hews, that this 
 was a Thing they were fully fatisfy'd of : And which way 
 mould they have this Satisfaction, except their Infants 
 were , baptiz'd ? 'Tis eafiiy accounted for this Way ; bur 
 what other Way can you account for it? 
 
 ' Jhg next of the Fathers, I fliall take notice of, is Ori- 
 gen* -jAnd * you confefs, Sir, that the Paifages cited out 
 of hw Works are very full and plain Teftimonies for In- 
 fant-Baptifm : But they are not you think to be depended 
 on, becaufe not from the Original, but J^uffinus's Tranflati- 
 on, which is very corrupt. 
 
 This Objection, Sir, as Mr. Wall has obferv'd, is lame ; 
 for J{i4jffinus lay under no Temptation to infert thefe Para- 
 ges. Befides, that one of them was in the Original there 
 is no doubt, vi%. that in Origcris Commentaries en St. Luke; 
 for Hierom has tranilated that as Origeris ; and B^itjfinus 
 and he wou'd never have confpir'd to impofe upon the 
 World. And this Paifage thus appearing to be genuine, 
 renders it probable, that the reft are the fame. And, as I 
 have already hinted, PalTages from the corrupter! Verfions, 
 are of a greater Force than the ablblute Silence of both O- 
 riginals and Verfions. In a Word, 'tis a Sign, that either 
 thefe PafTages are fairly tranflated, or there were no Anti- 
 pddobaptifis m Rjtffinus's Age ; for otherwife they would 
 have been particularly noted and remonftrated againft. 
 
 G I 
 
 * Page 519.. 
 
( 5°) 
 
 I now proceed to obferve what you fay of Cyprian. 
 You *' grant, that he fpeaks plainly enough of Infant- 
 Baptifm, as practis'd in Africa in his Time. 
 But you object, 
 
 1. Cyprian fpeaks as plainly of Infant-Communion. 
 
 2. The Africans were generally Men of weak Intelle- 
 ctuals. 
 
 3. The Greek. Churches feem very plainly to have been 
 at that Time of another Opinion. For Dionyfius, the illu- 
 ftrious Bifhop of Alexandria, in an Epiftle to Dionyfius a 
 Presbyter, and afterwards Bifhop of Upme, concerning No- 
 vatian, fays, he utterly difallows of Holy Baptifm, and fub- 
 verts the Faith and Profeilion which goes before it. 
 
 But, Sir, as to your firft Objection ; our prefent Bufinefs 
 is not, whether the Primitive Church made Innovations ; 
 but whether Infants were then baptiz'd. And as you grant 
 the latter, we are not folicitous about the former; for we 
 don't baptize Infants meerly becaufe the Ancients did ; but 
 becaufe in this Inftance they copy'd after God's Word. 
 
 Your Second Objection is very fevere, and what you are 
 more concerned with than we ; for, as I have mown, we 
 have others to appeal to befides Africans: But Tertullian, 
 the only Man of the earlieft Ages that wrote againft In- 
 fant-Baptifm, was an African, and, as Du Pin t obferves, 
 vaftly inferior to Cyprian. The Characters (fays he) of 
 thefe Two Authors, are exceeding different. Tertullian is 
 harm and obfcure ; St. Cyprian is polite and clear ; Tertul- 
 lian is hot and fiery ; St. Cyprian, tho' he does not want all 
 neceffary Force upon Occafion that requires it, is foft and 
 gentle : Tertullian reproaches his Adverfaries, and infults 
 over them in a bitter railing Manner ; St. Cyprian is infi- 
 nitely more moderate, and if he is obliged at any Time to 
 fpeak fome Truths that difpleale them, he takes care to 
 foften them by the Agreeablenefs of his Narration : Tertul- 
 lian vents abundance of falfe Reafons, and teaches feve- 
 rai Errors ; on the contrary, St. Cyprian argues almoft eve- 
 ry where with a world of Juftice and Solidity 
 
 Pray, Sir, for your Comfort view thefe Characters ; e- 
 fpecially the laft Part which is certainly Tertullian s, viz. he 
 vents abundance of falfe Reafons: £ We have an Inftance of 
 this in his Difcourfe againft Infant-Baptifm ; for, pretending 
 to anfwerthe Argument brought from Marl^ 10. 13, 14. he 
 
 thus 
 
 * Page 518. t V9U 1. Eccl. WJl.p. 142. * T)n Pin, p. *©. 
 
( 5i ) 
 
 thus exprefles himfelf, Jefus Chrift fays, indeed, Hinder 
 not little Children from coming to me ; but that they fhould 
 come to him as foon as they were advancd in Tzars, as foon as 
 they have learnt their Religion, when they may be taught whi- 
 ther they are going, when they are become Chriftians, when they 
 begin to be able to know Jefus Chrift. 
 
 Was ever fuch a rrifling contradictory Glofs put upon a 
 Text? How can theycome, while little Children, to Chrift, 
 if they muft tarry till they are grown up before theycome ? 
 And the little Children here fpoken of were fo little, that 
 Chrift took them up in his Arms, Marl^ 10. \6. And they 
 are called Infants, Luke 18. 15. 
 
 Thus exadt. in his Ratiocination was the firft Oppofer of 
 Infant-Baptifm. 
 
 Your Third Obje&ion is a meer Fancy; for the Paffage 
 of Dionyfius was concerning Novatian, who of an Heathen 
 Philofopher, turn'd Chrift tan, and was baptiz'd when Adult ; 
 and therefore 'twas necelfary for Dionyfius to fay on this 
 Occafion, he utterly difallows of Holy Baptifm, andfubverts 
 the Faith and Profeflicn which goes before it. Who of us 
 but in fuch a Cafe, would have thus exprefs'd our felves ? 
 And why then muft you infer from hence, that the Greeks 
 Churches feem very plainly to have been at that Time Gf 
 another Opinion than the African Churches, who were fo 
 unanimous for Infant-Baptifm ? How, Sir, can you pcfTi- 
 bly fuppofe this eiuher of the Greek. Churches, or any other 
 Churches in the World, fince we never meet with any 
 Debates that the African Churches were engag'd in with c- 
 ther Churches on this Account, nor any Proteftation en- 
 tered againft them? What a Noife, Schifm, and Confufion, 
 did the Time of keeping Rafter create between the Eaft 
 and Wcftern Churches ? And could the Afican Churches 
 differ from all the reft in the World, and efcape Aniinad- 
 verfion ? There were certainly no Antipxdobaptifts in chofe 
 Days, or eKe their Temper was quite different from ours. 
 Ours are manv of them fo rodtive in this Conrroverfy, as 
 to unchurch all that differ from them : And of fuch forward 
 Martial Souls, as that a diminutive Fellow of fcarce com- 
 mon Senfe, (hall challenge a Perfon of the brighteft Parts. 
 And what! when all the World was on one Side, and only 
 a few raw undifciplin'd Africans on the other, was there 
 not a Danvers ! Stennet ! nor Gale! to draw a Pen in this 
 Caufe ! But all tamely look'd on while theie Africans rode 
 in Triumph, and drag'd the World ac their Chariot 
 Wheels! G 2 And 
 
( SO 
 
 And now, Sir, I have trac'd you to your Clofe, where 
 you tell your Friend, * " Before I conclude, Sir, I muft 
 " jaft take Notice of one Thing I remember you were us'd 
 " frequent ;\ : : object, vi%. That we are not able to affign 
 t* the Time when Infant- Baptifm firft commenc'd ; and that 
 " it muft feem mighty ftrange, and indeed improbable to 
 " fuch as reflect upon the great Piety and Sincerity of the 
 " early Centuries of the Church, that an Innovation of this 
 " Nature fhou'd ever be in the leaft attempted, and much 
 " more that it mould prevail fo far, and.be fo generally own- 
 " ed and defended ; and all fo early as even we ourfelves 
 " acknowlege it was. But, Sir, I muft beg you toconfider, 
 " i . That very many Errors of as grofs a Kind were as 
 " foon ftarted, and as generally receiv'd as the Baptizing of 
 " Infants. 
 
 " 2. You are not to imagine this Practice was eftabliih- 
 " ed altogether, and at once, in as great a Latitude as it 
 " is at prefent. 
 
 " 3. Laftly, that very Piety and Zeal you mention as a 
 " Security againft this Innovation, in reality tended very 
 " much to betray 'em into it. 
 
 Thefe, Sir, are the Things you beg your Friend to con- 
 iider, in order to remove the Difficulties he had ftarted; 
 but, with Submiflion, I conclude, you have not fa- 
 tisfy'd him. For, Confideration will prefent him with 
 fome fuch Queries, as, 
 
 1. How can Dr. Gale aflfert, that very many Errors of 
 as grofs a Kind were as foon ftarted, and as generally re- 
 ceiv'd as the Baptizing of Infants ; when he owns he is not 
 able to aflign the Time when Inf ant-Baptifm firft commen- 
 ced ; nor has he from the Scriprures, or the moft ancient 
 Writers, aiiign'd a Time, lince the Inftitution of Baptifm, 
 when Infants were not baptiz'd ? 
 
 a. Why may it not be imagin'd, that Infant-Baptifm 
 was eftablifh'd altogether, and at once, in as great a Lati- 
 tude as it is at prefent ; fince Dr. Gale cannot give an au- 
 thentick Hiftory of its gradual Increafe, and the Records 
 of the earlieft Times mention but one Antip^dobaptift, Ter- 
 tuHian; whereas our Age has feveral Congregations of 
 them ? 
 
 3. Whether, as Dr. Gale cannot affign the Time when 
 Infant-Baptifm firft commenc'd, nor the Time when it 
 
 was 
 
( 5? ) 
 
 was not an Ordinance in the Cbriftian Church, his Account 
 of its being introduc'd, is to be depended on ; efpecially 
 when it is fuch as reprefents Piety and Zeal, as Things 
 tending very much to betray Perfons into Errors ? 
 
 Thefe Things, Sir, together with what elfe I have faid 
 in my Letters, do evince, that your Conjectures about the 
 Original of Infant-Baptifm are unwarranted. 
 
 Permit me, Sir, to conclude this Difcourfe with my 
 Thoughts of the Original of Antip<edobnptifm. 
 
 The firft Antiftdobaptift we meet with in the World, is 
 Tertullinn. And he feems to have been betray 'd into it by 
 the ftrange Notion he had of Sin committed after Baptifm, 
 vi^. That they were fcarce pardonable ; for fuch a Notion 
 as this muft tempt Perfons to defer Baptifm, and incline 
 them rather to neglect a Command of ChrirYs, than ex- 
 pofe the Salvation of their dear Offspring. We may guefs 
 what a powerful Influence this had upon Tertullian, by an 
 Inftance of much the fame Nature in our Days, I mean 
 that of many fincere but doubting Chrifiians, abfenting 
 themfelves from the Lord's Table. They are fenfible the 
 Command is exprefs, Luke 22. 19. This do in Remembrance 
 of me. But they are fcar'd from their Duty by the falfe 
 and fevere Interpretation they put on 1 Cor. 11. 29. "for 
 they fancy unworthy Communicating is an unpardonable 
 Sin, and they muft needs be damn'd. And therefore they 
 think it more eligible to abfent themfelves from the Lord's 
 Table, than damn their Souls by their Prefence. They 
 hope God will either, excufe their Abfence, becaufe of 
 their Unworthinefs ; or at leaft their Punifhment for being 
 abfent will be lefs, than if they approach that Sacred Ordi- 
 nance unworthily. Thus do thefe Chrifiians terrify them- 
 felves, and Year after Year omit an Ordinance they would 
 be welcome to ; and which they would not dare to omit, 
 were it not for their unhappy Miftakes about this Text. 
 Could rhey but once read it in the fame Senfe as the Apo- 
 ftle writ it, they would be lefs my of this Ordinance, and 
 fpend that Time in Preparation for it, which they now 
 waft in finful Fears and Scruples. The Apoftle don't call 
 that Eating and Drinking unworthily, which they do ; nor 
 threaten the Punifhment of this Sin, which they fuppofe. 
 
 'Tis evident from the 28 v. that none who fincerely and 
 to their beft Endeavours prepare themfelves, tho* alas ! 'tis 
 very imperfect, do in the Apoftle's Senfe eat and drink un- 
 worthily. The weaker any fincere Believer is, the more 
 
 need 
 
< 54) 
 
 need he ftands in of this ftrengthening Ordinance. And 
 *tis ridiculous to fay you will carry till you are ftronger be- 
 fore you come to that Ordinance which was appointed 
 to ftrengthen you. Nor does the Apoftle threaten the 
 unworthy Communicants with that fevere Punifhment, 
 which thefe timerous Chrifiians fuppofe ; for the Apo- 
 ftle's Expreflions, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, 
 eateth and drinketh Damnation to hhnfelf, cannot poflibly 
 mean, that fuch Perfons fhall certainly be damn'd ; for his 
 Corinthians, to whom he was now addreffmg his EHfcourfe, 
 were many of them unworthy Communicants j as appears 
 from 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, v. and yet at 28 v. he invites 
 them to the Lord's Table ; only he would have them firft exa- 
 mine themfelves, and take heed for the future not to com- 
 municate unworthily. And would the Apoftle ever have 
 thus caution'd and invited them again to the Lord's Table, 
 if unworthy Communicants would certainly be damn'd ? 
 All that the Apoftle therefore intended by this Text was, 
 to reprefent unworthy Communion as a very heinous Sin, 
 a Sin which provok'd God to inflict Temporal Punimments ; 
 as at 30 v. and if not repented of, wou'd make our Dam- 
 nation in Hell the greater. 
 
 But, Sir, I muft beg your Pardon for this Digreffion 
 which I was led into by Tertullian, and which I could not 
 difpatch in fewer Words, becaufe I would fain remove 
 this Obftacle which too many fincere Chrifiians have 
 thrown in the Way to the Lord's Table. 
 
 To return now to the Subject. Another Principle which 
 introdue'd Antip*dobaptifm might be that which the Papifts 
 readily embrace, vi%. refting in Of ere Operato, i. e. afcri- 
 bing too much to the external Performance of Ordinances. 
 And I mould be glad if this Principle was peculiar to the 
 Church of Upme, for I am afraid too many Protefiants ac- 
 quiefce in it ; efpecially as to the Participation of the 
 Lord's Supper; for how common is it for Perfons to lead 
 a carnal fenfual Courfe of Life, and, at the Approach of 
 their laft Moments, fend for the Minifter, and receive the 
 Sacrament as their Viaticum for Heaven, and fo flatter 
 themfelves they have made their Peace with God, and fe- 
 cur'd eternal Happinels. But it will be well for many fuch 
 Communicants, if their Plea meet with a fofter Reply, 
 than that Luke 13. 16, 27. Then fhallye begin to. fay, roe have 
 
 eaten and drunks in thy Prejence But hejhall fay, I tell you, 
 
 J know you not whence you are ; depart from me all ye Workers 
 of Iniquity, What 
 
What thefe Perfons have done with this Sacrament, o- 
 thers, I fear, have done with Baptifm; they have defer'd 
 it as long as they could, that it might be their Viaticum at 
 laft, and they were willing their Children mould take the 
 fame Advantage : But, in my Opinion, it would have been 
 of greater Advantage to them and theirs, to have perus'd 
 more carefully fuch Texts, as ABs 22. 16. 1 Pet. 3.21. 
 and not delay 'd the Lifting themfelves or their Children 
 under Chrift's Banner, till juft as Death was ready to make 
 them quit the Field, and render them incapable of enga- 
 ging in Chrift's Caufe. 
 
 Others have been drawn into Antiptdobaptifm, becaufe 
 they could not reconcile the Baptifm of Infants and their 
 Original Purity. Pelngius indeed held both, and fo to this 
 Day do fome of his Followers; but others have cut the 
 Gordian Knot. One Mr. Bows, fat the End of. the Intro- 
 duction to the Portfmouth Difputation) declares, that if he 
 could believe our Doctrine of Original Sin, he fhould 
 think Infants had need of Baptifm. 
 
 Others have embraced Antipccdobaptifin, becaufe when 
 they have in Sacred or other Hiftory, read of Adult Baptifm, 
 they have not confider'd, that fuch Inftances were of Con- 
 verts from Judaifm or Ethnicifm. And that the Scripture s 
 Silence, as to the Adult-Baptifm of Perfons defcended from 
 Chrifiians, is an Argument that fuch were baptiz'd in their 
 Infancy. 
 
 I fhall name but one Thing more as the Original of An* 
 tipxdobaptifm, viz. the not diftinguifhing between the 
 Terms of Baptifm in Adult and Infants: whereas 'tis plain, 
 they were different as to Circumcifion. 
 
 I am, Sir, 8cc, 
 
 FINIS. 
 
A 
 
 BOOKS Printed for Richard 
 
 FoRDaufe Angel in ^Poultry. 
 
 Sermon preach'd on the Publick Thankfgi ving, 
 
 ^ 7««* the 7th, 171,6. appointed by Authori- 
 ty, for fupprefling the Unoafural Rebellion. By 
 William Harris. Publifh'd at the Requeft of the 
 Hearers. T.he Second Edition. Price 4 d. 
 -yfthe whole Works of tfie Reverend Mr. John 
 Flavil, in Two Volumes, FqL with compleat In- 
 dexes. 
 
 Self-Dedication, Perfonal and Sacramental; brief* 
 ly Explained and Enforced. By William Harris. 
 
 The Character and Bletfing of a .Good Govern- 
 ment. By the Reverend Mr. John Newman. 
 
 The Nature and Reafonablenefs of Confiderati- 
 on. By the Rev. Mr. William Harris. 
 
 Great-Britain s Happinefs in the Hanover Succef- 
 fion. In a, Sermon on his Majefty's fafe Return :. 
 Humbly Dedicated to his Royal Highnefs the 
 Prince of Wales. 
 
 A Sermon preach'd at Dover, March 10. 1716-17. 
 on Occafion' of Reading tjje Brief for the diftref* 
 fed Proteftants in Greater Poidpd and Polifi Prujfia. 
 By ti||%v. Mr. John Billing/t^x 
 
 A Funeral Sermon occafion'a^^Wfcyj^th of 
 the Rev. Mr. Jofeph Meters. The .Sl^jjhd pitibn. 
 By the Rev. Mr- Jeremiah Hi 
 
 Next Week will be puSTifh'd, 
 
 Practical Difcourfes upon Reading the Scriptures." 
 Preach'd at the Friday Evening Lecture at the 
 Weiglo-Hottfe ih Eaflcheap^ By feveral Miriiite rs.^ ■ 
 
 A Sermon on Occafion of the Death. of tM|,.t r c 
 Sir Arthur Langford, Bar. Preach'd at WoomfKg 
 Dubliny Apri}?8: \ yi6. By the Reverend JrBoyfe.