PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 '^, 
 
 Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 ;: Jl^Jiew Coll. on Baptism, No. /Q (^(-^ 
 
^mi-Pado-Rantifm ; 
 
 o R 
 
 Mr. SAMUEL F I N L E Y's 
 
 Charitable PLEA for the Speechless 
 feXAMINED and REFUTED: 
 
 TheBaptifm of Believers 
 
 M A I N T A I N'D: 
 
 AND 
 
 l^he Mode of it^ hy Immerfton^ 
 
 VINDICATED, 
 
 *^i\A 
 
 By ABEL '^MO KG AN, at Mddletown, 
 in East -Jersey. 
 
 Is A. 9. 16. The Leaders of this People caitfe them to Err. 
 
 Mark 16. 15,1.6. And he Jaid unto them. Go ye into all the 
 IJ'orld, a7id preach the Gofpeito every Creature, He that believeth.. 
 and zV baptized^ Jknll be fa^v^d. 
 
 Col. 2. 12. Buried %i:ith him In ISaptifin. 
 
 PHILADELPH I A: 
 Printed by B. Franklin, in Marht-Street 
 
 M,DCC,XLVIX. 
 
r ''' J 
 
 P R E 
 
 . x*.-«;t?*' 
 
 J. hath not been already fully and learnedly difcujfed^ 
 and the proper Siihjecfs and Scriptural Mode of this ' 
 fa credG a/pel Ordinance, unanfwer ably vindicated^ by others of 
 Abilities and AdvaJitages far fuperior to mine, that occafions 
 the following Sheets ; but becaufe what 1 firmly believe ta 
 be the Truths of God, are ftill oppofed and ridiculed by Men 
 of confiderable Name and Figure, ^ notwith/ianding what hath 
 been heretofore Jo well penned in their Vindication : Knowing 
 alfo,how ready many People are to be niijled with the Sound 
 efWor'ds, or a mere Shew of Argument, and to take gilded 
 Errors for Scripture Irmhs from fuch, without due and 
 proper Examindtiort ; / can't think, but 'tis my Duty and 
 Place {as ivell as others)' to look upon the Seafn to '^ be 3. 
 Time to fpeak, and improve it accordingly, notwithfiand- 
 . ijig my m4iny Infufficiencies for the prefent IVork, and wholly 
 leave the Succefs to the wife Orderer and Difpofer of all 
 things. 
 
 /Kfr. Finley, who fometime fince engaged publickly againfi 
 his Brethren the Prefbyterians, on the Account of f me Dif- 
 ference happening among/l tbein -, and a If o (as he ivords it) 
 drew his Sword againft the Moravians ; hath thought pro- 
 ber now to bend his Forces againji the Biptifts : Ivhether 
 it tshcauje he drove all them before him, or becaufe they 
 look' don him to be Juch an inconfiderable Enetm, not worth 
 their while to divert him with any Kefift^nce', that there 
 
 f Ectlei, 3, 7, 
 
iv r/^^r P R E F A C E. 
 
 is no more Employ for his Martial Valour, in thofe ^ar- 
 terSj and rather than iiejilllj he -would declare ffar againjl 
 his inoffenfive Neighbours^ I /ball not undertake to determine. 
 
 Hoivever^ I ?nayjuft ojderve, that we are not jo frighten d 
 hy thfconfuJeJ.Noife of Aofurdit'ies, Inconfxftencies, Novel* 
 ties, Nonfeiife, Challenges, ^c. which he mujiers up again /I 
 us, as to betake our/clvei to a precipitant Flight ; but intend 
 to give him an open Battle ; for wc judge we have the infal- 
 lible Truth of God for our fur e Defence. 
 
 Mr. F. goes about to Apologize for his appearing in thii 
 Debate^ le/l he Jhould be cenfurd as a Reviver of buried 
 Controverfics ; Biit is it not hard to find in what Senfe the 
 Controverfy about Baptijjn may he fa id to be buried ? luhen 
 Jiden of oppofite Principles are Jiill living, and never as I 
 know of, agreed to fay or zurite no more about their different 
 Sentiments ; and when both Sides have all along more or lefs 
 pleaded for their Principles andPra£iice, as occafion requir'd : 
 But thisferves well enough to make Way for hi?n to bring in 
 his Jham Re a f on for his Undertaking, vi%. That we were 
 the Aggreffors in this Controverfy, which is manifejily 
 grotmdlefs ; and he is defired to obferve, that we don^t ac- 
 knowledge this Charge he brings againjl us : And he is at 
 his Liberty to try if he can make it good in any Shape, if hs 
 thinks proper. So far as we were comfortably agreed for- 
 merly to promote the main Caufe of Religion, for our 
 parts we are fo Jiill. And for any of our Miniffers to 
 urge upon the PeopJe the Neceffity of being dipp'd or phoig'd^ 
 is no new Thing j for 'tis all one as to urge upon them the 
 Neceffity of being Baptized ; feeing iJ^e always faid, that their 
 being fprinkled in their hfancy was not Baptifm, any more 
 than Sprinkling is Dipping : And as to any Succefs we had in 
 bringing People (fuitably qualified) to the Obedience of 
 Chrifl's Comrnands, we defire to hlcfs God for it. But our 
 Succefs did not make us more confident that our Caufe was 
 good, as Mr. F. fuggejls ; for we know, by fad Experience^ 
 that People may have great Succefs in a wrong Caufe, witnefs 
 Infant Sprinkling ; IVe knew our Caufe to he good before^ 
 and were as confiJent of it, as afterwards, buaufe it is 
 warranted by the JVord of God, whether thire ht many of 
 
 few on our Side, 
 
 With 
 
T;^^ P R E F A C E. t 
 
 Jf^ith RefpeSl to our Debate at Cape-May»J/r.FinIeyy^jj, 
 
 * / did, 'tis true, prof of e thePiiblickDifpute^, and thought 
 
 * myfclf necejjltated to fuch a Ccurfe, feeirig he had been at 
 
 * the Place jome Days before I went, and had Earneftly 
 
 * perfwaded the People to renounce their former Baptifmy 
 
 * and be dipt.' Anf. When 1 luas at Gohanfie, May 15th, 
 in the Tear 1 7 43, / W'^^ importun'd to vijit Cape- May, 
 where a Baptift Church has been conftituted and fettled for 
 many Tears pa ft [tho' they had not then any fettled Minijler) 
 and had a. Meeting Houfe of their own, and were then about 
 building a new one at fome Dijiance from the other, for their 
 own UTe, and greater Conveniency. Accordingly I went 
 down, and reached there on Tuefday Night; and Mr. Finley 
 came down from Cohanfie after me theTh\ix(dzy following : 
 So that I was not very long there to perfuade the People to 
 renounce their Baptifm., as he expreffes it, before he came. 
 But in that time, I don't remember I had any Conference 
 with any one ftngle Perfon about Infant Baptifm : Neither 
 did I fpcak any thing of the Ordinance in Publick, till I un-* 
 derjinod there were fever al Per Jons that propofcd to be bap-, 
 tized ; upon which Occafion I thought it Neceffary and Expe- 
 dient to open the Nature and Defign of this Ordinance in 
 Courfe, as I infijied on the Six Principles the Apojile men- 
 tions ; Heb. 6. I, 2. . Which I did on Thurfday in the Af- 
 ternoon {for the Perfons were to be baptized the next Day) 
 with a Fiezv, in Particular, for the Help and Benefit of thofe 
 that were expe^ed fortly to fubmit to it ; and did then, and 
 do flill think myfelf jujiifiable in fo doing, efpecially on fuch 
 an Occafion. Now this is the juji and plain Account of the 
 Affair, and all the Ground i?/" yW/'.Finley'sEmphaticaI/i^j> 
 of expreffing himfelf, of my having f3,xvkt^\-^ perfwaded the 
 People to renounce their former Baptifm and be dipt. --- 
 juJl as if they had all been educated Prefbyterians. And 
 let him make the mofi of it he can^ 'tis but a very fiender 
 Ground to Countenance his Conduoi, in propofing a publick 
 Difpute immediately upon it ; juJl as if I had not the Liberty 
 to preach what I believed to be th e Truth of Chrifi, in a 
 Baptift Meeting Houfe, on fuch a fpecial Occafion (as he, or 
 ethers, has in his) to a Baptiji Church, and among a People, 
 
 A 3 many 
 
 * Which was »rried on, by each of us preaching a Sermon on the Subjeit* 
 
vi Ti^^ P R E F A C E. 
 
 many of whom were inclin'd to our Way of Thinking, before 1 
 tventdown, as is manifeji, by their j lining together to luil4 
 a New Meeting Houje Jor their own proper life ; without 
 being dheSily upon it, viz. the next Morning, challcng'd, 
 cr called upon by him, t^ difpute the Matter publickly. 
 
 IVhich Propofal of his was as unnecefiary as it zuas arro- 
 gant ; feeing thofe who then propofed to he baptized (and 
 Jeveral others) were already fettled in the Point, and only 
 tvantedan Opportunity to obey the Lord in his f acred InjU' 
 tutions. And 
 
 ^ If he wanted to confirm his People in their received Opi- 
 nions, the Way was clear for hiin to do it, either by private 
 Conference or publick Preaching among(i them, without 
 waking Uje of fuch a fcIfiHi, maiteily Wa'^, or infringing 
 tf/z //;i? Liberties and Privileges of others ;-- for I had ai 
 much Right to go and preach there, as he hadhimfelf 
 
 IVhatever he^ or his Favourites may think or fay on the 
 Cccafion, or however they may Glufs over his CondiK^, / 
 am perfwaded it will appear to all itnpartial judicious Per^ 
 foniy that 1 had very ju/i and ivarrantable Grounds to dt 
 what I did^ and that his whole Procedure in the Affair .^ 
 looks more like a defign'd intended Oppofttion, and bufying 
 himfelf in other Men's Matters, when thef only aSi in the 
 proper Duties of their Station, than any Thing dfe. 
 
 Now 'tis upon the Shoulders of fuch pretended Reafons 
 that his Performance is fent ah oad into the World: But 
 as I once told him, if their Wriiing on the Subjea, had the 
 like Effta as their Preaching on it, we need not be much 
 concerned ; for to my Knowledge, divers Perfons fprinkled 
 in their Infancy, have been convinced that Infant Sprinkling 
 isu »r:g, whilflthey heard their Minifiers labouring defign- 
 edly ,0 EJiciklijh it ; and, as I have been fmce inform" d^ our 
 Debate at '>. ape-Mav had fome fuch happy EffeSf. 
 
 I am much of the Mind^ that the more this-Controverfy is 
 handled, the more will People's Eyes be opend to fee thg. 
 Truth according to Holy Scripture. 
 
 ' Before I conclude (fays he) I muji defire of my Oppo- 
 * nents, that if any of them be difpo^'dta Remark upon this 
 
 Piece, they would viiw my Arguments m their prop er> ■ 
 
 ! ^^^^^^ ""^ ^^t them appear in ihiir own Coim; without 
 : fervcraoji,* ... ^^^ 
 
ne PREFACE. vii 
 
 I • How clofely I have followed this Rule which he is pleas'' d 
 to Chalk out for his Opponents to work by (whom-, it is iikcy 
 he fufpeils or prejudges /<? ^^ auk ward, // not wicked) will 
 beji appear in the Ferufal of the following Pag£s ; only I 
 would obferve, perhaps this is intended for greater Service 
 than one is aware of at firji Sight ; for let his Arguments 
 i?e ever fo fairly and fully overthrown, and made appear t9 
 be nothing but a mere Heap of Words, without the leafi 
 foundation in Scripture [as the Sprinkling of Infants itfelfis) 
 J can't tell but this Preparative will be ifed for a Catho- 
 licon, or an Univerfal Remedy againji all Maladies \ at 
 Perfons whofe Caufe won't bear Examining, when they are 
 rejuted^ gineraltyfay, that their Jrguments are jperverttdy 
 fr taken in a wrong Light : Why, the Reafon is, if their 
 own Colour is wifd off, they appear to be nothing elfe hut 
 manifeji Perverlion of Scripture Truths. But we are told, 
 * I fpeak thus, hecaufe 1 have known rnany of them a£i a 
 f different Part, in arguing againft fomething we never f aid 
 « injiead of Atfwering our Arguments'* Reply. Let th» 
 Reader fufpend his Judgment while he reads only the follow^ 
 iug Remarks on the fir/i Part of his Performance, and he 
 Jhall fee zvhether we Blunder /o wretchedly in our Jnfwers, 
 as Mr. f^inley fuggefis ; or is it hecaufe their Trumpets 
 glvefo very contrary as well as uncertain Sounds, that occa- 
 ftons different Replies. 
 
 Whiljl I was about to anfwer Air. FV Pe-formance, I 
 happen d to light on another Pamphlet, written Dialogue- 
 Wifc^ onihe Suhj-M of Infant Baptifm, without the Author's 
 I^arne to it. I have taken fome Notice of it (which init- 
 felfljudgs fcarcely worthy of any) hecaufe I learn it is migh- 
 ii'y erf d up, to he fome Rara avis in Terris ; a mere Non- 
 fuch ; far furpaff.ng Mr, Finley'o ; But, for my Part, I 
 can't think it fjipafjeth his in any Thing, unlefs it he in 
 Boldnefs to ajfert ^aifl:ioods ; fome ofzvhich I have taken 
 Notice of\ and if any dffivt more Infiances^ lam ready ^ on 
 proper IFarning, to produce them. 
 
 If any Perfons into whofe Hands thefe Sheets may come^ 
 do thi::k that 'tis unneceffary to contend about this facred 
 Qofl el Ordinance ; and call it a Contending about Meats 
 «WDuiiks, undsr PnUMi of living in Lqv( and Peac* 
 
 with 
 
^"'i ^e PREFACE. 
 
 ^thothen that differ from them, I muji needs fay, that fucb 
 rfrjons atjcoyer their Love to Chrifl but very poorly (if thef 
 have any Jhir.g elfe at all brftues a natural Jfecfiou iaifed 
 and heated) u.hen they can quietly look on, and fee his Holy 
 Ordinance trampled in the Mire, and defpis'd, without at- 
 tempting to put Jorth their Hand to raije up fallen Truth * 
 5..Jude, ver. 3. j Cor. 11. 2. Let that Love and Peace 
 ^^ Anathema, which mufi be upheld by finful Silence (which 
 wilLmaKe the Conjcience within roar) ^Wmaintain'd at the 
 £xpence of the Ruins of ChrijVsf acred Inflitutions. True 
 Chrifiian Love difcovers itjelf in Regarding thofe who 
 bear the Image of Chriji, and in the mean Time detedinff 
 ineir Errors, and reproving thetr Faults. Gal. 2. 11, 
 
 If ^Jbe obje^ed, that 1 difcover too much Pofitivenefs 
 cM jlfurance in my Way of Writing, J anfwer in the 
 l^ords of the Reverend and judicious i Mr. Dickmfon, of 
 ±.lizabeth-Town, on another Occafion, mix. ' I am as fully 
 ^ perjuaded that the Caufe lam defending is the Caufe of 
 c J ji V- ^""^ '^'""^ ^^' Scriptures are the Word of God, 
 ^ Iff bekeve the one, I mufi believe the other, if it be pojfible 
 to underfland the Meaning of the mofl plain Jamiliar, and 
 exprefs Words that can befpoken.' 
 
 And further in the faid^ Reverend Author's Words, with 
 little Variation, '- I have this to fay in my Defence ; tho' / 
 ^ am far from fuppofng jnyfelj Infallible ; yet I don't think 
 ^it a juji Reafon to run into Scepticifm, and to doubt 
 « °fjj^' C^r/^-'w/y ofjome of the plainefl Truths in the Word 
 of God, becaufe lam fallible a-ad liable to Mijiake.—I am 
 ^ not willing to make a Compliment of fuch an important 
 ; i^^'!^ ofpraSiical Godlinefs (upon which the Glory of 
 ^ Chrjft, Gofpel Order, and the Beauty, Excellency, 
 ^ and Regularity of the New Teitament Church do fo 
 ^ much depend; to any Perfons of what Na?ne or Chara^er 
 ^ Joever ; or to appear Wavering or Uncertain about it, that 
 ■ Imay avoid th\s Cenfure j andbefpeak the\Charaaer of a 
 * modefi Writer: ji * j ^ 
 
 ^ Ihat Truth may prevail above Error, Chrijlianity fpread 
 in Purity, and Godlinefs abound with Power, 'till we all 
 
 * Ila. 59. 14. Jer. 9, 3. 
 
 serltiol"^'^ ^ ^^'^'^^^ '" ^" ^""°* ^^ *^* ^*'"" ^^^ Neceflity of Regs* 
 
'the PREFACE. ix 
 
 come In the Vmty of the Faith, and of the Knowledge of the 
 Son of God, unto a perfeSf Man, unto the Meafure of the Sta - 
 ture of the Fulnefs of Chriji ; /f, and thro' Grace JhaU be the 
 Prayer of him who defires true Peace and Profpertty may 
 increafe within the Palaces 0/ Jerufalem, to the Glory of 
 God ; unto whofe benign Blejfmg and Dijpofal I commit my 
 poor Labours in his Service. 
 
 A. M» 
 
 
( II ) 
 
 Anti-Pado'Rantifm ; 
 
 Ur. SAMUEL F I N L E Y's 
 
 Charitable Plea for the Speechlefs, 
 
 Examined a7^d Refuted, ^c, 
 
 THE Gofpel Truth which we believe and 
 maintain, wiih refped to the Subjeas of Bap- 
 tifm, is, ^ hat thofe Perfom -who prof efs theif 
 Faith in Chrijl^ and Repentance for their Sins, 
 sre the only proper Subjeifs of Baptijm. Seme of the Pla- 
 ces of Holy Scripture whereupon our Faith is grounded, 
 are thefe ; Mat. 'nh 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Then went out t9 
 /;/m Jerufalem and all Judea, and all the Region round a- 
 bout Jordan, and ivere baptized of him in Jordan, confeflT- 
 jng iheir Sins. But tuhen hefdw many of the Pharifees and 
 Sadducees come to his Baptifm, he [aid unto them, O Gene- 
 ration of Vipers, who hath warned ycu tc flee from the, 
 Wrath to come ? Bring forth therefore Fruits meet for Re- 
 pentance, and think not to fay within )ourfelves, we have 
 Abraham to our Father : For 1 fay unto you, that God is 
 fible of thefe Stones to raife up Children unto Abraham. 
 John :v. I. When therefore the Lord knew, how^ that the 
 Pharifees had heard, thqt Jefus made and baptized more 
 'j:-i>ciples than John. Mat. xxviii. ig. Go ye therefore 
 end teach all 'Nations, baptizing them in the Name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghcji. Compared 
 Vixih Mark xv\. !<;. 16. And he f aid unto them. Go ye in- 
 fo all the World, and preach the Gofpel to every Creature^ 
 /&e?f>?'rt/ belie\cth and is baptized, Jhall be faved ; but he 
 ibut beiieveth nGtfijglihdamned» Aili'n./^l' Thin they 
 
 that 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 ,„...i4, ,kVi ;i„S; tL'Xt'r/ 'i"'s 
 
 Name of JeCus Chri/f th '^^^"g^om of God, and the 
 
 they ca„„ unj a t\.Vnmt J,'!, T' 'VY'r '^^^. 
 
 ; f ^^'^^ ^rjey jaia^ he It eve 0)1 the Lord "^.f^jr r^L • n 
 ^ndthoufl^althefaved, and thv HouT J ll^r ? ''^^^ 
 him thclVord of the LT/ ^^ , %'• , "^"^^ they fpake unto 
 Mdhe tZfhLr' fl'^^' ^il that were in his Houfe' 
 
 Houfc. Chap xvm. 8. ^WCrifpus, the Chief Ruler of 
 thejynasogue h,h..,d on the Lord with allh^ Houfe • 
 4^iTr^^^'^^'^^'"^-^^' ^-•-^^' l^^lieved^ndter'e 
 
 Thefe Texts of Holy Scripture, with others that niieht 
 be mentioned, are fo clear and full to the Pu pofe Th't 
 proJeffingBehevers are the o.ly proper SubjeSis TLitf'^ 
 
 r ■ .^"^^^'^h.^PP^"' o'- becarriedon about thisMatter But 
 iK,tw.Mandnjg the Pouu is fo clearly c../r..7by cr^- 
 
 oun; p-e^dTo th"e°T f '' ?" ^'^P°"^"^^' who'ftrenu- 
 7o\lTttl t ^"^^"^5^^^^^"g ^ Right to Bapt.fm, 
 cio take much Pains m order to overthrow it • wh-Vh 
 ^akes ,t nece/Tary for us to fland in Vindication of tli^ 
 
 nrnn!^!"^^ '' '^ ^^^^'^^^^^^^ that Controverfies are always 
 are Ihuifled in, and infifted on, as tho' they were the ve- 
 
in) 
 
 ty Subflance of the Points debated ; and as fuch a Prac- 
 tice argues either Weaknefs in Perfons to diftir.guifti 
 what belongs to a Cafe in Hand, and what not, or elfe 
 evidently befpeaks real Want of Argument, to fiipporc 
 what is advanced ; fo it natively tends to carry on endlefs 
 Strife and Contention betwixt the Parties controverting, 
 without much Profit, or bringing Things to a defirable 
 
 Iflue. 
 
 To an impartial Reader, I believe this will appear to 
 be the Cafe, refpedting this much controverted Pointy 
 viz. Baptifm : Now feeing it hath been long debated.:^ 
 who are the only and proper Subjeas of this Gofpel Or- 
 dinance, one might judge the only dired and ready 
 Way to come at the Knowledge of the Truth, and end 
 the Conteft, would be, to begin with the firft Account the 
 Scriptures give of this Ordinance, and having trac'd it 
 all thro' the New-Teffament, to believe and praaife ac- 
 cording to the Precepts and Examples therein given of 
 Believers Baptifm. But our Opponents don't think pro- 
 per to follow this Method ; willing, it feems, to find 
 fomething, if it were poilible, to countenance their re- 
 ceived Pradice of Infant Baptifm : And tho' they have 
 been already fufficiently refuted, do fiill entertain us with 
 an ufelefs Repetition of their Thread bare Arguments 
 from Abrahams Covenant and Circumcijhn : So that un- 
 der the Name of Controverting about Baptifm, the De- 
 bate is impertinently and ufelefsly carried ofFto another 
 Subjefl, viz. Abraham's Covenant. Juft as if the ready 
 Way to difcover who ate the proper Subjeds of Baptifm, 
 was by looking back fo far as unto Abraham., long enough 
 before the Ordinance itfelf was inftituted ! Or, as if 
 Chrifl, together with the Inftitution of Baptifm, had 
 not given us full and fufficient Information and Direai- 
 ons, who were to be the Subjeds of it, without having 
 . Recourfe to Abraham^ Covenant and Circumcifion, to 
 fupply the Defea ! Is it not an evident and plain Truth 
 that the Right and Title of any to Baptifm, is of no old- 
 er Date, than the Inftitution of the Ordinance itfelf ? 
 And is it not as plain, that no good or fufEcient Argu- 
 ment caa be brought from any Thing, before the Inftitu- 
 
 tion 
 
( 14 ) 
 
 tron of Bapt.fm, toprove the Rightof Infanfs to It; feeintf 
 the Scriptures no where inform us, that Chrift ordered 
 or commanded his D.fciples to baptize Infants ; ne th'; 
 W wc any Inftances of it, any where in the Wo: d of 
 
 jfZlJ^'n ^"'P"^' r '" ^''^^ ^^^'^ Argument frod 
 ^^ra^ams Covenant, fince it is foreign to The Matter ia 
 
 m ? Why, 'tis juft to amufe themfelves, and continue 
 the unhappy Conrroverfy betwixfus. I c^n't fay indeed 
 
 ivLZ U^^/'f ^^^°'"^ ""'■ OPP<^n-cs upon thia 
 i regular Method of vmd.cating tndr Fraaice of b.pti- 
 z.g Infants :K.caure ('tis hke) there appears not Ly 
 
 Ita^ '" r^t ^t'T'' °^ '^'P^'^'"' -' i'the continued 
 ^ladb.e of the Apofti.s afterwards, worth their wnile to 
 beg.n on Bat after all, their far-fctch'd Argutr^ents 
 don t conclude for them, belldes other Reafon., ^e^aufe 
 the ScnptureAccuat of the Subjeas of Haptifm mS 
 ut erly aga.ua .hem. W.at Adtanca.e Mr' Mn/^^^ 
 
 J)i? % ""''"^'f' ^^ '' ^''^ "^^'^^ ^^■>'<^-J^ for, bv his 
 
 ^face theonefavmgi ' and accordm:. to God's Purpofe' 
 of Lledion, and the other not favin^fy, but only in the 
 S.ght of the vif.ble Chur.h, d.es'^^t read-^y^pearl 
 conhder.ng he iiatn ,)ot im^.-oved this Diftin^ion to hi! 
 prefuu Purpofe, by ai^.ng u, f -me Inftances of the A- 
 Pfks^ bapt,za,g the lui^nc S.ed of Behevers, upon thi, 
 of .heir being vil:b y ,n the Covenant of Grace, or upoa 
 any other Account ; b.t as this was not poffihle for him' 
 tod., his Diamilion 13 ufelef. iu thii prefent Controver- 
 
 .1.^5" u^!>u' '?^'^^ ^'^^^ ^'^ P'^^^^^ f'^ believe him)' 
 that all Church-members, ana their Seed are in Cove- 
 nant, as all the I/rae/ites, old and voung, were in it 
 I^ei^t.XKix. 10, II, But thi. can't be, for that Cove- 
 rant made xvith the />./;>.., at the.r Return out of 
 ^Upt, .. abohfned. Jer. xxx.. 31, 32. Hd. viii. 8, o. 
 11^^ bcripture is plain, tktt the New Covenant is noil 
 accordiug t. that : And M •. F. has not produced any 
 i-iaceofijcnpturc tg prove that the Intant 0%ring of 
 
 Chuxc^o 
 
Ghurch-Members are vifibly in the New-Covtfnanf^ 
 therefore his AfTertion is groundlefs. 
 
 To fay that Beh'ever's Infants are vifibly in the New- 
 Covenant, by natural Generation, or Birthriehr, is ab- 
 furd J befides it would be inconfiftent with Deui. xxix. 
 io, II, b'f. where the Little ones, there mentioned^ 
 were not in that Covenant by Birthright j---and to ima- 
 gine they are brought into the Covenant vifibly by Bap- 
 tifm, is alfo abfurd ; for then they are not vifibly in the 
 Covenant before Baptifm : It therefore follows, that our 
 Opponents can't pretend to baptize them, as being vifibly 
 in the Covenant before, if it is by Baptifm they are 
 brought vifibly into Covenant, unlefs the Infants of Be- 
 lievers are vifible and not vifible in the Covenant ^t the 
 fame Time, which to affirm, is not very good Senfe : 
 How trifling then and infignificant muft fuch a Diftindti- 
 On be, to fupport a Caufe which wants better Proof ? 
 
 And what does Mr. Finley feek to do further, by his 
 Biflindion of a Two-fold Way of Sealing the Covenant, 
 viz. Internal by the Holy Spirit, and External by the Sa- 
 craments ? Is it that the Infants of Believers, ought to be 
 fealed with the Sacrament of Baptifm ? Why it wont help 
 him at all, for this Reafon, becaufe God has not order'd 
 him to do it---I fay God has never commanded to bap- 
 tife Believer's Infants, neither have we anv Examples of 
 Infant Baptifm, in any Part of the Word of God ; 'tis 
 therefore horrid Prefumption in any, to adminiiler this 
 Ordinance unto them : If Mr. F. denies this, I demand 
 ^e Place of Scripture, which authorifeth him to baptize 
 Believer's Infants j and if he can't produce any divine 
 Warrant for his Praaice, as I know he hath not, he is 
 defired to obferve, that his Confequence upon Confe- 
 quence is no Divine Authority ; and therefore utterly in- 
 fufficient to bear him out in his prefent Praaice : For 
 according to Holy Scripture, none are to be baptized 
 but thofe who make a Profeffion of their Faith and Re- 
 pentance i and fo at leaft profefs they have the Interna! 
 Seal ng, or the Work of God's Spirit upon their Hearts 
 tirft, before they receive ths External, viz, Baptifm ; fee- 
 Wg the ffomer, as Mr. F, acknowledges, is ^gnified and 
 
 reprefented 
 
C i6- ) 
 
 nprepnted by the latter * Only keeping clofe to thi^ 
 Order and Appointment of God in the New Teftament, 
 Mr. F. may, for me, enjoy the Benefit of his Diftindtions 
 as long as he pleafes. We are weJi fatisfied that the Di- 
 rection of Chrift (the wife Lawgiver) to admlnifter Bap- 
 lifm to profeHing Believers, and the Practice of the Apo- 
 ftles who baptized only fuch, is a much fafcr Guide to us, 
 than all Mr. Finley^s Notions and Goi^ftquences from 
 jtbrahamh Covenant and Circumcifion can be to him, 
 to adminifter this Holy Ordinance to Infants^ without 
 any Divine Command or Apojiolical Example at all. 
 And further, tho' our Opponents are very fond to call 
 /the Sacraments the Seals of the Covenant of Grace, yet 
 they are not to adminifter them to any, bur according tC 
 the Divine Directions. 
 
 Were rt the Will of God, that Believer's Infants Ihould 
 be baptized, can this Gentleman imagine the Almightjr 
 would not have infoi m'd tis thereof ? undoubtedly he 
 would ; for there is as much NeceiTity of a Divine War- 
 rant to baptize Believer's Infants, as there was for the* 
 Circumcifing the Jewifh Infants : For the Command 
 to circumcife, can never authorize any to baptize them j 
 Ijecaufe Circumcifion and Baptifm are two difterent Ordi- 
 nances, in two diftin6t different Adnniniftrations, and 
 both dependant on two diftindt Inftitutions. And for 
 our Opponents to find fault that their Infants are not 
 now to be baptized, as the yewijh Infants were circum- 
 cifed formerly, is nothing lefs than to quarrel with the 
 Wifdom, Sovereignty, and good Plg^fure of Almighty 
 Ood ; and what can be more daring or prefumptirous ? 
 
 Mr. Finhy's firft Enquiry is. Whether the Infants of 
 fuch as are Members of the vifible Church have a Right 
 to the Ordinance of Baptifm ? To which I anfwer in the 
 Negative. And 'tis very juft I fhouU deny Infants to' 
 have a Right to Baptifm ; becaufe there is no mention 
 made of it in Holy Writ. 'Tis no where recorded in' 
 Scripture, that all Infants, or any Infants at all were bap- 
 tized upon the Confideration of their being in Covenant. 
 There is no juft and neceflary Gonfcquence from any 
 
 Scripture* 
 
 * P»g« 4« 
 
( 17 ) 
 
 Scriptures compared together to fupport it. 'Tis not 
 urg'd upon the Parents throughout the whole Word of 
 God, to be their Duty to bring their Infants to Baptifm. 
 There is no Bleffing promifed if they do. There is no 
 Threatning denounc'd againft them if they don't. Again, 
 there is no Divine Authority given to any to baptize them ; 
 for the Words of the Commiilion run thus : Preach 
 the Gofpel to every Creature ; he that believeth, and is 
 baptized, Jhallhe faved^ Marie xvi. 15, 16. Mr. F. may 
 know, how big foever his Argument for Infant's Right 
 to Baptifm from Abraham!?, Covenant appears in his own 
 Eyes, yet when, according to ^/x Or<af^rj, we weigh it in 
 the Ballance of the SanSiuary, we find it won't pafs cur- 
 rent in any Province where Money goes by Weight, be- 
 caufe hghter than a fingle Grain of Tnath j which will 
 further appear, when his following Afiertions are exami- 
 ned--- the firft of which is, * That the Infant Seed of 
 ' Church Members were once By divine Appointment 
 
 * taken into Covenant with their Parents, had the then 
 ' Seal of it apply'd to them, and fo were Members of the 
 
 * viiible Church.' 
 
 Reply. Our Opponents and we feem to be agreed in 
 our Septiments about the Covenant of Grace, when they 
 fay, that the Covenant of Grace was made with Chrift, 
 as the fecond Adam, and in him with all the Ele(5t, as 
 his Seed, f What a Pity then it is. that we can't have 
 the fame determinate Idea's fefpe«Sting the Covenant 
 (mentioned in this Aflertion) and iu bring this unpleafant 
 Controverfy, to its much defired and final Period. But 
 the Cafe is yet otherwife ; for Mr. F. alTerts, That the 
 pure Covenant of Grace was made with Abraham and his 
 Seed. And feme other Gentleman (to help on the Caufe 
 of Infant- Baptifm to be fure) has lately prii ted, ' That 
 
 * it was truly the Covenant of Grace made with Abra- 
 
 * ham, on Behalf of himfelf, and both his Natural and 
 ' Spiritual Seed, both Jews and Gentiles.'X How our 
 Opponents do to underftand their abovefaid Affertiona 
 
 B con- 
 
 f Vid. AJJimblfi Larger Catechifm. Queft. 31. % A Dialogue betweeo 
 
 * Minifter and one of his Pariftiioners, entitled Divine Rigbt of Infant- Baf' 
 tifm, PrJntcJ at New -York. J 746. Pajs i6s 
 
C i8 ) 
 
 confident with themfelves, or with the Truth of Things,- 
 and at the fame Time fuppofe tlie Point they plead for is 
 eftablifhed, undoubtedly is an Art peculiar to themfelves ; 
 for the Covenant of Grace comprehends all Believers in 
 it : What odd Divinity would it be to teach that 
 every Believer is not in the Covenant of Grace, but that 
 Covenant made with Abraham (of which Circumcifion 
 was a Token) did not comprehend every Believer in it, 
 •which lived even in the Days of Abraham^ as is moft evi- 
 dent from Scripture? Shem, Melchixedeck snd Lot, who 
 •were true Believers, yet were never admitted into Abra- 
 ham's Covenant by Circumcifion-— Surely they muft have 
 a ftrange Turn of Thought, who fay, ^h^i Abraham's 
 Covenant was a pure Covenant of Grace, in the Manner 
 our Opponents plead for ; and then aflert, as Mr. F. 
 does (unlefs he fhamefully equivocates) Out £/"Abraham'j. 
 Covenant there is no Salvation. According to this AfTer- 
 tion I would afk him, What became of thofe above-men- 
 tioned Godly Men, who were not in Abraham's Cove- 
 nant, nor had the Seal of it ffo called) adminiftred to- 
 them ? Did they go to Hell and perifti ? By no means. 
 Were they faved ? Yes. Wy the Covenant of Works ? 
 No. How, by the pure Covenant of Grace made with- 
 Abraham ? No, for they were not in it. 
 
 And out of Abraharr'^ Covenant, there is no Salvati- 
 on. How then ? Why, to unlock this Riddle Mr. F. 
 may, if he pleafes, ufe his ovon^\ and Mr. FlaveN Key. 
 
 'They could neither be juftified nor condemned \n 
 
 * this Life. Juftified they could not be, for they were 
 ^ out of Abraham' sQoven^nt : Condemned they could not 
 
 * be, for they were righteous Perfons. But this is not 
 
 * all ; in the World to come they could neither go to 
 ' Heaven nor Hell : To Heaven they could not go, be- 
 
 * caufe out of Abraham's Covenant : To Hell they could 
 
 * not go, becaufe juftified. But ftill it is more v/onderful 
 ' to confider, that they muft be fully juftified, and fully 
 
 * condemned at the fame Time : Fully juftified, becaufe 
 
 * the Scripture fays as much ; fully condemned, becaufe 
 *out of the Covenant made with Abraham* Now all 
 
 thefe 
 ■\. Charitablt PJea. Page 35, 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 thefe are plain Abfurdities, yet they natively follow froni 
 Mr. Finlefs Affertions, in his charitable Plea; therefore 
 his AfTertions are abfurd. But feeing there was Salvation 
 to thofe Godlv Perfons— There is Room enoi.g^h for us 
 to oppofe our Opponent's Arguments, and ftill affirm the 
 Covenant of Grace was mciHe with Chrift only on Behalf 
 of others, Jong before Abraham was born-- that it was 
 revealed to him, ^c. For the Scripture fpeaks of but two 
 crowned Heads, or publ.ck Perfons, as Covenant Heads, 
 jn Behalf of others, viz. The f5rft Adam, with whom 
 the Covenant of Works was made ; and the Second A- 
 dam, the Lcrd from Heaven, with whom the Covenant 
 of Grace was made : And for our Opponents to fy, the 
 Covenant of Grace was made with Ab-aham on Behalf of 
 others, is an AfTertion which does not concur very well 
 With Holy Scripture ! Befides, what an odd fhapcd Cove- 
 nant does Mr. F. repiefent the Covenant of Grace to be ; 
 according to him, fome Beiievers or gracious Perfons 
 mult be left out, and fome carnal unregenerate Ones ta- 
 Icen in ! for he affirms, that all Church Members and 
 their Seed are m Covenant, but not all in it favingly. 
 
 How weak and inconclufive alfo does the Argument 
 irom Abraha?n-s Covenant appear to be, to prove tnfant- 
 Baptifm ; for if gracious Men, who lived in the Days of 
 Mraham, were not circumcifed, becaufe God had not 
 appointed or commanded them, much lefs then are the 
 carnal Seed of Believers now to be baptized without his 
 Command or Appointment. Hence we learn it was not 
 a being ir/ the Covenant, that gave any one a Warrant 
 or Title to Ordinances, but the expreis Order and pofi- 
 t.ve Command of God : For Inftance, Lot (who lived 
 jn the Days of Abraham) was a righteous Man, and be- 
 yond all Dou>t in the Covenant of Grace made with 
 
 fsi Tx,^^ '^°"^'^ ^^''^ ^^^" Prefumption in him, and 
 an Adt of Will-worfiiip for him to be circumcifed, be- 
 caufe God had not commanded him : If therefore it was 
 the Command of God that made it a Duty to circumcife, 
 and gave any one a warrantableRight toCircumcifion, it 
 confequently follows, for any to be circumcifed without 
 lueh a Commandi would have been unwsirrantable, and 
 
 B 2; V an 
 
( 20 ) 
 an A£t of Will-worfhip, which none can think would 
 be acceptable to God : The Application is eafy, fuppo« 
 fing (what we grant not) that the Seed of Believers, as 
 fuch, are in the Covenant of Grace (as Mr. F. urges) 
 yet nothing fhort of God's Command, or exprefs'Order, 
 can entitle them to Baptifm, or authorife him to baptize 
 them. Now feeing there is no Command of God for 
 baptizing Infants, that Pradice turns out unwarrantable, 
 and an Aft of Will-worfhip, even when we examine it 
 on the Grounds or Arguments by which our Opponents 
 would fain confirm it. 
 
 If it be ftill argued from the antiquated Law of Cir- 
 Cumcilion, that Infants were formerly circumcifed, and 
 they ought now to be baptized ; I anfwer. The Cafes 
 are not at all parallel ; for befides other DifFerences, there 
 was God's Command for the former, but not fo for the 
 latter ; and this ought with modeft Perfons, to make a 
 wide Difference : Tho' Mr. F. hath Confidence enough 
 to make light of God's pofitive Command, and exprefs 
 Order, as an indifferent Thing, when he alTerts, ' We 
 ' have as good Ground as he, * (i. e. to admit Infants 
 
 * to Baptifm, as Abrahamh^^ to circumcife them) for we 
 
 * have the very fame Covenant.' 'Tis plain that Abra- 
 ham had the exprefs Order of God to circumcife Infants : 
 But 'tis after a Manner confefTed by Mr. F. fwhich is 
 even fo) that God hath given no Command or Order to 
 baptize them ; and yet he fays they have as good Ground 
 for the latter, as Abraham had for the former. I have 
 already (hewn that an Intereft in the Covenant did not 
 entitle Perfons to an Ordinance, but the Order of God ; 
 or elfe why was not Lot (and others^ circumcifed ? Even 
 fuppofing Infants to be in the Covenant, yet they are not 
 to be baptized for the Reafon abovefaid. And that ano- 
 nymous Author, out of the abundance of his Affurance, 
 without blufhing, alfo fays, f * The Cafe is exaaly the fame, 
 ' without any Difference.' I am even furprized at our 
 Opponents, that they can prefume to talk at this Rate^t 
 Is the exprefs Order of God nothing in thefe Gentlemen's 
 
 ^ Eflcero I 
 
 * Page 65. f Divine Right «f Infant Baptifm, P»ge JS- 
 
Efteem ? Is this their Method of treating God's -^ofitive 
 Commands, That they have as good Ground to proceed 
 VMthoutthem, zs Abraham or others with them ? How 
 fliocking muft this be to pious and confcient.ous M.nds ! 
 For (hame, let perpetual Darknefs fully thefe prefump- 
 tuous Line; of infatuated Zeal ! Let a Pen.tential Recan- 
 tation heal this deadly Stab given to the Caufe of Prote- 
 ftant Principles ! How would the exalted Chernhirm ot 
 Glory hlujh to hear their AfTertion ? Nay they would re- 
 iea it with the fwifteft Abhorrence; who do nothmg 
 without, but always hearken to the Commandments of 
 God. Pfal 103. 20. Pray what makes any Thing to be 
 a Duty, but the Order and Command of God ? Why 
 were ihe degenerate Jetvs of old fo feverely threatened 
 and punifhed, but becaufe they did that which God com- 
 manded them not? It does no ways appear ihat they 
 have as good Ground to baptize their Infants, ^^ Abra- 
 ham had to circumcife his. And further, I am quite free 
 to fay, our Opponents can never make their Affertions 
 good ; for there is an eternal Difference betwixt what God 
 has ordered and commanded^ and what he has not. 
 
 Again, it is very obfervable, that the Authar of the 
 Whole Duty of Man, in his Reprefentation of the Cove- 
 nant of Grace, hath been openly and P"bl>ckly condem- 
 ned by the Rev. and efteemed Gentlemen Mr. Whttefield, 
 and Mr. Blair. § Let us compare our Opponents Ac- 
 count of the Covenant of Grace, and that Author sAc^ 
 count of it together, and fee how near they agree. The 
 Author of the Whole Duty of Man faith, This fecond 
 ' Covenant was MADE with Adam and us in hini, 
 <■ prefently after his fall, and is briefly contain'd in thefe 
 ? Words Gen. 3. 15. where God declares that the Seed of 
 « the Woman fhall break the Serpent's Head. And this 
 
 * was made up as the firft was of fome Mercies to be af- 
 ? forded by God, and fome Duties to be performed by us. 
 
 Where is the mighty Difference ? That Author fays 
 the fecond Covenant was made with Adam, and our Op- 
 ponents fav. That the pureCovenantof Grace was made 
 
 * B 3 '^'^^^ 
 
 § Confideratios of the Querifts, page »4> *?«» 
 
( ^^ ) 
 
 y^ithJhrabam- Why? herein there is but h'ttle odds • 
 both agree the Covenant of Grace was made w h Man* 
 tbo' they don't juftly hit on the fame Perfor,. That An' 
 thor rumates that^./.;„ was a publick Head n he fL" 
 cond Covenant, when he f.y, ic .^as W. W. us„l^ 
 Our Opponents very cordj.lly join him herea^ain whrri 
 n fo many Words they ^mJ^ ^ That .t wa^ tr^W the 
 Covenant of Grace made wiLh^^.^^,,,, on Behalf of 
 
 < Wal^^6t'f >'%^r^^^"^ ^A-WSe"d?b;t°h 
 :. pZ- l"i^"''^''- f^oil^ agree that a mere Man was 
 a Puihci Head ,n the Covenant of Grace. Again Tc 
 o.rd.ng to vhat Author's Plan, there ^ere JomfMerVu, 
 to be afforded hy God and form Duties to he peiformed yu 
 
 i nat ^W.«;..s Pol^enty enjoy 'd thesAME PriviJe 
 
 Z;W. and W„.,/,, in tne Church, as himself 
 
 ; ajd, unt,l by .^..Degeneracy fnmc of them were brok' n 
 
 r h u ^' /'7'' ^'"''^ '''''' ^"0- on their Part, they for- 
 fated the:r Rrght ^n the Covenant, and ^-ere e.^uJlL, 
 the Number of the Covenanted People. Which well a^Ce^ 
 w.th that legal Author's Notion,%f>. Dutkst lYpeH 
 formed by us. Now, if our Opponents are ri.ht in their 
 
 ^'r "wK^rn '^^"^r^"^ °^^race. To was^the Autho 
 pUhe Whole Duty of Man, and he mufl have been un- 
 j.% conderrined ; unlefs our Opponents think that fame 
 Doarme to be Truth in them, which was condemned 
 as an Error in hun : But as he was unfound and corrupt 
 in his No .ons ot the Covenant of Grace, fo arc our Op- 
 ponents a fo ; and their Notions deferve to be feverely 
 pnfured (.f they had Jurtice done them) as being very 
 coi^rupt, and highly difhonourable to the Plan of Grace 
 a^d Salvation : For accordmg to them, a mere Man, as 
 Mraham was, ^beyond the Bounds of Truth and Sober- 
 
 ?e.td rr r'>°''".'"^ ^^ ^•■^^^ ^'^^^ n^i^^epre- 
 
 ^'red. and funk down below its proper Dignity and 
 G.,ry, afTertii.g .t to be made with Man on Behalf of 
 I M ?? %^^^^^^^'^^^^y in itfclf fubjea to Mutability 
 as Man (the Party) was. And indeed God the Author 
 >vho putteth no Truj? in his Saints, muft be fuppofcd ^o aft 
 mconliflent wich himielf, to entru(i a feeble Creature as 
 
( 23 ) 
 
 Man with fuch weighty Concerns. Befides, this Repre- 
 sentation ferves to puff up carnal Creatures to the very 
 Pinnacle of Pride, when their Leaders tell them that they 
 and their Children are in the Covenant of Grace. In a 
 Word, what a confus'd Notion of the Covenant of Grace 
 is given by our Opponents, tending to lead People away 
 from this fundamental Truth, viz. That the Covenant 
 of Grace was made only with Chrifl: (as a publick Head) 
 on Behalf of others. Which glorious Truth is conflantly 
 and firmly to be maintain'd againfl all the falfe Infmua- 
 tions and corrupt Affertions of our Oppofer^. 
 
 Before I difmifs th^'s Point, ^tis proper I fhould take 
 more particular Notice of this Affertion, viz. ' That it 
 *■ was truly the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham 
 ' on Behalf oih\mk\i^ and both his Natural and Spiritual 
 * Seed, both Jeius and G entile s,' Our Opponents muft 
 necefTarily mean either Typically or Aolually, But I caa 
 in no wife as yet perfuade myfelf they mean the Covenant 
 of Grace was made with Abraham^ on Behalf of his Seed, 
 Typitally, i. e, Th2.t Abraham was a Typical Head of 
 Chrift ; The Covenant made with him a lyplcal Cove- 
 nant of that made with Chrifl ; becaufe fuch a Senfe 
 would make fo muchagainfl themfelves in what they are 
 now fo much pleading for ; and thereby they would do the 
 Bufincfs for themfelves efFedually at once, to prove Abra- 
 karri's Covenant to be repeal'd ; For all will grant, that 
 the Old Teilament Types, Figures, and Shadows, were 
 abolifhed, when Chrift the Antitype of them all was exhi- 
 bited ; and amongft the reft, Abraham^ Covenant, upon 
 this Suppofition. Then we mufi look for a new Cove- 
 nant, as well as new Church Canilitution, and new Or- 
 dinances, Commands, and Directions, fuited to New 
 Teftament Times ; which would cut olFall their Plea for 
 Infant Baptifm, from Abrahanis Covenant. Therefore 
 it remains that they mean the Covenant of Grace was ac- 
 tually, truly, and properly, tnade with Abraham on Be H A L F 
 of himfelf, and both his Natural and Spiritual Seed. 'Tis 
 even furpnzing that any Man who calls himi^eli zChriJliany 
 much more a Minijlery would offer to publifh in the Face 
 of the World at this Time of Day, fuch an abfurd Poji- 
 B 4 tisn^ 
 
( 24 ) 
 
 fion, pregnant with intolerable Falflioods : For Inftance 
 I. Let our Opponents fhew what Man that was wit^ 
 whom God made the Covenant of Grace (as a publick 
 Perfon) on Behalf of others, but with the God-Man, 
 Christ Jesus. 
 
 2. Let them fhew how Ahraho7n could be a publick 
 Head in the Covenant of Grace, without juftling Chrift 
 out of his Office, or elfe hold two publick Heads'^in one 
 Covenant, equal ot fubord'tnate -y which would be mon- 
 ftruoufly abfurd. 
 
 3. U the Covenant of Grace was made with Abraham^ 
 on Behalf of his Natural and Spiritual Seed, let them 
 ihew what Seed is allotted to Chrifl, or by what Name 
 are they to be called ? And further, what Concern can 
 we fuppofe Chrift to have with thofe which belong to 
 another Covenant Head ? unlefs it be only to give them 
 Strength to fulfil their Duty on their Part, to prevent 
 their Degeneracy. 
 
 4. Let them further declare to the World how the Co- 
 venant of Grace could be made with Abraham on Behalf 
 of others, when he had no Grace to con)municate or im- 
 part to them, which a publick Head ought to have r 
 
 It would be well for thefe Men who are fo bri/k to 
 charge us with Errors, and holding dangerous Prmciples, 
 firll to cafl out the Beam out of their own Eyes before 
 they attempt to caft out the Mote out of ours. And if 
 there were any hopes that they would fee their Mi /lake 
 at all, it might be here in the Foundation of their whole 
 Stiuaure, where it is fo vifible and palpable, that it is a 
 Wonder how they do to get along without {tumbling on 
 
 The pure Covenant of Grace was made with Chrift 
 only (as a Publick Head) on Behalf of others, long enough 
 before Abraham^ Day ; and it was reveal'd or manifefted 
 to Adam^ Abraham^ David, &c. in fuch Wavs and Mea- 
 fures as God thought proper : And not any' of the Seed 
 of Abraham were inter efied in it, by their being the Seed 
 oi Abraham, but by Regeneration, Rom. 4. 12. And as 
 to Abraham's carnal Seed, who liv'd and dy'd in a State 
 of Nature, were th^y any farther impriviledg'd at the 
 
 mofi 
 
( 25 ) 
 
 moft, but only to partake of thofe Ordinances appointed 
 ol God, during the Continuance of that daik, legal, and 
 typical Difpenfation ? which is very difFsient from their 
 being in the Covenant of Grace : And if this is all that 
 is iniended by their oeing viftble In the Covenant of Grace^ 
 it will do our Opponents no great Service, becaufe that 
 Adminiftrauon is aboliilied, together with the Ordinances 
 then in Ufe : And we no where find it to be the Will 
 of God, for Infants to be no v baptized, as they were 
 formerly circumcis'd. And thus accounting for it, our 
 Opponents would prevent their falling into fuch Abfurdi- 
 ties and Miftakes about this Matter, as they generally do 
 in the Way they go on. 
 
 After Mr. F. has cited fome Places of Scripture which 
 he imagines make for his Purpofe, he enquires at the 
 Clofeof the Paragraph, ' Who can be fo hardy as to fay 
 f all thefe Scriptures are now repeal'd ?' Anf. We profefs 
 'tisajuil Debt we owe to the Publick, to obferve that 
 thefe Citations don't prove what they are here brought 
 for ; becaufe it feems by him, that Infants Church-Mem- 
 berfoip muil ftand or fall together with thefe Places of 
 Scripture : So that if we be fo hardy as to fay that Infants 
 are not in Covenant together with their believing Pa- 
 rents, we muft confequently affirm all thefe Texts to be 
 repealed. Not at all ; for 'tis manifeft the Places which 
 he refers to (unlefs Deut. 20. 9, io) fpeak of the fpecial 
 Work of God upon the Souls of his Eled People, or pro- 
 mife fome peculiar and faving Benefits to them, pertaining 
 only to the Spiritual Seed : But m none of them is it 
 afertedox implied that the natural Offspring of Believers, 
 as fuch, are in xhQ pure Covenant of Grace. Now, did 
 we ever denv the Seed ox Offspring of Believers, who are 
 chofen and called of God. * Deut. lO. 15. jujiificd by 
 Chri/i. Pfal. 103. 17. Partakers of the Holy Ghoft, Ifa. 
 44. 3. Chap. 59 21. Deut. 30. 6. And this manifeffed 
 by Good Works. Exod. 20. 6. Accompanied with God's 
 fpecial Care over them, &c. Pfahn 102. 28. Prov. ii. 
 21. To be in the Covenant of Grace as well as their be- 
 lieving 
 
 * Thafe are the Text« Mr. F, refers to, for Proof of Infants being i? 
 tb? Covenant of Grace. 
 
C 26 j 
 lievins: Parents ? Nay, we are freely willing to baptize 
 the Offspring of Believers upon God's fulfilling thefe Pro- 
 mift-sto them ; becaufe it exaflly agrees with the l^nor 
 of the Commifllon : He that believeth is to be baptized. 
 And with the Praaice of the Apoftles ; Can any Man 
 forbid IVater^ that thefe fhould net be baptized which have 
 received the Holy Ghoft as well as we ? Acts x. 47 . What 
 then wouW he prove from thefe Texts ? Do thefe Places 
 prove that ths Seed or Offspring of Believers were any 
 otherwife in the Covenant of Grace formsrly, but by the 
 fpecial Operation of the Spirit of God upon their Souls ? 
 or any Thing as to Infants Right to Bapcifm now ? No : 
 Why then we have fufficieiic Ground to deny the Affer- 
 tions of our Opponent?, without juftling thofe above-quo- 
 ted Scriptures out of their Places. h%xo Deut. xxix. 10. it 
 fpeaks of the Covenant God made with the y/r^^/z'/^jat their 
 Return out of Egypt ; which, beyond all Contradidion, is 
 ^oneaway, and long fince aboliflied, Jer. xxxi. 31, 32. 
 i/<?^. viii. 8 So that Mr. Fs Suggeftion here, and his 
 Aflertion elfewhere, That we Repeal a great Part of the 
 Old Teflament which God has not repeaVd^ is Groundlefs, 
 and evidently a falfe Accufation. 
 
 This leads me diredly to confider Mr. F\ Second ge- 
 neral Flead ; which is. Whether God has ever repealed the 
 afcrefaid Jppointment ? 
 
 Anfw. Having already clear'd our Way fo far, all 
 that' is neceflary for us here to affirm, is. That the Jew- 
 ffi Oiconomy is at an End : That the Legal Admini- 
 itration is aboJifhed ; or that the Appointtnent of God, for 
 Infants to partake of any Ordinance, is repealed, or ra- 
 ther fulfilled. 
 
 That Infants are not now the Subjefts of Baptifm, as 
 the Jezvijh Infants were of Circumcifion, is clear and 
 manifeft ; for even at the very Dawn of the New Tefta- 
 Bient Adminiftration (where we have the firft Account 
 of this facred Ordinance of Baptifm) John, theFore-iun- 
 ner of Chrift, conftantly required Faith, Repentance 
 and Confeffion of Sins in Order to Baptifm. A^ark i. 4, 
 5, John did baptize in the IVildernefs^ and preach the Bap- 
 ifm of Repentance for the RemifJionofSins. And there went 
 
 out 
 
•( 27 ) 
 §ut unto him all the Land of Judea, and they ^Jerufhlcm, 
 and were all baptized of him, in the River o/J'Jidan, con- 
 feffing their Sins. Adls xix. 4. Then faid Paul, John 
 verily baptizrd with the Baptifm of Repentance^ fauvg unto 
 the People^ That they fhould beheve on hi?n which fhould come 
 after him^ that is, on Chrijl Jcfus. Mat. iii. 7, 8, 9. But 
 when he faw many of the Pharifees and S adduce es come to 
 his Baptifm, he faid unto them^ O Generation of Vipers^ 
 who hath warned you to flee from the IP rath to come ? bring 
 forth therefore Fruits meet for Repentance. And think not 
 to fay within yourfelves, we have Abraham to our Father : 
 Luke vii. 29,30. Jnd all the People that heard him, and 
 the Publicans jujiified God, being baptised with the Baptifm 
 of]o\\x\ ; but the Pharifees and Lawyers rejeSiedthe Coun- 
 fel of God again]} themfelves^ being not baptized of him. 
 Hence it plainly appears, John the Baptiit adminilked 
 this Ordinance to none, but to thofe who profeffed their 
 Faith, and made Confeffion of their Sins. Howground- 
 lefs therefore is the Plea from Birth Priviiedge to prove 
 any One's Right to Baptifm ; for if the natural Off- 
 fpring o{ Abraham were not entituled to Baptifm by it, 
 how much lefs then are the Offspring of believing Gen- 
 tiles, as fuch, who are not the Seed of Abraiia.m '\r\ any 
 refpc6t, to be baptized upon Account of their Parents, 
 Faith, Church-m.emberfhip, ^c. feeing God has no 
 where commanded it ; nor have we any Inftances of 
 fuch a Pradice in Scripture. Mr. F. reafons from Mat. 
 ill. 8, 9. to this Purpofe, vl%. ' If Infants a^re intended 
 
 * in this Place, the "Words will not only prove that they 
 
 * are cut ofFfrom Church Priviledges, but that they will 
 
 * all certainly be damned who die in Infancy— But if 
 ' they are not intended, to what Purpofe do they bring 
 
 the Text, fince it will make nothing for them or a- 
 ' gainft us, unlefs it fpeak of Infants.— And the' the 
 
 * Baptift deny'd the Ordinance to grown wicked Per- 
 ' fons, yet his Words don't fhew that he would not have 
 
 •^ baptized both religious Parents and their Seed.' 
 
 Anfxu, Why then did he conftantly require Fruits meet 
 for Repentance, in thofe that came to be baptized of him ? 
 It is eafy to guefs how mighty fuch kind of Reafoning ap- 
 pear^ 
 
C 28 ) 
 
 pears to thofe, who have been a ways told that Believers 
 Infants are to be baptized ; but it is evident (notwith- 
 ftanding what is here advanced by Mr. F.) we have 
 Room fufficient left us, lojiake down this invincible 
 Truth, viz. That 'fohn baptized none upon any other Con- 
 fideration^ but upon ConfeJJion of their Sins^ und Profejfion 
 of Faith ---ii he did, let our Opponents Ihew us the 
 Scriptures which fay that he baptized Believers Infants, 
 as being in Jbrahanis Covenant ; or give us folid Rca- 
 fons if Infants were to be baptized, why they were not 
 baptized the felf-fame Day with their Parents, as Abra^ 
 ham and his Houfhold were circumcifed. Gen. xvii. 26, 
 27. or at leaft foon after ? Did John the Baptiftever urge 
 the Parents to bring their Infant Seed, in thefe, or fome 
 like Words, * All you Parents whom I have baptized, 
 
 * the Seal of the Covenant belongs to your Infant Seed alfo 
 ' (as our Opponents aliedge) and you are to bring them 
 ' to partake of it ?' We deny any fuch Injunftion ; prove 
 them who can. Mr. F. f himfelf affirms, ' That 
 ' thofe Scriptures (wherein we find Faith and Repentance 
 ' always required in Order to Baptifm ; and thofe who 
 ' were admitted to the Ordinance, were obliged to profefs 
 
 * the fame, and confefs their Sins) are addreffed only to 
 
 * grown Perfons, and not Infants.' Now feeing that ia 
 all the Places which fpeak of John's baptizing, thefe 
 Qtialifications were required, in order to Baptifm ; it ea- 
 lily follows, that there is no Ground to believe that he 
 baptized any Infants ; unlefs our Opponents will fay, that 
 they have as good Ground to believe what is not written, as 
 that which is written ; as they f^y, that they have zs good 
 Ground to baptize Infants, which is not commanded, as X 
 Abraham had to do vthziwas commanded : And if fo, me- 
 thinks, both their Faith and PraSiice are very ill-ground- 
 cd ! The Cafe is juft this. Either it was the l^i II and 
 Appointment of God that John fiiould baptize Believers In- 
 fants, or it was not. If any fay it was, they make that 
 holy Man (who received his Miflion immediately from 
 God) a vile Tranfgreflbr of the divine Will and Ap- 
 f ointment j but fuch an horrid Crime was never charg'd 
 
 up- 
 
 ■\ Page 64, 65. J Page 66. 
 
( ^9 ) 
 upon him, who was fo highly commended by Chrift him-* 
 felf • Then it remains, that it was not the Will and Ap- 
 pointment of God, for him to baptize Behevers Infants. 
 And how much this falls ftiort of proving that God haih 
 repeal'd the aforefaid Appointment, I ftiail leave to ouf 
 Opponents themlelves, to determine at their Leifure. 
 
 ' Another Scripture (fays he) in which the Anabap- 
 « tifts triu?nph, (as tho' it proved a Repeal of the Cove- 
 * nant made with Mrahafn) is, Heb. viii. 7, 8, 9, 10, 
 13. For if the firji Covenant had been faultlefs, then 
 Jho'uld no Place have been /ought for the Second. For find- 
 ing Fault with them, he faith. Behold, the Days come 
 (faith the Lord) when I will make a New- Covenant witty 
 the Houfe <j/Ifrael, and the Houfe 0/ Judah : Not accord- 
 ing to the Covenant that I made with their Fathers in the 
 Day when I took them by the Hand to lead them out of the 
 Land o/Egypt ; becaufe they continued not in tny Covenant^ 
 and I regarded them not, faith the Lord. For this is the Co- 
 venant that I will make with the Houje of Ifrael after thofe 
 Days, faith the Lord ; I will put my Laws into their Mind, 
 and write them in their Hearts : And I will be to them 
 a God, and they /ball be to me a People.-— In that he faith, 
 A New Covenant, he hath made the firJi Old. Now that 
 which decay eth and waxeth old, is ready to vanijh away. 
 
 Truly after all Mr. Fs Clamour about onr falfe Gloffcs 
 upon this Place, he hath left us triumphing as he found 
 us ; if any Thing, he has augmented the Caufe of our 
 Triumph : We here fee how forcible are right Words. And 
 if his Arguments have any Weight in them, he juft 
 proves what the Baptifts never deny'd, viz. That all true 
 Believers were in the Covenant of Grace made with 
 Chrift, before his Incarnation, as well as they be fir.ce j 
 which is confirmed by that very Place he cites, Deut. 
 XXX. 6. But this is not our prefent Bulinefs, for our De- 
 bate is not about the Spiritual Seed-Tho' our Opponents 
 don't diftinguifh one Thing from another, as they ought 
 to do. Mr. F. in the Profecution of his Argument 
 here in favour of his Praaice, runs himfelf into inextri- 
 cable Abfurdities 5 for his Drift is, to prove that this 
 New-Covenant, mentioned in Heb. viii. is the fame 
 
 that 
 
( 30 ) 
 
 that yfhrabajt Mo/es and I/rael, were under in the Wil- 
 dernefs;andthendirea)yuponit. tells us, that bv (New 
 Covenant^) we muft underltand, < A new Adminiftraion 
 ^ ot the Covenant, which obtains under the New-Tefta- 
 ment.' Can he imagine then, that ^/;/W^^;;;, Mofes 
 and I/rael, m the W.ldernefs, were un?ler this New-Co- 
 venant, ashehimfelf underftands it ? Does not he well 
 ^now that the New Covenant thus underftood, took 
 Place long after their Day ? And why then would he go 
 about to impofe upon his unwary Readers, by pretending 
 to prove that Jl,raha;r, Afofes and Ifrael, were undeT 
 ntn P "^ Covenant ; which canno. be, according to his 
 ojvn Rule of Interpretation ? And if he underftands by 
 
 lelS^rr' ' u ^'^- '''■• '^'' ^'"^ AJm.niftration, 
 ^e might be fure that we would follow his Rule, if it is 
 good, and fay, that by the Old Covenant we muft un- 
 T. nun^a""^^ Adminiftration which obtained under 
 tne Old Teftament-.-which was m.de with Ifrae/ at 
 their Return out of Egypt, and according to Mr F ij 
 the fame that wa. made with ^^r^W,... when he calls it 
 ff^^^^'scrljrael's Covenant: Now it is plain from 
 this Place of Scripture, that the Old Covenant is abolifh- 
 ed, and fo is Infants Church-memberfliip, or their Rioht ' 
 to Circumcifion, together with it— And Mr. Fs Bufi- 
 nefs on this Head, if he had done any Thing to Pur- 
 pofe, was to fliew us that Infants are the Subjeas of Bap- 
 turn under tne New Covenant thus underftood, which he 
 has not done, and I am ftill of the Mind never can ; 
 inltead of going to prove that Abraham and Tfrael were 
 under tnis New Covenant thus confidered ; for, ac- 
 cording to his own Interpretation, everv one muft 
 icnow his AfTertion to be evidently falfe. And if it is fo' 
 criminal ,n the Anabaptifts (as he calls us) to urge this 
 1 lace to krve their Purpofe, Why did Mr. F. give us his 
 helping Hand fo cordially, to faften us in our Belief that 
 the aforefAid Appomtment is long fince at an End ? Let 
 Mr. A Anfwerus; Did he ever read of Infants Right to 
 any Ordinance in the Church fince the New Covenant 
 (as he interprets it) took place ? Upon the Whole, 
 ^'hctner he will or no, the Baptifts, according to his 
 
 own 
 
( 31 ) 
 
 own Rule, will come ofF, not only free from his Cenfures, 
 but appear to be quite Right on this Head. And he muft 
 know, that hehimfelfhas rendered all his Reafonin^s in 
 Favour of his Practice from this Place, entirely incon- 
 clufive. 
 
 Mr. F. fays there is another Scripture which the Ana- 
 baptifts fadly abufe to their Purpofc, viz. Rom. ix. 7, 8. 
 Neither becatife they are the Seed c/" Abraham, are they cH 
 Children ; hut in Ifa^cJJjall thy Seed he called : That is^ 
 they which are the Children of the Flejl)., thefe are not the 
 Children of God ; hut the Children of the Promife are 
 counted for the Seed. After Mr. F. has propofed feveral 
 Q^jeftions from thefe Words, he gives us Liberty to try- 
 how we can fuit it at all to our Purpofe. With his Leave 
 then we'll proceed, and I think the Bufinefs to be no 
 difficult Tafk neither. 'Tis evident from thefe Words, 
 that none, whether Jews or Gentiles^ are counted the Spi- 
 ritual Seed, but true Believers only. Now methinks all 
 will grant, that the Infant Seed of Believing Gefitiles are 
 not Abrahatn\ fiefhly Seed ; and Mr. F. in his Diftinc- 
 tions does not undertake to fliew that they are his Spiritual 
 Seed : Then it follows that the Infant Seed of Gentile 
 Believers, as fuch, are not the Seed of Abraham in any 
 Refped: at all. The Confequence is then unavoidable, 
 that they are not, as fuch, theSubjed of any Promife gi- 
 ^vento the Seedof^^r^^^w. 'Tis therefore abundantly 
 evident, that the Infants of Gentile Believers cannot be 
 baptized by Vertue of any Promife given to the Seed cf 
 Abraham., becaufe they are not included in it : So thaC 
 inftead of abufing this Scripture, our Inferences are na- 
 tural and genuine, and muft continue fo, unlefs Mr. F. 
 can make appear that the Infants of Gentile Believers are 
 Abraham^ Seed in either of the two aforementioned Re- 
 fpeds ; for in a Third they can't be. Thus you fee, that if 
 Infants are to be baptized, it muft be by fome other Grant 
 than the Charter given to the Seed oi Abraham ; for thaff 
 does not reach them ; and we find no Inftitution for it 
 in the Gofpel ; therefore they are not the Subjects of 
 Baptifm. To imagine as our Opponents do, That Belie- 
 irsrs Infants are now to be baptized, as Abraham's, was cir- 
 
 cum- 
 
( 32 ) 
 Cumcifed, is their great Miftake j and 'tis ftill to take 
 that for granted, which (hould be proven. 
 
 It feems Mr. F. was apprehenfive of fome Difficulty in 
 his Way, and accordingly endeavours to obviate fome 
 Objedtions. * Will they fay we have no Ground for a 
 ' Judgment of Charity concerning the Spiritual Seed, 
 
 * but only a vifible credible Piofeflion of Faith. I an* 
 ' fwer (faith he) was this the Method formerly ufed to 
 
 * judge of the Right of Jhraha/n's Seed to the imitating 
 
 * Seal of the Covenant ? To this I reply : The Method 
 they were to follow under the Law, was to circumcife 
 every Male Child at Eight Days old, according to the 
 exprefs Order of God : (But they did not circumcife 
 them as the Spiritual Seed J The Method now under 
 the Gofpel, by no lefs Divine Authority, which we are 
 clofely to follow, is to baptize Perfons on Profeflion of 
 their Faith. Here lies his great Miftake, that he would 
 bringdown the Order about Circumcifion to be imitated 
 in the Cafe of Baptifm. But who told him fo ? God hath 
 never revealed this to be his Will, that Infants muft now 
 be baptized under the Gofpel Adminiftration, as they 
 were circumcifed under the legal Adminiftration. And 
 for our Opponents to run on to do any Thing as Service 
 to God which he has ^not ordained, is juft to lay them- 
 felves under a Neceflity of preparing an Anfwer to that 
 folemn and cutting Qiiefiion, fFho hath required this at 
 your Hands ? Let them (hew that God requires Infants 
 to be baptized, and we'll have done. 
 
 * idly. I deny the AfTcrticn (fays he) that we have no 
 ' other Ground of judging charitably who are the Spi- 
 ' ritual Seed, but only a(5tual Profeflion ; for we have 
 « the Promife of God to Believers and their Seed, to 
 ' judge bv.' Anf. Mr, F. feems very unhappy, that he is 
 not himfelf fixed in his own Judgment in this Cafe, that 
 he fhould be obliged to put on different Shapes and Forms. 
 If he has good Ground to judge charitably, that the Infant 
 Seed of Believers are the Spiritual Seed, his Diftin£lion at 
 the Beginning of a two-fold beirg in the Covenant of 
 Grace, is quire ufelefs. That when he fpcaks of Church 
 Members and their Seed, as being all in the Covcnant-- 
 
 i 
 
C 33 ) 
 
 He does not mean, that they are all in it favingly, but 
 only in the Sight of the vifible Church. But in this 
 Place he declares, that he hath Ground of charitable 
 Judgment, that the Infant Seed of Believers are the Spi- 
 ritual Seed— -I believe none will deny but the Spiritual 
 Seed are favingly in the Covenant of Grace. And fo our 
 Objedion vi^ili ftill ftand in Force, * That if Believers 
 
 * and their Seed are all in Covenant [thus] they will all 
 
 * be faved.' 'Tis Pity he had not found this Ground of 
 charitable Judgment fooner, and fpared himfelf the 
 Trouble of his Diftindions, and us the Remarks on them. 
 By the Way, feeing the Scripture does not declare that 
 the Infants of Church members, as fuch, are the Spiritu- 
 al Seed of Abraham t Mr, F. is defired to obferve, that 
 his Judgment in the Cafe, is not a fufficient Proof of this 
 Matter. 
 
 * Nor can their Argument (fays he) from Gal. iii. i6. 
 
 * conclude againft us-— The Words are, Now to Abra- 
 
 * ham and his Seed were the Promi/es made. He faith noty 
 
 * And to Seeds, as of many ; but as of one; And to thy Seed^ 
 
 * which is Chrifi. If this Promife is made to Chrift per- 
 
 * fonally, then it will prove that no Believer is counted 
 
 * for the Seed, but Chrift alone- --Therefore it muft 
 
 * have been made to Chrift myftical, or as Head of the 
 
 * vifible Church j and then it will extend to all Be- 
 
 * lievers in him, and alfo to their Seed j for they were 
 
 * never caft out of the Church, for ought that yet ap- 
 ' pears.*--- Anf. One might think that the very menti- 
 oning of this Argument, would be a fufficient Refuta- 
 tion of it. Does not the Apoftle very particularly guard 
 agamft fuch a Notion ? when he fays the Promifes were 
 not made unto Seeds ^ as of many ; but as of one, And to thy 
 Seed, which is Chriji. 'Tis evident the Promifes were 
 
 . made primarily to Chrift perfonal, for in all Things ht 
 mujl have the Preeminence. Col. i. i8. and fo God gives him 
 for a Covenant of the People, and all the Promifes in him. 
 Ifa. xlii. 6. 2 Cor. i. 20. andfcra Head over all Things 
 to the Church. Eph. i. 22. Which is his Body. This iS 
 according to the very Tenor of the A poftles Argument, 
 ^<?/, iii, 22. But tht Scripturt huth (ondudtd all under 
 
 C Sin, 
 
( 54- ) ' 
 
 Sift, thai the Prom'tfe by Faith of Jefus Chriji, might W 
 given to them that believe. 
 
 2. But what a wild Way of Arguing does Mr, F. ufe 
 here! * Believers Infants are Church-members— Therefore 
 
 * tlie Promife extends to them alfo.' Let him fpeak out j 
 Will Church- membcrfliip entitle any to the Promife of 
 Juftification, GaUVn. 8. Of the Holy Ghoft. v. 14. Of 
 Adoption, Chap. iv. 5, 6. And of the eternal Inheri- 
 tance, Chap iv. 7. Do the Promifes of thefe Spiritual 
 Bltfliiigs extend to Believers and their Infant Seed, as 
 ilich ? Or are any of the Seed of Believers entitled to 
 thefe BleiTmgs by Birth-priviledge ? Let Mr. F. (hew 
 "where God hath {jroraifed thefe Spiritual Blefiings fliould 
 beentafl'd upon any flefhly Line, John i. 13. 'Tis re- 
 ally marvelous that our Opponents will wreft Texts of 
 Scripture which fpeak particularly, and only of the 
 Spiritual Seed, or true Relievers, fo countenance their 
 Fancies about the Right of their Infant Seed to Church- 
 jnemberftilp, ^c. If they do thus thro* Ignorance, and 
 for want of knowing better, they are much to be pitied, 
 and ou^htto be timely inftruded ; but if wilfully againft 
 Light and Knowledge to ferve their Turn, they muft 
 be very unfit Men to handle the Word of God. 2 Cor, 
 H, 17. Chap. iv. 2.- ~ 
 
 * The Seed of Believers (fays he) were never caft 
 
 * out of the Church, for ought th;^t yet appears.' ^nf, 
 I -don't know how it fhould appear that Infants were caft 
 ©»it of the Ncw-Teftament Church, when it does not 
 appear thit they were ever in it. For as Mr. Nrfs wor- 
 Ihil)' obferves, f ' The Perfons who were Materials, 
 
 * and the confiicutirg Members of this /?r/? conftituted 
 
 * Gofpel Church, are defcribed by their Names, Num- 
 
 * her and Holy Exercifes, in Aiis i. 12, 13, 14, 15, 
 ' f^c' And who were they ? Why a Company of 
 profeffing Believers, and noneelfe : Thefe were the Ma- 
 terials of the firft confiituted Gofpel Church. And when 
 we trace the Account of its Growth and Progrefs, we 
 ftill find that none but profcfling Believers were added 
 onto it, J^s W. 41, 47. Chap. iv. 4. As we do not 
 read of any Infants in this Church at JerufaUm^ neither 
 
 i Hift. tod Myft. of th9 Bible, Vol, 4, P»s? 3 j6, d# 
 
( 35 ) 
 
 db we fead df any Infants that were Members of aHy of 
 the primitive Churches planted by the Apoftles, thro* 
 the whole Courfe of their Miniftry— What fignifies it 
 then for our Opponents to harp upon this String, That 
 Infants were never caft out of the Church, when they 
 have never {hewn, that thej^ were ever in the vifible 
 Church, under the New-Teftament Difpenfation ; and 
 it hes ftiil at their Door to fhew that they were, if they 
 can— And not put us off with what was done under the 
 legal Adminiftration--Fbr the Jeivijh OEconomy is 
 long fince at an End ; and we expea New-Teftament 
 Proof for what pertains to a New-Teftament vifiblo 
 Church. 
 
 Again, Where in Scripture do our Opponents read 
 of that Notion which they call the f Pate of the Church t 
 wherewith they colour their Fancy for half-way Mem- 
 bers, /. e. Members (as their Infants are) not fully in 
 their Church, nor yet in the wide World, but within 
 the Pale of their vifible Church ; pmbablv in their 
 Church- Yard— Somewhere in the Middle between their 
 Churchandthe World— Did Mr. F, ever hear of any 
 fuch Members in Apoftolic Times ? I believe not, be- 
 caufe fuch a pretty Fancy has been hatch'd long fince 
 that Day ; and what is it good for, unlefs it be to pave 
 tne Way to fome unknown Middle Region for them irt 
 the other World too, if they depart in luch Circumftan- 
 ces ? Did Mr. F. ever read that there v- t-c fach Mem-^' 
 bers as their Children are, either under the Legal, or 
 Gofpel Adminiftration ? Upon the Whole, this Text is f<J 
 far from concluding for them, that it is a Wonder how Mr* 
 F. could have the Confidence to fay it does. 
 
 ' Abrahams Blefting was not only to himfelf perfon- 
 
 * ally, but alfo to his Seed .- And this very BleiTing is 
 
 * come on the Gentiles through Chrift ; therefore it 
 ' muft come on their Seed too. Gal. iii. 14.* Anfw. Our 
 Opponents would fain find fomething from the Scripture 
 to favour their Argument, when norhii^g can be more 
 :ontrary to it. For the Blefiing of Abraham, which the 
 scripture afTerts to have come on the Gentiles through 
 Chrift, is Juftification by Faith, Rem, iv. 11. The Gift 
 
 t P»g« 49' C a ©f 
 
( 36 ) 
 
 ef the Holy Ghoft, Gal. iii. 14. Adoption, l^c. Gal. iir. 
 26. Spiritual Blcffings, pertaining only to the Spiiitual 
 Seed, even true Beiievc-rs, Gal. iii. 29. as I have already 
 fhown. Are the carnal Seed of believing G^m^;7w, as fuch, 
 Partakers of thefe Ipiritual Benefits ? If not, how can 
 our Opponents fay that Abraham^ biefling is eome on 
 them, when the AiVcrtion is entiieU' falfe ? And what 
 does it avail them to call the Jewijh Church- Memberjhip 
 in the flrjlAy Line, by the Name of Abrahams Blefling, 
 when tne Apoftle does not call it fo, neither aflerts any 
 fuch Thing to have come on the Gfntile Infants through 
 Chrift ? Indeed to do as our Opponents, to apply what 
 belongs to the Spiritual Seed to the Fieftily, »j not to ex- 
 plain, hut to confound and contradiH Scripture with a fVit- 
 nef}. 
 
 Again, might not the Promife to Abraham, th at he 
 fhould be the Father of many Nations, and that Kings 
 fliould come out of him, Gen. xvii. 5, 6. be called Abra- 
 ham' i Bleffing, or a great Part of it ? And is there any 
 fuch Blefling come upon every Gentile Believer ? If there 
 js, let our Opponents fliew it : If not, does not the Blef- 
 fing of Abraham come curtail'd ? Was it not a Blefling 
 to Abraham to have, the Promife of the Land (from the 
 River of Egypt, unto the great River Euphrates) to 
 liisSeed ? Gen. xv. 18. And is this very Blefling come on 
 the Gentiles and their Seed too, in the Form or Fui^- 
 NESS of it ? Will our Opponents fay it is, and proceed 
 to fiiape foaie bloody Engine or another (like the folemn 
 J,ea:^ut ^.nd Covenant^ with Hands lifted up to Heaven, 
 iVVEAR to vfe their Endeavours to extirpate or root out 
 aii irom fome Part of the Earth, but ^hemfelves? Or will 
 they fa V it is not? Does not Alraham's Blefling then 
 (crm" on the Gentiks curtail'd ? Again, was it not 
 Ai'^i-'haTrC^ BklTing to have the Seal of the Covenant (fo 
 sailed) idminiftredtoall the Males born in his Houfe, or 
 boutht with Money of any Stranger, Gen. xvii. 12. And 
 is thts come on the Gentiles ? If it is. Why don't our 
 Op(M)n€nt3 baptize thofe who are born in their Houfe ; 
 ^nd tiie Servants or Slaves they buy with their Money ? 
 Or elfeihow us whcR their Right was repeai'd > or whe- 
 ther 
 
( 37 ) 
 ther Chrijl's coming has dtminijhed their Privileges, and 
 narrow'^ the Door of the Church ? If not ; does not 
 Ahrahani'^ Bleffing come on the Geniiles curtail'd ? Once 
 more ; Was it not Jbraham's Blefling, to be fet a- part, as 
 a fpecial Channel, through whole Loins God wcuM bring 
 the promifed Seed (Chrift) into the World j and his Po- 
 flerity fepa rated likewife, to be a peculiar People, froni 
 among whom he ^ould be fo brought forth ? And is 
 this come on the Gentiles ? If not ; does not Ahraharr!^ 
 Blefling come on them curtail'd ? 
 
 Ir thefe Things were only Temporal, and peculiar to 
 Abraham and his Seed, fo fay we of Infants Right to any 
 Ordinance, that it was only during the 'Jewijh CEconomy. 
 \i Ahraham\ Blefling comes full and uncurtailM on the 
 Qentiles^ without thefe ; fo fay we without the Notion 
 of Intans Churcli Memberftiip ; and let our Opponents 
 prove die contrary when they are able. 
 
 The Sum is this. That the Blelling of Abraham which 
 the Scripture afl'erts to have come on the Believing G^«- 
 //V^j through Chrifl, is Juftification by Faith, with all the 
 fpecial and faving Benefits of the New Covenant which 
 Ao accompany it : For they which be of Faith., are blef- 
 fed with faithful Abraham. Gal, iii. 9. i. e, Jultified as 
 he was. Upon the Whole, I can't but firmly conclude 
 that the aforefaid Appointment is. at an End, as well 
 as many other Appointments under the "Jeiuijh or legal 
 Difpenfation^ 
 
 There is no Necefuty I fhould dwell long upon what 
 Mr. F. calls the Devices of the Anabaptiji to prove the Re- 
 peal of the aforefaid Appointment : However, Imayjufi: 
 take a curfory View of fome Things he mentions. ' They 
 aHert, ('fays he) that Abraham'^ Covenant was mixt.' 
 Po they fo ? then 'tis inRefpe£tof Temporal and Eternal 
 Things. But who amongil them ever came up to Mr. 
 Fiulefs Notion of Mixture in Abraham's Covenant ? vi?;. 
 That Perfons enjoy'd the fame Privileges, Liberties and 
 Immunities, in the Church as Abraham himfe)f did, until 
 by their Degeneracy they were broken off. 
 
 2. ' They join vf^rc/'fljw's Covenant vvith the Law 
 
 * ^ivfn Qn Sinqii a(>d argua ijiftt 15 w^s a rigoroqs 
 
 Q 3 * Covcii^fll 
 
r 38 ) 
 
 * Covenant of Works, and confequently is aboliftied,^ 
 If he means by this Charge, the Law given on Sinai^ in 
 a ftrift Senfe, i, e. the moral Law only, 'tis very unhke- 
 ly we (hould join Abraham^s Covenant with it, in order 
 to prove it to be abolifhed, when we firmly believe the 
 Moral Law itfelf is not. But if we join Abraham's Co- 
 venant with the Sinai Covenant, confidercd krgely ; 
 Mr. F. does the Bufinefs for us, to (hew that Abraham'^ 
 Covenant is abolifhed, when he calls it Abraham's or 
 i/r<7^/'s Covenant ; for all mufl grant, that ihe Covenant 
 made with the Jy^^f///« at their Return ou: of ^f;-;*/, is 
 abolifhed : And we fhall leave him to debate the Matter 
 with the infpired Penman. Heb. 8. 
 
 Again, * Either the carnal Jews miflcok the Defign 
 ^ of God in giving the Law, or they did not. If they 
 
 ♦ did rniflake it, then he aid not give it to be a Covenant 
 
 • of Works ; for this they thought it to be when they 
 
 * fought Juftification by it.' Arifiv. The Argument 
 feems to turn out thus : But the carnal Jews did miftake 
 it; therefore the Law was given to be a Covt^nanc of 
 Grace. 7'ben certainly the Jews were in the Ri^jh;: to 
 feek Juflification by the Law ; tho' the Ap-»ft!c fays. 
 That as many as are of the IVorks of the Law areun- 
 der the Cu^fe^ Gal. iii. 11. 'Tis llirprizing ihar our Op- 
 ponents can't fee that the Law (as a rigorous Covenant 
 of Works) isfubfervient to the Gofpel, bv convincing 
 Men of Sin, and condemning for .-.m ; witiiout aflcrt- 
 ing it to be theXhing itfelf, to which it is fubfervient, 
 Rom. iii. 20. Gal, iii. i 2. 23. 
 
 And as impertinent is Mr. Fs Queftion concerning 
 PauVs circumcifing Timothy^ viz. ' Did he bind 57;«<;//{)/ 
 ' under a Covenant of Works r /. e: by Circumcifing 
 him. Jnf. When P^a/ circumcifed 7/V/j^//>y, Circum- 
 cifionwas then abrogated, and was nothing at all. * Paul 
 ■who became all Things to all Men, adminiflred this anti- 
 quated Ceremony to Timothy., that he might not offend 
 thejewijh Converts, A^s xvi. 3. But for Mr. /^ then 
 to argue from this Inffance, when Circumcifion was a 
 mere abrogated Ceremony, to confirm what he is upon, 
 is intolerably Abfurd and Ridiculous. Mr. 
 
 • Vide Pool in Lo?. 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 Mr F at the Clofure of this general Head, fwells and 
 vapours exceedingly, a. if he had come ofF entirely a Con- 
 queror forever. * I CHALLENGE (fays he) all my Op- 
 ' ponents in this Point, to prove the Repeal of God s 
 
 * Gracious Grant, or eife let them forever ceafe to cavil 
 
 * at us. T demand the Text of Scripture t^ar lays, God 
 « will not now ffand to the Charter given io Abraham and 
 
 * his Poflerity, ^c. And he fuppofes if any fhouidiinJer- 
 take this Ta<k, he mult be One endued with (ome fuper 
 Jngelic Strength, to go through with this Bufiners. But 
 may we venture to enquire what is this weighty Work, 
 this mighty Tafk ? Is it to fhew that thrift the prcmifed 
 Seed oiJbrahami is not come in the Flefh ? No ; this 
 is not queitioned. Is it to (hew that God will not be the 
 God of Abraham, and his Spiritual Seed ? No ; this is 
 owned on all Sides : What then ? Why it is to prove 
 that the Carnal Seed of Abraham are not vilibly in the 
 Covenant, or that Infants Ghurch-Memberflaip i? at an 
 End. Is this the great Tafl^ ? Is this all ? Why it caii 
 be done without either going tp fleaven for the Strengtl^ 
 of Cherubims, or gathering ^H the Force of his Opponents 
 upon Earth to difpatch the Bufinefs. Even any Child m 
 Religion, with the AfTiflance of God's Word., is an equaj 
 Match to this fiippofed impolTibleWorlf . Firft then, ob- 
 ferve the Charter given to Abraham and hi§ Pofteri;y, i.« 
 broke. Herp ig a Text of Scripture for him. Jer. xxxi. 
 32. Which my Covenant they BRAKE, altko' I yjas an 
 Hujband unto them faith the Lord. Heb. viii, 9. They con- 
 tinued not in my Covenant, find I REGARDED THEM 
 NOT, jfaith the Lord. Whp* broke this Charter ? Why 
 Jbraham's Fofterity. Who were rejeded and ditregarded ? 
 Not the Spiritual S.ee4 but the Carnal ; and the Chartej: 
 is thrown by as old Parchment out of Date. Heb. vjii. 
 13. He hath made the Fjrst OLp. Ancl 
 there was a new Charier given, every Way better thaft 
 the Old, and not according to it. Behold the Days comf 
 (faith the Lord) when I will make ii new Covenant with th^ 
 Houfe of Ifrael, and the Houfe o/*Judah; Not accord- 
 ing to the Covenant that I made with their Fathers in th$ 
 'Day when / tQok them h ^ke Lim4 to lead them m of th 
 
C 40 ) 
 Land of Egypt, hecaufe they continued not in my Covenant, 
 andl regarded them not, faith the Lord. Heb. viii. 8. 9. 
 
 Let Mr. F. (hew if he can, that Believer's Infantsare 
 now to be baptized by Vertue of this new Charter, as the 
 Jewijh Infants were to be circumcifed by the Order of 
 God of old : But as this is impcmble for him to do, K t 
 himl(accordmg to his own Direaion) forever ceafe to cavil 
 at us, when we ftill rejeft his Proof iot Infants Baptifm. 
 from their antiquated Right to Circumcifion, which is 
 zs frivolous as it is ahfurd. 
 
 If it be objeaed, that the above cited Text means only 
 the two diflina Adminiftrations, I would enquire, Was 
 the Lord married to the People of the Jews, or called 
 their Hufband, only upon the Account of the former 
 Adminiflration ? If fo, then it follows that no more is 
 to be underftood by the whole Nation of the Jews and 
 their Seed's being in Covenant (true Believers ex- 
 cepted) than that they were only the Subjeds of Ordi- 
 nances under the former Admmiltration. Now that 
 Adminiflration being aboiifhed, fo is Infants Church- 
 Memberfhip together with it : There is therefore no 
 Ground to fupport the Notion of our Opponents, feeing 
 there is no mention made of it in the New Charter, or 
 Gofpel Adminiftration^ ; nor any Inltances or Examples 
 of It in the Apoflolic Churches. 
 
 From what hath been obferved, we may fee where 
 Infants Church- mem berfhip (fuch as it was) ^nded in 
 thQjewiJb national Church ; Now the great Stone which 
 (houM be turn'd, is to fhew us when Infants Church- 
 inemberfhip began in the Chriftjan Church, under the 
 New Tcflament Difpenfation. Let Mr. F. read the 
 Hiftoryofthe Churches of 7«^^^, Galilee, Samaria, (ffc. 
 and bring us fuch unheard of Tidings— That the Infants 
 of ad.cvers were baptized, and admitted Church- mem- 
 b(;rs— Nay, the facred Records give us a quite differmt 
 Relation of Things—Wz. 7hat thofe ivho heard the Gof- 
 fel, and received the Word gladly, were baptized— And 
 they continued fiedfajUy in the Jpo(1le's Doctrines and Fel'^ 
 lotujlyib,and in breaking of Bread, and in Prayers, Ads ii. 
 Zli 4C>i 4i> 42. Chap, viii. 12. with fuch like 3 which 
 
 £>ive^ 
 
( 41 ) 
 
 gives us to underftand, that the Members of the New- 
 Teftament Churches were only adult Perfons, who were 
 alfo capable to be found adi^Ive in the New-Teftament 
 Worftip. To fay there were Infants admitted into 
 thofe Churches, the' it is not mentioned, is to take for 
 granted, what fliould be proven ; and fo nothing at all 
 to the Purpofe. Sure they are got fomewhere beyond 
 the Proteftant Line, who would impofe on the World, 
 the Neceffity of believing Things unwritten : Nay the 
 Attempt is quite weak and ridiculous ; and yet in this 
 Cafe, it mufl be our Opponents great Refuge. What 
 ill-fhaped Inflruments mufl thefe Gentlemen have to 
 work with, who conclude there were Infants baptized, 
 and taken into the Apoftolical Cliurches, when the 
 Scripture fhews no fuch Thing. Now unlefs our Oppo- 
 nents could roll this Stone over, and give us a Scriptural 
 Account of Infants Church>memberfhip, under the New 
 Teftament Difpenfation, they do juft nothing at all to 
 the Purpofe, with their great Noife and Buftle about 
 the Covenant, if c.-— They may ftill expecSt to find us 
 rejefting their j^n^Ji Gloffes, and flrongeft Confequences, 
 as frivolous, without any convincing Force, or Weight 
 at all, in the prefent Cafe ; neither can they thereby 
 prove Matters of Faa. They muft know alfo, that we 
 are beforehand with them in this Point, for we can telj 
 them the Rife, Progrefs, and End of Infants Church- 
 memberfliip in the Jezmjh Church, to be from the Re- 
 turn of Ifrael out of Egypt ; or at the furthefl, from the 
 Days of Abraham^ to Chrift's putting an End to the 
 Jew'ijh CEconpmy. And to ufe Mr. F% vulgar Phrafe, 
 1 Challenge him^ or any other, to fliew that Infants were 
 the Subjeds of any Ordinance, or Church members, by 
 Divine Authority^ ever fmce. Which leads me rjiredly 
 to confider his Third Aflertion, wz. ' That God has ac- 
 
 * tually renewed and confirmed the aforeLid Appoint- 
 
 * ment, under the New Tefiament Difpenfation.' 
 Well, if this is made good, undoubtedly the Controver- 
 cy is forever at an End : But how Mr. F. has difcharg'd 
 himfelf on this Head, fhall be our prefent Searci) and £n. 
 ^uiry. In Jiis Entrance upon this Head, he prefents us| 
 
 with 
 
r 4« ) 
 
 wiih'a fine Flourifh— ' Here, fays he, I am got into a large 
 ' Field, where I have a Variety of Arguments frori) 
 
 * Scripture'-— But he muft know we are not concern'd 
 with the Number and Viiriety of his Arguments, but with 
 their Weight and Solidity ; for he has only order'd us to 
 examine them by JVei^ht, and not Dy Number. 
 
 Here, by the Way, his Repetition of the lame Things, 
 obliges me again to obferve, that this Grand Miftake runs 
 all alon^ thro* this Performance, viz. That the Cove- 
 nant of Grace was made with Man-- The Abfurdities of 
 this Notion I have (hown above- — And here he adds a 
 Text of Scripture out of Gal. iii. 8. winch is as remote to 
 his Bufmefs, as any he had cited before"-This fpeaks 
 that the Gofpel was preached to Abraham— ^ hi^^ qwcrti- 
 ons that ? Don't we always fay, that the Covenant of 
 Grace was revealed to the Fathers long before Chrift 
 came in the Flefh, and that true Believers were intereft- 
 cd in that Covenant ? but what is this to the Point in 
 Hand ?---Indeed to cite Numbers of Scriptures, whea 
 they don't prove what they are brought for, ferves for 
 nothing but to make the poor unthinking Populate imagine 
 that his Performance is well proved, when 'tis no fuel) 
 Thing. 
 
 ' And fmce the Infants of Church- members were once 
 
 * in it, they are in it flili'---This does not follow, be- 
 caufe 'tis confefTed, that thofe who were in Covenant, 
 may be broken ofF---I can't .underftand how that Cove-r 
 nant can be everlafting, which does not everlaftingly fe- 
 cure al! chofe in it from falling a//ay. How abfurd foe- 
 ver i\^r. F. may think our Expolitipn of Gal, iii. 14. to 
 be--- We muft abide by it, ?tili we find a better .• We 
 fay that the ijlefling of Abraham which the Apoftle has 
 there in View, comes whully on the believing Gentiles 
 thro' Chrift-- And at the farpe Tipie deny that the Holy 
 Apoflle meant any thing of Infants Right t« Church- 
 inenjbei{hip---For we are told in the famp Verfe, what 
 the Apoftle meant by Abraham^ Blefling, viz. * The 
 
 * Pfomife of the Spirit j' whofe Work and Office it is 
 to take the Things of Chrift, and fhew them to the 
 jEleil of GocJ, We arp *l^o infofoied in thg fame Verfe, 
 
( 43 ) 
 
 how this Bleffing is received, not by Birth-right, but 
 thro' Faifh. Is it not a marvellous Thing, that our Oppo- 
 nents will labour to prove their Affertion of Infants Right 
 to Church Privileges, from fuch Places as this, which 
 fpeak particularly and delignedly of the Spiritual Seed—- 
 'Tis manifeft that the Aportle's Scope in the Epiflle to 
 the Gnlatians^ was to reclaim thofe People from Juda- 
 i/m— 'There is not a Word in all the Apoftle's ArgU'^ 
 ments, that refers to the Infant Seed of Church-mem- 
 bers, as our Opponents urge--Nor any Thing that looks 
 thac Way, throughout the whole Epiftle. Further, this 
 BleiTing here fpoken of, did not belong to the Jews them- 
 felves, as the natural Offspring of Jbraham, but on the 
 Account of their Regeneration, or New- Birth, Rom.'w, 
 12. With what Face then can Mr. F, conclude that 
 the Gentiles are not Heirs of the Promife, if their Infant 
 Seed are rejected ? Juft as if their Infants Church- mem- 
 berfhip (that infipid Thing) wz?. the Chief, the All, 
 intended by the Bleffing, which the Apoftle mentions. 
 
 The firft Text of Scripture which Mr. F. advances, 
 as tho' it proved the Right of Believers Infants to Church- 
 memberfhip under the Gufpel Difpenfation, is ylils ii. 
 39. For the Promife is unto ygu, and to your Children^ and 
 to all that are afar off, even, as many as the Lord our God 
 Jhallcall. If there is fuch a Thing to be found, asthepower- 
 fulForceof Education, theflrong Ryas of a Mind p're-pof- 
 fefs'd with an Opinion, it may be feen in the Attempts of 
 our Antagonifts to apply this Scripture to their Purpofe ; as 
 I hope to make evidently appear. Mr. F. Gloffeth on this 
 Place, as ifhe expeded his bare Word would ftand for 
 undoubted Proof--* If the Parents ffayshe) repent, they 
 ^ fhall be baptized ; and fince their Chilcjren are in the 
 
 fame Promife, they ftiall be baptized too ; as they had 
 *■- the former initiating Seal, of the Covenant, vi%. Cir- 
 * cumciiion, fo {hall they have the latter, wz. BaDtif.m.' 
 I deny his Affertion, that the Baptijls feek to confine this 
 Promife y to intend only miraculous Gifts : And 1 believe 
 this Gentleman is much unacquainted with our main 
 Strength, when he fays, it is this, viz. that we affirm the 
 iaji Words of the Text to be a Limitation of the for JTier. 
 
( 44 ) 
 But to proceed ; The Words, according to Mr. F. muft 
 be thus paraphras'd, The Promife of RemiJJlon of Sim, of 
 the Gift of the Holy Ghqfi, and Salvation is to you Parents, 
 en your Repentance, and complyitig with the prefent Call, 
 and in Jo doing, your Children are entitled alfo to Baptijm, 
 i^c. But, 
 
 I. The Promife here is the fame both to the Parents 
 and Children ; if it is of the Pardon of Sin, and Gift of 
 the Holy Ghoft to the Parents, 'tis fo to the Children. 
 'Tis ftrange that Mr. F. who charges us with Cw- 
 tailing Abraham's Blejfing, Ihould himfelf Curtail this 
 Promife — That the Parents were to have Remiflion of 
 Sins, ^r.---But all that is pleaded for the'r poor Infants, 
 is that they were to enjoy outward Privileges, to be 
 baptized— Is there any Room for this D'i^in£tion in the 
 Text ? Does the Aportlc make any fuch Difference ? 
 Not at all. For whatever the Promife contains, and is 
 to the Parents, fuch it is, no more nor no Jefs, to the 
 Children : 'Tis evident that the Expofition of our Oppo- 
 nents, tends to faften a Glofs upon the Apoftle's Words, 
 which Isfalfe ; for if Children are interelted in this Pro- 
 mife, by Virtue of their Parents Interefl in it, then it 
 follows they have Remiflion of Sins, the Gift of the Ho- 
 ly Ghoft, and Salvation, upon the Account of their Pa- 
 rentsRepentance and Faith--Which is not true : Becaufe 
 thefe are the Things contain'd in the Promife, and the 
 Promife is the fame to the Children as it is to the Parents. 
 Or to fvippofe that by Children here, we mult underftand 
 Infants, and that Church -memberfliip belongs to them at 
 Prefent, but thefe Spiritual Bieflings were not to be con- 
 ferred upon them 'till afterward, would be contrary to 
 Mr. i^sown VVay of arguing— That the Promife is expref- 
 fed in the prefent Tenfe. 
 
 In the Way he goes on, he muft neceffarily fall on one 
 of thcT::; Abfurdities, either, i. That the fame Promife is 
 not the fame, or of the faqie Fulnefs to Children, as it 
 is to the Parents ; or, %. That Children are entitled to 
 PardonofSin, the Gift of the Holy Qhoft, ^ndSalvation, 
 upon their Parents Faith ? Or elfe, 3. Be obliged to own 
 that which |i? h^ fondeiunsd in R§fpe^ pf the T^nfc 
 ufed iitre, a. Seeing 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 2. Seeing the Gofpcl is not preach'd to Infants, nei- 
 ther do the Precepts of it enjoin Repentance upon Infants 
 as a Duty, in that Capacity : Let Mr. F. (hew the Scrip- 
 tural Grounds of his Practice, or even the Reafonablenefs 
 of his Opinion, that Infants are capable of giving Obedi- 
 ence to God in Baptifra, the fecond Step here exprefs'd in 
 the Context as a Duty, when they are not capable of the 
 firft, viz. Repentance j or (hew his Authority for his 
 perverting the Apoftle's Words, to countenance Infant 
 Baptifm : For inftead of reading Repent an^be baptised, 
 he muft always read the Scripture backward, ' Be bap' 
 
 * tized and repent y whenever he has to do with baptizing 
 of Infants, contrary to the Apoftle's Words, and the 
 whole Tenor of the Word of God. Methinks our Op- 
 ponents don't diftinguifh between Promifes and Com- 
 mands, in the Way they argue ; 'tis certain, a Promife 
 can never make that to be a Duty, which is not com- 
 manded ; and therefore, to urge the baptizing of Infanta 
 from this Place, to be a Duty (which God has no where 
 ordered or commanded) muft needs be a fad abufe of this 
 Promife. 
 
 3. There is not any Thing in the Text or Context 
 which leads us to conclude, that by (Children) here we 
 muft underftand Infants, but altogether to the Contrary : 
 Tho* Mr. F. fays, * The Word Teknois^ fignifies an 
 
 * Offspring, tho' it were a Minute old.' But will he 
 prefume to fay, this Word fignifies an Offspring of fuch 
 an Age only ? -f^ * It is a general Word, which in Scrip- 
 
 * ture, and other Writers, is ufcd to fet forth all Sort of 
 ' Children, of what Sex, of what Age, of what Degree 
 
 * foever they be.' And fo we find it here abundantly in 
 our Favour, comparing this 39th Verfe of the 2d Chapter 
 of the yiSfs, with the 17th Verfe of the fame Chapter, 
 where thefe, who are here called Children, are there 
 called Sons and Daughters, grown to fuch Years of Ma- 
 turity, as to receive the Holy Ghoft by the hearing of 
 Faith, and to Prophefy ; which does not very well fuit 
 With Mr. F% Defign of Reftriding the IVerd in this Place, 
 
 a& 
 
( 46 ) 
 as fho' it intended only an Infant of a Minute old, of at 
 moft one very young. The ftated Order of God, whereby 
 People receive the Holy Ghoft, is by hearing the Word. 
 Gal. iii. 2. Msx. 44. Rom. x. 17. iCar. iii. 8. And 
 in the Ufe of appointed Means and Ordinances to receive 
 further Meafures of the Spirit. Now feeing this is a Pro- 
 mife of the Holy Ghofl to Children, as well as to the 
 Parents, there is no Room to conclude that the Apoftle 
 meant Infants who are incapable to receive the Holy 
 Ghofl bv hearing the Word ; but Children of riper 
 Years : For what is here fpokenj is according to the flated 
 Order of God in the A^Iiniftry of the Word, wherein 
 Peter and the Apoftles were then Exerciftng. Nor will 
 our Arguings on this Head, afford our Opponents Room 
 to cavil, that we caft away Infants utterly ;—becaufcJ 
 we are not fpeaking of what God does with Infants, but 
 of his Order in the Gofpel Miniftry, with thofe come to 
 Years of Underftanding. Neither can I find what thofe 
 Notes are, whereby Mr. F. can (b plainly diftinguifh 
 thefe Children ffum fach as were come to Years.— -By 
 what is found in Scripture concerning them, (or the 
 Meaning of the Apoftle in thefe Words^ they arc plainly 
 diftinguifh'd to be fuch who were ad vane' J to Years of 
 Maturity, that they were capab'c to hear the Word, and 
 to receive the Spirit by heaiing of it > which is an Evi- 
 dence of the Truth which we alledge,-— and ferves to 
 Ihew the Invalidity of what Mr. F. utges,— that thefe 
 Children were join'd with their Parents, therefare they 
 muft be Infants. 
 
 4. If thofe Children here mentioned, were in Cove- 
 nant, in the Manner our Opponents plead for by Vertue 
 of thisPromife, fo alfo were the unconverted Gentiles ; 
 for the Promife runs exadly the fame to them in the pre- 
 fent Tenfe, as it dues to the Children, viz. i. The Pro- 
 mife is to you. 2. The Promife is to your Children. 
 3. The Promife is to them afar off : But if the uncon- 
 •verted Gentiles v/ere not, neither were Infants ; for the 
 fame Reafon holds, take it which Way you will. 'Tis 
 a little odd, that this Gentleman who pre'ends to under- 
 ilaiid Grammar, fhould be guilty of fuch a Grammatical 
 
 Blui>^ 
 
( 47 ) 
 
 blunder fiiihfelf, in fo plain a Cafe, as to affert, fhat 
 ' when the Apoflle fpeaks to the Jewi^ he fpealcs in the 
 
 • prefent Tenfe j but, mentioning the Gentiles, he fpeaks 
 
 • in tht future Tenfe.' As the Apoftle does not fay the 
 the Promife is to you, znA Jhall be to your Children, fo 
 neither does he fay it Jhall be to the Gentiles ; hut the 
 Promife is to them afar ofF. If Mr. F. has Liberty 
 to alter the Verb (underftood) in the laft Claufe from the 
 prefent Tenfe to the future, we defire to know why we 
 may not have the like Liberty to change the fame Verb 
 (underftood) from the prefent Tenfe to the future too ;—• - 
 and fo make the W^oids run thus :— The Promife is to 
 you, and fliall be tc/yotrr Children, l^c. How could Mr. 
 F. help himfelf, but only fay, that we were like him, 
 guilty o/falfe Con{lru<aion.— But to fet Mr. F. in the 
 Right J 'tis not the Promife that is exprefled in the future 
 Tenfe, but the Work of God in calling the Gentiles ; 
 and the Apoftle fhews who among the Gentiles the Pro- 
 mife refpeded : Even as many as the Lord our God fhall 
 tail. And confidering what the Promife was, viz. Re« 
 milfion of Sins, the Gift of the Holy Ghoft, and Salva* 
 tion, neither of three Parties (Parents, Children, or 
 Gentiles) were Partakers of it., or interefted in it, but 
 according to the Order of the Gofpel, A^s -Xx. 21. 
 Hence Mr. Fs Queftion ' If nofpeeial Privileges be de- 
 iijgn'd for the Children of Believers in this Text, for what 
 End are they join'd with their Parents in the Promife ?* 
 is eafily anfwered, viz. for the fame End that the Gen- 
 tiles were join'd with both in this Promife, i. e. to be fa- 
 red through Faith in Chrift Jefus. 
 
 We have compared this Place with Gen. xvii. 7. (ac- 
 cording to Mr. Fs Defire) and can do no lefs than declare 
 to the World, that we can't behold the Agreement at all 
 in the Light our Opponents reprefent it; unlefs i. all 
 jfbraham's flefhly Seed were Partakers of Remiffion of 
 Sins, and of the Gift of the Holy Ghoft ; or 2. Un- 
 lefs the Promife here is not the fame to the Children 
 as it is to the Parents. 'Till either of thefe Things are 
 ftade appear, we can't fee any Refemblance thcfe Places 
 
 have 
 
, ( 48 ) 
 
 have to each other, that wiJl fuit the prefent Purpofe ot 
 our Adverlaries at alJ. 
 
 5. And laflly : That which fully overthrows all that 
 our Opponents have raifed from this Scripture in Favour 
 of their Pradlice, and which will forever render all their 
 future Endeavours ufelefs and invalid on this Head, is the 
 Account which the Scripture gives us of this Affair, yf^s 
 ii. 41, 42. Then tliey tkat gh6\y received his fford were 
 baptized : and the jame Day there were added unto them 
 about Three Thoufand Souls. And they continued Jledfajily 
 in the A'-.oJlUs DoSirine and Fellowjhip^ and in breaking of 
 Breads and in Prayers. Here is no mention of any bap- 
 tized, but thofe who received the Gofpel gladly : Not a 
 Wordofjtiy Infants baptized. I feel in my Soul a Pity 
 for my Opponents, that they will fo ftrenuoufly main- 
 tain a Practice for which there is no Command j nor any 
 Hint, Inftance, or Exan)ple of it in the Word of God. 
 
 Heie I would juft afk them, what fignifies it for them 
 to urge this Place of Scripture to ftrve a Purpofe it was 
 not originiilly defign'd for, as is abundantly manifeft from 
 the Verfes before and after ? When there is no Record 
 of Infant Baptifm in Scripture, what can any One 
 conclude but this, that the Apoftlcs were unacquainted 
 ■with it ? ^ 
 
 What Ground is left our Opponents, but only to fay, 
 that Infa/its might be baptized, tho' the Scripture does 
 not mention it. A forry Shift / They may as well fay, 
 that Infants alfo received the Lord's Supper ; becaufe 
 the Words are exprefs, that thofe uho were baptized, con- 
 tinued fiedfafily in the Apofiles Do£lrine^ and in breaking 
 of Bie.d/Vc-. 
 
 So that upon an Examination of this Place, our Afler- 
 tion. That profefling Believers are the only proper Sub- 
 je<3:s of Baptifm, ftill abides impregnable ; and the Ahfur-^ 
 dity, and Nonfenfe^ which Mr. F. would fling fo plen- 
 tifully on our Asguments, rebound on his own : When 
 he does not reprefent the fame Promifs, to be as full 
 to the Children, as it is to the Parents : When he would 
 disjoin that which the Aportle puts together, and indeed 
 invert the Order of his Words, by placing Baptifm be- 
 fore 
 
C 49 ) 
 fore Repentance, contrary to the whole Tenor of th« 
 Word of God : When he would urge that by Children, 
 we muft underftand Jittle Infants,, who are incapable 
 to receive the Holy Ghoft by hearing, according to the 
 ftated Order of God : When he afferts that the Apoftlo 
 mentioning the Gentiles, fpeaks in the future Tenfe, 
 contrary ro the very Conftrudlion of the Words : And, 
 when he infinuates that Believers Infants are to be bapti~ 
 zed, tho' the whole Context makes utterly againft him. 
 Hence it plainly appears, that this Place of Scripture hat 
 another Meaning than what Mr. F. hath aflign'd to it. 
 
 * Tho' he profefles he can as foon turn Sceptick, and 
 
 * conclude that the Scripture has no certain Meaning at 
 
 * all, as conclude that the Scripture now under Debate, 
 ' can have a contrary Meaning to what he has aflign'd' 
 Whether he'll turn Sceptick, I can't tell-But this I am 
 fure of, that a Mifinterpretation of Scripture, is attend- 
 ed with very dangerous Confequences, as well as Scepti- 
 cifm. And his Certainty and Refolution in this Cafe, 
 Ihews his firm Attachment to his own Opinion, and 
 Glofs upon the Text, more than it proves the Meaning; 
 he has aflign'd, to be the real Intent of the Words. Up- 
 on the whole. Infants Right to Church- memberfhip, 
 under the New Teftament Difpenfation, is fo far from 
 being proved or confirmed, by this Scripture (of which 
 Mr. F. fays it is enough to their Purpofe, if there wera 
 no other) that it can't be done without manifeft Violence 
 offered to thefe facred Words. 
 
 At theClofehe entertains his Readers with an Apology 
 for his dwelling fo long on thefe Words— And for A- 
 mends, tells them he purpofes greater Brevity hereafter i 
 but withal, gives them to underftand, if they don't find 
 his Performance according to his Purpofe, they muff: 
 know the Caufe of it to be the great Heaps oi Rubbijk 
 caft on every controverted Text, which requires Time 
 and Pains to Jhove them away. 'Tis reafonable to fup- 
 pofe, that every thinking Man, will confider One 
 whofe Work is fo great, and make Allowance of Time 
 in Proportion to do it. But Mr. F. muft have very ex- 
 alted Thoughts of himfelf and his Brethren, if he fuppofes 
 
 D that 
 
( 5d ) 
 
 that they have not brought at Icaft their equal Share o' 
 Rubbifli, to make thefc numerous Heaps to become (o 
 great. However this Gentleman is pleas'd to call our 
 Arguments by the odious Name of Rubbijh, yet I am rea- 
 dy to think, there are fuch great Heaps of Scriptural 
 Evidences, which f^and in his Way of proving Infants 
 to be the Subjects of Baptifm, that were he to take much 
 more Time and Pains, he would not be able with his 
 Shovel of human Confequenccs, ever to Jhove them out 
 Qf his Way. 
 
 * I next advance (fays he) that very clear and unan- 
 fwerable Place, in Rom. xi. 1 6, 17. For if the Firji 
 Fruit be holy, the Lwnp is alfo holy : And if the Root 
 be holj^ Jo are the Branches : And if forrie of the Bran- 
 ches be broken offy and thou being a wild Olive -Tree^ 
 wert graffed in amongji them, and with them partake/i of 
 the Root, and Fatnefsofthe Olive-Tree? The Expreffionc 
 (we find) are metaphorical : Now 'tis certain, no Me- 
 taphor is to h?: jirain'd to prove any Thing which is not 
 reveard elfewhere in Scripture : That the Infants of be- 
 lieving Gentiles are fcefderally holy, and the Subjefts of 
 BaptiAn, is no where revealed in Scripture : Then to 
 improve the Apoftle's metaphorical Expreflions^ oi an 
 Olive Tree cutting of--Graffing in, &c. to prove Infanta 
 Right to Baptifm, appears at firft Sight very weak and 
 JnfufRcient. 
 
 2, The Gentiles who were graffed in, were not graf- 
 fed into the Jewijh' Church, as it ftood under the Law ; 
 but into the New Teftament Church, under the Gofpe! 
 Difpenfatron ; which, as I have ftiown, was conftituted 
 and made up of profefTing Believers. And I may add, 
 1 Cor, xii. 13. For by one Spirit are we all baptized int$ 
 tine Body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we 
 h Bond or Free : And have been all made to drink into one 
 Spirit. Did the Sacrament of Baptifm initiate Perfons 
 into the Jewijh, or into the Gofpel Church ? Into the 
 Gofpel Church no Doubt : For if otherwife, the Jews 
 -would have no Need to be baptized, to initiate them m- 
 to the vifible Church, under the New Teftament, it 
 they were in it already. Mr. F. himfelf, I think, fully 
 •wns what I atri now upon, when he laysj * There is a 
 
 Wide 
 
( 51 ) 
 
 wide Difference between Gathering and Ptrmtng a 
 Church from among thofe who are ignorant of Chrif- 
 tianity ; and a Church already gathered, and form'd^ 
 and inftrudted— For in profeliting Jews or Pagans to 
 Chriftianity, they muft of Neceflity be taught, befor© 
 they can either profefs their Faith in the Doftrinesof it, 
 or be admitted to Baptifm.' 
 Pray what can Mr. F. call this Church thus gathered, 
 by teaching, from amongft yews and Pagans ? but the 
 New Teftament vifible Church. And what are the Ma- 
 terials whereof this Ghriftian Church is form'd and con- 
 ftituted ? Why thofe that are taught ^whether Jews or 
 Pagans) and who do profefs their Faitn in the Doftrinei 
 of Chriftianity, and are thereupon admitted to Baptifm. 
 One fhould think by all this, that we are perfeftly 
 agreed as to the firft Gonftitution of the New Teftament 
 Church. Now I fay, the Believing Gentiles were graff^ed 
 into this NewTeftamentChurch,thus gathered, form'd, 
 and inftruded, and fo had the Gofpel preach'd unto 
 them, and partook of all its Benefits together with thofe 
 jews^ which through Grace believed j and thus both 
 Jews and Gentiles in fweet Gofpel Unity, enjoyed th* 
 Fatnefs of the Olive Tree, and no otherwife : But that 
 the Infants of thofe Believing Jews or Gentiles were ad- 
 mitted to Baptifm upon the Account of Covenant Holi- 
 nefs, is a Notion never as yet confirmed by Scripture^ 
 nor ever like to be. 
 
 Having prepared the "Way fo far, we need not be much 
 concern'd about all the Force Mr. F. raifes here againft 
 the Truth we profefs. He argues from this Text i 
 
 • However (fays he) here is aflerted, i. thefcederal Holi-» 
 ' nefs of Believers Children. If the Root be holy, fo are 
 
 • the Branches : God has faid it, and who dare to unfay 
 
 • it ? The Anabaptifts are ftill puzzled about this foede-, 
 
 • ral Holinefs, and fortie cannot, others perhaps will not 
 
 • underftand it.* Anf. Whatever Ignorance and Ohjiinacf 
 \Ax.F. imagines the Anabaptifts to bepoflefs'd with, I can 
 saffure him they are not fo much puzzled to underftand 
 tvhat Foederal Holinefs is, as they arc to find Scriptural 
 Grounds for it under the Gofpel Difpenfation. The 
 
 D 2 Heafoilk 
 
( 52 ) 
 
 Reafon of their Ignorance, is for want of knowing that 
 which no Body can (hew them. And the Caufe ot their 
 Obftinacy, is for not taking the Aflertions of their Oppo- 
 nents for fufficient Proof, without Scriptural Teftimony. 
 But how is the F"oederal Holinefs of HeHevers Children 
 aflerted in this Text ? ' Why if the Root be holy, fo are 
 * the Branches.'- -If according to Mr. F. we underftand 
 the Apoftle to mean Abraham by this Metaphor ? How 
 can the Fa-ieral Holinels of Believers Children be aflerted 
 here ? Mr. F. won't aflert fure, that every Believing Pa- 
 rent is a Root to his Family or Poiterity, 'dsAhraham was 
 to his ? or that 9\)' fuch Thing is here intended by the 
 Apoftle; forihey^w^, the Pofterity of y/^;Y7/(?^w, were 
 called but the Branches, much lefs then can any Gentiles 
 be called the Root ; of whom the Apoftle faith they were 
 grafFed in among the tiranches : But that the natural 
 Offoprmg of thofe Branches (the Gentiles) who were 
 grafted in contrary to Nature, are upon that Account 
 fcederally Holy, is what the Apoftle does not afllert, nor 
 any Thmg in his Scope which tends that Way. For 
 the yews^ the Natural Branches flood, not by Foederal 
 Holinefs, as under the Law, but by Faith in Chrifl ; 
 and fo in the NewTeftament Church, which as I have 
 proven, was made up of profefiing Believers :---But their 
 Infant Seed were not baptized as we have an Account of. 
 Now amongft thefe, the Believing Gentiles were grafted 
 in, and partook alfo of the Benefits of the Gofpel, Rom. 
 XT. 12. And this is indeed agreeable with the Apoftle's 
 Words, of the Gentiles partaking of the Fatnefs of the 
 Olive Tree. The Sum is juft this ; That Believing 
 *fezvs and Gentiles were united together in one Body in 
 the New Teftament Church, and fo were Partakers to- 
 gether of the precious and nourifhing Benefits of the Gof- 
 pel of Chrifl. But what Fatnefs is there in External Pri- 
 vileges fimply confidered ? Nay what Fatnefs is there in 
 Baptifm to Infants ? feeing our Opponents are not able 
 to mention any Nourifljment this Ordinance of God's 
 Houfe afi^urds them, wliilft Infants. To Baptize Infants 
 cait't be doing Obedience and Service to God, becaufe he 
 bas ngt commanded it. To Baptize Infants, feals no 
 
 Proraif* 
 
( 53 ) 
 
 Promlfe to them, becaufe there Is no Promife annex'd to 
 Infant Biiptifm. And yet this is the Mighty Nothing that 
 muft be fo ftrenuoufly fupported to divide the Chn'ftian 
 World with, as Mr. F. further urges : ' If the Children 
 ' of Believing Gentiles are excluded, we muft read the 
 ' Scripture backwards, and fay, the Believiv.^ G^«///i>j did 
 
 * not partake of the Root and Fatnefs of the fame Ohve 
 
 * Tree with the Believing Jews'— -^ut why this harte ? 
 This Gentleman fadly forgets himfelf, for he has not yet 
 fhewn that the Children of the Believing Jews were ad- 
 mitted into the New Teftament Church; vihat runs in 
 his Mind, is the JciviJJi National Churjh under the Law : 
 But the Gentiles were not grafFed into that, but into the 
 new gather'd and form'd Church, made up of Jewi 
 profelyted to Chriflianity, i. e. the Chriftian vifible 
 Church under the New Teftament Difpenfation. And 
 before Mr. F. can have any Room to fay that we muPc 
 read the Scripture backwards, he muft firft prove that 
 any Jewijh Infants were admitted into the New Tefta- 
 ment Church ; and till he does that, we will read this 
 Scripture forwards, without any Oppofition ; yea, and 
 People after us to Thoufand Generations. 
 
 idly. He fays, * The Text aflerts that the Believing 
 ' Gentiles were made Partakers of the fame Privileges 
 
 * that Abraham and his Seed partook of ; Thou being a 
 
 * wild Olive Tree. Here this one Thing is plain beyond 
 
 * Difpute, w'z. That the fame Privileges from which the 
 
 * unbelieving Je-vos were broken off, the fame were the 
 
 * Believing Gentiles graffed into.' Anf. The Text does 
 only afTert, that Believing Gentiles did partake with the 
 Believing Jews^ of the Root and Fatnefs of the Olive 
 Tree, /, e. Spiritual and faving Benefits, in Unity in the 
 New Teftament Church : But does not aflert that the 
 Gentiles were graffed into the JewiJhChnxch^ as it flood 
 under the Law ; or that the jewejh Church State conti- 
 nued under the Gofpel Difpenfation. Nay the Text does 
 not affert that any of the Infant Seed of either J^ws or 
 Gentiles were entitled to Baptifm by Birth-Privilege, or 
 foederal Holinefs. From this Place, under Confideration, 
 thefe Conclufwns may properly be deduc'd,<:oaci»rrent 
 
 D 3 v..sr 
 
( 54 ) 
 with other Places of Holy Scripture, i. That nothing 
 Ihort of Faith in the Mejiah gave any of the Jews Admit- 
 tance to, and a Standing in the New Teftament Church 5 
 el(e why were the unbelieving Jews rejected, notwith* 
 itanding their being the Seed of Abraham^ &c ? 
 
 2. That none of the Gentiles were admitted into the 
 New Teftament Church, but by Faith likewife : ' Thou 
 
 * ftandeft by Faith.' 
 
 3. That the New Teftament Church is made up of 
 profefling Believers only. 
 
 4. That it is the Apoftle's Scope to- ftiew the fpecial 
 and faving Benefits which Believers, Jews and Gentiles^ 
 do enjoy by the Gofpel : To have their Souls nourifhed 
 by the Fatnefs of the Olive Tree ; and alfo to keep the 
 latter humble in their high Enjoyments. 
 
 Now upon the Whole, inafmuch as the Apoftle docs 
 neither affert the Foederal Holinefs of Believers Infants, 
 jior give us any Account of the Natural Offspring of 
 Ctntiles to be included in the Ingrafture, together with 
 their Believing Parents, we juftly reje£l our Opponents 
 Confequences on this Head, as being altogether forced, 
 and quite invalid. And the Point to be proven, viz,. 
 That Infants are Church Members under the New Tefta- 
 ment Difpenfation, juft remains where it was, viz. An 
 AfTertion without Proof, and therefore not worth any 
 one's Notice or Regard. Whilft in the mean Time, the 
 Truth we profefs and maintain, That Profefling Believers 
 are the only proper Subjeds of Baptifm, like pure Gold^ 
 ilill retains its Weighty Worth, and Splendor. 
 
 * A Third Scripture I advance (fays he) for Proof of the 
 
 * Point, is I Cor. vii. 14. Fgr the unbelieving Hujband is 
 
 * JanSiified by the IPlfe, and the unbelieving Wife is fan£ii- 
 
 * fied by the HuJ})and, elfe were your Children unclean, but 
 
 * now are they holy.* 
 
 All that Mr. F. advances from the Scripture to ferve 
 his Putpofe, is eafily refuted, by obferving the Occafion 
 of the Words, and Scope of the Apoftle in them, which 
 was to refolve the Coxinthians in a Cafe of Confcicnce, 
 refpedling Divorcement, ver, xii. 13. It feems fome 
 9inong them held thcmfelves pqjiluted, by being married 
 
( 55 ) 
 
 to Unbelievers, i t. Heathen Idolaters (whom they ha4 
 
 ^a? red ber; their Converfion) and thought therefor. 
 
 Spirting from them. The Jews of old were ftriaiy 
 
 ?orb^d to^ marry with other Nations, Deut.vn 3. 4. 
 
 NelLah aT theVformation (on the Return of the Jevjs 
 
 out of the Babylonijh Captivity, feverely pumfhed thofc 
 
 X had married ftrange Wives, m. xu. 23 25. 
 
 And E^ra the Prieft taught them what was the VV.U of 
 
 God fn hat Cafe. Xe have tranMef^ and have taken 
 
 firame Wtves to encreafe the trej^s / /^rael Now 
 
 '^iZ/ore make ConfcffJunto the Lord God .fyour Fathers 
 
 andL his Pleafurifand separate your^ fromh^ 
 
 ^Peotleofthe Land, and from the ftrange Wives lizra x. 
 
 fo^ii^ 'Tis not improbable that the Scruple ot the 
 
 CorMians arofe upon the Confederation of God's former 
 
 Ap mlt amon'g the Jews and fo thought them- 
 
 felves polluted by dwelling with Infidels, and that it was 
 
 difXC to God. Their Queftion feem'd to be whether 
 
 SMafrlage was not d.ffelved upon one's embracing 
 
 Chriftianity, and fo their Cohabitation unlawtu.. _ 
 
 The Apoftle refolves this Cafe, that their Marriage is 
 not diflblved, upon One's embracing Chnftiamty, and 
 
 the olh^r no't ; 'for tU -.^^^-^i;.^*;^;;/:,^^^ 
 h the mfe, and the unbelieving IVife ts fanmiled by' the 
 
 %$and/' The Conjugal Society of the unbehe^mg 
 
 ' Party, is fandified (/. e. fays t- Mr Cradoc^k made 
 
 * lawful and allowed) to the believmg Party, ij^^ >;• 
 « c » 'I rather think (fays Pool * ) 't (u e, the Word 
 
 <%naijied) fignifies brought i"^« ^^f ^ ^^f^ J^^^'^tv 
 
 * Beheier, without Offence to the Law of God may 
 
 ^ cominue in a Marned E^-^^ ^^^^ ^"^^^^,t^' ' 
 « low; and tlie State of Marriage is an Holy State, not- 
 
 * v^ithftanding the Difparity with Rf"^"^^^^..^.^: 
 « lieion.' Elfe were your Children unclean, t.i. it the 
 Diverfity in Religion diflblved your Marriage Covenant, 
 rr "ur 'co-habit^tion, upon that Account, was unlaw, 
 ful Your Children begotten fince, or in fuch a btate 
 .^ould be illegitimate, Sr Baftards. But it - "Ot fo, f^ 
 fch« Unbeliever is fandified by the Believer (mads law^^ 
 
 I Apoft, HJft. F»J« x^J' * *" ^*«« 
 
( 56 ) 
 
 Jul) your Marriage is not difannulled, or made void ; 
 but you are lawful Hufband and Wife, and your Chil- 
 dlren holy, /'. e. born in lawful Wedlock, or legitimate 
 Children. " 
 
 This appears to be the natural, unconftrain'd, and 
 genuine Senfe of the Place. Here is no Ground to con- 
 clude, that the Apoftle was about averting the Children 
 of Believers to be foederally Holy, and the Subjeas of 
 IJaptifm, evenasMr. /". himfclf ftatestheQueftion, viz 
 Whether a Believer might lawfully dwell with an Un- 
 believer, as Hufband and Wife ? ' Now had it been 
 unlawful for fuch to dwell together as Hufband and Wife 
 vhat Confequence could Mr. F. poffibly infer, but that 
 which every one knows, viz. That their Children would 
 be unclean, ;. e. Baftards ? For furely nothing couW 
 iol low an unlawful Cohabitation, but an illegitimate, or 
 tinlawful Offipring. But feeing it was lawful for fuch to 
 dwell together as Hufband and Wife, what can any one 
 rationally underfland on the other Hand, but that the 
 -Apoflle meant their Children were legitimate? OurGloTs 
 eppears fo natural and genuine, from the Apoflle's Expref- 
 lions, and from the Queflion, as Mr. F. himfelf flates 
 It, that It IS not readily overthrown. Tho' he is pleafed 
 ^ fay, that the Refutation of our Expofition, is eafy. 
 Truly he mufl advance fomething more than he has yet 
 ^one (or his bare faying, that one of the Parents being a 
 ^el.ever, convey'd to the Children the Priviledoe of 
 Church-memberfhip) before he can refute it ; feeing 
 there is no fuch Thing (as our Opponents urge) intima- 
 ted in the Apoftle's Difcourfe ; nor can rationally be 
 <leduc'd from his Words. 
 
 For the Corinthians to queflion the Unlawfulnefs of 
 luch Cohabitation, plainly befpeaks, they were unac- 
 quainted with any fuch Thing, as the foederal Holinefs 
 of Believers Children ; which they could not have been 
 Ignorant of, if the Apoflles had conflantly taught fuch 
 iJoarine, as our Opponents fuggeft. 
 
 Neither does our Argument afFord thofe Confbquen- 
 ces, which Mr. F. would fain infer from it : For In- 
 stance i I Tljat die Children of al] Unbelievers are 
 
 JBailards. 
 
( 57 ) 
 
 Baftards,* Seeing there is no Body queflions but Marri- 
 age is lavjfid z.nd honourable in them- --But it was quefti- 
 on'd among the Corinthians^ whether it was lawful for a 
 BeHever and Unbehever, to dwell together as Hufband 
 and Wife : The Cafes are not Parallel, therefore his 
 Inference is falfe. 
 
 To what Purpofe does he tell us, that this is the fame 
 Word, which the Apoftles ufed in their Epiftles to the 
 Churches ? Tois ogiois, to the Saints, or Holy : There 
 is no Reafon to conclude from thofe Epiftles, that the 
 Apoftles fent them to Infants, together with their Parents. 
 Neither will it hold, becaufe Church Members are call- 
 ed Jgi(fiy Holy, that therefore the Holinefs here attribu- 
 ted to Children, proves them to be Church-members ; 
 for the Church-members, to whom the Apoftles wrote, 
 were called holy- Not becaufe they were born of Be- 
 lieving Parents, but becaufe they were called of God, 
 Rom. i. 7. I Cor. i. 2. And the Apoftles like wife (hew 
 •which Way they were called, viz. By the preaching of 
 the Gofpel, 2 The/, ii. 14. Can any Thing then be 
 more vain and abfurd, than for Mr. F. to infmuate, that 
 Believers Infants may be called Holy, in the fame Senfe 
 that thofe Church -members were fo denominated, viz. 
 p>om the inward Work of Grace begun in their Souis, 
 and an outward Profeilion of, and Conformity to Gof- 
 pel Truths in their Lives, when there is no fuch Thing 
 mentioned concerning thefe Children ? Are they faid to 
 be called of God, Faithful Brethren ? Is their Faith 
 ipoken of throughout the World ? Is their Love, Pati- 
 ence and Hope, any where commended ? Is their Gof- 
 pel Obedience manifeft ? Not at all. Hence it is fafe 
 to conclude, that thofe Children are not called holy in 
 the Senfe that Church-members are fo denominated ; 
 but truly and properly in the Way I have before obfer- 
 ved, however contrary it may be to Mr. F's received 
 Opinion. And how impertinent is Mr. F's Queflion ! 
 
 * I would afk, why the Anabaptifts may not as well un- 
 
 * derftand the Apoftle to write to thofe in Rome, Corinthy 
 
 * or GaJaiia, who were not Baftards, as to underftand 
 
 * holy in this Text, to be only legitimate ?' Jnf. It 
 
 feenis 
 
( 5? ) 
 
 lecms by Mr. F. that if we underftand the Word td 
 he legitimate in this Place, we muft neceflarily under- 
 l^aiid the Apoftle to write to thofe at Rome, ^c. who 
 were not Bailards. But I think I have {hewn a very 
 great Difference in the Cafe. As there is nothing that 
 moves us to think the Apoftle msant Legitimacy, when 
 jbe wrote to the Saints at Rome ; fo neitlier is there any 
 Thing here, that inclines us to believe he meant Federal 
 Molinefs^ when he refolved the Corinthian Doubts. 
 
 But being weary of ftanding to Anfwer trivial Objec- 
 tions, I proceed to his Fourth, and laft: Scripture, ad- 
 vanc'd to prove Infants Church-memberfhip : Namely, 
 Mark X. 13, 14. y^nd they brought young Children t9 
 hinit that he Jhould touch them (not baptize them) and 
 his Dijciples rebuked thofe that brought thein : But when 
 Jefus faixj it, he was much difpleafed, and /aid unto them^ 
 Suffer the little Children to come unto me, and forbid them 
 not: For of fuch is the Kingdom of God. v. 16. And he 
 took them up in his ArmSy put his Hands upon them., and 
 ilejfed them. It feems wherever our Opponents find any 
 Thing fpoken of Children, they prefently fancy their 
 Baptifm is not very far ofF, however foreign to their 
 Purpofe it be. Mr, F. having fail'd of producing any 
 Thing like a Proof, hitherto, for Infants Church- mem- 
 berfliip, or their Right to Baptifm, hopes to find fome 
 Relief from this Place now under Confideration ; from 
 •which he obferves divers Particulars, but feems to be ac 
 a great Lofs upon which of them to fix, as a certain 
 Ground of his Practice. One while he tells us, * The 
 
 * Difciples forbad the Children to be brought to Chrift, 
 
 * as the Anabaptifts now do.'—Intimating, that thofe 
 Children were brought to Chrift with a Defign to have 
 them baptized. But a little after fays, ^ The Anabap- 
 
 * tifts cannot prove that thofe Children were not baptized 
 
 * before by John the Baptift ; which feems the mote 
 
 * probable, in that Chrift laid his Hands on them, 
 
 * which was an extraordinary Ordinance then in ufe, and 
 
 * always adminifired after Baptifm.* If thefe Children 
 were baptized before by fohn ('as Mr. F. thmks it to be 
 il^^morf prohtlf Opima) CSfttiOly tbeo they were not 
 
( 59 ) 
 
 brought to CLrift with any View to have them baptized, 
 unlefs their Parents (or whoever brought them) were for 
 having their Children ituice baptized ; which is not very 
 likely. If the Difciples forbad them to come*to Chrift, 
 for Impofttion of Hands, the Baptiftscan't atallbe charg'd 
 with forbidding Children to come to Chrift ; for our 
 Opponents don't plead that they have a Right to that 
 Extraordinary Ordinance* 'Tis fome odd kind of Talk 
 to fay that we forbid thofe to come, which nobody offer* 
 to bring. Here is fome mighty Refemblance fure, be- 
 twixt the Difciples and Anabaptifts ! when the Cafes 
 you fee, are no Ways parallel. At this Rate of arguing, 
 it may be as juftly faid * The Difciples then forbad 
 ' Children to be brought to Chrift, as the Prefbyterians 
 
 * now do'— In not admitting them to Impofition of 
 Hands, or to the Lord's Supper ; when, in the mean 
 Time, Nobody offers to bring them. 
 
 But if his Meaning is, that the Baptifts forbid Children 
 to be baptized, as he fuppofesthe Difciples forbad them to 
 come to that Extraordinary Ordinance.-- He Ihould have 
 exprefs'd himfclf fo, and not have labour'd to infmuatc 
 into the Minds of his Readers, That the Difciples were 
 rebuk'd for that Fault, which he would fain Charge upon 
 the Baptifts, viz. Forbidding Children to be brought to 
 Baptifm, when no fuch Thing is mentioned in the Text, 
 nor urged from it by our Opponent. 
 
 But then it feems here is a new modelled Argument, 
 which Mr. i^ would frame from thofe Words, viz, 
 
 * Chrift laid his Hand upon them Children as baptized Per- 
 « fons, therefore Children are to be baptized.' Anf. It does 
 not feem a very difficult Tajh, to prove th^t thofe Infant? 
 were not baptized by John (if we muft be ftill fet upon to 
 prove a Negative) not only from what Mr. F. fays, ' The 
 
 * Scriptures vyhich require Faith and Repentance, are 
 
 * addrefled only to grown Perfons, and not to Infants* 
 and we find John baptized none upon any other Account ; 
 but even Uomiat Carriage andS^/??«t'/a«r of the Difciples 
 on this Occafion : For had it been the known Cuftom of 
 John to baptize Infants, and the conftant Pradice of 
 Chrift to lay his Hands upoft them as baptis&ed Perfons. 
 
( 6o } 
 
 It is no ways rcafcnable to imagine that the Difciples 
 would have cntertain'd fuch wrong Notions ahut these 
 v i7f^ Pr;w/^^a, more than others (unjcfs thefe were 
 the Children ot unbeheving Parents, that they would not 
 have brought to Chrjft) Co as to forbid them that brought 
 
 rT '^'r^''!'^ ^ S"^'^ ^^^'g" -- No, the very Conduct 
 ot the Difctplcs on this Occafion, evidently befpeaks there 
 was no fuch Thing pradifed by Chrift, cither to order 
 Infants to be baptized, or to lay his Hands upon them as 
 baptized Perfons ; and let our Opponents fhew the Con- 
 trary at their Leifure. 
 
 Bifliop Tay/or* in his Reprefentation of the Baptifts 
 Argument hath thefe Words, ' From the Adion of 
 Lhrilt s BJeffing Infants, to infer that they are to be 
 baptized, proves nothing fo much as that there is great 
 Want of better Arguments ; the Conclufion would be 
 with more Probability derived thus : Chrift blefled 
 * Children, and fo difmi/Ted them, but baptized them 
 Jiot, therefore Infants are not to be baptized.' 
 By the Way, Ifhalljuftobferve, that tho' Mr. F. calls 
 Imporition of Hands (which was always adminiftred after 
 Baptifm) an Extraordinary Ordinance then in Ufe (or 
 perhaps more properly an Ordinance then ufed in extraor- 
 d.naryTimes) Yet I am perfuaded he will not quickly fhew 
 that it js now abolifhed ; when, befidesthe Place he cites 
 VIZ. /f^sxix. 5, 6, he confults^^Tj viii. 14—17. and Heb. 
 6. 2. where we find it was adminiftred to baptized Be- 
 lievers as fuch, and to be one of the Six Foundation Prin- 
 ciples of the Doarine of Chrift j which Account does 
 not well fuit with laying on of Hands upon Officers 
 in the Church : For as the whole Gofpel was confirm 'd 
 by Signs and Wonders, and divers Miracles, and Gifts 
 of the Holy Ghoft in general, fo was every Ordinance 
 confirm'd in particular, and amongft the reft, this of 
 Impofuion of Hands upon baptized Believers, was alfo 
 ratified and confirmed by the extraordinary Out-pouring 
 of the Gifts of the Holy Ghoft which accompanied it, 
 jfSs XIX. 6. Befides the Thing fignified thereby, viz. 
 the Gift of the Holy Ghoft, in his fandifying, comfort- 
 ing, and fealmg Operations and Influences, is the perpetual 
 
 I 
 
( 6i ) 
 
 Privilege of all Believers in common, throughout all 
 Ages, "John vii. 37. Hence we have no Ground to con- 
 clude this New 1 eftament Ordinance, thus confirm'd, 
 i^c. to be yet aboliftied j but is now to be always admi~ 
 n'ljlred after Baptifm, as it was in Apojiolic Times. And 
 for a Lamentation it may be faid, that our Opponents 
 have loft the Order and Beauty of the Gofpel Church. 
 This Ordinance of laying on of Hands upon baptized 
 Believers, is quite loft amongft them. And Baptifm for 
 the moft Part is gone to the very Name. 
 
 Now feeing Infants Right to Baptifm is not found in 
 this Text, and our Opponents don't brmg their Infants to 
 have Hands laid upon them, if fuch a Thing was in- 
 tended here, confequently their Noife and Clamour 
 about our denying Baptifm to Infants, difappears like 
 a Bubble on the Water, or Smoke in the Air. 
 
 * The Anabaptifts argue Hays he) that thefe Infants 
 
 * were only propos'd as Emblems of Humility, Meeknefs, 
 
 * ^c* If they did fo, they would not differ much from 
 fome learned Paedo-baptifts in this Point. I have perus'd 
 divers Baptifts Authors upon the Place, and I don't 
 find them arguing in fuch Manner. But whether this 
 Allegation be taken out of his * common Stcrehoufe Mr. 
 Sydenham^ or out of Mr. Flavel, or this be a Fiflion of his 
 own, I am not concern'd, nor {hall I at thisTime take any 
 further Notice of it,andallhisReafoning upon it; but only 
 cite the Judgment of fome Padobaptijis upon the Occa- 
 fion. t The AJfemhly of Divines fay on ^t^it 13. ' Tht 
 
 * Difciples rebuked them (not the Children but thofe that 
 
 * brought them, Mark 10. 13. They thought it a Thing 
 
 * troublefome to Chrift and unfit for him to meddle with 
 
 * Children who could not be taught, for want ofUnder- 
 
 * ftanding, and needed no Healing by his Miracles, ver, 
 
 * 14, Of fuch is the Kingdom of Heaven) Ye have no Rea- 
 
 * fon to blame them for bringing jChildren to me, for 
 
 * they may be fuch as have Intereft to the Kingdom of 
 
 * Heaven, as well as others of riper Years ; and unless 
 
 * YE BE LIKE THEM, ye (hall never come there.* 
 
 Cartwright 
 •J 
 
 * V»de hisprifucf, Pige 7% f Awiotitioni on Mittrij, PtiatjA 
 Aano 164J, 
 
r 62 ) 
 
 t Cartwr'i^ht hath thefe Words : « And as touching 
 
 ^ this Blefling of Children and Jmpofition of Hands upon 
 
 them, it is peculiar unto our Saviour Chrift ; ufed nei- 
 
 * ther by his Difciples nor by his Apoftles, either before 
 
 * or after his Afcenfion : Whcreunto rtiaketh, that the 
 
 * Children being brought, that he fhould pray over them ; 
 
 * he did not pray for them, but blefTed them, that is to 
 
 * fay, commanded them to be blefled, thereby to (hew 
 
 * his Divine Power. Thefe being alfo yet Infants j— 
 
 * being alfo in all Likelihood unbaptized' According to 
 him then, Chrift did not lay his Hands upon them as 
 baptized Perfons. 
 
 ' Upon the whole (CaysvMr. i^l) we may fafely under- 
 
 * flaiid the Words, as if our Lord had faid. The In- 
 
 * fants of fuch Parents as believe in me, fuch Infants, I 
 
 * fay are to be brought to me, and treated as Members of 
 ' theVifible Church -yfor of fuch is the Kingdom of Heaven* 
 Anf. There are thefe Difficulties in the Way, to under- 
 ftand thefe Words thus with Safety, i. Chrift did not 
 fay, fuffer the little Children of believing Parents to come 
 to me ; but indefinitely, Suffer the little Children to come to 
 me ; after all^ Mr. /".never canihew that Chrift the Savi- 
 our, afts with that Partiality, and narrowncfs of Spirit as 
 he is pleafed to write.; even to admit the Infants of 
 Church- Members, and to rejeft thofe of Non-Members* 
 
 2. Becaufe Chrift gave no Orders to baptize them, nor 
 inform'd us that they were Subje^s of any Gofpel Ordi- 
 nance ; And for any to adminifter Baptifm to them, 
 is nothing kfs than to be wife above what is written. 'Tis 
 ftlfo a bold Encroachment upon Chrift's Kingly Preroga- 
 tive, to enjoin the Baptizing of Infants, which the Lord 
 Jefus has no where commanded. 
 
 The Expreflions of our Opponents on another Occafi- 
 on, are pertinent here, f * The making of new reli- 
 gious Laws, feems to us to be an Invafton upon the 
 Kingly Office of our Lord Jefus Chrift, to whofe Roy- 
 alty it peculiarly belongs to give Laws to his Church. 
 Hence the Apoftle James informs us> that there is one 
 Law giver (i, e. one only, who is exclufive of all 
 
 ' others, 
 J Oq Mttt. 19 . P«g. 96. f Apology of Biunfwlck Ptcibytwy. Pag. 54* 
 
( 63 ) 
 
 * others) whf is ahle to fave and cUJlroy t Subjoining, 
 
 * 'vuho art thou then that judgeji another^ James iv. i2» 
 
 * Col. i. l8. Chrift is the Read of the Body, the Churchy 
 
 * he is conftituted the King of Zion: Now if the 
 
 * Church of Chrift has but one Head, one King, one 
 
 * Law giver, how can any Men on Earth make Law« 
 
 * in Addition to Chrift's, for the Government of his 
 
 * Subjects in rehgious, Matters, without making the 
 
 * Church a monftrous Body, with many Heads ? 
 
 * Without commencing Kings jin his Kingdom, or ra- 
 
 * ther fetting up a Kingdom of their own, in Oppofition 
 
 * to his ? If making new rehgious Laws, as to their 
 
 * Matter, or adding new Penalties to old ones, be not 
 
 * A(5ls of kingly Power, we defire to know what is V 
 We arc not afraid to affert publickly, that no Law 
 
 given by Chrift, for baptizing Infants, can be found 
 any where regiftred in the Rolls of divine i. aws : There- 
 fore it muft be done without Law, or elfe by a Law of 
 Mens making ; which is attended with all the dreadful 
 Confequences of fuch a Practice, as exprefs'd in the cited 
 Paragraph— -There is therefore, very good Reafon why 
 we can't fafely underfland the Words, accordinsi; to Mr„ 
 i^'s Comment upon them : But we may very falely con- 
 clude, that there is not any Thing in thofe Words, which 
 oppofes the ftated Order, and revealed Will of Chrift in 
 the Gofpel, v'm. * That Profefling Believers are the 
 
 * proper Subje<fts of Baptifm.* 
 
 ' I have methinksj proven from this Text, the Con- 
 
 * firmation of Children's Church memberfhip, fronn 
 
 * which it willeafily follow, that Baptifm is ther Right % 
 
 * or elfe let the Anabaptifts prove, that there are forae 
 
 * Church members who ought not to be baptized ; but 
 
 * this they cannot.' Mr. F. muft excufe me, if I (liould 
 happen to miftakc his Meaning any where^ for at Times 
 he feems to forget himfelf what he is about ; an Inftance 
 q{ it we have in this odd Piece of Bufinefs now before us, 
 which he has put us upon, viz. to prove that there are 
 fome Church- members who ought not to be baptized. One 
 while he is in the Humour to tell us, § * That Baptifm 
 
 * i» 
 
( 64 ) 
 ' is an initiating Ordinance, whereby Perfons are recel- 
 ' ved into the Church :' And tn call the Church the 
 School of Chrift, and that Baptifin is the Door ot En- 
 trance into that Sch.-jol, and that Infants are capable of 
 being entred into it by that Door, But it feems there is 
 belides that, another Door of Entrance into the Church, 
 viz. by natural Generation, or as Mr. Durham \\ chufes 
 to exprefs it, by Birth-right. So that a vifible Chriitian 
 begets a villble Chriftian, for fo 1 fuppofe they account all 
 Church-members to be. 
 
 Such Notions and pretty Fancies, may indeed pafs 
 with thofe, who are wedded to their tond Opinions ; but 
 will be deemed mere Abfurdities and Fooleries, when 
 compared with the Account the Scriptures give us, of 
 the New-Teftament Churches, and their Members. 
 
 Mr. F. may know, that I am not concern'd at all to 
 Refolve him in this Point, 'till he firfl makes appear, 
 that Perfons are vifible Church-members before they arc 
 baptized. 
 
 We are upon this diredlv informed, howunbaptized 
 Members of the vifible Church may be excommunicated, 
 viz. ' If we deny fuch Infants a Right to the initiating 
 
 * Seal of the Covenant, we thereby caft them out of the 
 
 * Church. '--Probably he means if Baptifm is deny'd them, 
 thev are thereby caft the Out fide of the Pale of the Church 
 -—For after Baptifm it feems, they are only within the 
 Pale of the Church, as they call it, till they grow up to 
 Years of Difcretion--But if all they pretend to baptize are 
 Church- Members, their Scheme juft ferves to fill the 
 New-Teftament Church with Unbelievers, and to build 
 it up of unprepared Materials. The true Reafon why 
 the Baptifts don't baptize their Infants, is not for want of 
 Love and AfFedtion to their Offspring, but for want of 
 a pofitive Precept, or Scripture Example, to counte- 
 nance fuch a Praftice. 'Tis not therefore without 
 Caufe, that they withftand the unwarranted Pradice of 
 their Opponents. 
 
 ' Now (fays he) tho' the Name of Baptifm is not 
 
 * found in thefe Texts, yet we find what may be as fa- 
 
 * tisfying and convincing to unbyafTed Minds, that are 
 
 * even 
 I On the KtvcUtiooti P*ge 489t 
 
( 65 ) 
 
 ' even moderately judicious.' Reply. If Mr. i^ means by 
 an unbyafledMindjaPerfon that Hands inclin'd to neither 
 b|de, 'tis very ftrange he (hould affert there is Mattef 
 of equal Satisfaction and Conviction to unbyafs'd Minds, 
 to be found in tljcfe Texts, that Infants are to be bapti- 
 zed, as if it had been exprefs'd in the Words. 1 am apt 
 to believe it would be more convincing to unbyafs'd Minds, 
 and more fatisfying to byafs'd Minds too, if there was a 
 Command or Example to be found for Infant- baptifm, 
 in thefe, or any other Texts in the Bible, than now it 
 is : But Mr, F. tells us, " For my Part, I cannot wifh 
 for clearer Evidence to convince me that Believers In- 
 fants have a Right to Baptifm, than the Scriptures 
 quoted do afFord." Reply. 'Tis not poffible for me to 
 enter into the Secrets of his Mind, to obferve the unfeen 
 Workings of his Wifhes, and Satisfaction in the Point ; 
 yet in the mean Time, I mull: enjoy my own Way of 
 Thinking in the Cafe. But to the Matter in Hand. We 
 have trac'd this Bufinefs fo far, and could not find any 
 Thing like a Pillar to fupport it j but here at length, we 
 happen'd juft to meet with one great Supporter of that 
 otherwife tottering Caufe, of Infant- baptifm. We had 
 for fome Time ago, a ftrong Sufpicion from current 
 Reports, that the Bufinefs was carried on after fome fuch 
 Manner : But fince our Opponents have publifh'd it 'n\ 
 Print, we have got the Certainty of it ; and 'tis to be 
 hop'd they will not attempt to deny their own Prints. 
 The Invention is ths : The Minifter declares he is fatis- 
 fied that Infants have a Right to Baptifm", then if any 
 amongft them happens to doubt of the Validity of his 
 Infant- baptifm, becaufe he can't find a divine Injftitution'^ 
 for it; the Bufinefs is carried on fometbing after this 
 Manner ; The Minifter declares, that he is fatisfied that 
 .Infants have a Right to Baptifm ; and do you pretend 
 to know better than he ? Do you think he is in the 
 wi-cng ? Do you fuppofe him to be unbapti-£d ? Can 
 you imagine he is not in Covenant with God ? No Mini- 
 fter ? Not fo much as a vifible Chriftian ? Nor a Mem- 
 ber of the vifible Church, iSc All thisferves to furprize 
 
 E ani 
 
 • Divlae Rlgit of Infant- laptifaj. Page 4j iii 
 
( 66 ) 
 
 And perplex the poor Enquirer ! but yet affords no Scrip- 
 tural Ground to quiet his Confcience j and if he is not 
 ftunn'd with thefe mafterly Strokes, why the Minifter or 
 another, has a whole Heap of Blocks to caft in his Way ; 
 fuch as thefe, f As to yourfelf, it greatly concerns you to 
 confider what you are about ; if you reje6l your Baptifnr 
 25 a Nullity, you rejt.<St all the publick Ordinances of the 
 Gofpel you have been priviledg'd with. Are you going 
 to caft Contennpt upon the Head of the Church, that he 
 has for fo long Time wholly defcrted all the Churches 
 upon Earth ? If Infant- baptiim is not right, he has left 
 them without a Miniftry, without Ordinances, and 
 without the inftituted Means of Salvation. It concerns 
 you ferioufly to confider how uncharitably you offend 
 againft all the Generation of God's Children, to repre- 
 fent the whole Church for fomany Hundreds of Years, and 
 very much the greatefb Part of it at prefent to be in a State 
 of Heathcnifm, without any Hopes of Salvation, but from 
 the uncovenanted Mercies of God. ---It concerns you to 
 confider what Indignity you offer the bleffed Spirit --and 
 how you may expe£l that God will refent your Renunci- 
 ation of your Covenant Relation to him, ^c. Thefe, 
 •with Mens profefling they could burn at a Stake for 
 Inf?nt-baptifm, and fuch like, are great fwelling Words 
 of Vanity, and jufl ferve as a Specimen^ to let the 
 World know in what Manner that Scripturelefs Pra6tice 
 is fupported. For by fuch Ways they keep the Crouds 
 in awe, and terrify thofe amongfl them, who at any 
 Time queftion \.\\t Falidity of their Infant- baptifm— -See- 
 ing they have no Scripture to prove it, they labour by 
 thefe artful Infinuations^ and detejiable Methods to keep 
 thtm in perpetual Fetters of human Inveniim^ put upon 
 them whilft Infants, trom giving due Obedience to the 
 Lord Jefus, according to his Appointment in the Gof- 
 pel. An Inflance of this we have in the Dialogue now 
 hefore me. How many Perfons have there been from 
 Time to Time, who were enlightened to fee the Truth 
 and Order of the Gofpel, yet are kept back from fub- 
 mitting to it, becaufc their Minilters tell them they naj^ 
 
 ixpi£i 
 •\ Diyinc RigUt of Inf«at-baptiXnii P»6«8 S> 6i 7«'" 
 
C 67 ; 
 
 4:KfcSf that God tvill highly refent their Renouncing their 
 JnfaJit-baptifm, Sec. as it k was a Sin to reform^ and fhake 
 o?i erroneous Principles and Pra6lices. Are not thefe the 
 very Methods the Papijii have ufed (with their Noifc 
 about Jnttquity, Succcjfion, Infallibility, Univerjality, he.) 
 to keep the numerous Ignorants attach'd to theirJnte- 
 reft ?. And where did that anonymous GentJenian fur- 
 "nifti himfelf with Art-llery for the Field, but out of 
 Rome's Magazine? Arguments which itrike at the very 
 Principles ot Reformation ! and which Proieftants have 
 long lince refuted and trodden down like Mire of the 
 Streets, when advanc'd by Papifs in* Defence of their 
 fuperflitious Tradiiions. But v/e muft fee them revived, 
 new-drefs'd, and marfliall'd again, by Proieftantsagainft 
 an Ordinance of Jefus Chrift, in Defence of an human 
 Invention (Infant baptifm) fat up on the Ruins of 
 Chrifl's facred Inilitution. And what is it to the Buiinefs 
 in Hand, to tell us of the Praaiceof the Church for fo 
 many Ages paft, when the Man of Sin, was either af- 
 cending to, or fitting in the Tefnple of God, and either 
 changed or corrupted the % Dodrines and Ordinances 
 of God's Houfe J when in the mean Time, the Number 
 of God's People were very ^ew, exprefs'd by two Witnef- 
 fes ; The t; i:c Church feeble and obfcure, compared to 
 a Woman Hed into the Wildernefs : Whiili Myfiery 
 Babylon, in Pomp and Grandeur, called herfelf the true 
 Church ! And of as little Weight is that Anthor's 
 Rcafonings about Chrift's Promifes, to prove Infant»- 
 baptifm. Does he think Chrifl could not make good 
 his Promifes, without being neceflitated to countenance 
 2.n Abufe and Corruption of his holy Inftitution, as the 
 Baptizing of Infants manifeftly is j becaufe there is not 
 the leaji Hint of it in Scripture ? In a Word, Let that 
 namelefs Author, or any other, prove if he can. That 
 RejeiSling Infant-baptifm (which the Scripture no where 
 vouchethj is attended with all thefe frightful Confequen- 
 ces. Truly his Neighbour was in the Right of it, to 
 queftion the Validity of that, for which he could find 
 
 'E^ Z no 
 
 X Vid. Dr. Goodwm's Difcourfe of theGloryof theGo^gl; Vtil. >?. 
 Pa^e a^. Dan. »ii. ^5. % Tiist ii. 3, 4, B«v. xiii. 3. 
 
( 68 ) 
 
 no divine In/iitution ; but poor Man, he a6ted weakly in 
 ttiking Satisfadlion from his Miniftcr, wiihout his /hew- 
 ing him a divine IVarrant for Infant-baptifm, to quiet his 
 Confcience. If he is yet hving, I would auVife him, to 
 fearch the Scriptures, and fee for himfclf, and act accord- 
 ingly. 
 
 Mr. F. further fays, * However clear the Point be 
 
 * proven, our Opponents are bent upon it, not to fufFcr 
 ' little Children to be brought to Chiift, but to forbid 
 
 * them.' Anf. We have followed him all along from 
 Text to Text, and here we do profefl'edly declare, the 
 point is not proven at all, nor anv Thing like it- -And 
 this here is much of the fame Nature with what we had 
 laft under Coniideration, and fcrvcs much to the fume 
 Ends, v'iX. to fix their Aiimireri, in their falfe Opinions, 
 and to reprefcnt the Baptljis. as a cruel, he<uly, felf- 
 willed Sort of People j bccaufe they won't take their Op- 
 ponents Confcquences (which are only a Heap of hlon- 
 Sequiturs) inilead of Scriptu e Teftimonies, for Proof in 
 the Cafe-- The Truth is, the Baptifts (I hope) are bent 
 to ftand by the Rule of the Gofpel, which requires Fruits 
 of Repentance, and a ProfelTion of Faith, m order to 
 Baptifm ; which Infants are incapable of. This opens 
 the Door for me to enter diredly on the Confideration 
 ©f Mr. i^'s 4th Aflertion, viz, 
 
 ' That Jntants are capable Subjc61s of B.^ptifm.' 
 Which he labours to evincc--ffom the Dt^vgn and 
 Signification of Baptifm, viz. 
 
 1. The folemn Dedication of the bapti'iJed Perfons to 
 God.— 
 
 2. The Water ufed in Biptifm, reprefents the Blood 
 <yf Chrift---And alfo the gracious Influences of the Holy 
 Ghoft— -Upon the Petufal of what he favs on this Head, 
 I.don'tfind any Thing that promifes much Service to his 
 Caufe, or like to be very advantageous to his prefcnt 
 
 Purpofe For fuppofing Infants were capable Subjech 
 
 of Baptifm, yet if a Capacity to receive an Ordinance 
 vas fufEcient to entitle Perfons to the Reception of it, it 
 ■would follow, that all the Male-Infants of the Heathen- 
 NiiUQas had as good aRi^ht to he circumcifed, a* the be.-d 
 
 0^ 
 
'( ^9 ) 
 
 •of Abraham bad 4 for one was as capatiVto be the ?ub- 
 ]eSt of Circunicifion as the other —If Mr. F. fa}s they 
 had not, becaufe theie was no Command of God for it. 3 
 fo fay we there is nonr fo' the baptzing any Infants. 
 
 2. Let us turn up liic other Side of his Argument here, 
 and fee how it looks ; why, it appear-^ juft; tnus, ^re the 
 Infants of zVow members^ yea of wicked Perfoiis, uncapabh 
 to be dedicated to God ? Or would it be an v more a 
 Sin to devote thom to God than the Children of Church- 
 members ? Again, Are fuch Infants incap.ible of bt^ing 
 Jullified and faved by the Blood of Ghrift, and fancSified 
 by his Spirit ? Or are they Sinners of tl^at Sort, that puts 
 them quite out of Capacity of Juflification and Salvation 
 "by his Blood, and Sanitification by his Spirit ? This can't 
 be faid. Well, aie they capable ot every great Thing 
 iignified by Baptifm, and yet not capable of Bjptifm it- 
 •fe f ? Nay, what Sort o( Divinity is it, for them to fay 
 •they are capable of the Thtng fignified, but not of the 
 Siiin ; capable of the Greater, but altogether incapable 
 of the Leffer ? How abfurd, irrational, 2nd defencelefe 
 is their Pofuion ! My Opponents are brought unavoida- 
 bly to this, either to vield unto their own Argument, or 
 .elfeaflert, that all Infants of Non-members, who die in 
 Infancy, are either damri'd or annihilated,' Mr. F. may 
 here fee the Shape of his Argument, on both Sides, that it 
 is an Inftrument which cuts himfelf more, by odds, than 
 his Oi">ponenfs againfl whom it was defign'd. Now if 
 the Infants of Non members are capable of thofe Spiritu- 
 al BlcfEngs (as none can prove to the Contrary) Mr. F. 
 according to his Principles is criminally guilty, in not 
 baptizing thenv For there is a-s much Authority to bap- 
 tife the Infants of Non members, as thofe of Church- 
 members---To do one or the other is Scripturelefs-— 
 And one mav be done as well as the other, according to 
 this Argument. But if it be faid, they are out of Co- 
 venant, bV. I Anf. The Benefits of the Covenant of 
 'Grace are not tied to anv flelhly Line. Befides this Ob- 
 je<5lion does not help at al^ in this Point ; for the Argu- 
 rfnent is taken from the Capaci'y of Children.--- And I 
 do hereby call upon him to make appear, that one Infant 
 ,E 3 is 
 
( 70 ) 
 Is more capable of being juftified by the Blood of Chri/!, 
 and fani^ified by his Spirit than another ? To this I re« 
 <Juire a dire6l Anfwer, and not to be put ofF with Hiifting 
 the Qucftion ; or elfe an ingenuous Acknowledgment, 
 that no Argument can be form'd from the Capacity of 
 feme Infants, more than others in this Cafe, to prove 
 their Right to Baptifm. 
 
 It muft alfo be obferv'd, that there is not fuch a/«// 
 Agreement betwixt our Opponents and us, about the De- 
 sign and Signification of Baptifm, as Mr. F. infmuatcs : 
 For we differ in the Senfe and Explanation of the firft 
 Particular, viz. That Bapiifm figmfies the f^Iemn Dedi- 
 cation of the baptized Perfons to God. We fav, that 
 Perfons can dedicate none to the Lord b-/ Bapiifm, but 
 themfelves ; which is confirm'd bv J\ tliofe Places of 
 Scripture, which fpeak of the Ordinance. Baptifm be- 
 ing a Gufpel Duty, it necefTIirily requires Faith in the 
 Subjeft, Heb. xi. 6. Mark xvi. i6. Or elfe let our 
 Opponents fhew that tliere are feme Gofpel Duties which 
 may be per form'd acceptably to God without Faith ; 
 which they cannot ; therefore Faith is necefTarily requi- 
 red in the Partv bapt.Z'-d himfclf, as well as in every 
 other Part of Gofpel VVorfhip-— Infants being inca- 
 pable to z€t Fnitli in tiie adorable Trinity, at their Bap- 
 tifm, or to anfv, cr a good Cnnfcience, by fubmitting to 
 G''d therein, Axaf. xxvtii. 19. i Pet. iii. 21. Hence it 
 follows, that Parents (or others) can't bring their Infants 
 to he baptized, under Pretence of dedicating them to 
 God (when he has neither commanded them, nor pro- 
 mifed them Acceptance in fo doing) without being guilty 
 of a very great Sin forbidden in the fecond Command- 
 ment, even as our Opponents themfelves explain it, -[viz. 
 * That ufing, and any Ways approving any religious 
 ' Worfhip, not inflituted by God himfelf is there for- 
 bidden, let the Pretence be what it will. Juft fuch is the 
 baptizing of Infants : It is as clear as the Sun in its Meri- 
 dian Brightnefs, Thit Infant-baptifm is no Inflitution 
 of Gjd, and therefore cannot be continued in, with- 
 out daily breaking the fecond Commandment. Be- 
 fides, what adds further to theSinfulnefs of that Pradlice, 
 f See the AOembly's L>arger Cateciufoi. i^» 
 
( 71 ) 
 is, that It is a wretched Abiife of a facred Gofpel Ordi- 
 nance, by adminiftnng ic kj Suhjccis jnoi appointed by 
 Cbr.'ft in his Word, under die Pretence of dedicating 
 their Children to God. / 
 
 2d Par^Jci.Ur, which Mr. F. mentions, * That the 
 * the Water in Baptifm reprefenrs rhe Blood of Chrirt.'— - 
 TMs is not fo foon proved as aflerted. Upon this Occa- 
 fion, I iTiall cife the Opinion of the judicious and karn*d 
 Mr. McJe^ on tit. 3. 5. quoted by Mr. Hutchinfon : § 
 la £>tMjr Sacrament, as ye well know, there is the out- 
 ward Symbol or Sign, Res terrena^ and the Signatum^ 
 figured and reprefented thereby. Res Ccelejiis. In ibis 
 ot Baptifm, the Sign, or Res Terrena, is wafhing with 
 Water ; The Queiiion is, what is the Signatum^ the 
 Jnvifible and Celeftial Thing which anfwcrs there- 
 unto ? In our Catechetical Explications of this My- 
 Itery, it is wont to be affirmed, to be the Blood of 
 Chriil J that as Water wafheth away the Filth of the 
 EJody, fo the Blood of Chrift cleanfeth us from the 
 Guilt and Pollution of Sin : And there is no Qi^ieftion 
 but the Blood of Chrift is the Fountain of all the Grace 
 and Good communicated to us, cither in this, or any 
 other Sacrament, or Myftery of the Gofpel. But that 
 this fhould be the Jnttftoichon., the Counter part, or 
 Thing figured by the Water in Baptifm^ I believe not ; 
 becaufe the Scripture, which muft be our Guide and 
 Direflion in this Cafe, makes it another Thing, to 
 wit, the Spirit or Holy Ghoft ; this to be that, whereby 
 the Soul is cleanfed and renewed within, as the Body 
 with Water is without.— -Nor did the Fathers, or 
 antient Church, as far as I can find, fuppofe any other 
 Correlative to the Element in B.^ptifm but this (the 
 Spirit or Holy Ghoftj of this they ipsak often ; of the 
 Blood of Chrifl they are altogether filent, in their Ex- 
 plications of this Myftery ; many are the AUufions they 
 feek out for the lUuftration thereof, and fome perhaps 
 forced ; but this of the Water, fignifying or having 
 any Relation to the Blood of Chrift, never comes 
 amongft tham, which were impoffible, if they had not 
 E 4 ' fuppofed 
 
 § Treatife concerning the QoTcnaat of Baptifni| Page 84, ^c 
 
( 72 ) 
 fuppofed fome other Thing figured by the Water than 
 it, which barred them from falling on that Conceit. 
 The like Silence is to be obfcrved in our Liturgy, where 
 the Holy Ghoft is more than once parallel with the 
 Water in Baptifm, Wafhing and Regeneration attri- 
 buted thereunto ; but no fuch Notion of the Bbod of 
 Chrift ; and that the Opinion thereof is Novel, may be 
 gathered, becaufe fome Lutheran Divines make it pe- 
 culiar and proper to the Followers of Calvin. 
 " VVhatfoever it be, it hath no Foundation in ^ipture ; 
 and we muft not of our own Heads aflip;n Significations 
 to Sacramental Types without fome Warrant thence : 
 For whereas, fome conceive thofe two Exprcfiions of 
 RoNtifmos, or Sprinkling, of the Blood of Chrift, and of 
 our being wafhed from our Sins in (or by) his Blood, 
 do intimate fome fuch Matter, they are furely mifla- 
 ken ; for thofe ExprefTions have Reference not to the 
 Water of Baptifm in the New Teftament, but to the 
 Rite and Manner of Sacrificing in the Oid, where the 
 Altar was wont to be fprinkled with the Blood of the 
 Sacrifices which were ofi'ered, and that which was un- 
 clean, purified with the fame Blood : Whence is that 
 elegant Difcourfe o( St. Paul {He//, g.) comparing the 
 Sacrifice of the Law vi^ith that of Chrift upon the cfrofs, 
 as much the better. And that whereas in the Law, 
 almo/l all Things are pnrijied zvith Blood, (o much more 
 the Blood of Chrift, who offered bimfelf without Spot to 
 God, cleanfeth our Confciences from dead Works ; 
 but that this Wafhing, that is, Cleanfing by the Blood 
 of Chriff, fhould have Reference to Baptifm, where is 
 that to be found ? I fuppofe they will not alledge the 
 Water and Blood which came out of our Saviour's 
 Side, when they pierced him ; for that is taken to fi^- 
 nify the two Sacraments ordained by Chrift ; that of 
 Blood, theEucharft, of Water, Baptifm. I add (be- 
 caufe perhaps fome Men's Fancies arc corrupted there- 
 with) that there was no fuch Thing as Sprinkling, or 
 Rantijmos ufed in Baptifm in the Apoftles Time, nor 
 many Ages after them ; and that therefore it is no Way 
 probable, that Sprinkling the Blood of Chrtjl, in Peter, 
 £iiould have any Reference to tlie Laver of Baptifm. 
 
 'Let 
 
( 73 ) 
 
 * Let this then be our Conclufion, that the Blood of 
 
 * Chrift concurs in the Myftery of Baptifm, by VVay of 
 
 * Efficacy and Merit ; but not as the Thing there figu- 
 
 * red, which the Scripture tells us not to be the Blood of 
 ' Chrift, but the Spirit.' 
 
 According to this learned Author, the Opinion that 
 the Water in Baplifm fignifies or reprefents *he Blood of 
 Chrift, is Novely and has no F'oundation in Scripture. 
 
 And that it is not lawful to affign Significations to Sa- 
 cramental Types (of our own Heads) without Warrant 
 from the Scriptures, Iffc. 
 
 In Refpecl of the third Thing, which Mr. F. fays is 
 reprefented by the Water in Biptilm, viz. * The gracious 
 
 * Influences of the Holy Ghoft, whereby the Soul is 
 
 * fan^tified.* 'Tis obfervable, that we find no Account 
 of any baptized in the Apoftles Times, but thofe who 
 were wrought upon by the Influences of the Spirit, or at 
 leaft profeffed to afTent to the Doctrines of the Gofpel, 
 fee Rom. vi. 3, 4, 5. Infants being incapable either to 
 receive the Spirit by the ftatcd Miniftry of the Gofpel, or 
 to profefs their Affent to the Dodrines of it : 'Tis mani- 
 feft they were not intended to be the Subjeifs of this Or- 
 dinance. ---Let our Opponents form as many Cavils as 
 they pleafe, 'the Truth is, when they adminfter Baptifm 
 to Infants, after all they have faid, they do juft fet a Seal 
 to a Blank. : For as Biftiop T'aylor * reprefentsit, ' This 
 
 * Way of Miniftration makes Baptifm to be wholly an 
 ' outward Duty, a Work of the Law, a carnal Ordi- 
 
 * nance, it makes us adhere to the Letter without Regard 
 
 * of the Spirit, to be fatisfied with Shadows, to return 
 ' to Bondage, to relinquifh the Myfterioufnefs, the Sub- 
 
 * ftance and Spirituality of the Gofpel.* Again : J And 
 
 * therefore, whoever will pertini;cioufly perfift in this 
 
 * Opinion of the- Piedo-baptiJIs, and pradlife it accord- 
 ' ingly, they pollute the Blood of the everlafting Tefta- 
 ' ment, they difhonour and make a Pageantry of the Sa- 
 
 * crament, they inefieclually reprefent a Sepulture into 
 ' the Death of Chrift, and pleafe themfelves in a Sign 
 
 * without EfFe£l:, making Baptifm like the Fig Tree in 
 
 * the Gofpel, full of Leaves, but no Fruit j and they in- 
 
 vocate 
 * Lib. of Prophecy, Page 327. J lb. Page 330. 
 
( 74 ) 
 
 * vocate the Hoi" Glioft In vain, doing- as if one fhould 
 
 * call upon him to iJhiminate a Stone ■■ a Tree. 
 
 But it feems our Opponents are i- cloi-ly attach'd to 
 tht JewiJ^} antiquated Law of Ci.camnfv.n, that they 
 can in no wife fee the Rule and Ordef oi rhe Gofpei in the 
 Cafe of Baptilm, tho' it (bines with more than Oriental 
 Brightnefs throughout (he whole New Teftament, that 
 he that runs, may read who are the proper Subje^s of 
 this Holv Ordinance } yet they are ftilj inclin'd to think 
 when Circumcifion was inflituted. Infant Baptifm was 
 alfo fome how included in that Inftitution, as that above- 
 mentioned anonymous Author, expreflyfavs, f * I am 
 ' nowprovingtoyou, that the t/fry/^^,^ Jnftituiion which 
 requires Circumcifion to beadminiflred to Infants, re- 
 quires Baptifm to be alfo adminiftred to Infants, in that 
 each of thefe Ordinances were appointed as a Seal of 
 the very felf fame Covenant/ Jnf. 'Tis admirable to 
 fee the Length of fome Men's Logici / 
 
 Thefe Ordinances were appointed as Seals of the very 
 felf-fame Covenant, therefore they depend on che very 
 fame Inftitution.' According to his Princples, with 
 as much Truth he might as well argue, Circumcifion and 
 the Lord's Supper are Seals of the very fclf fame Covenant ; 
 therefore the very fame Inftitution uhich requires Cir- 
 cumcifion to be adminiftred to Infants, req-nrcs the 
 Lord's Supper to be alfo adminiftred to Infants, in that 
 each of thefe Ordinances (as our Opponents fay) were ap- 
 pointed as a Seal of the very felf-fame Covenant : This 
 latter is as genuine as the former. But this Argument 
 from the Inftitution of Circ. ncifiun, if^c. to prove In- 
 fants Right to the Supper, io- falle; and fo muft their's 
 be, from that Inftitution, to prove their Right to Baptifm. 
 Jam yet fully of the Mind, our Oi>ponents can never 
 make it evident, that two diftiad Ordinances in two 
 diftindl Adminiftrations, depend on one and the very 
 fame Inftitution. Now feeing there is no Inftitution for 
 baptizing Infants, as there was .'or circumcifing them, 
 this Pradice ftill appears to be unwarrantable. The Ex- 
 preffions of the Worthy and Reverend Mr. Hutchinfon^ 
 
 arc 
 
 f Diviat Right, Page so. 
 
 \ 
 
( 15 ) 
 are pertinent here. * * I fay again, if Infant-baptifm 
 was commanded in the Command for Circumcifion of 
 Infants, then by Analogy (for Contrarioruiriy contraria 
 eft Ratio) Infant-baptifm muft needs be abrogated and 
 remanded in the AbrogHion and Remanding of Cir- 
 cumcifion. And though i do not beheve that the Pre- 
 cept to circumcife Infanrs, was fo much as a virtual or 
 confequential Comman-i to baptize them, yet it is an 
 Argument ad Hominem at leaft ; and I hope the Fes^o- 
 baptijis will be very willing to receive tiie fame Mea- 
 Jure they give, and reft fati.^fied in this, that the Coun- 
 ter mand to circumcife Infants^ is a confequential and viv" 
 iual Countennayid to baptize them. By all which it ap- 
 pears, that Infants Church memberfhip is repeal'd, be- 
 caufe the fame Law that gave Being to it, is repeal'd. 
 But let us fee how this Author exemplifies this to usj 
 t You hold your Lands (fays he) by Patent made to 
 your Grandfather, in the Reign of King James the 
 Second, and fealed with a red Seal ; now ftiould King 
 George call in all the Patents granted in that Reign, to 
 receive a new Confirmation, by annexing his great 
 Seal to them, in white Wax ; would there beany Oc-^ 
 cafion for a written Declaration, that this Seal confir- 
 med the Lands to you, and to your Children and 
 Heirs, when that is exprefsly contain'd in the very Bo- 
 dy of the Original Patent, which is nothing altei'd, 
 but has only receiv'd a new Confirmation by the Seal 
 annexed to it ?' It feems by all this Reafoning, the 
 Cafe is fet in a very familiar Light ! I fuppofe our Au- 
 thor does not intend that the former red Seal, is ftill to 
 this Patent, when he talks of a new Confirmation by a 
 great Seal annexed to it, in white Wax ; otherwife he 
 muft hold Circumcifion to be yet in Force. But when 
 Circumcifion the red Seal was broken off by divine Au- 
 thority, 'twas a fure Sign the Patent was difannuUed ; 
 for as the Seal was abolifhed, fo was the Patent itfelf. 
 Befides if the old Patent was yet in Force, and nothing 
 alter'd, Females can't be baptized ; elfe there would be 
 a confiderable Alteration in the Body of the original Pa- 
 tent. 
 
 • Animadverf. upoa Mr. lVbifton\ Book, p. *6, f Divine Right, p. ai. 
 
( 76 ) 
 tent. The Cafe is plain : If the former Patent was 
 faulty, and mull be called in, and the Seal broken off. 
 It was undoubtedly difannulled j and 'tis as certain there 
 is a Neceflity of a new Patent, as well as a new Seal - 
 which is much better exemplified hy the Apoftle in Heb. 
 VIII. in a Gofpel Light. So when we have followed our 
 Opponents, with their Ignis Fatuus, or Familiar Light, 
 thro' all their Windings and Turnings, we very happily 
 come out much about the fame Place ; that Infante 
 Church-memberfliip is long fmce at an End ; that In- 
 fants have no Right to Baptifm, from the Inftitution of 
 Circumcifion ; and that Profeffing- believers are the pro- 
 per Subjcds of this facred Ordinance. 
 
 Jgain. Mr. F. labours to obviate an Obje£lion of his 
 Opponents, which is, ' If Children are capable and 
 
 * ought to be admitted to Baptifm, then ought they alfo 
 
 * to be admitted to the Sacrament of the Supper.' (Very 
 
 * right.) To which he replies ; * There is iiot the lame 
 
 * Reafon for both, Self-examination is required, in or- 
 ' der to partake of the Lord's Supper ; but it is no where 
 
 * required in order to Baptifm. Atif. Repentance and 
 Faith are always required in order to Baptifm ; and if he 
 thinks that Perfovs may repent and believe, without 
 Self-examination, truly 'he has found out fome new Kind 
 of Repentance and Faith, which the Scripture knows 
 not of. The fame Method which he ufes to prove In- 
 fants Right to Baptifm, any others may ufe to prove their 
 'Right to the Supper. For it is only telling, that all 
 chofe Places which fpeak of Self-examination in order to 
 /partake of the Sacrament of the Supper, are addrefs'd on- 
 ly to grown Perfons, and not to Infants j then may they 
 further urge, Why docs he advance fuch Scriptures 
 againil us, as will prove no more but that Perfons come 
 •to Years of Difcretion fhould not partake of the Lord's 
 (Supper without Self-examination, this we hold as firmly 
 as he ; but what is this to the Cafe of Infants Commu- 
 nion ? And what can thefe Places prove in relpedl of 
 Children ? 
 
 By all the Arguments that Mr. F. would refute the 
 Flea for Infants Communion, by th6 fame Arguments 
 
( 77 ) 
 
 wc would refute his Plea for Tnfants-baptifrrK Arc In- 
 fants uncap ibie of one ? fo are they of the other. Is 
 there no Command or Example for the one ? neither is 
 there for the other. Does the Duty of Self-examination 
 exclude Infants from the Supper ? fo does that of Re- 
 pentance and Faith exclude them alfo from Baptifm. 
 Do the C^ialifications foregoing the Reception of the 
 S'jpper, prove Believers to be"" the only Subjcds of it ? 
 k> do thefe Qualifications previous to Baptifm, likewifc 
 prove Belie. 'CIS to be the only Subjedls of it. 
 
 Neither docs it help him to compare the Church to a 
 Schooly and Juggeji Infants are capable is be entred, tha' 
 they are not capable of the mo/i learned Exerci/es-'-Unleis 
 he could make his Comparifon reach the Point in debate, 
 and ihew^ that Chrift teacheth none who are out of 
 the Church ; which if it were fo, then all grown Unbe- 
 believers muft be brought into Church by Baptifm, with- 
 out any Inftru<fl:ions or Profeflion of Faith at all ; which 
 is contrary to Mr. F's declared Opinion, p. 65. and to 
 the Pradicc of Chrift whilft on Earth j which was to 
 make Difciples firft, before they were baptized, John iv. 
 I. and alfo to the conftant and univerfal Practice of the 
 Apoftles afterwards, y/^J ii. 41. 
 
 But inafmuch as Chrift teacheth Perfons by the Mini- 
 flry of hisVVord, who are not C hurch-members ; and that 
 all the Members in the Apoftolic Churches (as far as we- 
 can find) were taught before they were admitted ; theri 
 it necefTarily follows, that this Simile which Mr. F. ufeth, 
 does neither confirm nor illuftrate the Point he is upon. 
 Seeing Infants are not born Church-members, nor can 
 they be admitted before teaching, our Way is clear to 
 affirm, that none but Proficients are to be entered into- 
 the Church, and the loweft Clafs therein, are fit Subjeds 
 of the Lord's Supper : Or let Mr.i^ give us any Inftances 
 to the Contrary in Apoftolic Times ; but this he can- 
 not ; therefore our Argument will appear to be founded 
 on the Word of God, and our Pradice. in this Cafe 
 according to the beft Example : And it ftill remains, if 
 Infants are capable and ought to be admitted to Baptifm, 
 tlien ought they alfo to be admitted to the Lord's Supper, 
 
 More- 
 
C 78 ) 
 
 Moreover f the Author of the late Dialogue fays over 
 and over, ' That little Ones or Infants "jo believe in 
 * Chrift.' If fo, I demand the Place of Scripture which 
 forbids Church- Members which believe in Chrift to re- 
 ceive the Lord's Supper, when their Life is unftain'd with 
 a<2ual Sins, as in the Cafe of Infants ? Was there any 
 fuch Thing pradifed by the Apoftles as lo debar Church 
 Members, whom they look'd on to be Believers, from 
 the Lord's Table ? Surely, No. Let our Opponunts a£t 
 confiftent with their own AfTertions, or eifc 'tis high 
 Time for them to drop them. 
 
 Further, if thefe Men believe what they themfelves fay. 
 That Infants are Believers iii Chriji, what need is there 
 for them to go about the Bujh to prove their Right of Bap- 
 tifm from Abraham's Covenant and Circumcifion ? Why 
 don't they unanimoufly aflert, they have a Right to Bap- 
 tifm upon their own perfonal Faith ? And why Ihould 
 Mr. F. tell us here and there, that we miftake their Mean- 
 ing, and that we argue againft what they never aflert ? 
 When our Opponents do aflert. That Infants are Believers 
 inChriJ}^ Parents muft convey Faith to them, or they 
 have it fome other Way ; and why don't they tell us 
 which Way Infants come by it ? when the Apoftle 
 makes Hearing the Gofpel abfolutely neceflary, in order 
 to believe, Rom.x. I4,--I7. Now we know that Infants 
 are incapable to receive Faith by hearing the Word. It 
 then behoves our Opponents to lead us into this Mjflery^ 
 how Infants come by their Faith, as well as what kind of 
 Faith it is, if they don't allow it to be convey'd from 
 their Parents. And what does Mr. F. make his Diftinc- 
 tions for, of a Two- fold being in the Covenant \ when it 
 is affirmed, That Infants are Believers in Chrift. Will 
 he fay that Believers in Chrift are not favingly in the Co- 
 venant of Grace, efpecially when that anonymous Author 
 puts them on a Par with believing Women, without any 
 Diftinftion or Limitation *. And as ufelcfs is Mr. Fin- 
 ley % Obfervation elfewhere : Says he, J * We fpeak not 
 
 * of inherent Holinefs, or real gracious Habits, but of 
 
 * foederal Holinefs.* Will he tell us, how fome can have 
 
 Faith 
 
 t DWJnc Right, p. 15, x%, 38, • lb, f 3I, X Charit. Pk»i p. 4«' 
 
( 79 ) 
 Faith in Chriflr, and not have inherent Holinefs ? Or have 
 the Principles and Habit of javing Faith^ \ and yet not 
 hzvQ ^ real 2lx\6 gracious Habu of Faith } It feems there 
 is feme M) ftery more than common, in this Bufinefs of 
 Infant-baptifm ! When 1 can believe Aflertions diame- 
 trically oppofue to be true, probably I may fall in to be- 
 lieve the jarririg Aflertions of cui Opponents. In the 
 mean while, it appears we don't aruue a;i;ainft ■what they 
 never affirm, but ftill fay, If Church- Members and their 
 Seed are thus in the Covenant of Grace, they fljall all be 
 faved •, tho' Numbers of thofe believing Infants, when 
 grown, to all Appearance live and die mere Reprobates. 
 But will our Opponents labour to extricate themfelves out 
 of their Abfurdities (for I am perfwaded there is no Man 
 can reconcile their Affertiona) by faying, they mean not 
 all the Infants of Church- Members, but only fome of 
 them. I yinf. What convincing Evidence is there of 
 one Infant's Faith more than another's ? Let them inform 
 us whereby they know it. If there is Ground for chari- 
 table Judgment of one, why not of all ? when they plead 
 that they are ^//f cede rally Holy, aiid in Covenant together 
 with their believing Parents. Which Side foever of their 
 AfTertions I turn up, it has ftill written upon it, Ineon- 
 fijiency and Faljhood. 
 
 But it is plain our Opponents * do wretchedly abufe 
 (if not willingly wreft) that Place of Scripture, Matt. 
 xviii. 4, 5, 6. when they interpret the Place to mean 
 Infants in Age ; for 'tis here evident at firft Sight, that 
 Chrift meant by the little Ones which believe in him, not 
 Infants in Age, but Perfons in Years, who ftiould hum- 
 ble themfelves as that little Child. Men in humility, 
 are here called little Ones which believe in Chrift ; which 
 none will deny, but thofe who are bent upon it, to abufe 
 Scripture at their Pleafure, to countenance Falfhoods 
 urder a Cloak of abufed Scriptures, and thereby to im- 
 pofc their Errors upon the World, under the Colour of 
 Scripture Expreifions : And for a Proteftant, a Scholar, 
 a Miniiler to do fo, highly aggravates the Guilt of fuch 
 horrid Impieties. 
 
 The 
 % Divise Right, p, 33, • Divtoe Rifiht, p. aft 
 
( 8o ) 
 
 The Affemhly on the PLiCc fav, ver. 3, Except ye he 
 tonverted. ' A kind of Speech taken from the Hebrews.^ 
 *■ to fet out Repentance, which is the altering of a Man's 
 ' Courfe for the better, as he that is gone out of the Way, 
 
 * turns baek to return into the right Way again. Or it 
 
 * may be more particularly meant here, of turning from 
 
 * ambitious Thoughts, which then polTcfled them, to 
 
 * humility of Mind. {Become as little Children] not in 
 
 * Ignorance, hut in Lowlinels of Fpiiit, i Cor. xiv. 20. 
 
 * [Ver. 4. JVhcfoever therefore Jhall humble himfelf as 
 
 * this little Child] That is, fo humb!eth himfelf, as 
 ' that for humble Difpofition he become iilce tliis Child ; 
 
 * for the Child, to fpeak properly, could not humble 
 ' himfelf. Whofoever doth not think highly of fiimfelf 
 
 * no more than this little Child doth. Humblenefs of 
 
 * Mind is the rio;ht Way to Pre-eminence, ver. 5. One 
 
 * Tuch little Child. [One like fuch a Child, in the 
 
 * Quality before mentioned, Pfal. cxxxi,, 2. and cxix. 
 ' 141. Fer. 6, But ivhofo Jhall offend] Mark ix. 42, 
 
 * Z«^^ xvii. I, 2. [one of thefe little Ones] (hall, by 
 
 * Wrong or Contempt (which oft deters and turns Men 
 
 * afide from ProfefHon of Piety, or pious Courfes) oftend 
 
 * fuch an humbled Soul, ver. 5. Men being molt prone 
 
 * to deal fo, with Perfons fo difpofed.' 
 
 The Continuers of Pool^s Annotations on Matt, xviii. 
 5. * Whofo receivethfuch a little Child, that is an hum- 
 
 * bleChriftian. In the next Verfe it is opened, by one 
 ' that believeth in me, 
 
 Mr. Cradock, thus : % * O^^ Saviour being minded to 
 
 * cure this Pride and Ambition in his Difciples, calls 
 
 * them about him, and fitting down, preaches unto them 
 ' the Do(£trine of true Humility^ declaring and fhewing, 
 
 * that every one that rightly defires true Honour an I 
 
 * Dignity, muft abafc, and humble, and caft down him- 
 
 * felf (even below others) in his own Eltimation and Be- 
 
 * haviour, and mufl: be ferviceable to the Good of others, 
 
 * Mark ix. 35. Then for the better Ill'jftration of this 
 
 * Dodrine, he makes Ufe of a fignificant Emblem (as 
 
 * the Prophets of old were wont to teach the People, 
 
 X U«Binony of Zrang* 
 
( St ) 
 
 fee Jer. xxvii. 2.) (hewing them a h'ttle Child, and ta- 
 Jcing him into his Arms, and fetting before them there- 
 m an Example of Humility and Meeknefs, which they 
 ought to imitate j plainly telling them, that the Way 
 to be great in his Kingdom, is to be humble ; and 
 therefore, except they be converted, that is, repent of 
 this their Pride and Ambition, and become as httle 
 Children m Humility of Mind, and iincere Innocency, 
 they can neither be Members of his Kingdom of Grac6 
 here, nor fliall enter into his Kingdom of Glbrv 
 hereafter ' I need not ftand to fay any Thing more 
 on this Head, the Matter being fo clear, even felf- 
 evident, that Chrifl meant not Infants in Age by thefe 
 ExprefTions, but Men of humble Difpofitions, t>V. I 
 fliall proceed to obferve a whole Heap of abfurd AfTerti- 
 ons m that Dialogue : t ' You require (fays the Au- 
 ^ thor) exprefs Nevv-Teftament Proof, that Infants are to 
 be baptized j and I require of you exprefs New-teflament 
 Proof that Women fhould partake of the Lord's Sup- 
 per : Prove the latter by what Arguments you pleafe. 
 and 1 will prove the fofmer by the fame.' 
 L8t us try then how the Matter will turn out • I 
 Jnf. m the Words of the Rev. Mr. Rees^ * « i As to 
 ' "Jf omens coming to the Lord's Table, there are no 
 
 • Qualdications required of them, but what are very 
 
 • conhftent with their State ; whereas in Point of Bap- 
 tifm, there are Faith and Repentance required every 
 where j the want of which altogether difqualifies In- 
 fants, and excludes them this Ordinance, if we keetf 
 to the Rules of the Gofpel. 2. To put the Matter out 
 
 ^ of Doubt we have a clear Accouirt of mmens having: 
 . comniun d at breaking of Bread with the Church at 
 ^ Jerujalem. Aas i. 13, 14. And when they were come 
 ^ tn, they went up into an upper Room, where abode both 
 c ,% """^ '-^T"' ^""^ •^'^•'"» ^"^ Andrew, Philip, 
 , Jj!T' ^'^^^^'^'^'"'^^ ^"d Matthew, James the 
 , ^l"°ffpb^^s, and Simon Zealotes, and Judas the Bro> 
 ther of James. Theje all continued with one Jecord in 
 
 '^^^mI r^fJT'°"^ -^^th the mmen, and Mart 
 the Mothiv of Jefm, andmth his Brethren: v. 15! 
 
 t Pag<3§/ » Ir-f«htI^pUftnn?/fnft{t.jt:woirch«C Page 9*, 
 
r 82 ) 
 
 * —the Nzmber of the Names together were about an Hun- 
 
 * dred and tiuenty. Chap, ii, 42. jirid thry continued 
 
 * JieHfajily It the /ipojllei Do^rine and Fcllowjhip^ and in 
 
 * brec.hing of Bread and in Prayers, v. 44. Jnd all that 
 
 * beltevtd wer? together^-- v. 46. And t-^cy continuing daily 
 
 * -with one A: cord in the Temple^ <7«.-/ breaking Bread /rom 
 
 * Houfe to i-hufe., v. 47. --y^;/<5^ the Lord aided to the 
 
 * Church daily fuch asjhould be favcd. Now it" Mr. IV. can 
 
 * oroduce but a Qi^iai tcr-part of fuch a Scripture Hiftory 
 
 * of Infants being bapti-z.ed^ T promife freely to be of his 
 
 * Opinion.' And To fay I to th^t anonymous Gentleman. 
 But fays our Author, * Are Women in Covenant? fo 
 *■ are the Infants of believing Parents.' This AfTertiori 
 is falfe. For "Wumen are m Covenant by true Faith, 
 wrought of the HolyGhoA in their Snuls, by hearing the 
 Gofpel, Aas xvii. 4, 12. compare John iii. 36. Eph. iii. 
 17. 'but Infants are not fo. ' Are Women Behevers ? 
 
 * fo are fome Infants.' This is alfo falfe, as I have 
 Ihewn : Neither can this Author (whoever he is) make 
 good the Contrary.--* Are Women Difciples of Chrift ? 
 " fo are fome infants.' Anf. Tis not eafy to find any 
 Word too hard to call this AfTertion by, feeing it is di- 
 ametrically oppofite to the Sayings of Chrift ; Luke xiv^ 
 27. -.. JVhofoever doth not bear his Crofs, and come after me^ 
 CANNOT be myDifciple j and to all the Charadlers given 
 in Scripture of his Difcioles. ' Are Women part of the 
 
 * Nations to whom tiie Mmifters of the Gofpel are com- 
 
 * mifTion'd and fent ? fo are Infants,' What pretty Bu- 
 fmefs this Gentleman would make of it^ to go and preach 
 to a Houfe- full of Intents ! 1 believe he would foon be 
 convinced, that a Companv of good Nurfes would do- 
 more Good by far amongft them, than he could do with 
 all his Divinity- LeSiures. Truly 'tis not a little furpri- 
 zing, that we fhould be enteitain'd by our Opponents 
 (who would ht deemed Men of Senfe and (.earning) with 
 fuch bulkv Heaps of perfect Nonfenfe. Can any one in 
 bis Wits imagine, that Chrift commifTion'd and fent his 
 Apoftles to do what was utterly impoifible, if/z. to teach 
 Infants the Doctrines of his Gofpel ? and none were to 
 be baptized according to the Older of the Commiffion, 
 
 but 
 
( S3 ) 
 
 but thofe who were firft taught. * Have Women A 
 Claim to have the Covenant feai'd to them ? fo have 
 * the Infants of believing Parents likewife.' Jnf, Wo- 
 men were baptized, according to the Order of the Gof- 
 pel, J<^s viii. 12. but Beh"evers Infants are neither in the 
 Covenant, as our Opponents alledge, nor have any 
 Right to Baptifm ; as I have already (hewn. 
 
 When this Author's Hand was in, he might with e- 
 ijual Truth have faid, Are Women to partake of the Sa- 
 crament of the Supper ? fo are fome Infants. He fur- 
 ther fays, * I have alfo (hewn you, that Lydia and het 
 * Houfhold, that the Jaylor and all his, and that the 
 Houfhold of Suphanus were all baptized : And there i^ 
 no Room to Doubt, but that in thefe Families (at leaft 
 in fome of them; there were fuch Children, as were 
 not capable perfonally and explicitely to covenant for 
 themfelves,'— If I may ufe his Words, there is no 
 Room to doubt, but he abufes thefe Paffages, to counte- 
 nance his Scripturelefs Opinion and Pradice. As to 
 Lydia, (he was a Merchant Woman, and certainly muft 
 have Help about her, to carry on that fatiguing Bufmefs j 
 but there is not the leaft Account that (he was married, 
 and had Children, Jdfs xvi. 14.- The Jaylor believed 
 in God with ail bis Houfe, Ads xvi. 34. TheHoufe «/'Ste- 
 phanus was the fir/i Fruits of Achzh^ 1 Cor. xvi. 15. i. e.' 
 he and his Family were fome of the firft that were con- 
 verted by the Miniftry of the Gofpel in that Country. 
 Upon the whole, there does not appear the leaft Ground 
 from Scripture for Infant-baptifm, by any Thing as yet 
 produced or urged by this anonymous Author, more thart 
 others. But why tarry I to remark on fuch Things as 
 are in themfelves evidently falfe ? I return, and Come to 
 Mr. Finley\ 5th, and laft Aflertion, which is, ' That 
 • Baptifm fucceeds in the Reomi of Circumcifioi). Thii 
 is evident from Col. ii. 1 1. 12. In whom alfo ye are tir- 
 cumcifed with the Circumcifion made without Hands^ iii 
 <■ putting off the Body of the Sins oftheFleJh^ by the Circumci- 
 fion of Chriji : Buried with him in Baptifm, £fff.' Having 
 already examin'd Mr. F's foregoing AiTertions, and 
 «iewn the Places of Scripture he advances for Infants 
 
 F ?, JRight 
 
C ^4 ) 
 I^ght to Bapflfm, don't conclude for him, there is tHc 
 Jefs Need to dwell long upon this laft Affertion ; wherein 
 he labours to {hew that Baptiiin is come in the Room of 
 Circumcifion^ and every Way anfwers the Defign aod 
 Ufe of it-- -Then funis up his Matter thus, ' Sccng the 
 
 * Infants of Ciuirch- members, were citcumcifed, there 
 
 * cannot be a clearer Confequence, than they {hould a!fo 
 
 * be baptized,' Reply. Jult as if there was no Regard 
 tobehad unto the different Difpenfations, oruntotheOrdcr 
 and Laws of God, refpcdmg each of thefe Ordinances ; 
 but of his own Head, with'jut any Warrant from Chrift, 
 concludes that Infants are to be baptized. Which Confe- 
 quence is to be rejedlcd, becaufe it is not confiimed witli 
 ** Thus faith the Lord/' But let us confider the 
 GrourKls and Reafons of his Conclufion, viz. That 
 Baprifm is come in the Room of Circumcillon, and ferves 
 for the fame Ends, and one P.eafon (if not the chief) 
 which Mr. F. oiFcis to confirm it, is to this Purpofe, Wz. 
 
 * That the Apoftle defigns to {hew that Baptifm anfwers 
 
 * to Gircumcifion, and fucceeds it ; or elfe, that his 
 
 * Argument does not refute the Judai%ing Teachers : 
 
 * To" fay the laft would be blafphemous, therefore the 
 
 * former is true.' If the Cafe was fo, how fhuuld tht 
 i\po{tie refute the Judaizing Teachers, in their Plea 
 for the Blndingnefs of other Mofaic Ceremonies, under 
 the New-Te{tament Difpenfation, without {liewing that 
 there was feme Ordinance or Ceremony, anfwenng to 
 each of them, and to fijccced them, inorder to quell the 
 Tumults of thofe turbulent Men ? And confequently 
 snake the new Difpenfation as cumberfome as the Old. 
 Does Mr. /^ think that thofe Legal Teachers were not as 
 clofely attach'd to other Mojalc Ceremonies, as they 
 were (or could be) to Circumcifion ? A3i xxi. 21, 28. 
 What kind of Satisfadion would it be to them, or Re- 
 futation of their Plea, to tell them Baptifm fucceeds Cir- 
 cumcifion ; but other Mofaic Ceremonies are aboli{lied, 
 and ChriHians compleat in Chrift without them, or any 
 coming in their Room to anfwer them ? How readily 
 (according to Mr. F.) might they return, and fay ihat^ 
 tilt Church was in a worfe- Condition than before, and hrr 
 
 Fii" 
 
( 85 ) 
 
 Prhiledges abridged, if fhe has no Ordinances to anfwcr 
 to thefe Offerings, Sacrifices, Purifications, d5V. once ia 
 ufe. And if only fonie * few comparatively, of thofe 
 baptized, were to partake of the Sacrament of the Sup- 
 per ; whereas formerly all the Nation of rhe Jews^ who 
 were circumcifed, were to eat of the Paflbver, In a 
 Word, if the Apoftle intended what our Opponents urge 
 fiom this Place, inftead of refuting the Judaizing 
 Teachers, he would only have form'd an Argument, 
 to be expos'd to more Perplexities and Intricacies. But 
 let it be obferved, it was the Apoftle's iVIethod, and a 
 fufficient Refutation to the Pleas of thofe Judaizing 
 Teachers, to open unto them that Chrift the "Subftance 
 beifjg come, there was no more any Uk for thofe Cere- 
 monies, Offerings, Types, and amongfi: the reft Cir- 
 cumcifion itfelf ; for Believers are comploat in Ch rift 
 without them, as the Apoftle teftifies, Ct?/, ii. lo. More- 
 over 'tis manifeft the Apoftk means by (Circumcifion of 
 Chrift) the Renovation of the Soul, Spiritual Operation 
 on the Heart, effecaed by the Power of che Holy Ghoft, 
 in mortifying the Body of Sin, and implanting in the 
 Soul, a Principle of Divine Life---Said therefore to be 
 done without Hands, in Oppofition to Circumcifion in the. 
 Flejh done with Hands. And not as Mr. F. aflerts, that 
 Baptifm is here called the Circumcifion of Chrift : For if 
 fo, then it would follow, that Baptifm is abfolutely ne- 
 c^flary to Salvation ; for io is the Circumcifion here 
 mentioned. 
 
 2. That Baptifm takes away Sins ; or at leaft, that 
 there is fome Virtue in it, co-operating wiih the Grace 
 of the Spirit, in putting off the Body of ^in.— Which 
 Aflertions are confiderably too big for Diffenters to 
 fwallow, let who will befides venture upon them. 
 Therefore what Mr. F. fays here, is falfe. Neither will 
 it help him to fay, that the Thing fignified, is here cal- 
 led by the Name of the Sign ; for that would prove that 
 the Perfons to be baptized, were only fuch according to 
 the Nature, Intent, and Defign of this Ordinance ; who 
 
 f 3 ha4 
 
 * '• e. Upon a Svpf Qfitioa tbat Iisfaats were to be b»ptiMd, a our 0§^ 
 pSAents urgs. 
 
( 86 ) 
 
 jhad this Work of Grace wrought on their Hearts ; and 
 fo adling Faith in Chrift in the Reception of this Sign, 
 both in dying to Sin, and rifing to Newriefs of Life (re- 
 piefented by their Burial in the Water, and rifing out of 
 jt) at the Adminiftration of Baptifm, which Infants are 
 incapable of j therefore not the Subje£ls of thisOidinance : 
 If he means thus, hisAflertion, that Baptifm comes in thg 
 Room of Circumcifion, will do him no Service in the 
 Cafe ; nor hurt the Truth which we profefs to maintain, 
 that thofe who have the Body of Sin put off, are the pro- 
 per Subjects of Baptifm. 
 
 But againft his Clear Confequence (as he calls it) I 
 "would further argue, If Baptifm fucceeds Circumcifion in 
 the Manner our Opponents urge, 'tis ftrange that Paul 
 and Barnabas in their Dillention and Difputation with 
 the Judaizing Teachers at Antioch (ASis 15 J who fo ve- 
 hemently urg'd the Neceffity of Circumcifion, did not 
 once think of this ready and powerful Way to refute 
 them, by faying Circumcifion is abolifhed ; but Baptifni 
 is come in the Room of it, and anfwers the fame Ends. 
 And when Paul and Barnabas^ with others, came up to 
 'Jerujalem about this Qiieftion, 'tis flill ftrange, when 
 they and the Apoftles and Elders met together, to confi- 
 der of this Matter, that in all their Difcourfing about the 
 Qiieftion, they never once thought on fuch a ready Way 
 to refute the 'Judai%ing Teachers, as our Opponents 
 prefcribc. Now if there had been fuch a Thing as 
 jBaptifm to fucceed Circumcifion, and Infants to be bap- 
 tized, How can anv One imagine that this truly honoura- 
 ble and wife Afiembly, fliould not have thought of it, 
 and immediately fallen upon it, as the ready Way to re- 
 fute tWeir Opponents ; efpecially when there was fuch a fair 
 Opportunity prefenting itfelf ; For the Occafion would 
 have led them directly upon it, had there been fuch a 
 Thing then known ; and we (liould have heard fome- 
 thing of it, in their Conclufions fent to the Churches 
 perplex'd with thofe 'Judai'z.ing Teachers. Now, I fay, 
 can any Reafon be thought of, why the Apoftles and El- 
 ders made no mention of any fuch Thing as our Oppo- 
 sients urge, neither in their Debates '\\\ this Council, nor^ 
 
( 87 ) 
 in their Letters fent to the Churches, but or^ly ttus Th^ 
 d.ey received no fuch Doanne from Chr.ft, and there- 
 fore\ranfeitted no fuch Cujlom to be^^ferved by the 
 Churches of Chnft ? And how any Man can thmk o 
 therwife, and not reflea great Impiudence and Unfa.th- 
 fu neTs upon the Anofties (if the Caf. be .. our Op.oaents 
 Z) I can't imagine. Neither is there any colour of 
 Reafon to fupport the Conf.quence of our Antagon.fts 
 ^orn thirXext that P.«/ here alTerts Bapt.(m to com« 
 -in the Room of Cireumcifion, and that Infants are to be 
 baptized, when he inmfelf was prefenr in tnat Council, 
 and in the Refult of their whole Difccurle there was no 
 Lch Thing concluded. The Cafe depends thus, Whe- 
 Iher is it f^feft to ceave to Mr. Fs C-^-iej-ce That 
 Infants are to be baptized ; or to tnat H^iy ^iTembly 
 which concluded no fuch Thing ? let the Reader judge.- 
 And here I have an Opportunity to prefent Mr. t. 
 with a much clearer Confequence tlian his o^^'tt ;, name- 
 ly. That Infants are not to oe baptized, oecaule ti^-s wife 
 AfTemblv mcntion'd nor decreed no lucl. I hiPg. (JNei- 
 ther indeed have we any Inftances of it m ^^^^ 
 of God) The World alfo may be pieasd to obferve the 
 Weaknefs and Falfity of Mr. F\ Rcafonings,^ tnat .h^ 
 7«^^/z;«F Teachers could not he refuted, unleis Bapt.fni 
 anfwers to Circumcifion, and fucceeds it, y^hen you fee 
 this Affembly refuted them without mentioning or al- 
 ferting any fuch Thing ; or eife the J^'f^^f'^S Tj^^^ers 
 were not refuted. To fay the laji would be blafpbemous, 
 4here fore the former is true. 
 
 There is nothing more that ofFers itfelf on this Head, 
 unlefs I fhould juft obferve, that Infants are no Ways ca- 
 pable Subiecls of Bapt.fm, as thev were of Circumciiion ; 
 becaufe that left a Sign in the Flefh, but Baptifm does 
 not : Hearing the Gofpel, Faith, and Repentance, are 
 always required in order to Baptifm ; ^^A^^^ ^"^ f'/^^fj'^^ 
 Circumcifion : In that there was no Word added to the 
 Sisn, but in Baptifm the Word is an effential Part of the 
 Sacrament; 'tis therefore neceffary that the Perfons 
 baptized, fliould in receiving, this Sacrament, exercile 
 Faith in God the Father, as their Father, m the Soiws 
 
 ^ 4 
 
( 88 ) 
 their Redeemer, and in the Holy Ghoff, as their Sanfti- 
 fier ; and let it be always remember'd, that there was 
 God's Command for Infants Circumcifion, but there is 
 none for Infants Baptifm. Hence Infants are every Way 
 incapable of this Holy Ordinance, 
 
 Now let us follow Mr. F. towards his Conclufion ; 
 but in his Way he meets with a Set of Objeaions, in 
 which (he fays) his Antagonijis chiefly triumph : And very 
 good Reafon for it ; blefled be the King of Zion, that he 
 lias given U5 Caufe to triumph in the Clearnafs and Evi- 
 dence of his Will, notwithftanding the violent Aflaults 
 tnade to darken his Counfel, and wreft his Word. 
 
 The Objeaions which (he fays) muft not be whollf 
 paired over, are " That we find Faith and Repentance 
 
 * always required in Order to Baptijm ; and thofe who 
 were admitted to the Ordinance, were oblig'd to pror 
 fefs the fame, and confefs their Sins. So in Matt, iii.6. 
 
 * They were baptized of him ;« Jordan, confrffmg their Sins. 
 
 * Matt, xxviii. 19. Teaching is fet before Baptizing. 
 ^ Mark. xvi. 1 6. He that believeth, and is baptized^ jhall 
 
 * be faved. J£is x/i. 15, 33, 34. Lydia and the Jay- 
 lor were baptized upon bdieving and profefling their 
 Faith. Ji}s ii. 38. Peter requir'd Repentance of 
 
 * his Hearers in Order to Baptifm. JSfs viii. 37. 
 
 * Philip would not baptize the Eunuch until he profeiled 
 his Faith.' In Anfwer to which, I obferve that our 
 
 ^ Opponents themfelves mull own, i. That thefe Scrip- 
 tures which they fo much urge, are add refled only to grown 
 Perfons, and not to Infants, who are incapable of 
 ' being taught by Preaqhing.' To which I reply : This 
 we readily own, and therefore fay, if according to the 
 Scripture, Faith and Repentance are always required in 
 order to Baptifm, then what Sort of Baptifm is thatj 
 v^hich requires no Faith and Repentance to go before 
 Jt.? Why furely not a Scriptural One. What 
 is it that blinds thefe iMen's Eyes, that they (hould think 
 Infant -baptifm to be right ? when they themfelves can't 
 find any fuch kind of Baptifm in the whole VVord of 
 God. People are really to be pitied, and lamented over, 
 who make all this Stir about a Ceremony, after a Man.- 
 
 ner 
 
( 89 ) 
 ner confefs'd by themfelves to be without Foundation in 
 
 Scripture, 
 
 Are our pitiful Opponents bent upon it, and fully re- 
 folved to follow the Tradition of their Fathers (which 
 muft be own'd on all Hands to be Scripturelefs) in diredi 
 Oppofition to the Laws and Order of the King o{ Zion ? 
 
 May the Lord incline their Hearts to turn from their 
 awful Wanderings to his facred Truth ; then fliould we 
 take fweet Counfel together, and walk to the Houie of 
 God in Company. 
 
 2. If all thefe Scriptures are addrefled only to grown 
 Perfons, then the Comniiflion refers to them alfo, wherein 
 ieoching is fet before baptising ; for this is one of the Pla- 
 ces Mr. F. cites. Hence, if Infants are incapable of be- 
 ing taught by Preaching, as Mr. F, fays they be, there is 
 no Warrant then to baptize them, unlefs Mr. F. could 
 produce another Commiffion than that which Chriff gave 
 to his Difciplesand their SuccefTors ; which we know he 
 cannot ; There is therefore no Authority from Chrift to 
 baptize Infants j becaufe in the CommiiTion, Teaching is 
 fet before Baptizing j and Mr. F. pleads for it (and would 
 have us own it too) that all thefe Places refer to grown 
 Perfons and not to Infants. Mr. F. would do well to 
 confider, according to his own Way of Reafoning, that 
 all the Infants he ever has baptized, and ever fhail, he 
 does it without any Authority from Chrift ; and let hirn 
 confider what dreadful Prefumption be is guilty of in fo 
 doing ; and alfo of his taking the Name of the blefled 
 Trinity fo much in vain ! 
 
 ' idly ffays he) That they were Addreffes to fuch 
 
 * grown Perfons as were not Chriftian« before, but either 
 
 * "Jews or Pagans' 
 
 Reply. What he would gain by this Part of his An- 
 fwer, I can't readily imagine. That Place, Matt. iii. 3. 
 — contains an Addrefs of John the Baptift to the Jeivs^ 
 the Pharifees^ and SadduceeSy who were then in Abra- 
 ham's Covenant, and had a Right to have their Children 
 circumcifed, becaufe this Ceremony was not then abro- 
 gated : And if Jbrahanis Covenant was a pure Cove- 
 nant of Grace, in the Manner our Opponent? plead for. 
 
 It 
 
( 90 ) 
 
 it does not found very well, to fay that grown wicked 
 Perfons, as thofe Jews were, who (Mr. F. favs) were no 
 Chriftians, were yet in the Covenant of Grace. Truly 
 I don't underftand fuch a Being in the Covenant of Graces 
 and to aflert fuch Notions, ferves for nothing elfe but to 
 faften People in deftrudllve Delufions. 
 
 ' 3^6'» (fays he) They muft own, there is a wide Dif- 
 
 * ference between gathering and forming a Church from 
 
 * amongft thofe who are ignorant of Chriftianity, and a 
 ' Church already gathered, and form'd, and inftrudted i 
 
 * for in profelyting Jews or Pagans to Chriftianity, they 
 ' muft of Neceftity be taught before they can either pro- 
 
 * fefs their Faith in the DocHirines of it, or be admitted 
 
 * to Baptifm : But it will not follow that none can be ad- 
 *■ mitted to Baptifm without teaching in a Church already 
 
 * conftituted.* Anf. There is no Neceffity appearing, 
 that we muft own all that is here fuggefted ; tho' we 
 ihould and do grant there is a Dift'erence between gather- 
 ing a Church, and a Church already gathered and confti- 
 tuted. The Matter may be fet in a clear Light by re- 
 folving a Query or two. 
 
 ^er. I. What is it to gather a Church ? Anf. 'Tis to 
 preach the Gofpel for the Inftrudlion of the Ignorant in 
 the Do(Slrines of Grace and Salvation, whereby fuch are 
 prepared to be fit Matter of a Gofpel Vifible Church, 
 j£fs xxvi. 17, 18. A^s viii. 5, 6, 12. 
 
 ^er. 2. What is a Church gathered, form'd, and 
 conltituted ? Anf. A Church gathered, form'd, and 
 conftituted, is a feleft Number of baptized Believers, in- 
 corporated together, profefting to be united to Chrift by 
 his Spirit, and to walk together by mutual Confent, in 
 Subje6lion to Chrift their Head, in the Fellowfhip and 
 Communion of all the Ordinances of the Gofpel. Acfs 
 ii. 41. Eph. iv. 15, 16. I Cor. vi. i-j. Chap, i, 9. Eph. 
 i. 19, 20. A^s ix. 31. 2 Cor. xiii. 11. Eph, v- 24. A^s 
 ii. 42, 46. 
 
 How then can Mr. F. thruft in his Aflertion, that it 
 "will not follow, none can be admitted to Baptifm, with- 
 out Teaching in a Church already conftituted ? when he 
 can't make appear that Infants are Church-members, 
 
 withou; 
 
( 91 ) 
 
 without contradiaing the exprefs Teftimony of Scripture 
 concerning the New Teftament Church, both in Refpea 
 of its Matter and Form : and alfo involve his Argument 
 in the geateft Abfurdiiies and Inconfiftencies, as I have 
 already fhewn. , 
 
 Infants cannot be baptized upon Profeflion of their 
 Faith ; they cannot be any Part of a conftituted Church, 
 not being inft.M-'^ted ; they can't profefs Union with 
 Chrift, nor Subjedion to him ; neither are they capable 
 to walk together with others in the FcUowfhip of the 
 Gofpel. 
 
 Does our Author think that the Infants of Church 
 Members are not as ignorant of Chriftianity, as he car> 
 fuppofe either Jews or Pagans to be ? Whatever he 
 thinks or fays, there is fufHcient Evidence that the In- 
 fants of Church-members are as ignorant of the Princi- 
 ples of Chriflianity, and their Natures as perverfe as any 
 others in the World, and therefore need (as they grow up) 
 very careful and diligent Inftru(5lions in the Dodrines pf 
 it, before there can be any Pretence for their Right to 
 Baptifm, or any tolerable Conformity to the Order given 
 by Chrift, in his unvariable Commiffion : And to deny 
 this, is to deviate from the plain Rule and Order of the 
 Gofpel. 
 
 " ^thly. (fays he) That there is a DifFerence between 
 
 * the firfllnflitution of an Ordinance, and the continued 
 
 * Adminiftration of it afterwards ; for Parents or grown 
 
 * Perfons muft firft be the Subjefls of a new Inftitution, 
 ' and not Infants : But it will not follow, becaufe Pa- 
 
 * rents muft firft be the Subjeds, therefore Children muft 
 
 * not afterwards be admitted at all : Yea fuch a Confe- 
 ' quence is quite Ridiculous !* Anf. What is Ridiculous? 
 to follow the firft Inftitution of an Ordinance, or leave 
 that, and follow Men's Adminiftration of it afterwards, 
 different from the firft Inftitution ? Let Mr. F. judge 
 which deferves moft to bear that odious Title, Ridicukus \ 
 How impertinent is the Inftitution of Circumcifion men- 
 tioned hare ! Does he think this a parallel Cafe with 
 what he is upon ? Was not the Circumcifion of Infants 
 exprefly commanded at the firit Inftitution of that Ordi- 
 
 ■ JiancCj 
 
( 92 ) 
 
 Wl' ^'"•/"n -J^'o ''n'^- ■ ^"'^ ^^'''^^^' thereunto, 
 /a^aham and all his Houfhold were circumcifed the fclf 
 fame Da^ according to God's Order : But there was 
 no fuch Thing, either in the firft Inftitution of Baptifm 
 or in the continued Adminiftration of it afterward* 
 Does not Mr. F. well know, that he can't find any Inft '- 
 tution for Infants Baptifm, as there was for Infants Ciri- 
 
 cumcifionj and why wouldhe labour tomaintainhisPradtice 
 hy this infipid Argument, when the Cafes arc no Ways 
 para^cl ? And ,f he does not acknowledge thi.s, I demand 
 the Place where the Inftitution of Infant- baptifm may be 
 tound, or that gives an Account of its continued Adminif- 
 tration afterwards ? 
 
 ^ He further a Js us, * How would this Argument con- 
 elude, vtz. That becaufe Abraham was circumcifed af- 
 ter he was corne of Age, therefore all Infants were ex- 
 cluded ? I Anf. It would conclude much like his Ar- 
 gument for Infant-baptifm ; namely. The Pofterity of 
 Jibraham in fo doing, would aft contrary to God's Direc- 
 tion, in not circumcifing their Infants, as our Opponents 
 go contrary to his Dircftion in baptizing them, .^^r^ 
 XVI. 15, 16 2 Tim. i. 13. feeing that profeffing Be- 
 lievers are the only Subjeas of Baptifm. 
 
 I don't begrudge him ^ all the Confirmation his Argu- 
 ment geto by the Inftance of IJhmael\ Pofterity ; who, as 
 lie fays, did not circumcife their Children 'till the i7th 
 Year of their Age, becaufe IJhmaelv;^s of that Age at the 
 hrft Inftitution of Circumciiion. If deviating from the 
 ftrlt Inftitution and due Adminiftration of an Ordinance 
 puts 1 erfons on a Par with I/hmael's Pofterity, truly we 
 have many IJhmaelites round us in our Day. 
 
 Mr. F. is not willing to leave his Anfwers to thefe Ob- 
 jeftions, without putting his Opponents upon a fecond 
 Conliaeration of them. It feems he is mighty willincr to 
 get the Force of thefe Scriptures turn'd afide fome Way or 
 ot^er that inftead of following thefe Texts (and others) 
 which do defignedly treat of the Ordinance (which are 
 furely the Places moft likely to guide us to a right Under- 
 standing of the proper Subjeds of it; he might bring 
 jn his Coiifequences for lufant-bspUiip, taken Irgm fucl> 
 
 places 
 
t ^3 ) 
 
 places of Scripture as treat quite on other Subjefls ; but 
 to do him the Pleafure, let us confider the Matter over 
 a<Tain, i. '* Do thefe Texts prove a Repeal of Infants 
 Church membeffliip ?" Yes, much flronger than all 
 his Confequences prove their Right to Baptifm ', becaufe 
 a Perfonal Faith, and Fruits of Repentance, are always 
 requir'd in order to Baptifm, Infants being incapable of 
 either, therefore they have nothing to do vi^ith it. 2. 'Do 
 ' not all thefe Scriptures refer to grown Perfons ? And 
 ' what then can they prove in refpeft to Children ?' Jnf, 
 Therefore none but the Perfons they refer to, have any 
 Right to the Ordinance, methinks is no bad Confe- 
 quence. 
 
 3. " Gan our Antagonifts charge us with baptizing 
 ungofpelliz'd grown Perfons, without Teaching, or Pro- 
 feflionofFaith.'^w/.OurConteft is not about their baptizing 
 grown Perfons, how they deal with them they muft beft 
 know J but if current Reports be true, they baptize fomc 
 grown Perfons, who (as well as fome Infants whofe Pa- 
 rents) are not admitted to the Lord's Table : And what 
 Sort of Gofpelliz'd Perfons fuch are, let themfelves judge. 
 But to the Cafe in Hand ; we charge them with baptiz- 
 ing ungofpelliz'd little Perfons, for fo Infants are, unlefs 
 they are born gofpelliz'd ; or fuck in the Principles of the 
 Gofpel, with their Mother's Milk ; for they can't be fo 
 by Teaching, nor by any fuppos'd Right m the Cove- 
 nant ; for to be gofpelliz'd imports one that has em- 
 brac'd the Do<Slrines of the Gofpel. There is therefore 
 very good and fufficient Reafon why we advance thefe 
 Scriptures againft thofe whofe daily Practice it is to bap- 
 tize ungofpelliz'd Perfons. 
 
 There is one Argument more which Mr. F. lays very- 
 great Strefs on, as tho' it would help him in what he en- 
 deavours to propagate, and it runs after this Manner, 
 
 * Now it is a plain Way of Reafoning, that which wouhi 
 
 * be the mofl proper Addrefs, even tho' Infants were de- 
 
 * fign'd to be included, cannot poflibly prove them. 
 
 * to be excluded ; but to require Profeflion of Faith 
 
 * from the Parents in order to Baptifm, was the moft pro- 
 
 * per, even tho' their Infants were defign'd to be inclu- 
 *■ ded : Thcrefgre to require Frofeflion of Fs^ith from Pa- 
 
 .* rents- 
 
( 94 ) 
 
 • rents in order to Baptifm, does not prove their Chil- 
 •dren to be excluded.' y/;;/] This Argument is a mere 
 Gmgle of Words, and won't bear up what he would 
 build upon it, unlefs he could make appear, that the Or- 
 der of the Commiflion, Mat. xxviii. (for that is one of 
 the Places referred to) is to be obferved only when Mini- 
 Iters are to preach to unchriftianiz'd Jews and Pagans ; 
 "which to aflert is quite abfurd. Mr. F. muft not think 
 hard that I do hereby call upon him tofhew his Authority, 
 for his forfaking the Order of the Commijfion, which re- 
 quires Teaching before Baptizing, when he has to da 
 with the numerous Offspring of Church-members ? Pray 
 ■what Scripture or Rcafon has he to fiipport him in his 
 Pcrverfion of the Words of God, by fetting Baptizing 
 before Teachings to fuit his Notion of Infant-baptifm, 
 When he has to do with Believers Infants ? Is the Com- 
 miffion of our Lord a mere Leaden Rule, and a moveabU 
 Dial^ that may be bent and turn'd any Way, to counte- « 
 nance the moft crooke(^ Aflertions, and Scripturelefs Opi- 
 Jiions ? Far be it from us to think fo. Notwithftinding 
 all the Endeavours of our Opponents to prove the Right 
 of Infants to Baptifm, they'll never be able to fhew that 
 they have a right Subjed of this Ordinance, but (One 
 who is firft taught) as the Commiflion prefcribes ; which 
 is theftated unvariable Rule to Minifters in the Execution 
 of their Truft, throughout all Ages ; however fome, 
 thro' the Prevalency of Education or Cuftom, may devi- 
 ate from it. Further, What a bold Refleaion is here 
 caft on the Divine Wifdom of the great Law-giver, by 
 this Kind of Reafoning ! As if Chrill: could not direft his 
 Miniftcrs to ufe another more proper Addrefs, if it had 
 been his Will Infants fhould be baptized : Befides the Ar- 
 gument with greater Force of Reafon and Scripture, 
 turns in our Favour : Unlefs Mr. F. could make appear, 
 that another Kind of Addrefs could have been more pro- 
 perly ufed, when Infants were defign'd to be excluded 
 from Baptifm. 
 
 What Mr. F. offers for Illuftration of this Argument, 
 Wz. * That was he to preach among the Pagans^ he does 
 ' not fee how he could avoid fpeaking to them in the 
 
 ' Stratrt 
 
r 9^5 > 
 
 * Strain of the above quoted Scriptures.' is no better than 
 if he fhould tell us, that were he to preach among the 
 Pagans^ he would obferve and follow the Order of 
 Chrift's Commiflion, and the Praaice of the Apoftles j 
 but that now he ads inconfiftent with both : And what 
 can be more abfurd ? 
 
 This Gentleman feems very fond of ftartingObjedions, 
 that he may enjoy the Pleafure of anfwering them. If 
 none contend for Perfons to be baptized at Thirty Years 
 of Age,^ Chrift was, to what Purpofe fhould Mr. i^. fet 
 himfelf to oppofe that which none contend for nor praSl'ife ? 
 This looks as if he wanted fomething to do, and he might 
 be fureto come off with a Vidtory, when he undertakes 
 to anfwer an Objedion which no-body makes but him- 
 felf. If thofe other Objedlions which he palTcs over in 
 Silence, were of the fame Nature with this, he might 
 well think 'twai Time ill-fpent to folve them. However, 
 • by the Way, it may be obferved, that it is not unfafe 
 nor diftionourable to imitate the great Captain of our Sal- 
 vation, viz. That one come to Years of Underftanding, 
 ftiould be the Subject of this facred Ordinance, which 
 accords very well with his Example, and is perfe6llf 
 agreeable with his revealed Mind and Will. 
 
 Here Mr. F. folds down the Leaf upon his former Ar- 
 guments, and qnters upon other Topicks, in Defence of 
 his received 'Tenet of Infant-Baptifm, and introduces 
 himfelf thus ; ' I have avoided quoting the Teftimonies of 
 
 * the primitive Fathers, on Purpofe to flop their ground- 
 ' lefs Clamour, that we derive our Practice ef Infant 
 
 * Baptifm from Tradition : They may fee their Mi- 
 
 * ftake, we derive it from Scripture, and are under no 
 
 * Neceffity of having Recourfe to human Teftimony for 
 
 * its Defence.' Anf. Incidit in Scyllam, cupiens vitare 
 Charybdim, Whilfl our Opponents would fain fhun one 
 Extream, they unhappily fall on the other. Pray what 
 places of Scripture are thofe which they derive Infant 
 Baptifm from ? for he joins with us, that all thofe Places 
 of Scripture which require Repentance and Faith, in order 
 to Baptifm, arc addrefs'd only to grown Perfons, and not t» 
 Infants » And we find no Inltance of Baptifm's being ad- 
 
 miniflred 
 
( 96 ) 
 
 miriiftred without fuch Qi^ialificatlons ; then it plainly 
 ff.Uows, Infant- Baptifm is unfcriptural. How can iVIr, 
 F. fay they derive it from Scripture, when no fuch Thing 
 is found riiere ? Does he think, for him and others to 
 father that upon the Scripture which it does not own, 
 or to wreft Scripture for its Defence, won't be greater 
 Grounds and Caufe of Clamour (as he calls it) than if 
 fuch a Practice was carried on merely on the Account of 
 Tradition ? Wherever they derive it from, we are quite 
 infenfible that we lay under any Miflake in this Matter : 
 Neither has Mr. F. convinc'd us, that Infaat-Baptifm 
 can at all pretend to any Divine Original. But then he 
 tells us * it was all along pra<Sl:ifed by the Church, from 
 
 * the beginning of Chrilti:^n!ty, and was received from 
 
 * the Apoflles : We have the Suffrage of no lefs a Man 
 
 * than Ireneus^ whofe Mafler Polycarp was the Apoftle 
 
 * y^'^'s Difciple ; who tells us, [That the Church learn' d 
 
 * from the Apoflles to baptize Children.') Anf. It has not 
 as yet been made evident, that Infant-Baptifm was all 
 along praiSlifed by the Church from the Beginning of 
 Chriftianity, or for a confideiable Time after it. Mr. 
 F. might have known, that ProtcJlantSy efpccially Dif- 
 
 fenterSi profefs to pay no great Refpe(St to any Pradlice 
 handed down, under the fpecious Title of Tradition Apo- 
 /ielical^ which is not mention'd in Holy Scripture j nei- 
 ther can we find in our Hearts to fhew much Regard to 
 InfaBt-Baptifm (which is Scripturelefs) tho' Mr. F. pre- 
 tends it was received from the Apoftles. But were it as 
 true, as it is falfe, that the Churchea immediately after 
 the Apoflles baptized Infants, it would be no Ground for 
 us to do fo, unlefs it had been reveal'd in the facred Pages, 
 which contain the unerring, full, and certain Rule of our 
 Faith and Pradice. 
 
 Let Perfons once lay afide the Scripture, and fly to 
 Tradition for Refuge, why they are in the open Way to 
 receive and maintain numberlefs Fancies and Abfurdities, 
 with as good Grace and equal Authority as our Oppo- 
 nents can their Pradlice of Infant-Baptifm. I have a great 
 deal of Reafon to queftion the Truth of what is here 
 alledg'd, viz. That Ireneus any where fays, * the Church 
 
 * Icarn'd 
 
( 97 ) 
 
 * learn'd from the Apoftles to baptfze Children ;' fot 
 (amongftotherl^hings which incline meto think this to b6 
 an J&ufe of" Irenetts) the Words feem to be taken from a 
 Marginal Note on a certain Sentence [ % ^i per eum 
 Renafcuniur in Deuin \ hfatites --'] vhich goes under 
 Irensus his Name ; upon which 'tis obferved in the 
 Margent by the Conimentator, Apertl cotifirmatis Apojlo- 
 hrum traditicnem de haptifmo Infavtiuin parvtdorum * —^ 
 If the Cule be thus, 'tis even as Mr. IVali f favs on the 
 like Occafion j ' The Author does not fay that, for 
 
 which he is cited ; but he fiys fomething fi^om whence 
 the other does draw it, as a Confequence ; and thea 
 
 * fets down that Confequence, as if it were the Author's 
 ' own Words.' Which Praaice is intolerable, either 
 to do (o, or cite what is done fo by another. Hov/ever 
 Mr. jF. is hereby defired to cite the Place in Jreneus his 
 Works (which are reputed genuinej where thefe Words 
 he mentions, may be found ; or elfe lie under the Charge 
 of abuiing Ireneus bafely, to countenance his Praaice, 
 and to procure a more welcome Entertainment for it, in 
 the Affedions of his Readers. 
 
 * I haveheard (fays he)fomeofourOpponents aflert (tho* 
 
 * without Book) That Infant Baptifm is a Relick of Po- 
 pery, and a novel Pradice ; but the primitive Fathers, 
 
 ' who were before Popery in the Pradice of it, prove the 
 *- Contrary. Anf. If he means before Popery began to 
 work, 'lis falfe ; for the My fiery of Iniquity began to 
 work in the Apoftle Paur^ Time, 2 Tl?ef. ii. 7. and none 
 can pretend to fhew any Inlhnces of Infants baptized in 
 PauH Time : But if he means 'twas pradifed before 
 Popery came to its Height, io were many other Errors al- 
 fo ; or elfe how fhould Popery come to its Height ? parti- 
 cularly, giving the Sacrament of the Supper to Infants, 
 and a/Terting it to be necefTary to their Salvation j as the 
 Rev, Mr. Dickinfon teflifies.§ 
 
 And what a great Step towards the advancing of Pope- 
 G rjr 
 
 X Vid, Iren. advetf, Hxr. lib. 4. cap. 39. pag. 161. Who by him ars 
 regenerated unto God ; Infants — * Evidently eftablifhing the Tradition of 
 the ApoftJes concerning the Baptifm of little Infants. f HjfH of Inf. bap, 
 P*8e «59. \ Doilrine of R^generatisn vind. page 56, 
 
( 9S ) 
 
 ly in the World, was it to hold, || * Thaf to fnfFer the 
 
 • Intant to die unbapiizcd, was to ei. danger its baiva- 
 
 • tion.* But whciliei iiiiaiu-bapfifm be a Relick of Po- 
 pery or not, 'tis plaiii 'us a Relick ot fomi.thing not war- 
 ranred by the vVurd of God. 
 
 It muft be alwavs obferv'd and remembicd, that the 
 Rule to which we ate dired^ed t i »r)ing any Pia<S^lice, ^ 
 whether it be «(9y(7, is the Holy Scripture, Ija. viii. 20, ■ 
 J!l4at. xix. 8. Rom. iv. 3. And in this C^ife, we fa* with 
 pKjteflant^ X "^ other Care>, IVhat is in the IVord oj God 
 is TRUE and OLD ; and fuch is th>-- Dudlrine and 
 Practice of Believeis Baptifm. And what is not contain d , 
 therein, is FALSE and N£W (tho' of many Hundred J 
 Tears /ianding) and fuch is the Dodrine and Practice of ' 
 L^fant baptifm. Hence our calling this Pra<S.ice Xovi/y 
 is not a mere Clamour, any otherwife than fpeaking the 
 Truth is (o. 
 
 * Hut let them now go to (favs he) and ranfack the 
 
 * Volumes ot Antiq ^itv, and fee if they can give an 
 
 * Accocifit from authentic Hiltory of our Beginning. If 
 
 * they cd.inot, they are behind ha..d with us, fur we 
 
 * can giv^e them a pretty full and authentic Account of 
 
 * the Rife and Pro^refs of their Party.' Rep/y. This is 
 pleafantly faid ! The whitcjl Head it feems /hull carry the 
 Caufe. I confefs our Opponents are indeed beforehand 
 With us, in this Point ; and there is a great deal of Rea- 
 fon for it, becaufewe have not fuch authentic Hiflory «)f 
 their Beginning, as they have of ours, l^he Recoid> of 
 Holy Scripture abundantly fupply them, to fhew when 
 we be?an ; but we have not fuch Records, to fliew when 
 they began. But by the beft Account yet brou2ht to our 
 Hands, from the Volumes of Antiquity, the\ did not be- 
 gin to appear in the World, (if Mr. F. means b\ their He- 
 ginning, when Infants were firft baptized^ till about the 
 third Ontury : About which Time the Sacrament of the 
 Supper * was alfo given to Infants i which Practice con- 
 tinued in the Church for many A^.^s. But if he means 
 by their Beginning, when the Prefbyterian Se£t began, it 
 
 was 
 
 U Wall's Hlft. p. 44. X M''">'n|t Exrrciff aeainft Pop. p. aog. • Vid. 
 MttiiTr. L'Aiio^ue'e Hifi. sf the Sucbaiilt. p. zay. 
 
( 99 ) 
 
 was not till the 15th Century. There is therefore all th* 
 Reafon in the World, if Antiquity fliall turn the Scales, 
 to allow us to he in the Right : For our Dod^rine and 
 Practice, That Prof'efling Believers are the proper Si'b- 
 jedts of Baptifm, is the very felt fame which the Apjilles 
 taught. And theSciiptural andApollolicalDx^rine which 
 always requires Faith and Repentance in Peifonsin order 
 to Bapiifm, does from the Beginning virtually and really 
 oppofeand exclude the contrary Doctrine, which teaches 
 that Perfons may be baptized, who do neither repent nor 
 believe, as in tiie Cafe of Infants. 
 
 Hence our Oppofing fuch Kmd of Baptifm as our Op- 
 ponents plead ior, is doing nothing more than what is 
 really contain'd in the Dodlrine of Believers Baptifm it lelf, 
 fo plentifully confirm'd in Scripture : And in fpight of 
 all Oppofition, our Pra£lice of baptizing Believers only, 
 will always appear perfe£l:l / concurrent with all the 
 Scripture Examples of Baptifm. Since then our Begin- 
 ning is io good and honourable^ I need not be much con- 
 cern'd at prefent to give any Relation of our ProgrefSt 
 for Mr. F, fays he can give ^ pretty full and authentic Ae^ 
 count of it^ for us. 
 
 But again, itis the moft inconclufive and fallacious Way 
 
 of Reafoning that can be, which Mr. F. ufes here ; much 
 
 " /like what one Mr, IVhtJfon ufed once, viz. * Becaufe we 
 
 ^' know not the Time when Infant- baptifm was inftiuted, 
 
 ' we may therefoic fay it is from Heaven, and not of 
 
 » Men.* 
 
 To which Mr. Hutchinfm % returns the following An- 
 fwcr. * Now I perceive the Reafon why he beftows fo 
 ' glorious a § Title upon his Book. But ftiall we con- 
 
 * elude that the Tares the Enemy fowed, while the 
 
 * Watchmen fl pt, were from Heaven and not of Men ; 
 
 * fince the droufy Watchmen cannot calculate the Time 
 '.tliev were fown to a Minute t Learned Ufoer gives 
 
 * Malone the Jefult an Anfwer to this Purpufe, when he 
 
 * maintain'd that the Mafs was of divine Inftitution, be- 
 
 * caufe Proreftants could not exa<31y find out its Nativi- 
 ' ty ; or when the Fooleries that attend it, had their 
 
 G 2 * Original ; 
 
 % Animad. p. 36. § vie. Infant-baptifm ftom Heaven, and not from Men. 
 
( 100 ) 
 
 * Original : Mufi we receive every Error tuhen tve can^ 
 
 * not (.ijjigri the critical A^inute of its Breaching f Suppofe 
 ' I knovv not the Time when Mr. IFhijion was born, (hall 
 
 * I therefore conclude him not to be a Man, nor of Men ; 
 
 * but A\o\)tfrom Heaven^ t^c. Is it rot enough it we 
 
 * can tell the Time when Infant- baptifm was not in the 
 
 * Church r and that Mr. Baxter has (very kindly) done 
 ' for us, when he '"avs, Thnt it has no exprefs mention in 
 ' the Recor/ls^ or Hijhries of the Chiv ch^ for the firjl (and 
 " pureji) Centuries. And if this be the Ground of his 
 
 * Mock- title, I fhall conclude it to be (like Mr. Bax' 
 
 * terh Plain Scripture Proof) of a Gomp]<exion that can- 
 « not blufh.* 
 
 And thus Mr. F. argues ; * If they cannot fhew any 
 
 * Time hnce the Aportle's Days, wherein our Practice of 
 
 * Infant- b^^ptifm began, it gives Ground to conclude, 
 
 * that It it did not begin fince their Days.*—- Such Kmd 
 of Reafonings are quite inconclufive, becaufe it is beyond 
 all D>»ubt there is no Account of Infant- baptifm in 
 iicipru'C ; it therefore muft begin fome Time fince ; 
 Sim' where fhall we fix its Beginning, but at the Time 
 vhen we have the firft mention of it (of any Weight or 
 ^Credit) in thofe Volumes of Antiquity ; which, as Dr. 
 ^ G/?/^ tcftifies, is froiTi the Ctfr?Z'<7^/«;rt» Fathers, about 
 the 3d Century. If Vlr. F. denies this, he and his Bre- 
 thren may ^<? tOy and ranfack the Volumes of Antiquity 
 over again (\i they think it is worth while to fpend fo 
 much of their precious Time about fupportmg a bcrip- 
 turelefs Pradlicej and give us undoubted Inftances of it 
 ifthevcm, fr.)m the Apoftle'sTimc^ down to the Time I 
 jmention'd. Alfo Mr. F. is obHg'd bv his own Rule to 
 Ihew us the Year when the Pia£lice of Infant* Communi- 
 on bciran, and cite us the Chnnological Table where we 
 may find it, and give us the Names of the Ring- leaders, 
 fcff. or elfe, according to his Way of Aiguing, there 
 wll be the f;<me Ground to conclude that that Pradtice 
 /whxh § St. A^Jiin calls an Apoftolical Traditumj did 
 jnot begin ncithtfr fiucc the Apoftle's Days. Indeed 
 
 C« 
 
 % L$tt«r 13. p. 5aSt % Lik> of Prophecy, p. J19* 
 
to go about to prove any. Thing after this Manner, is moft 
 abfurd and ridiculous. 
 
 As to Mr. F's Suggeftion that our Opinion began lefs 
 than 300 Years ago, 'tis to be ranked amongft the reft 
 of his improper Methods, and fubtle Artifices, to fup- 
 port his Pradtice : But with what Face can he fay or 
 publifti fuch a Falftiocd to the World, that our Opinion 
 began within the Compafs of fuch a Fin-n^ ? when 'tis 
 nothing elfe bat what is plainly and undeniably revealed in 
 Holy Scripture, viz. That Believers are the proper Sub- 
 je<Sls of Baptifm, We may therefore veryjuftly fay with, 
 Proreffants (in other Cafea) that our Opinion is Gon- 
 tain'd in Scripture, where Mr. F's Opinion of Infant- 
 baptifm never was. And can he deny us to be properl^r 
 the Succefiors of the Apoftles, who hold the fame Doc- 
 triae as they did, and praflife accordingly ? If he de- 
 nies this, let him ftiew wherein we deviate from them 
 in this Cafe. On the other Hand, can he imagine that 
 he a(Sts according to the Practice of the Apoftles in his 
 Baptizing Infants, when he can't fliew in one Inftance, 
 that they ever did fo ? in a Word, what I would de- 
 fire of h'm at prefent, is to fhew that our Opinion is not 
 foundedJn Scripture ; but if lie cannot do this, leth:ni 
 then forbear to call that a New Opinion, which is noneo^ 
 ther but the Dofirine of the Lord Jefus, bow contemtu- 
 Oufly foever he is pleas'd to treat it. 
 
 Mr. p. feems very much unacquainted with the Man- 
 ner how Error's enter into the Church, by his Way of 
 fpeaking, viz. ' Or elfe let them give even probable 
 
 * Reafons how Infant- baptifm could begin un-notic'd, and 
 
 * without any Noife or Buftle V AnJ. If any want to be 
 inform'd how Errors in general begin, or enter into tho 
 Church, let him read 2 Pet. ii, i, 2, 3. Mat. xiii. 25. 
 with other fuch like Places of Scripture. Pray what 
 Noife ov Bujile is made when Perfons adt/^r/w*/)' under the 
 Cloak of feign'd Words ? and if any Noifc (hould be 
 made, yet when Men are afleep, they cannot fo readily 
 obferve it : And it feems Infant-baptifm was firft intro- 
 duc'd after fome fuch Manner, under fome fair Pre- 
 I^ACC oi \^ Ocipg Q^ceiTary to Salvi^tioni^^. but yet noc 
 
 G 3 ^'\i\ 
 
C 102 ) 
 with fuch enti'-e" Silence neither, as our Opponents fug- 
 ged i foi Tertuilian who flounfl.ed ab(.ut t.^e Beginning 
 of the 3d Ctntury^ and (as Mr. XSymJon Uv^) was a /eam- 
 ed Preacher in the City of Carthage in Africa^ oppoled 
 it. a> appears by his Words, as Mr. IVall renders them, 
 t ' Huttiiey whofe Datv it is to adininilter Bapiifm, arc 
 ' to know, tha» it mu(^ not be given raftily, Give to 
 
 * every one that ajketh thee, has its proper Subjedt, and 
 
 * rclaies to Alm.^ giving : But that Connmand rarher is 
 
 • heic to be conlidered, Give not that which is holy to 
 
 • Dogs neiiher caft your Pearls before Swine. And 
 « that you Jay Hdmk fuddenh on no Man, neither be 
 
 * pirraker ofeveiy One's Fa. .lts.---'rhereloie according 
 
 • tceverv One% Condition and Dijp^fuioriy and alfo their 
 
 Age, the delaying ot Hap^'frn is i\i .Q pi>-fiable, efpe- 
 « culiy in ih.' Cafe ot littlf Children ; tor wha^ Need is 
 
 * tlicre that the God arheis (Sponforei^ Suretiesj Ihould 
 
 * be brought into Danger ? hecau e they mav euher fail 
 
 * of their ^'romifcs bv iXath, 01 rhey may be miftaken 
 
 * by a Child's proving of w eked Difpofition. Our 
 
 * Lord fays indeed. Do not forbid them to come to me : 
 
 * 1 herefore let them come 'vhen ihev are grown up ; 
 
 * let them come when^ they underftand ; when they are 
 
 * inftruded wn.rhcr it is rha. they c -me ; let them be 
 
 * made l.hriftians when thev can kni.w Chrift. What 
 need rheir guiltlcfs Age make fuch hafte to the For- 
 givenefs of Sms .f Mer> will proceed more wanly n 
 worldly Things : And he that (hould not have earthly 
 G.'od^ commiued to him, yet fliall have heavenly. § Let 
 ihem know how to defire this Salvation, th\t vou may- 
 appear to have tliven to o ,e that afkech.' This Pafloge 
 
 (wit.i oihers) ftiew that Tertuilian was aga>nlt Intant- 
 bapMf.n ; and Dr. Gale has refuted Mr. [Vatl\ A.ga- 
 mcnts tor the Contrary. Mr. F. may be pleafed to lead 
 again, and he'll fi.^d Infant baprifm was oppofcd be- 
 fore the Time of Auxeniim the Jrrian, in the fourth 
 Century. , ^^ 
 
 1 H.ft. of the rhurrh. t WallN Wft. p. ^r. 
 
 nit diviac fhiogs w l\Kh »a would not l>c int.ullpi with e*fthly S«bftaoce. 
 
( 103 ) 
 « L?t tWm but (hew us (fays Mr. F.) how it confifts 
 < uitl. G.'u^ Pr. m.fes to Ins Htcplc, tl-iit the Generality 
 * of ho moft v-m.neiu t hriltians, the wifeft, moft 
 » leanie/, moft n.quGtive, and molt holy Dwines, 
 « faojld be 1. ft, to live and aie o«f of the C'huich, after 
 « a'l pofl-bie 161I1 f nee to dl^co^er the Truth in this 
 « Point ?' Jnf fl'-ie s a Bundle o^ great Titles to a- 
 mufe the Wu;.d wuh ! We aie not to follow Paul any 
 further than he followed Lh.iO. If the Bereans ft.atched 
 the !?ciipture daily, to know vh.-tl.ei th.e 1 hin^rs fpulcen 
 b^ Paul were fo, and were cummei.deu tor then L doing* 
 JSIs x\n. II. is it then any Difp^rasemtnt to thofe moft 
 learned, and moit hoU Divines, that we (hould alfo exa- 
 miu. wb^tthcv fa. by the Ttfiimony of Scripture, to fee 
 whe hei fn'aiit-baptifm be the Truth of Goo or no ? and 
 when we can't find it revealed theie, n( r they don't direft 
 lis where it may be found, iet Mr. F. tell us which ts 
 bell and fafeft for us to follow, thofe great Men (whom 
 on other Accounts we do hi^hlv efteem) or the unernng 
 and infallible Word of God,' and t\\c Jhining Example of 
 the primitive Chriftians, the more wije^ more learned^ 
 and more holy Apoftles of Jcfjs Chnfl: (who were infal- 
 lible; in this Cafe ; and who do unitedly confirm our 
 Doaiineto be jult and true. Or is Mr. F angry with 
 us, becaufe we don't take what thofe great Men lay upon 
 truft, and beheve Infant- baptifm to be right, without 
 any Trial, becaufe they fav lb-- -How then fhould we 
 efcape his Cenfure elfewheie * vi%. ' That many People 
 « are fo ftupid and flothful, as never to fearch for Truth, 
 * nor feek to fee with their own Eyes, in Matters of Re- 
 ' ligiun.' Seeing Mr. F. allows us Liberty to ufe our 
 own Eyes, in Matters ot Religion, (hall not we have Li- 
 berty alfo to a<Sl in religious Matters, according to what 
 we fee without Blame, or being called % Schifmaticks and 
 Bigots ? Otherwife of what Ufe is it, for us to fee with 
 our own Eyes (unlefs it be to increafe Stupidity and Sloth 
 to the utmoft) if our Confciences muft notwithflanding 
 truckle on under the Influence of the Reverend Crowd, 
 contrary to i ight received ? What would this be, but 
 G 4 li^ 
 
 ^ Preface, p. S* % Ciiaxit. Plea. p. 114. 1 ' 
 
( 104 ) 
 like an Afs couching down between two Burthens } or 
 like a Prefhyterian^ who is coininc'd by .Scnprure thafc 
 his InraiU Sprinkling is wrong, but dares not forfake it, 
 becaufe of the Firebrands and Death call in his Way J. 
 Mr. F's Queftion in this laft cited Par.i^raph, is eafily 
 refolved, by obferving, That particular Churches may be 
 more or lefs pure^ according os the DoSitine of the Gofpel is 
 taught and embracedy Ordinances admi ijtred, and 
 fublick IVorflAp perform, d more or lefs purely in them. So 
 that our Rejefting Infant-baptifm, as a Corruption of the 
 facred Ordinance of Jcfus Chrift, does not ..flPuid Mr.- F: 
 thefe Abfurdities he would throw upon us j but only \>^ 
 fpeaks, that we btlieve the Communities of our Oppo- 
 nents to be far lefs pure and unhke the Apoft' lie Chuich- 
 cs, than our own j which none czu ju/ily blame us for, 
 "till they rationally convince us of the Contrary. 
 
 * And let them fay whether the Body of fuch Chrifti- 
 *■ ans and Minifters, with the wife Reformers and cou- 
 * rageous Martyrs, be not on our Side of the Qijeftion.' 
 Jnf. If Truth was to be decided by Votes, there might 
 be fome Weight in this Argument ; but feeing it 
 is not, this is of no great Ufe in the prefent Con- 
 troverfy ; but fuch as it is, we can't fully allow it them 
 neither ; becaufe there have been, and are Thoufands of 
 Chriftians who rejed their Infant-baptifm as infipid 
 and Scripturelefs. And feeing we are upon it, I may 
 juft (hew them that we are before them in this Cafe : Let 
 them give us any Inftanccs of xVIartyrs who fufFered 
 Death upon the Account of Infant-baptifm ; as we can 
 fhew many Inflances of Godly Men, who fufFered even 
 unto Death for denying it. They may fhew that Pcedo- 
 baptifts fufFered Martyrdom ; but none fufFered for hold- 
 ing Infant-baptifm ; or this was no Caufe of their fufFer- 
 ing. Mr. Rees § cites Inflances/)f many who fufFered 
 even to Death for denving Infant-baptifm, and profefling 
 the Contrary, out of Gerrard Brandt's Hiflory of the Re- 
 formation j whom he callb, that faithful Dutch Hijiori^ 
 an. The Hiftorian fays^ ' The Reformation, cxclu- 
 
 ' five 
 
 t Vid . Divine Right of laf. Bapt, p. 6, 7, 38, S laf, Bjptifm no laOij 
 
( 105 ) 
 
 fiveof Infant-baptifm, wasfet o-n Foot In Switzerland, 
 about the Year 1522, by the Zq^\ o{ Conrad Grebel 
 and Forlix Mans, both Men of Learning, who fell out 
 with Zuingl'ius about the faid Opinion. But wears 
 told that this Falling-out cofl them very dear ; for tha 
 Hillorian informs us in the next Paragraph, that upon 
 Account of this Difference, was the firft j?^/^ againll 
 Anahaptijls publiflied at Zurich ; in which there was a 
 Penalty of a Silver Mark, or two Guilders Dutch iVjo- 
 nev, fet upon all fuch as fhould fufFcr themfelves to be 
 re-baptized, or fhould with hold Baptifm from their 
 Children. And it was further declared, that thofc 
 who openly oppofed this Order, fhould be yet more fe- 
 verely^ treated. Accordingly the faid Fa:Hx was 
 drown'd at Zurich, upon the Sentence pronounc'd by 
 ZinngUus in thefe four Words, ^ui iterum Mergity 
 Mergatur ; that is. He that re- baptizes with Water, 
 let him be drowned in the Water. This happen'd in 
 the Year 1526 ; but about the fame Time, and fince, 
 there were inore of them put to Death : A Procedure 
 that appeared very Jirange xo fome.' Upon which Mr. 
 
 ^^^j juflly obferves,-- 
 
 * Strange indeed 1 and very melancholy Times I 
 
 * That a Protejlant, and a Minijier too, fhould pro- 
 
 * nounce a barbarous and inhuman Sentence upon his Bro" 
 
 * ther, for difputing againfl Infant baptifm : A Thmg 
 
 * which at beft, has but fome dark Tradition to fupport 
 
 * it i for there is not one Jngle Text in the whole Bible ^ 
 
 * that will plainly warrant it, and many Poedo-baptifla 
 
 * confefs fomuch.* 
 
 Again, t ' I have carefully told over Five Hundred 
 
 * and Seventy odd Perfons (all Anabaptifls) who were 
 ' put to- Death merely on Account of Religion, cxclu- 
 
 * five of, and in Contradiftindtion to any who fufFered, 
 
 * as chargeable with Treafon, Rebellion, Sedition, bfc. 
 
 * Nor have I rcckon'd into the Number, a whole Affem" 
 
 * hly of thefe People which was betrayed at Rotteraam in 
 
 * the Year 1544, for I could not make an Eftimate or 
 f them; but all that were caught of thefe, were executed, 
 
 ^ Upon 
 
( io6 ) 
 
 * Up«n a fair Computation then, this SnnrTing: of Ana- 
 
 * baptijis^ who fLffered abioiJ, in and ub w the Lovt 
 
 * Counviei^ for their Religious Principles, amounts c n- 
 
 * f.t^e.al>iy to above the highcft NumDer of thofe, of 
 
 * wh^rf ever Dtnoniinaiions, who were put to Death in 
 ' England^ on Account of the Reh.i mation. What I 
 
 * fu ti<er ..bferve, is, ! bar in the Judgment o\ Chrtji'mn 
 
 * Charity^ there a; pcj.ed in tlicfe, not only equal Fpm- 
 
 * ntf-. «.t Mmio, a-id the Traces of a g.od Spirit, but they 
 
 * had furh divine Franfports, ard lolid Affurances be- 
 « to-e rhci Exits^ as eminently attended our glorious 
 
 * B.itijh AUttyrs.' Hence it appears, how vain and 
 cmptv ivJr. F's Preience is, as well as how falfe is that 
 ^-n.ch follows, viz. ' On the other Hand, 'tis too well 
 
 * known, that the Ambaptifts were the Dregs and Re- 
 
 * proach of the Reformation in Germany, where they 
 
 * began, and in every Place where they then got Footing.* 
 jtnf. If all other Arguments and Methods tail our Op- 
 ponents, then it is but to have Recourfe to the Anabap- 
 ti^ in Germany, l^c. that if by any Means the Truth 
 vhich we profefs, might be brought fome way under Con- 
 tempt, and Its Profeflbrs reprefented to be the real (tho* 
 bafe) Progeny of two or three fcandalous Men in Germany. 
 But it feems our Opponents can never diftinguilh between 
 the Truth, and thofe who profefs to hold it. Did thofe 
 few Anabaptifts (thus delcrib'dj hold and maintain Be- 
 lievers to be the (onlyj proper 5ubjeds of Baptifm ? Why 
 then tbey held what was contain'd in Scripture long 
 enough before they were born : And is the Truth of God, 
 and the Dodrine of Chrift the worfe, becaule fuch Men 
 pretended to believe it ? Were the Do(Strines of the Gof- 
 pel the Worfe, becaufe there was a Judas among the 
 
 . ApoOies ? Does not Mr. F. know it is one of the Devi- 
 ces of Satan to bi ing Truth under Contempt, by corrupt- 
 ing its Profeflbrs ? And why will our Opponents make 
 life of thofe Corruptions, as Arguments againft the Truth 
 itfdf ? In a Word, what Improvement foever our Op- 
 ponents may think proper to make of the Corruptions or 
 /rr/^?/i7ri//«of any Men, who at any Time, profefs'd 
 E^ievers to be the proper Subjects of Baptifm, they may 
 
 hear 
 
( 107 ) 
 hear it once more told them, that this is a Truth which 
 JJj'tnes wiih unbeclouded Brightnefs throughout the whole 
 NewTcHament, far above their mean Arts and Devices 
 ever to cclipfe or fubvert whilft rhe E-rth remaineth. 
 
 After Mr. F. has labouj'd to wound the Charadler of 
 his Opponents, with what he thought proper, then he 
 would tain footh thern up acain, yK\t\\\\\s Compliments i 
 of \i\^fincere Regard, and highEjhem of Numbers of them, 
 eff. probably weftiould thmk hi- i^^^a requite as fm cere, 
 and hi? Efteem every way as hi^h, irhe had not mentioned 
 a Word of all this, as now we do, after all his tree (per- 
 haps forc'd) Confcffion of it ; un'cfs the e were greater 
 Evidences to be found in his Writings, of his Regard and 
 Efteem, than appear to be. 
 
 Further, Mr. F. makes an Apology for hisExpreffions : 
 Jj he hai ufed any thai may feem too keen and fevere, he 
 ajjurts us juch Turns proceed not from bitternefs of Spirit^ 
 but his natural Difpofuion in Difputation, and a Studiouf^ 
 nefs of Jetting the Argument in a pong Light. We have 
 only his bare Word to the contrary (and that is no good 
 Proot in his own Cafe) but what Bitternefs of Spirit is 
 his natural Difpofition in Difputation, and is all the Steel 
 that fets any Edge and Keennefs upon his otherwife blunt 
 Weapons in the prefent Engagement. But if he was 
 confciuus to himfeif, of his havmg ufed keen Expreffions, 
 which weie like to Prejudice his Opponents, methinks it 
 would have been prudent for him to foften them, or elfe 
 omitted this ujelefs Apology. 
 
 Havmg gone through with what he thought proper to 
 ©bferve, he comes now to his Conclufion, and tells us, 
 
 * Tho' I do not efteem the dem ing Baptifm to Infants a 
 < damnable Eiror, nor the Contrary a Foundation 
 
 * Truth, yet I cannot but efteem it a Truth of fuch Im- 
 
 * portance, as is worthy to be contended for.' Anf. *Ti& 
 but three or four Years ago, that there was a mighty 
 Koife of Perfons \it\ngearnai\i they contended about thofc 
 ©utward Things. 
 
 But It feems the Times are changed, and our Oppo- 
 nents are changed in them. We always look'd upon the 
 Dwarine of Believers Baptifm to be an Important Truths 
 
 and 
 
( io8 ) 
 and have therefore in proper Times and Places contended 
 for it, againft the Abute and Corruptions of our Oppo- 
 nents. Mr. F. f.iys, fVijat greatens our Error, is our 
 denying Abraham'^ Covenant to have been the Covenant of 
 Grace. Anf. Wc do ftill flatly deny the Covenant of 
 Grace to be made with Ahraham on Be ha lf of h.mfelf, 
 a!id ALL HIS Seed, l^c, and continue to fay the Cove-, 
 nant of Grace was made wiih Chrift onlv, as a publick 
 Pei foil, and in him with all the Ele^ as his Sad. 
 
 And further, that the Covenant of Grace was reveaTd 
 to Adam foon after he fell, and fo down to Abraharn^ 
 David, i^c, under the former legal, typical, and dark f^if- 
 penfation, till Chrift came in the Flelh, with whom the 
 Covenant was mide, who built his New Teftament 
 vifible Church of Beliiving fews and GentileSy and none 
 clfe that we can find : And hereby we preferve the Har- 
 mony and Connedfion between the Old .nd New Telta- 
 ment entire, notwithftanding Mr. Fs falf? and flanderous 
 Infinuation to the Contrary. In the mean Time, I put 
 him upon the Proof to cite one fingle Paflaje of the Old 
 Teftament that we repeal, which God has nottepe^l'd : 
 And if he cannot do this, as I know he cannot, let him 
 recal his falfe Aflertion, ^ and take heed for the future, 
 what Charges he brings againft us. 
 
 Again, li we do diminijh from the TVord of Gad, as Mr. 
 F. fuggefts, 'tis very unaccountable how he could in a 
 Page or two before exprefs his Gladnefs, becaufe of our 
 Agreement with him in tXy^ great Ejfentials of Religion. 
 What ? an Agreement with fuch People as he reprefents 
 |is to be ? Does he reckon the Ejfentiah of Religion to 
 be entire, tho* a very great Part of God'? Word be re- 
 peal'd, which he hath not repeal'd ? Strange Religion ! 
 Strange Agreement \ or elfe a very ftrange and falfs 
 Reprcfentation of his Brethren ! 
 
 I wifti Mr. F. could exprefs his Love and Regard to us 
 more confiftent with himfelf. If we agree with him in 
 the Effentials of Religion, then we do not repeal a very 
 l^reat Part of God's Word, which he has not repealed, 
 ^nd thereby diminifh from it, unlefs he^does fo. Neither 
 
 cjin (his Charge be ever provea againft (tf> uaUis Mr. F. 
 
( 109 ) 
 
 will acknowledge that he has told a poritive tjntruth in 
 Print i or clfe lay that he can ii;i,rcc iii Ljfentials with 
 thofe, whodiminifli from the VVotd of God ; "which if 
 he does, we w:li at the tiifl Notice profefs our Diffent 
 fiom him in this Cafe. 
 
 Says he, * They account Believers Infants Common 
 
 * and Unclean, as the Infants of Turks and Pagans* 
 4nf' The Rcverfe ot this is of mighty Force to vjin upon 
 People who are generally and miturally/iff^ of their ChiU 
 drcn, and rtady enough to think their own Geefe, Swans. 
 The Carnal Jews of old, were pufPd up with the Noti- 
 m of their being the Seed of Abraham^ John viii. 33, 37, 
 39. And thefe are the Steps our Opponents would lead 
 their People in, to think that their Infant Seed arc Tome 
 how better than others. But the Scriptures aflure us, 
 there is no real Difference betwixt the Seed, of Believers, 
 and Unbelievers, Rom.'m. 9. Eph. ii. 3. And as to 
 any other Difference, oi Ceremonial^ Typical, or Foederal 
 Holinefs, theNew Teftament Difpenfacton acknowledg- 
 es none ; and 'tis but begging the Queftion, to fay, that 
 God accounts them holy. ' They deny (fays he) that any 
 ' Infants vifibly belong to God, by carting them out of 
 
 his Church, and denying them to have any Part in his 
 
 * Covenant, and fo do confign them over to Satan* 
 Anf. What a flrange Heap of Stuff is here thrown up to- 
 gether ; if by any Means we may be pair.ted black, and 
 deformed to the Eyes of the World ? But, I. VVherc 
 has Mr. F. fhewn that Believers Infants were ever in the 
 New Teftament Church ? 'Tis idle Talk to fay that we 
 Cdft them out of the Church, when none has fhewn, and 
 I prefume, never can fliew, that they were in it. 
 
 2. Our Opponents do own there is no a<5iual being in 
 the Covenant of Grace, but by EleSfion on Goa's Part, 
 and Faith on Man's Part § : And M'e deny Infants to 
 hive any Part in the Covenant of Grace, no otherwif* 
 than as they have not confented to the Order of the Gofpel, 
 in an unreferved faving Clofure with Jefus Chriff, where- 
 by Perfons are aSlually and vifiUy interefled m the Cove- 
 nant of Grace. 
 
 3. Wc 
 
 § Coaf deration of the Quertfts. p. 3«« 
 
( no ) 
 
 3. We do not cinfign Infants over to Sa^an, any other- 
 Wavs than declaring what ihe Scriptuic faxsuf thtin, vi%. 
 Thdt thev are all imiier Sin, ai.d b. N.tine ( hildren of 
 Wrath ; ignorant of G d ; % del^it'iit of « ririnal Righ- 
 teoufnefs i having their Naiuit ^ho\U corrupted, where- 
 by they are utterly indifpu^'d, uif^t.led, and become op- 
 pofite unto all th t is fpititu-'lly good -, and wholU mcl n'd 
 to all h-vil. And for Mr, F. to take fuch and aun»in:i>er 
 Baptifm to thtm, is to have under his Hai.ds a vilihle 
 improper Subjcd of this 3o(pel Ordir)incc. Kiirr'er 
 Mr. F. favs, ' Out of the Covenant there is noSaKnti- 
 * on.' We underftand he mea^s :he Covenant (m;.de 
 with Abraham) which he io oiten nientjons, of w Inch 
 Circumcifion was a Token : Ir fo, it isfalfc ; for Godly 
 Perfons were faved, tho' thev wet* nut in .ihraharni 
 Covenant, as I have (hewn already ; or elfe what be- 
 came of righteous Lot, and otheis ? What is Mr. f. 
 driving at here, but to fet fo-^rh a new E- i'ion of »he old 
 Story, viz. Out of the Church there is no .Sajvirion. 
 Befidcs what a Limiting of the Hol\ One ot I/me I is 
 here? according to him, the Ciiildun ol Nt>t.-mtnibers 
 are out of the Covenant (without the Pales of the viliole 
 Church) and therefore if (iie\ die m their Infancy they 
 camat be faved. His Perfonnance rdecd bears ihc fair 
 and promiftng Title of a Chariiabl'' Pita for the Spfech- 
 lefs j but IS there no Charity, for tf-c pooi little Speech- 
 lefs Ones of Non-memoers, dviiig in their ln*iinc\ ? 
 No, according to Mr. F. tor they are our ot Ahiaharns 
 Covenant, and therefore excluded frcm Salvation. 
 Hard Cafe ! Yea, truly hard ! That the Sin of .heir 
 Parents in Negitding to join them'elves to the Churc' , 
 (hould put their Infant Seed (o la: off, that the f.ivi g 
 Benefits ot Chrift's Blood cannot reach them. I his is ttie 
 Gentleman that is pleas'd to charge us with Consigning 
 Infants over to the Devil. Let all Mt-n jud,e bet ixt u.s, 
 wheiher our Opponents or we are guiltv of tlie greatell 
 Uncharitablenefs and Cruelty^ rcfpedting Children. They 
 who (according to this Aflertion) deny the HoiTibillty of 
 Salvation to the Infants ot N on members (dying in their 
 
 infancy) 
 
 I See Afl'embly't Larger Citechifmi 
 
r I" ) 
 
 Infancy) or we who only deny to adminifter Biiptifm t« 
 the Infants of Church-members, becaufe God hath not 
 commanded it. 
 
 * Yea (fays Mr. F.) they lay dangerous Grounds to 
 
 * (derogate from Chrift himfelf, when he was an Infant ; 
 
 * for tho' he was Head of the Church, yet according to 
 
 * their Principles, they muft have deny'd him Member- 
 ' (hip in it, until he was grown up ; and what Abfur- 
 ' dity is greater, than to (\tny the Mafter of the Houfct 
 
 * a Right to be in it ?* Anf. All this is calculated for 
 the Meridian of Falfhood. Our Opponents write as if 
 they thought their Pens fandtificd the moft palpable Un- 
 truths in the World. What Grounds do we lay that 
 have any fuch Tendency, as this Heap of Calumny fug- 
 gefts ? Mr. F. fays, Baptifm was not a divine Inftitu- 
 tion, when Chrift was born j and did we (according 
 to our Principles) ever gainfay in the leaft that the Male 
 Infants of Abraham had a Right to Circumcifion I Let 
 Mr. F. mention any of ihefe dangerous Grounds^ if he 
 can ; or elfe retradt this bafe and flanderous A^ertion. 
 Seeing Baptifm was not inftituted when Chrift was boriiy 
 how is it poffible that our Denying Infant- baptifm, 
 fhould affe£t the Cafe of Chrift, before the Ordinance of 
 Baptifm was inftituted ? There is no Colour of Reafon 
 to fupport this Infinuation, not at all. 
 
 * They arc moreover (fays he^ ''riven, in Defence 
 
 * of therr Principles, to wreft many precious Scriptures, 
 
 * and put uncouth and unreafonable GlofTes upon them, 
 
 * to fuit their Judgment.' 1 his I deny. And 'ti« 
 no Ways probable it (hould be true ; when the Do£lrine 
 of Baptifm, which we contend for and maintain, is fup- 
 ported bv all thofe Places which fpeak of the Ordinance ; 
 and that of Baptizing Inf nts h?th not one fmglc Com- 
 mand, Example, or Inftance, to fupport it, in the 
 whole Scripture. Let all Men^W^^, if there is any Pro- 
 bability we Ihould be neceffitated to wrejl Scriptures in 
 Defence of our Principles, which are no other than that 
 Bf-lievers are the proper Subjects of Baptifm. And fur- 
 ther, let them judge aJfo, whether it is not probable, 
 Uut our Oppoueucs u^farc'd \m Wi«A Scripture in De* 
 
 fence 
 
( 112 ) 
 
 fence of Infant-baptlfm, when there are no Inftances of 
 it in the Word of God ? 
 
 Wc come now to the Clofe of Mr. Flnlcy's firft Part 
 of h\?- Performance^ where lie conchides, hoping what is 
 /aid may fuffice, as to the Subjects o{ Baptifm. If 
 thro' the whole he had brought atj\' Command or Example 
 for Infant- b.iptifm, much lefs IVrlting would have been 
 fufficlent \ but feeinp: he has not, he is defircd to obferve, 
 that were he to fav as much more^ and double to tbat^ '\\ 
 would be all inf efficient to warrant the Pra6tico o{ Ba^ti' 
 jLing Infants, or prove it to be the Infiitution of our 
 Lord and exalted Saviour Jesus Christ. 
 
 ^ii> -^^ ^^ -^ -^9 ^-^ -m 
 
 THE 
 
( 113 ) 
 
 THE 
 
 MODE ofBAPTIS 
 
 By 
 
 IMMERSION 
 
 VINDICATED. 
 
 E T US now proceed to wait on Mr. JTinley ia 
 
 what he hath to fay about the Mode of Bapufm. 
 
 His Second general Aflertion is, * That Bap- 
 
 * tifm is rightly adminiftrcd by fprinkling or 
 
 * pouring Water on the Perfon baptized.* 
 
 The firft Particular^ which is improved by him in 
 Vindication of this Aflertion, is as follows, ' There is 
 
 * nothing in the Word of God contradictory to it ; or> 
 
 * in other Words, that the Anabaptifts Arguments a« 
 
 * gainft it, do not overthrow it. 
 
 It feems iWr. F. cannot bear to think our very Jmall 
 Community (as he is pleas'd to call it) to be in the Rights 
 refpedling the Mode of Baptifm. Certainly he might 
 have known by divers Inftances, thzt Jmall Commun ties 
 have had the Truth on their Side before now, when the 
 Crowds and Multitude, embraced Error. To a coniide- 
 rate judicious Perfon (methinks) there appears *he great- 
 er Probability we are in the Right ; when onv fmall Com- 
 munity ihould be able io Jiem the ftrong Current of gene- 
 
 H «l 
 
( 114 ) 
 
 fal Reproaches, Scoffings, and whatever other Sluices 
 Men have thought proper to open againft us, to make the 
 fwelling Stream more violent and rapid. Can any one 
 think why we (hould differ from the -Multitude in our 
 Praof'tce^ but becaufe our Confciences are influenc'd with 
 the plain Declarations of God's Will, and Scripture Ex- 
 amples, in this Cafe. However, till we fee otherwifc, 
 we think it better to be of the Number oi th'xs Jmall Com- 
 munity^ and have Truth at, our Side, than to dwell in a 
 large Houfe with ill-naturd Error m our Arms. 
 
 And why {hould Mr. R be fo much difplcas'd with 
 our Practice ? If it be the Truth which we hold, and if 
 it is by pradlifing it, zue unchurch all the Prote/lant 
 World, he can do no lefs (methinks) than acknowledge, 
 there is no Matter how foon the Protejiant World is un- 
 church'd, that they may be church'd according to Truth 
 and Gofpel-Order. But if we arc in an Error in this 
 Point fas he fuggefts) 'tis not poflible that we (hould 
 unchurch the Protejiant World, unlefs they unchurch 
 themfclves by embracing our Principles. Let Mr. F. 
 take it which Way he will, the mighty Blow he intend-^ 
 ed to give us, very happily _/7//)j by, without doing any 
 Execution. 
 
 He fums up what (as he fays) we advance in favour of 
 Dipping, under three Heads, uiz. I. The Etymology of 
 the Word Baptifm. 2. Scripture Examples. 3. Scrip- 
 ture AUufions. All thefe Particulars afford us good Ar- 
 guments for what we pradife, as may appear in proper 
 Place. 
 
 ' Now ('fays he) if we can prove that BaMizo does any 
 
 * where fignify to pour or fprinkle, then we raze the 
 
 * very Foundartion of the Jnabapti/ls Argument : For 
 
 * what can be plainer ? if Baptizo does at all fignify to 
 
 * pour or fprinkle, then it does not only and always fig- 
 
 * nify Dipping, and confequently our Opponents can get 
 
 * no certain and infallible Argument from the Aleaning 
 
 * of the Word.' JnJ. 'Tis a very bad Weapon to go 
 to War with, which will certainly deftroy him that 
 handles it inftead of the Enemy. Unlefs Mr. F. could 
 make appear that Baptis^e always figniiies to pour or 
 
 fprinkle. 
 
C "5 ) 
 
 fprinkle, we fhall raze the very Foundation of his Aro-u- 
 inent (or Principle) too ; which is, That Baptifnt \% 
 rightly adminiftred by Pouring or Sprinkling ; for let 
 him once grant (as he does here) that Baptizo does 
 fometimes fignify to dip, he can get no certain and in- 
 fallible Argument from the Meaning of the Word in 
 Favour of his Opinion and Proxies. So that upon the ve- 
 ry firft Onfet, we ftand upon z Par with him in this 
 Point ; and confequently our Mode muft be right, ac- 
 cording to his own Way of Reafoning j How then could 
 he give himfelf the Liberty to ridicule it in the following 
 Pagesy in the Manner he has done ? But when we com? 
 to the Pu/hy Mr. F. fails in the Undertaking j for he has 
 not cited us one Inftance from Lexieo-graphers^ where the 
 Word is rendred by per/undo, ^fpergo, to pour or fprin- 
 Jcle, not at all j but labours to fupply his wide Defe(5i 
 with his AfTertion, that Pouring or Sprinkling are as reallj/ 
 Modes of Wafhing, as Dipping or Plunging ; then his 
 Confequence muft be. Therefore Baptizo fignifi'es to pour 
 or fprinkle ; whioh is very weak and falfe : For had the 
 Word carry'd fuch a Meaning in it^ thofe approv'd 
 Majiers of the Greek Tongue, which Mr. F. mentions, 
 would have render'd it fo. He can't but know that there 
 is a great Difference between the proper Signification of a 
 Word, and a j^rfV Confequence. Will Mr. F. pre- 
 tend to perfuade the World, that Words have no propec 
 determinate Ideas affix'd to them ? I can't help think- 
 ing, the Reafon why he would have the Meaning of thia 
 Word to be fo uncertain^ is, that he might crowd in fome 
 Pretence for his Pradice : But his Device will not help" 
 him, becaufe the Word is never render'd to pour or 
 fprinkle j as the learned * Dr. Gale informs us : 
 
 ' I have carefully obferved it (i. e. the Word Baptize) 
 a confiderablc Time, as it occur'd in Reading, and af- 
 fure you I never found it once us'd to fignify to pour or 
 fprinkle, or any Thing lefs than Dipping ; and I ma/ 
 challcjige any Man to (hew a fingle Inftance of it, ex- 
 cept in fome Ecclefiajtical Writers of the latter corrupt 
 Times, who retaining the Words of the Inflitution^ 
 H 2 * an^^ 
 
 i ictter 34, Page 94, 
 
( ii6 ) 
 
 * and altering the Tljing, do in this Cafe indeed, but no 
 
 * other, extend the Word into a wider Senfe ; but Pro- 
 
 * phane Authors, viho lay under no fuch Byesy have 
 
 * made no fuch Alteration. 'Tis evident from them, 
 
 * the primary Meaning is fimply to dip^ not only into 
 « Water, but any Matter.' 
 
 'Tis a very improper, and indeed a falfe Way to feck 
 for the Senfe and Meaning of the Word Baptizo, from 
 the Dfe, or rather Abufe of it, in corrupt Times. It 
 jnay be juft obferv'd, what an unwarrantable Length Dr. 
 Featley fwho is quoted by Mr, Leigh in his Critica Sacra) 
 had got to, in his Warmth againfr the Anabaptifts ; 
 when he affirms (which is alfo taken up by Mr. F. as one 
 of his Authorities) that Baptlzo imports no more than Ab- 
 lution or Wafhing, which may be done without dipping. 
 Which Aflertion, as it is not true in itfelf, fo neither 
 does it asree with what is acknowledged in the Crittca 
 Sacra juft before, viz. * That Baptizo is derived from 
 
 * Bapto, tingo, to dip or plunge into the Water, and fignifi- 
 « eth primarily fuch a Kind of Wafhing as is ufed in 
 
 * Bucks, where Linnen h plu77g'dand dip^a.' It was there- 
 fore very wfelefs for Mr. F. to repeat this Jdle Story over 
 again. That Baptizo imports no more than Ablutioity or 
 JVaJhing ; when it is confefs'd that it fignifies primarily 
 fuch a Kind of Wafhing, as is by Dipping or Plunging ; e- 
 fpecially confidering what is further faid by Mr. Leigh in 
 his Critica Sacra, fo pertinent and full to our Purpofe, 
 viz. * That the native and proper Signification of it (;. e. 
 *■ Baptizo) is to dip into Water, or to pluvgt under Wa- 
 
 * ter, John iii. 22, 23. Mat. iii. 16. jI^s viii. 38.' 
 This further ferves to quit us of the Tafk Mr. F. would 
 3ay upon us, viz. toJ})ew that the Word never fignifies any 
 ether thing but Dipping or Plunging : No, nothing elfe, na- 
 tively and properly. The Obfervations of the Rev. and 
 Xearned Mr. Gill * deferve Place here, ' How we are 
 
 * like to come off with theW^ord Baptize; and here 
 « our Author m />. 41. tells us, orerctundo, and with 
 ^ Confidence enough in fo many Words, that it never 
 
 * doesfignify Plunging ; IVaJhing with IVater, by Pouring 
 
 * fir Sprinkling, is the only Meaning of it. The Man has 
 
 • Autient Mod* of B«ptiziDg, p. 6a, , %P^ 
 
 4 
 
 « 
 
( "7 ) 
 
 got a good AfTurance ; but yet by his Writing, he doe$ 
 not r^em to have fuch a Stock of Learning j howeverj, 
 what he wants in one, he makes up in the other. 
 Tis ftrange that all our Lexico- graph ers^ fo many learn- 
 ed Criticks, and good Divines, fhould be fo much 
 miftaken, as to render the Word, to dip ox plunge, and 
 allow this to be the proper Signification of it. I have 
 my felf confuked feveral Lexicons, as thole of SuidaSy 
 Scapula, Hadrian, Junius, Pafor, as alfo another made 
 by Budaus, Tufanus, Gej'ner, Junius, Conjiantiney 
 Hartung, Hopper and Xylander, who all unanimoufly 
 render the Word by Mergo, immergo, to plunge or dip 
 into : And tho' they afterv/ards add alfo, Abluo, lavo^ 
 to wajh, yet 'tis plain they mean fuch a Wailiing, as is 
 by Dipping ; and we are very willing to grant it ; for 
 we know that there can be no Dipping, without Walh- 
 ing : But had they meant a Wafhing by Pouring or 
 Sprinkling, they would have rendered it \iy perfundo, or 
 ajpergo, to pour upon, ox fprinkic ; but this they never 
 do. And, to thefe I might add a large Number of 
 learned Criticks, and good Divines, who grant, that 
 the Word in its firft and primary Senfe, fignifies to dip 
 ox plunge only, and to tf/T/J only in a fecondary, re- 
 mote, and confequential One ; as [a] Cafaubony 
 Camerarius, Grotius [^] Calvin [f] jilting [d} Aljle4 
 \_e\ Wendelin, and others-- But v\hat need I heap up 
 Authors to prove that whick no Man of any tolerable 
 Learning will deny ; But what will not Ignorance, at- 
 tended with a confiderable Share of Confidence, carry 
 a Man thro' ?' 
 The Reverend Aflembly of Divines, fays the worthy 
 Mr. Rees * * Tho' they ha'.'e warily defin'd Baptifm in 
 ' general, to be Wajhing with Water, in the Catechifm, 
 
 * yet they don't fcruple to acknowledge that thatWaftiing 
 
 * was by Dipping in the primitive Tirnes. This is evi- 
 
 * dent to any one who will perufe their Annotations.* 
 And fo it is in their own Words (on Matt, iii. 6. were 
 
 H 3 bap- 
 
 [o] All three on Mat. iii. 6. [*] Inftitut, L. 4. C 15. Seft. ig. [cj 
 
 Loc. Commun. p. 198, and Explic. Catech, p. 311, [^] Lexic. Theolog; 
 
 p. a2i, 222. [f] Chrift. Thi6»log. I«, I, C| 22. * Aftimad, oa a l?i(? 
 ^ouift of iaf. f »f ;• f . %^%, 
 
r "8 ) 
 
 baptized) they fay, ' Wa{he(^, by Dipping in 'Jordan* 
 And if (when they were obhg'd by folemn Vow before 
 God, as Mr. F. ftgnifies, to declare fincerely their Judg- 
 ments) they did explain Baptifm to be IVaJhing with 
 Water j there is no Reafon to queftion but they did un- 
 der the like Obligation, and with the fame Sincerity de- 
 clare, that this Wafhing was by Dipping in the primitive 
 Times, as in the Inftance before me, which is* full 
 to our Purpofe ; for our Enquiry is not what 
 they believed might do in their Time, but what 
 they fay of the Adminiftration of Baptifm in the 
 primitive Times, which they allow was by Dipping ; 
 certainly the Praftice of 'John in Dipping the Multitudes 
 in Jordan^ is good Argument in our Favour. It like- 
 wife appears, the Aflembly cf Divines underftood the 
 Word Bapiizo^ fignifies Dipping ; or elfe how fhould they 
 fay of thofe who were baptized by Jjihn, that they were 
 wajhed by Dipping in Jordan ? Hence it appears their Au- 
 thority does Mr. Fs Caufe no great Service. 
 
 What Mr. F. quotes from that very worthy Divino 
 Dr. Owen, he (after his ufual Manner) does not tell us 
 from what Part of the Reverend Doctor's Works he takes 
 his Citations ; (a Fault all through his Performance, 
 which he is defired to amend when he writes again) But 
 by what Information I can get, they are taken out of his 
 fojlhumous Works ; which brings to my Mind a certain 
 Paflage Mr. Wall % ^as to this Purpofe : * I know 
 
 * (fays he) that many learned Men have fuffered much 
 
 * in their Memory, by having all their Letters zx\dipoJ}hu- 
 
 * mous Pieces printed after their Death ; fome whereof 
 
 * were fuch, as being written in their Youth, they them- 
 
 * felves would have been afhamed of afterwards; and would 
 
 * upon better Information and Reading, have recanted. 
 Very agreeable herewith, are the Words of Mr. Rees j § 
 
 * I am of Opinion, that if his Friends had fludied how to 
 ' make him (/. e. Dr. Owen) look little, they could not have 
 
 * found a more effedtual Way, than by publifhing thefe 
 
 * Remarks upon Dipping ; for either what is advanc'd in 
 
 * them cannot be made good, or mufl appear to be a fair 
 
 * Conceffioa 
 
 % Hift. of Inf, Bapt. psg, Z74, \ Aaimni, ?ȣ. 1^4' 
 
 
( 119 ) 
 Conceflion of all that the Bapiijls can wifl) for, or 
 want, w'z. That the original Signification of the Word 
 Bapti%Oy imports to dip. And concluding, That no 
 honeft Man who underftands the Greek Tongue, caa 
 deny the Word to fignify to wafh as well as to dip. 
 ' I never me: with a BaptiJI, who underflood any 
 Thing of the Matter, that ever deny'd this. It does 
 figyiify to wafh, but 'tis by Confequence ; and 'tis im- 
 poflible to dip in fair Water without waftiing. It ne- 
 ceflarily implies and comprehends that, in the Nature 
 of the Action, when 'tis perform'd in Water ; but it 
 never fignifies to \vz{hftmply, without having Regard 
 to dipping : Nay it fignifies to dip into any Matter 
 abfolutely, without regarding Water, or any other 
 Liquid, t And the Reverend Dr. Oiven has not offered' 
 to affert, that the Word in its native Signification im- 
 ports to fprinkle or pour. Had he found any good Au- 
 thors, who render Baptizo by afpergo., affundo., or 
 perfundo, this would have been fopev.hat to the Fur- 
 pofe. Coming fhort of this, is doing of nothing ; for 
 this is what the Pcedo-baptijis muft prove, tojuflify 
 their own Practice, or elfe what they call Baptifm, is 
 not perform'd according to the genuine Signification of 
 the Word Baptizo., themfelves being Judges.' 
 Mr. F. proceeds to obferve the Ufe of the Word in 
 the New Teftament, and cites Mark vii. 4. Ji^d when, 
 they com? from the Market^ except they wajh^ they eat not, 
 
 * In the Greek can me baptijontai., except they he bap~ 
 
 * //z^i.-"It is here plain that Baptifm in Verf? 4. is de- 
 y fign'd to exprefs the fame as Nipfontai in Verfe 3 \ 
 
 * which laft none denies to fignify JVaJhing. 
 
 In Anfwer to which, take what Be7.a obferves upon 
 this Text ; ' Baptizesthai, ip this Place, is more than 
 
 * Cherniptein ; for the former feems to refpt6l the whole 
 
 * Body, the latter only the Hands. Nor does Baptixein fig- 
 
 * nify to wajb-t but only by Confequence ; for it properly 
 
 * denotes to immerfe for the fake of Dipping.* Hence i^ 
 appears, Mr. i^'s Conclufion is very falfe and unjuft^ 
 which he infers from this Text, viz. That to baptize sj 
 
 H 4 ?art 
 
 *■ •*• Yid. Dr. CaU, Letter 34, 
 
( rii ) 
 Par*- of the ^ody, is true Scripture Baptifm, according to 
 tie \4e ma, ut rl^e Wcid B^piiz- : For the Text does 
 rot fiv tliat tile /^zff were bapti'ed when tlieir Hands 
 were Wuihed ; or the wafb'irt^ of Hands is not here called 
 hapt.xi-ng thetn : But whe-i their whoii Body was waihed 
 (as Bc'z.a oh^erve.c) agieeable to the Signification of the 
 ■^'V ,rd (Bapiijontai) bere ufcd, which as Mr. Z.f/'g/j te» 
 fti.T'S, ' 'mulie h thejfajhing of rheir who/e Body.' 
 
 * ris nor impioper xo add what Mr. Gill f favs on thefc 
 Words, And when they come from the Market^ except 
 th^y wafi)^ they eat mt^ * which may be underftood either 
 
 * 1. Of fhe Things they bought in the Market, which 
 
 * thev di'i not rat, until tliev were wafhed. Thus tha 
 
 * Syriac Verfion reads tie Words ; and what thev buy 
 
 * in the Market, unlef^ it be wafhed, they eat not/ The 
 
 * hme Way re.id all the Oriental Verfions, the Arah'iCy 
 
 * Ethopic^ and Perftc. Now this muft be underftood of 
 
 * thf)<e T'hin'^s that may be, and are proper to be wafiied, 
 
 * as Herb.s, bV. And no Bodv wijl queftion but that the 
 
 * Manner of the Wafliing thefe, was by putting them 
 
 * into Wjier, But 
 
 * 2. If the Words defign the Wafliing of Perfons, they 
 
 * mufl be undeiftood either of the Wafli ng of their whole 
 ' Bodies, or elfe of fome Part only, as their Hands or 
 
 * Feet : It fecms molt hkcly, that the Wafhing of the 
 
 * whole B.:>dy :s intended, as Grotius^ Vatablus^ Drufiui^ 
 
 * and others think, becaufe wafhing of Hands is menti- 
 
 * oned in the preceding V^x\q. Befides, to undeifland 
 
 * it thus, better expreijes the outward, afFcdtd Saniftity 
 
 * of the more fuperftitious Part of tbe People. All the 
 ' 'Jewi wafhed their Hands and Feet before eating : But 
 
 * thoie who pretended to a gieatcr Degree of Holinefj, 
 
 * wafhed their whole Bodies, efpecially when they came 
 
 * fiom a Market. And of this total Ablution of the 
 *: Bod}, h Lukexx. 1%. to be underftood. And here I 
 
 * can't forbear mennonin^^a PafTage of the. great «Sc<?//^fr, 
 
 * to this Purpcfe. The m >re fuperftitious Part of the 
 f Jews (fays he) not only wafhed their Feet, but tbcir 
 
 * wiiole Body. Hence ihey were calJed Htmerobaptijiiy 
 
 who 
 
 i* Defence of the aatieat Mode of Bap U»insi pag. y^ 
 
( 121 ) 
 
 * who every Day wafhed their Bodies before they fat 
 
 * down to Food ; wherefore the Pharifee which had in- 
 f vited Jefus to dine with him, wondered that he fat 
 
 * down to Meat before he had wafhed his whole Body, 
 
 * Luke xi. But ihofe that were more free from Superfti- 
 
 * tion, were contented with wafiiing of their Feet, inftead 
 
 * of that Univerfal Immerfion. Witnefs the Lord him- 
 « felf, who being entertained at Dinner by another Pha- 
 ' rifee, objcaed to him, when he was fat down to Meat, 
 « that he had given him no Water for his Feet.' Luke 7. 
 
 In a Word, we further learn from the Teftim^nies of 
 thefe great Men, how falfe and inconclufive Mr. F^ Rea- 
 fonings be, ' That if the Jews were baptized when only 
 < their Hands were waihed, then to baptize a Part of the 
 
 * Body is true Scripture Baptifm,' Seeing there are 
 different Words made Ufe of in Scripture, whereby the 
 wafhing of Hands, and the Immerfion or Ablution of 
 the whole Body are expreffed : And alfo, that wafhing 
 the whole Body in Water, by dipping or overwhelming 
 (as we do) is true Scripture Baptifm, according to the 
 Iv^eaning of the Word (Baptize) and nothing elfe. 
 
 And quite as inconclufive is that which Mr. F. ofFers 
 from the Inflance of Chrift waftiing his Difciples Feet, 
 John xiii. to infer from thence, that it Is not neceffary 
 to apply the Myftical Water of Baptifm favd only to a 
 Part of the Body, when the Word Baptize is not menti- 
 oned there, and when the Cafes have no Relation tQ 
 each other, is manifeflly weak and abfurd. 
 
 If our Opponents would make this Inftance ferve their 
 Turn, they fhould have fome total Wafliing of the whole, 
 Body to go before Baptifip, that they may be found to 
 have fome Colour for their Pradice, anfwerable to the 
 Text ; He thiit is waflied, needeth not fave only to waih 
 his Feet. 
 
 I believe none will think this PafTage to be of any Ufe 
 for Information, refpeaing the Mode of Baptizing ; un- 
 lefs they be fuch who are pertinacioufly refolved to conti- 
 nue in their received Pradice of Sprinkling (Right or 
 Wrong) and are willing to catch at any Thing (tho' ever 
 io remote and infufHcient) to help themfelves with, a lit- 
 ^ tic 
 
f 122 ) 
 
 tie longer. But I need not fpend Time about fuch tri- 
 vial and impertinent Reafonings— When the P<Edo bap- 
 tifts themfvrlves conlefs, that the native and proper Sig- 
 nification of tlie Word is to dip or plunge^ therefore 
 pouring a little Water on the Face, is not Baptizing the 
 Perfon : Indeed to fcatter a iew Drops of Water upon 
 the ChiM, whether it be upon his /;;r^, his Bacj^, Hands 
 «r Feet (for our poor Opponents have no Rule to diredl 
 them in the Cafe) cannot properly be called fVaJhing the 
 Child or Perfon, at all. But Mr. F. tells us, he has yet 
 a more full Argument from Mark vii. 4. ' And many 
 
 * other Things there be, which they have received to 
 
 * hold, as the Waihing (in the Greek Bapti/moiiSy that is 
 
 * the Baptifms) of Pots and Cups, brazen Veilels and 
 
 * Tables. 'Tis plain, Firji, that Baptilm is here tran- 
 
 * dated Wafliing. And, 2^/y, That thefe Wafhings 
 
 * or Baptifms, cannot be underftood of Dipping under 
 
 * Water only ; for every one knows, that Tables are 
 ' not wafti'd by Dipping them under Water ; but hf 
 
 * applying Water to them, and pouring it on them.' 
 Jnf. What may be the prefent Cuftom of Wafning 
 Tables (ox Beds) is nothing to the Purpofe in Hand j 
 Mr. F. ought to have fhewn how ihsjews wafhed them, 
 before his Argument will be of any Force in this Contro- 
 verfy. But with Mr. Rees * I Anfwer, * When Bap- 
 ' tijfmos is applied to their wafhing of Cups, Pots, Vejfeh 
 
 * and Tables, 'tis very eafily accounted for. They fu- 
 
 * perflitioufly abufed a Ceremony of Gods own Appoint- 
 
 * ment. Lev. xi. 32. for the Lord had commanded, 
 ' that whether it be a Veffel ofWeody or Raiment, or Skin, 
 
 * or Sack, whatfoever Veflel it be, it mull be put in- 
 
 * TO TVater. But how thefe Things could be put into 
 
 * Water, without Dipping of them, can't well be imagi- 
 
 * ned. And if legal Pollutions required the Wafhing of 
 
 * Garments, Skins, and Sacks, and Utenftls of all Sorts, 
 
 * except Earthen VefTels, which were to be broken, then 
 ' I fay, 'tis no Wonder that thefe fanciful People the 
 
 * Jews, abufed the lirft Inftitution of this Ceremony, 
 
 * by ridiculoufly wafhing almoft every Thing, and their 
 
 ' Bids 
 • Infant BaBtifm no Inftitution of Chrift, pag, laj. 
 
( 1^3 ) 
 
 * Bed; amnngft other Implements* Hence the Conclu- 
 fion, which juftles Mr. ^;V//ry's out of its Place, is. That 
 Dipting or Plunging^ is truly and properly Baptifm, ac- 
 cording to the Import of the Word, and its Ufe in this 
 Place. 
 
 As to what is advanc'd from Heh. ix. lo. That the 
 Jp-;Jile refers to oil the Ceremonial Purifications and 
 Cleanjings without Limitation, 'tis too large to be true ; 
 for at the 19 Ver. where he fpealcs of the Purification by 
 Blood, he uleth another Word ( Errhantife) which fig- 
 jiifies, .and is accordingly render'd (Tprinkled j Mr. F. 
 is pleafed to fay, * The Apollle in Vti^e 19 of this Chap- 
 ' ter, calls fome of thefe Baptifms Sprinklings.' To 
 which the Words oi the famous and pious Mr. Keach, are 
 not improper for a Reply. * Wliether that Word in 
 Heb. ix. 10. is the fame Twhich is ufed) in Hib. ix. 
 19. is it tiiere Baptizo or Rantizo ? fpeak, and confcfs 
 your Ignorance, or elfe acknowledge your Sin in going 
 about to deceive the People, by making them believe 
 that Sprinkling is in Greek Baptifm, or Baptizing : 
 For tho' Wafhing in Heb. ix. 10. is Baptifm, or Bap- 
 tizing, yet in Heb. ix. 19. Sprinkling both the Book 
 and People, you muft needs know is in the Greek^ 
 Rantizihg +.' To this I fhall fubjoin what the Rev, 
 Mr. Gill oi5ferves-- f * And fays our Author, // is 
 evident from the Word of Gody that thofe Wafhings gene- 
 ner ally flood in pouring or fpr inkling ofJVater j but that's 
 a Mijlake of his, for they neither flood in them gene- 
 rally, nor particularly ; for thofe ceiemonial Ablutions 
 were always perform'd by bathing.^ or dipping in Wa- 
 ter, and are called, Diaphoroi, divers., or different.^ 
 not becaufe they were performed different Ways, as 
 fome by Sprinkling, others by Pouring, and others by 
 Plunging ; but becaufe of the difF«*~2nt Perfons and 
 Things the Subjects thereof; Zhxne Priejis, Levites, 
 Ifraelitts, Vefjels, Garments, t^c. And here it mayn't 
 be omifs to obferve what Maimonides, who was one of 
 the moft learned of the Jewijh Writers, fays concern - 
 
 ' ing 
 
 X Anf. to Mr. Jamn Owtn, pag. 166. f Aaticnt Mode of Bap- 
 Ufai, pag. 6Si 
 
( IH ) 
 
 * mg this Matter, merever (fays he) the TVaJhlng oUht 
 PltfTi or Garment is mentioned in the Law, it means 
 
 * nothing eife than the Wafhingof the wiiole Body ; for 
 
 * if a Man waOies himlclf all over, excepting the very 7*/^ 
 
 * of his little Finger, he is flili in Ins Uncleannefs. Nay, 
 
 * he favs, 'tis nccefiary that every Hair of his Head 
 
 * Ihnuld be walhed ; and therefore the Apoftle might 
 
 * well call ihe(e Wafhings Baptifms.' 
 Hence it appears, tha't Mr. F'^ Opponent, whoever 
 
 he was, whom he labours to expofc, may juillv refume 
 his Argument, and fay, that thofe ceremonial Ablutions, 
 which the Apoftle calls Baptifms, were always perform'd 
 by bathmg or dipping in Water, and therefoie tu bap- 
 tize, enly fignifies ta dip ; feeing at the 19th Verfe of the 
 9th Chapter of the Hebrews, another Woid is ufcd, 
 which fignifies to fprinkle. 
 
 Says our Author, ' I next advance three parallel 
 
 * Texts, in each of which the Word Baptize^ fignifies 
 
 * not. to dip, hat to fprinkle, viz. Mut.'iu. i\. Mark i. 
 
 * 8. Luke iii. 16. He Jhall baptize you with the Holy 
 
 * Ghoji and with Fire.' He fuggefts, that to tranflate 
 the Words thus, He fhall dip you with (or m) the 
 Holy Gho{\. -would be Jhoc king, and grates our Ears at 
 firji Hearing -But by the W^ay, I think 'tis a very fmooth 
 and eafy Verfion, to fay, I dip you in ^Pater, a*s he confefles 
 the Particle [ea] may be rendered ; fo that the Places 
 wherein the Word Baptizoy is ufed in a proper and lite- 
 ral Senfe, conftantly make for us— But in thefe Texts J 
 (and fome others) 'tis manifeflly ufed in a figurative * 
 Senfe or Meaning ; and therefore to infer from the meta- 
 phorical Ufe of the Word, a Meaning different from its 
 allowed native and proper Signification, is unreafonable 
 and very unfair, as well as fallc Way of Arguing : And yet 
 Mr. F. does fo from thefe Texts, with as much Confidence, 
 as if the Word was ufed in them in its literal or proper 
 Senfe : When he pretends to anfwer the Queftion, 
 What is it to be baptized with the Holy Ghoft, and how 
 perfoimed ? He fays the Scriptures every wh£re ex- 
 prefs this by pouring forth his Influences on Perfons. 
 Mr, F, iho\ild try whether the Verfion wpuld fiQl be every 
 
 Way 
 
 i 
 
( 125 ) 
 
 Way 8S fl.ocVing and grating to his Earsj as that which 
 he rejeds, viz. to fay. He P)ail pcur y-.ti with {or in) the 
 Holy Ghoji ? According; to his wild and loofe Way of 
 Reafoning, the Word (Baptizing) may as well (ignifjr 
 Sending, or Giving^ becaufe ve read offending the Spirit, 
 Gal. iv. 6. and giving the Spirit, f John iv. 13. and fo 
 jnftead of coming; at the truehteral t»ignincation of the 
 Word,we(hal!beJed into theg'-eateftConfufion imaginable. 
 The Reader is defued to obferve, that what is intended 
 by being baptized with the Holy Ghoft, ^c. is that 
 extraordinary Donation of the Spirit, on the Day of 
 PentccoJ}^ asismanifert from ASti'x. 5. Ye jhall he hapti- 
 Ked with the Holy GhoJi, riot many Days hence ; which 
 was fulfi'led on the Day of Pentrco/i. Ads ii. 2.- — 
 When fuddenly there came a Sound from Heaven., as of a 
 rufning mighty Wind, and it filled all the Hou^e, when 
 they were fitting, and there appeared unto them Cloven 
 Itongucs, like as of Fire., and it fate upon each of them, and 
 they were all filed vnth the Hciy GhoJi. Now if there is 
 any Argument at all can be form'd from the metaphori- 
 cal Ufe of the Word in thefe Haffiges of Holy Scripture, 
 *tis plainly in our Favour ; for as a Peifon is furrounded, 
 overwhelmed, and covered in the V\'ater of Baptifm, fo 
 the Difciples were furrounded. Overwhelmed, and cover- 
 ed with the Holv Ghofl on the Day of Pentecoji ; when 
 the Spirit like a mighty ri/Jhing Wind, filled all the Houfe, 
 where they were fitting, and in the Appearance of Cloven 
 Tongues fat upo'^ each of them, and they wtre all filled with 
 the Holy Ghofi. Hence to fay he ftjall baptize you in the 
 Holy Ghoft, does not feem fo very ftrange and difagreea- 
 ble, for they were as if they had been dipped or plunged 
 all over therein. I fay if thefe Texts are of any Uie in 
 the prefent Controverfy, tl.ey ^crve ro exemplify what 
 we maintain, that the Word fignifies propetly to dip., 
 t^c. and accounting for the Phrafe, as above, you fee Jt 
 carries in it a beautiful Allufion to the Adminiflration of 
 Baptifm, by Immerfion only, ar.d no* ther <Vay. Fur- 
 ther, I don't find the common InPue'icesand Operationn 
 of the Spirit upon the Souls of V''en, to be any where ia 
 Scripture called, Baptizing wit/? the Hely GhoJi 3 and if 
 
 anv 
 
C 126 ) 
 
 any one will enlighten me of any Error in my preferit 
 Way of thinking, I (hall be obJig^d to him. In tJie 
 mean Time I maintain again fl the enthufiajlic Notions of 
 thofe Herfonsi who under Pretence of holding the Bap- 
 tdm of the Spirit, do utterly reied this facred Gofpel Or^ 
 dmance of Water Baptifm, That none in our X^av can 
 be faid to be baptized with the Holy Ghoft ; fince extra- 
 ordmary Gifts, were peculiar to extraordinary Timesonly 
 U the Work of the Holy Ghoft in Converfion (or in the 
 after progrefTive Work of Sanaification) was the Thm? 
 intended by the Baptifm of the Holy Ghoft, the Apoftles 
 and Difciples would have been baotized with the Holy 
 Gbofl long before the Day of Pentecoff, which the/ 
 were not. 
 
 This alfo ferves to enervate Mr. F% Arguings from 
 thefe Texts in favour of his Pradlice ; for the Word 
 Bapti%o, is manifeftly ufed in them metaphor ic ally ; and 
 the Reafon why this metaphorical Phrafe is ufed, is not 
 with Reference to the common Influences of the Spirit, 
 expreft by Pouring or Sprinkling ; but with Reference to 
 the then well-known Mode and Pra£tice of Baptizing in 
 Water, as being expreflive of that extraordinary Donati- 
 on of the Holy Spirit : And confidering the Account 
 v/hich the Scripture gives us of the Manner how the Dif- 
 c-plcs were baptized with the Holy Ghoft, it does not 
 ibfcurely point out to us, the ancient Mode of Baptizing. 
 
 Upon the whole, Mr. F. is fo far from proving from 
 thefe Texts, that Boptixo fignifies to fprinkle, that the 
 Scripture Account makes utterly againft his AfTertion. 
 And when we review all the Evidences he pretends to 
 bring for his Opinion, he manifeftly fails to cite one fin- 
 gle Inftance, either from Lexico-graphers^ Divines^ or 
 Scripture, where Baptizo is rendered or fignifies to pour 
 OTjprinkle ; fo that lor ought he has faid, the Baptijs 
 may reft as confident as before, that Baptizo, natively 
 and properly fignifies to dip or plunge ; and confequently, 
 tliat none can be faid to be baptized, according to the 
 Meaning of the Word, and the Ufe of it in Scripture^ 
 but tiiefe who are dipfd, 
 
 Mr. 
 
 I 
 
( 127 ) 
 
 Mr. F. proceeds next to the Scripture Examples which 
 we bring for Immerfion, and labours all he can to render 
 thofe evident Places doubtful, and becloud the Light 
 which they give us in the Affair, that if poffible Room 
 may be made for his Opinion and PraBice. The Texts 
 are, Mark i. 5. And there went out unto him all the Land 
 e/Judea, and they o/"Jerufa!em, <?«fl'w^r^(7//baptized of him 
 in the River of 'Jordan^ confejjing their Sins, Mat. iii. 5, 
 6. Mark i. 9. And it came to pafs in thofe Days, that 
 yefus came from Nazareth o/'Galilee, and was baptized of 
 John in Jordan. Matt. iii. 16. And f ejus when he was 
 baptized., went upfiraightway our of the Water, fohn iii. 
 23. And John alfo was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, 
 becaufe there w^as much Water there ; and they came, and 
 were baptized. Ads viii. 38, 39. And they went down 
 both into the Water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and 
 he baptized bim. And tvhen they were come up out of the 
 Water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip. 
 
 Remembring whnt the Pesdo-baptijls grant us, that 
 Baptizo natively and properly fignifies to dip ox plunge, thefe 
 Texts are fo full and clear in our Favour, that Baptifra is 
 rightly adminlltrcd by Immerfion, as to need no Expla- 
 nation ; and indeed it would be but to light a Candle to 
 fee the Sun by, to do it. My prefent Bufinefs therefore, 
 {hall be to refute what Mr. F. has thought proper to objetSI: 
 againft us, and vindicate the Truth held forth in thefc 
 Places of Scripture. Says our Author, * If yohn had 
 
 * preached in Jerufalem, and afterwards gone out to a 
 
 * River or Pool to baptize his new Converts, there would 
 
 * have been fome Colour of Probability that he plunged 
 
 * them.' Anf. When I read this Paflage, I can't forbear 
 thinking of what the chief Priefts, Scribes, and Elders 
 faid once, vi'hen Chrift was on the Crofs, If he bi the 
 King o/Ifrael, let him now come down from the Crofs, and 
 we will believe him. Yes, to be fure ! they promife fair, « 
 if Chrifl would do as they would have it. Juft as if there 
 was not fufficient Evidence of his being the Son of God, 
 and Kingof 7/rW, without all this ! But who can Num- 
 ber the Obje^ions which Unbelief will invent ! Tho' it is 
 not my Defign to fet Mr. F, upon a Level with thofe 
 
 cbduratf 
 
C 128 ) 
 
 obdurate Creatures in other Points, yet his Objeflion here 
 is a Coin of the fame Mint with theirs ; only one Side it 
 happens not to have the Promife to beheve, in fuch fair 
 Capitals as theirs had, if the Thing required was granted. 
 But (pray) is there no Colour ot Probability that John 
 dipp'd or plung'd his new Converts without this ? when 
 he baptized them in the River of Jordan ; when he admi- 
 jiiftred the Ordinance in Emn^ becaufe there was much 
 Water there ; when Chrift himfelf was baptized in Jor- 
 dan^ and afterwards came up out of the Water. Again, 
 is there no Colour of Probability that he plung'd them, 
 when the People went out to him from JerufaUm^ iffc. not 
 only to hear him preach, but alfo with a Defign to be ba 
 tized by him i* as is clear in the Cafe of the Pharifees an 
 Sadducees, who came forth to be baptized ; whom h$ 
 rejedled, becaufe they were not qualified Perfons, Alatt, 
 iii. 7. Luke iii. 7. Chap. 7, 29, 30. Put all this toge- 
 ther, and 'twill not only amount to give a Colour of Pro- 
 bability that the People were immers'd by John, but to 
 a very fufficient and fatisfying Evidence fhey were fo. 
 * We don't read (fays he) that John baptized at Jor- 
 
 * dan^ beoaufe it contain'd much Water j but becaufe it 
 
 * contain'd r^-^/ Water, and was convenient for that pre- 
 •• fent Time.' Jnf. What poor Shifts is our Author put to 
 in his oppofing the fcriptural Mode of Baptifm. Will Mr. 
 F. tell us what Rivers or Brooks of Water thofe are, wherein 
 the Water is not real Water ? or was real Water to be 
 found in the River of Jordan only ? I defire him to pro- 
 duce the Place where he reads thzt John baptized in Jor- 
 dan, becaufe it contain'd real Water. 
 
 We have review'd our Argument, and find it flands 
 very well, and as yet unmovable, being confirm'd by the 
 proper Signification of the Word, Baptizo^ the Places 
 where Baptifm was adminiflred, even in a River, and 
 where there was much Water; and other Circumftances 
 of its Adminiftration : All which do harmonioufly concur 
 to eftablifh the Pomt that Baptizing is Dipping ; confe- 
 quently John dipt the People in Jordan. 
 
 Mr. F. endeavours to affign fufRcient Reafon for John's 
 baptizing in Enon^ without fuppofing him to do fo for the 
 
 Sake 
 
C 129 ) 
 
 ^akeof Plunging : * In order hereto (fays he) obferve 
 ' that the Original is hudata polla^ that is, many Waters^ 
 . * a Place of Rivulets and Springs ; there might be feveral 
 fmall Streams, yet none of tbemlllep enough to plun'^e 
 one in ; nor can the contrary be made appear.' Anf, 
 With mQre]Ki^x\tk I may fay, there might be feveral large 
 Streams, and all of them deep enough to plunge People* 
 in ; nor can the contrary be made appear. Our Oppo- 
 nents run one after another in their bare Aflertions, thac 
 thefe many Waters were little or fmall Streams, or many 
 Springs- -But why don't they give us feme Inftances 
 where the original Words muft be fo underftood ? or 
 l^ipmefubllantial Reafons to confirm what they fay, from 
 P'this Place. But that this is an idle Evafion of theirs, 
 will appear from the Ufeof the fame Words, by the fame 
 divine Penman, m other Parts of his Writings. 
 
 Rev. i. 15..- -And his Voice as the Sound hudatoon pol- 
 ioon 5/ many Waters : Small Streams or Rivulets, have 
 either no. Sound at all, or at the moft but very little, in- 
 fufficient to anfwer the Defign of the Apoftle, in his uCmg 
 thefe Words ; which was to fet forth the P'oice of Chriit 
 to be a mighty loud Voice, terrible to his Enemies, or 
 powerful to raife iMen from the Death of Sin ; high and 
 greats heard afar off, and very terrible and dreadful ; as 
 the Rev. Mr. Durham notes ; which could not be repre- 
 fented but by the Sound of much, or great Waters. The 
 Reader may further confult Rev. xiv. 2. Chap. xvii. i. 
 Chap. xix. 6. where the fame Phrafe is ufed in the Ori- 
 ginal ; in all which Places, it can't be underftood to 
 mean or allude to little Streams, or Rivulets ; and there- 
 iore we have no need to queftion but the Words in the 
 Place under Confideration, do alfo fignify much JVater^ ' 
 as our Englijh Verfion reads it, fufficient for the Adminif! 
 tration of Baptifm by Immerfion, ^notwithftanding the 
 trifling and inligniiicant Objeaions of our Opponents to 
 the contrary. 
 
 Again, it is worthy our obferving, that the Holy 
 Ghoft gives us the Reafon why John baptized in Mmn, 
 VIZ. hecaufe there was much Water there : Now 'tis plain 
 that the Mode of Baptizing by Immerfion, is the only 
 
 I Mode 
 
( 130 ) 
 Mode which requires much Water in the Adminiftration 
 of this Ordinance ; rdl < ther pretended Modes by Pouring 
 or Sprinichng require but verv Itttle, a Bafon full carri- 
 ed into a \lLeting Hjlpfe, oi eifewiiere, would go a great 
 Ways : If it be luppofid th^ relation is herein had to 
 foniething elfe, and nor to fuch a Mode of Baptifm, 
 %hich requires mu'h Water in the Admmiftration ot it, 
 the Reafon h^^e given bv the Holy Gnoil, would not at 
 all be expreiTntr, or il!a(trative, why John baptized 
 where theiewas mich V/ater, any more than elftrwhere ; 
 and io ufe Mr. Fb Words, Can we once ih'ink that the Hol^ 
 Ghoji Jhould thus faultcY in txprejfing h'lmfclf f fur he 
 from us : J- f'f me^ I pall an Hundred Times f. oner ch 
 to impute Abfiodity and Nonfenfe to our Opponents ReajtiH' 
 ings, than to the Holy Scripture Sy ftnce J ?nuJ1 impute fun 
 ThiKgs to one ef them. I [:deed to fay as our Opponents do, 
 ' Tlsat John had need to be where theie was plenty of 
 
 * Water, that the People and their Horfes, and Camels, 
 
 * might drink.* That this fhould be imagined to be the 
 Rt-afon why he baptized where there was much Water, 
 is fuch a wild extravagant Fancy, that deferves not a 
 ferious Anfwer, when there is no Intimation of any fuch 
 Thing in the Text, or Context. But any Thing to co- 
 lour their Argument,^ and blind the Reader with. I can't 
 but obferve Mr. Fs Inadvertency in Writing (to fay no 
 worfeof itj when he repiefents the Matter as if the great 
 Multitudes from Jerufileniy and all Judea, and from the 
 Rciiion round about Jordan^ were bapiiZfd of John in 
 /Encn ; wlien the Scripture is plain that the Multitudes 
 vere baptized in Jordan, Mark i. 5. Our Author 
 miaht have obferved, that when John was baptizing in 
 /Enon, the Crowds then attended the M.niftrv of Chrift, 
 John I'll. 26. for John was on the declining Hand, John 
 iii. 30. But this Obfervation, it feems, would not fo 
 ■well itit with Mr F's DLfign and Way of Accounting for 
 John a Adminiftring the Ordinance where theie was 
 i-nuch Water, viz. that the Multitudes, with their Hor- 
 fo and Camels, might have Water to drink. 
 
 Another Device Mr. F. has found out, • why 7''^'" 
 baptized where Water was plenty, is, * That he might 
 
 ' cut 
 
r 131 ; 
 
 ' cut ofF al! Occafion of OfFemce from the ceremonious 
 fews, who would be apt to ftumble at his ufino- what 
 ^ they would count polluted Water ; efpecially "feeing 
 ^ that they had a Law made concerning a folemn Puri- 
 ^ hcation, which required frefh running Water, Nurk 
 x.x 17, 18'-- Anf. \{ there is any Thing to the 
 Purpofe .n all this, Mr. F. ]x^^ helps on our Argument 1 
 for according to that Law of Purification, the unclem 
 Perfon was not ckans'd till the Seventh Dav,. when he 
 v^z^ to wajjo his Clothes, and bathe hlmfelfm Water, and he 
 Jhouldbe clean at Even, ver. 19. Now if it was fo that 
 ^^ John intended to cut ofF all Occafion of Ofl^ence from 
 ;:* the ceremonious Jexvs, he muft not only ufe rimnlns: Wa- 
 Ur but alfo dip the Perfons in it, anfwerable fo the 
 unclean Perfon's bathing himfelf in Water, for his corn- 
 pleat Purification, or Cleanfing ; otherwife the ceremo- 
 nious Jews might ftill have Occafion of Offence, becaufe 
 they well knew, even from the Inflance Mr F. cites 
 that the unclean Perfon was not purified by the Water 
 fprmkled on him, but by ivajhing his Clothes, and bath- 
 zng tnmfelfin Water. 
 
 , ' j^'^^'f ^ f^^vs hej it appears not, that the Wilder^ 
 ne(s of Judea afl^orded Water fufficient for the afore- 
 faid Purpofes.' Jnf. 'Tis even ai^onifting how w^ak 
 znd impertinent our Opponent does objeal Had the 
 W.lderndsotyW.^, or the Land of C^.,^^;;, elfewhere 
 been as dry as the Sandy Deferts of Arabia, it would not 
 afFea our Argument from this Inflance, when according 
 to the Scnptures we affirm that there was Water enough 
 in thok Places where John adminiftred the Ordinance to 
 dip Perfons all over, viz. In the River Jordan, and in 
 
 the Objea.on of the Scarcity of Water in the Land of 
 tTI' ^^" ^"^^'^'^ ^^^^^^'^ in Dcut. viii. 7. For the 
 
 Brooks ./Water ./Fountains, «;.^ Depths that fprln. 
 ««f 0/ Valleys «W Hills. -^^ "^ 
 
 As to any further Objeaions, which Mr. F. h pleas'd 
 to advance againft Immerfion, the Scriptural Mode of 
 iiaptifm J ti3 obfervable, that the Jews (who were al- 
 
 ^ ^ ways 
 
r 13^ ) 
 
 trays accuftom'd to their legal Purifications, which re- 
 quir'tl wadiinsr. f tlv;a- Clothes, and bathing tlieir Flefli 
 in Water j can't be fuppofed to be f > fcant of Riiment for 
 i'uch Ufe.* or fo much at a Lofs how to preferve the 
 Kules of i\1odeflv and Decency, in their t:ubmilaon to 
 Baptifm by Immcrfion, as our Author fuirgefts ; and I 
 believe the Reafun whv our Opp.nent? advance luch 
 fimple Objedtions againft the ancient Mode of Baptizing, 
 is for want ot better Argument ; f.eing they can't jvcr- 
 throw what thev oppofe, they labouj to nrsk: u look odi- 
 ous and ridiculous to the World, and tl»c n core' .'de, 
 there is not one g-:od A^gvmprA io prove that John bap ijed 
 by Dipping but nnmy cgawj] it I con.fefs out 0=>r>o- 
 nenis do "indeed b. ig manv A-gum-^nts againlHt, !>ut 
 they are L far from iLiniT 7,W, that th.-. defe" e no fich 
 1 itle, being in .hemieUts but n»ere ^n-.blff ai^d tr.fl ng 
 Evajions, that I admire Men of Scn/e and Learning Wuu'.d 
 be guilt'- ofufingthem 
 
 Let us biitflv confi ;er what Mr. /" favs concerning 
 thefe Texts Adat.Vn \t. JrJs'xn. 38, 39. Here iie 
 lays, * The v,-holc Foice ot their Arcrnmcnt depends on 
 
 * the fmali Prepolitions into and out oJ\ which ihe) f'p- 
 
 * pofe piove them to have been dipt * /fnf Who th)fe 
 are that fuppofe thus," I can't hv : Di't he evei lead an/ 
 Baptirt Author, that argues after the iManner he talks ? 
 We argue from thefe Circumftances, that Chrift, our 
 glorious Pattern^ as well as f-^ur gracious Redeemer, and 
 zKo ihe Eunuch, were in the Water, when tliey were 
 baptized ; and fr<<m the Signification of the Word, iffc. 
 that they were dipt. I (hall juft take Notice of what Vlr. 
 F. fays about thtfe Prepofitions, Jpo, Ek, and Eis. And 
 in Rtlpea of j^po., he finds Fault with the learned Tran- 
 Jlators of the B-.ble, for rendering apo tou hudatos. Mat. 
 
 111. 16. out of the irater ; and tells us, ^ This I am bold 
 < to fay, ought to have been rendered from the IVatcri 
 
 * and can appeal to i^ll who undcrftund the Language, 
 « that apo liridly and properly figiiifies /rcw, and not 
 
 * out of: Anf. But what is gain'o bv this low Criti- 
 cifm r truly nothing at all j for Chr.it was not baptized 
 on the Banks of the Rivei, but in Jordan, Maik i. 9. 
 then every one knows he mult come up out 0/ the Waters 
 
 of 
 
( 133 ) 
 
 orjo-d n. Con'pq c^tl upoj- d e Examination, our Erf^ 
 glijJ? t r;nl!-!.iOii is uox c^'rupt in '.tifs, as Mi . F. fu^- 
 j;eiis, bu very weli exp'eflesthe ALanin^ o^ xht Prepcfi- 
 tion apo ,n his ^"iace ; and how Mr. F can urulerlhnd 
 it othtrwiftr, I can't leidily im. gine. "When he rp,.'aksof 
 appealing to the Lfaintd upon this Occatlon^ I iuppofe he 
 me;.' MS thofe rhat o,t.b\a,.'d rohij. Wav of linking ; for 
 our learned Tiaiifi .rois, no Doubi, rhouf^hr that Jpo in 
 the controverted IJace, p'operly figriifi;. out of, and nave 
 rendered it acc!.rdiii2.^. 
 
 Mr. F's Memory certoinW verv much fa-Is him, or 
 elfe he h.is nr.r re d Che Netv Tejlnment i v/i.<fn he dys^ 
 
 * Nor dw J ^t p'e!">iiir renvin'rir o- c r'':. c& in all .hr Bii.Ie, 
 
 * befides tJ;'s, whci" i( is t-anilred ^j/ff /j^ ; H. r com- 
 
 * nioniv t.f. ox fom.* Let h-ui confuln Z.. ^'. :y 35. 
 apo outou^ outofh'm. Vii\h j^i. apopoUoon^ out of many. 
 Luke viii. 2g. apo tm Anihiopou, o'tt of fhe Man. So 
 Vetfe 33. AdsxVT!. 2. ap.< toon Graphoon, out of the 
 Scripturt-s. Ihefe fnftance? ma ■ fuffice tu help his Me- 
 mo'y, w hde he looks for more. Here I would allc Mr. 
 F whether A-o '> Jit^fe I'laces, does not Jlritily iiad pro- 
 
 pe: ly lijinify out cf. 
 
 He ucknowled/es that the Prepofirions Eis^ znd Ek^ 
 do often r)g"ify into and out of '.hrre is therefore no Ne- 
 celiHty i fhouid bring Initances to fhew they do fo. But 
 then ve mull lliew they figiiify fo in the controverted 
 , Place, Jsis via. 38, 39 V. we take it for granted that 
 they d) figtufy into and cui of ^ a? our Tranflaiors have 
 rendered rhem in the difputed Place, Mr. F. can never 
 Ihevy to the contrary but we are right j and it was his 
 Bufmefs, if he had done any Thirg to Purpofe, to 
 fhew that we nitilook t'le Signification of thefe Prepofiti- 
 ons m the faid Place, or tlrat they art wrong tranflaied ; 
 doing lels than thit., was djing#of nothing butmikinga 
 Noife and Blutier in vain. However, we have an Argu- 
 ment with a tolerable good Face to it, that eis and ek, in 
 j£fs viii. 38, 39. dohgiiify into and out of ; becaufe Mr. 
 F. aflertsiii the * Page before me, that PhiUp came up 
 out of the Water, as zvell as the Eunuch. 1 hen they cer- 
 tainly were both in it. 'l^is very natUiul then, to un- 
 
 I 3 deiftand 
 
 * 93' 
 
( 134 ) 
 tlciftand that eis to hudoor fignifies into the Wdter^ or elfe 
 liow could Mr. F. aflert, they botli came up out o/"the 
 Water, if they were never in it ? TJius Mr. F. at una- 
 vjarei confirms all that we plead for, vix. that Eh and 
 Ek in this Place, do fignify into, and out of. 
 
 Having clear'd our Way fo far, 'tis proper to obferve, 
 that this PalFage concerning Phdip\ baptizing the Eu- 
 nuch, feta the Matter in fuch a clear Light, tlrat no 
 Objection of any Weight, can poflibly be made againft 
 what we do profefs : Here the Holy Gholt Mixy particu- 
 larly obferves unto us. That they came u>ito a certain 
 Water ; that they both -went down into the Water ; and, 
 that the Matter might be yet clearer, 'tis added, both 
 Philip and the Eunuch ; that he baptized (i. e. dipped^ 
 iiim ; that they both came up cut of thelVater : Nf^thing 
 can be plainer, unlefs one was to have feen the Ordinance 
 adminiitred, with his own Eyes. Hence Calvin on tlie 
 Place fays, * * Here we fee what was the Rite of Bapti- 
 zing with the Antients ; for they plunged the whole 
 Body into Water.' And pray tor what Reafon did the 
 Holy Ghofl: pen the Account fo particular, but for our 
 Learning and Imitation ? And, 
 
 Why fliould our Mother's Children be angry with us, 
 for pleading that BaptiTm oui^ht now to be adminiftred ac- 
 cording to the Apoilolical and Primitive Practice, fo as 
 to load us with Reproaches, Contempt, and Difdain ; 
 feeing in this Particular, we only adt according to the 
 foinin^ Example of Jesus Christ, and his blefTed Fol- 
 Jowers. 
 
 Mr. F. goes on in his impertinent Way, and talks as 
 if we thought a Perfon could not go into, or come up out 
 of the Water, without being plung'd under it, or have 
 been at the Bottom : VVe know he may go into the Wa- 
 ter ton Hundred Times, vwthout being plung'd under it-- 
 But how vaftly different is that from the Cafe in Hand ! 
 when the Adminiftrator, and Perfon to be baptized, 
 <jo both go down into the Water, the one to baptize, 
 the other to be baptized (as in the Cafe of Philip and the 
 Fiunuch) Here we fay, the one goes down into the Wa- 
 ter 
 * Cited by Mr. GiU, Ancier.t Mode of Eapt. p. 45. 
 
( 135 ) 
 ter, in order to be baptized, and comes up a baptized 
 Pertbn. And for ought tlut yet appears, wc |ia;'e no 
 Reafon to be aftiamed of our Argument, as Mr. F. fug- 
 gcfls. ^ 
 
 Says our Antagonift, * They that go down to the 
 
 * Sea in Sh'ps, Pjahn c\\\. 23. are not fuppofed 10 go 
 ' under the Water.' An't they ? Let him fifk oea-fa- 
 iirg Men then, if they don't go under the Waier, whea 
 the ftormy Wind aiifeth, which Jifteth up the Waves 
 of the Lea that they are mounted up to Heaven, and they 
 godi'Wn again to the Depths ; their Soul is melted becaufe 
 of Trouble ; an-d I believe they'll inform him, there is 
 nothing more common than for the vexed Surges to 
 break over them at fuch Times, How impertinent 
 therefore is this Inflance to what Mr. F. is upon ? ' If 
 ' out of the Water (fays he) fignify the lame as from un- 
 
 * der ir, we can then prove, that Philip was plung'd as 
 
 * well as the Eunuch ' In Anfwcr to this, and what Mr. 
 * F. cites out of Dr. Ridgely^ Mr. Rees his Repb is fuf- 
 
 ficient. * Nor is there any one that fuppofed Fhilip and 
 
 * the Eunuch were all over^ and pi'perly with their 
 
 * whole Bodies at the Bottom of that Water ; hut that 
 ' they firlt rtood in it, and that Philip put the whole Body 
 
 * of the Eunuch entirely under the Surface of tne Water, 
 ' fo that he might be fiid to be all over covered there- 
 ' with : And afterwards they ho\.\iwent^ or Walked our cf 
 ' the Water, But the learpcd Dr. has hit upon as odd a 
 ' Notion of coming out of the Water ^ as I think was ever 
 
 * heard of ; when he fays, (p. 418) Where Perfcns are 
 ' faid to come up out of the Water, it denotes an Action 
 ' performed uith Defign, and the perfect Exercife of the 
 ' Underftanding, in him that does it ; which feems not 
 ' agreeable to one who is at the Bottom of the Water» 
 ' and can't well come up from thence, unlefs by the 
 ' Help of him that baptized nim. Now for this very 
 
 * Reafon which the DoSior offers himfelf, 'tis probable,. 
 
 * that 'tis the Hrft Time that this Motion was ever called 
 
 * coming out of the Water ; the Scripture never calls it fo, 
 ' that 1 know of : For in flricl Propriety of Speech, and 
 ' good Senfe, this Part which we are fpeaking cf (emer- 
 
 1 4 * g^-^s) 
 
( 136 ) 
 
 ging) fhould be called Riftng^ or being rats' d out of the 
 Water, Accordingly St. Amhrofe calls it, Refurgimur^ 
 Refufcitamur, i.e. VVearer//^«, or ro/iV again. But 
 then it is eafy to conceive, that when a Perfon has been 
 t^us rais'd, zndplac'd upon his Legs after his Baptifm, 
 he may make ufe of his Underftanding, Ingoings or 
 walking up out of the Water. Dr. Hammond was fo well 
 fatisfied in this, that when fpeaking of the Baptifm of 
 our Lord, he fays. He went out of the Water before 
 "John. And 'tis very natural to conceive thus, of this 
 Affair : For the Adminijirator is commonly the Firji 
 who goes intOy and the La/i who comes out of the Wa- 
 ter^ in performing the Ordinance of Raptifm. I ob- 
 ferve further, that the worthy Dr. Ridge/y repeats the 
 Term, Boftem of the Water^ in this Difpute. There 
 is no great Need for this Phrafe ; for we never defire to 
 put Perfons to the Bottom of the Font, but only under 
 the Surface of the Water, fo as that their Bodies may be 
 once covered all over, and then they are immediately* 
 rais'dupy and this is fufficient to anfwer the End of the 
 Ordinance.' % 
 
 Mr. F. offers fome further Objeftions again ft Immerfl- 
 on ; but thev are very inconftderable, as, ' That we ne- 
 ver read of any going into., or out of the Wacer, fave 
 only when they were in the Woods, or on the Road } 
 then whoever would be baptized, mufl go where the 
 Water was ; and not having Veffels to take it up with- 
 al, it was therefore convenient to go a little Way 
 into the Water, that the Baptizer might more readily 
 take it up with his Hand.' To this, and what follows it, 
 much of the fame Nature, I Anfwer, I prefume to fay, 
 be does not read any where, that Water was brought to 
 ^BV Houfe, to pour or fprinkle upon Perfons ; but we 
 read of People's going out ofjerufalcm, and elfewhere, 
 to fnhn to be baptized : ro fuppofe that the Eunuch had 
 jio/^j^iA- v/ith him in the Chariot, is very improbable -- 
 or that it was ufiial for the BaptizerS then, to go a little 
 Way into the Water, for the greater Conveniency to 
 take it up with their Hands (I fuppofe he means to fprMi- 
 kle on the People) is fuch a fimplc Way of Accounting for 
 
 Things, 
 
 ^^ Aiiimad. on a D.fciurfs of Inf. Bapt. p. 778. 
 
( 137 ) 
 Things, as can be. What Impediments or Difeafes does 
 Mr. Finley fancy thofe Baptizeis laboured under, that 
 they could not well re^ch to take Water up, unlefs they 
 went fome Diftance into it ? We fee what (orry Shifts 
 Men are put to, for to find fome Conjedlures, whereby 
 they would endeavour to turn aftde the plain Truth of 
 Things : To vhat he fays fuither, I would juft afk him. 
 Does he not read of great Multitudes going from their 
 dwelling Places avay to John^ and were baptized by him 
 in the River of 'Jordan ? And when 'John was baptizing in 
 /Enon^ becaufe there was much Water there, does not he 
 read of others coming to him, and were baptized of him 
 there ? And where does Mr. F. think they came from, 
 but out of\.\\Q\x Houfes and Cities ? So that there appears 
 not only a Probability, but a very great Certainty, that 
 Baptifm was anciently admiiiiftred by Immerfion. 
 
 Another Objedion is, ' That the ApoftJes preached 
 wherever they came ; wherever they preach'd, fome 
 were converted.— -Now they were not always nigh to 
 Rivers or Ponds, nor had they Fonts eie<Sl:ed for this 
 End ; they mufl then either not baptize at all, or elfe 
 muft do it fome other Way, than by plunging ; that is, 
 by pouring ox fprinkling.' Anf. Does Mr. F. read that 
 the Apojiles could not baptize their New Converts for 
 want of being nigh to a River or Pond, that they were 
 oblig'd to let them go unbaptiz'd, or elfe fprinkle them ; 
 or is this a Conjcdlure of his own, to countenance his 
 Prailice ? A Conjedture of his own no Doubt, which is 
 of no Weight, unlefs it had been fupported by fome bet- 
 ter Authority than his hzre fay-fo ; or he had made appear 
 that the Apoftles were oblig'd to fprinkle fome of their 
 new Converts, for want of Water fufficient for Immer- 
 fion ; but this he has not : Neither is it in the leaft: pro- 
 bable that they dipped fome, and fprinkled others ; becaufe 
 wherever we read of their adminiftring this Ordinance, 
 'tis flill exprefb'd by the Word Baptize. Now if they 
 had ufed different Modes of Adminiftration (as every one 
 knov/s that dipping 2ind fprinkling are very different) there 
 is all the Rcafon in the World to believe they would have 
 been. exprefTed by different Words j but feeing the fame 
 Word is every wiiCiC ufed on this Occasion, it plainly 
 
 befpea k 
 
( 138 ) 
 befpcaks their Pra<Sice was unijerm, i. e. that they bapti- 
 zed all by Immerfion. And thofe Places where the liap- 
 tizing of Perfons is but juit mentioned, are to be compa- 
 red with other Places of Holy Scriptuie, which give a 
 full and cleiir Account of the Mannt:r and Circumftances 
 of its Adminiftration, Upon the Whole, I can't but con- 
 clude, that Immerfion is the Scriptural, and therefore the 
 only Mode of Baptizing ; ana that what Mr. F. offers 
 upon this Head# in Favour of his Practice, is weak and 
 inconclufive. 
 
 We come to the third Toplck, or Flead of Difcourfc 
 which Mr. F. calls Scripture Allujions^ Rom. vi. 3, 4, 5. 
 Know ye not^ that Jo many of us as were baptized into 'J ejus 
 Chrijly were haptixed into his Death ? Therefore we are 
 buried xvith him by Baptijm into Death ; that like as Chriji 
 was ratfed up from the Dead by the Glory of the Father^ 
 even fo we alCo Jhould walk in Newnefs of Life. For if we 
 have been planted together in the Likenefs of his Deaths we 
 /hall be aljo in the Likenefs of his Refurre£iion j compare 
 Col. ii. 12. From thefe Words we urge, that the End 
 and Defign of Baptifm is to reprefent the Death, Burial, 
 and Refurredtion, of Jefus Chrift ; and our dying unto 
 Sin, and rifing to walk in Newiiefs of Life ; the outward 
 Sign, or Element, is Water, the only and proper Mode, is 
 Immerfion, buried in Baptifm. 
 
 I (hall cite the Judgment of fome Pasdo-baptifts, out 
 of many, which favour us in this Point j and certainly 'tis 
 reafonable to think there muft be very great Clearnefs in 
 the Cafe, when thofe who praftis'd Pouring or Sprinkling, 
 fhould notwithftanding grant us fo much as they do, in 
 their Comments upon thefe Words. 
 
 The Allembly of Divines on the Place ; Buried with 
 him in Baptifm : ' !n this Phrafe the Apoftle feemeth to 
 
 * allude to the antient Manner of Baptifm, which was to 
 ' dip the Parties baptized, and as it were to bury them 
 
 * imder the Water for a while, and then to draw them 
 ' out of it, and lift them up, to reprefent the Burial of 
 
 * our old Man, and our Refurredion to Newnefs of Life. 
 
 The Contmuers of PWs Annotations, fav, ' He (the 
 ' Apoftle} feems here to allude to the Manner of Bap- 
 
 ' tiTiing 
 
( 139 ) 
 
 * iizing in thofe warm Eaftern Countries, which was to 
 ' dip O.X plunge the Party baptized, and as it were to bury 
 
 * him fur a while under Water. 
 
 Dr. 1'owtrfon * (cited by Mr. Stcnnet) treating of the 
 Sacrament ot Baptifm, liaving fp^iken «f Water in Bap- 
 tifm, as a Sign in RefpeSf of thai cleanfmg ^tality which 
 natural to it, adds theie Words : ' One other Parti- 
 cular there is, wherein I have faid the Water of Bap- 
 tifm to have been intended as a Sign, and that is in Re- 
 fpciSl of that Manner o{ Apphsation which was fome- 
 times ufed, I mean the dipping or plunging the Party 
 baptized, in it, a Significatron which St. Paul WiWnot 
 fufFer thofe to forget, who have been acquainted with 
 his Epijiles : For with Reference to that Manner of 
 Baotizing, we find him affirming, that we are buried 
 with Chrijl by Baptijm into Deaths that like as Chriji 
 was raijcd up from the Dead., by the Glory of the Father., 
 evenfo we aijo Jhould walk in Newnefs of Life., &'c. Rom. 
 vi. 4. --To the fume Purpofe, 01 rather yet more clearly, 
 doth that Apoftle difcourfe, where he tells us that as we 
 are buried with Chriji in Baptiffn^ fo we do therein, rije 
 aijo with hirn^ through the Faith of the Operation of God\^ 
 who hath raifed him frotn the Dead., Gal. ii. 12. For 
 what is this but to fay, that as the Defign of Baptifm was 
 to oblige Men to conform fo far to Chrift's Death and 
 Refurrediion, as to die unto Sin, and to hve again unto 
 Righteoufnefs : So was it performed by the Ceremony 
 of Immerfion, that the Perfon immers'd, might by that 
 very Ceremony, whch was no obfcure image of a Se- 
 pulture., be minded of the precedent Death, as in like 
 Manner by his coming again out of the Water, of his 
 Rifing from that Death to Life, after the Example of 
 the Inftitutor thereof?' 
 A little lower, he enquires whether the Water of Bap- 
 tifm ought to be applied by hnme'fton, or by that., or an Af- 
 perfon or Effufion ? * Which (fays he) is a more material 
 ' Queftion, than it is commonly deem'd by us, who have 
 
 * been accuflomed to baptife by a bare EfFufion, or fprink- 
 
 * ling of Water upon the Party. For in Things u hich 
 
 * depend 
 * Explication of the Catechifm of the Chmch of England, of Bapt. p. ao. 
 
( uo C 
 
 depend for their Force, upon the mere Will and Plea- 
 fure of him who inftituted 'em, there ou?ht, no doubt, 
 great Rega-d to be had to th.' Commands of him vvho 
 did fo, as without which tlicre is n » Reafjn to prefuyne 
 wefliall receive the Benefit of that Ceremony to wh.ch 
 he hath been pleafed to annex it. Now, what the 
 Command of Chiift v/as in rhis Particular, [Matt. 
 xxviii. 19.) cannc)t he doubted ot by thofc who (hail 
 coniidcr, fir(} :he Words of Lh; ift concerning it, ard 
 the PradtiCfc'ofthofe Times, whether in ihe Bapf.ifm of 
 'Jchn^ ot of our Saviour : For the Words of Chrilt are, 
 that they ftiou.d baptize or dip thofe whom they made 
 Difciples to him (tor fo no doubt the Word Baptixein 
 properly fignifies) and which is more, and not (vithout 
 its Weight, that they fhould baptize them into the 
 Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of tiie Holy 
 Ghoft ; thereby intimating fuch a IVaJinng as fhould 
 receive the Party baptized, within the very Body of that 
 Water, which they were to baptize him with. Tho* 
 if there could be any doubt concerning the Sign fication 
 of the Words in themfelves, yet would that Dmbt be 
 removed, by confidering the Practice of thofe Times, 
 whether in the Baptifm of 'John^ or of our Saviour. 
 For fuch as was the Practice of thofe Times in Bap- 
 ii'zjngy fuch in Reafon are we to think our Saviour's 
 Command to have been concerning it, efpeciaily when 
 the Words themfelves incline thut Way ; there being 
 not otherwife any Means, either for thofe or future 
 Times, to difcover his Intention concerning it. Nov/ 
 what the Prad^ice of thofe 7 imes was as tothis Particular, 
 will need no other Proof than their reforting to Rivers, 
 and fuch like Receptaclesof Waters, for the Performance 
 of that Ceremony, as that too, becaufe there was much 
 Water there. P'or fo the Scripture doth not only affirm 
 concerning the Baptifm of "John ; J but both intimates 
 concerning that v^hich our Saviour adminiflred in 
 f "Judea (becaufe making "John^s Baptifm and his to be 
 io far forth of the fame Sort) andexpielly affirms con- 
 cerning the Baptifm of the Eunuch j * which is the 
 
 only 
 J Matt, iiu 5, 6, 13. f John iiu 2Z, 23. * Afts viii. 3?. 
 
( HI ) 
 only Chriftian Baptifm the Scripture is any thing par- 
 ticular in the Defcriprion of : The Words of St. Luke 
 being, that both Philip and the Eunuch went down 
 into a certain Water, which they met with in their 
 Journey, in order to the Baptizing of the latter. For 
 what need would there have been, either of the Baptijis 
 rcforting to grsat Confluxes of Water, or oi Philip and 
 the Eunuch's going down into this, were it not that 
 the BapciTm both of the one and the other, was to be 
 performed by an Immerfion ? A very little Water, as 
 we know it doth with us, fufHcing for an Effujion or 
 Sprinkling. But befides the Words of our bleffed Sa- 
 viour, and the concurrent Pra<Stice of thofe Times, 
 wherein chis Sacrament was injiituted, it is in my Opi- 
 nion of no lels Coniideratioi , that the Thing fignified 
 by the Sacrament of Baptifm, cannot other wife be well 
 reprefented, tnan by an Immerjion, or at Icaft by fomc 
 more general Way of Purification, than that ot Effufion 
 or Sprinkling. For tho* pouring or fprinklingof a little 
 Water upon the Face, may fuffice to reprefent an inter- 
 nal Wafhing, which feems to be the general End of 
 Chrift's making Ufe of the Sacrament of Baptifm, vet 
 can it not be thoiighr to reprefent fuch an entire Wafli- 
 ing as that of neiv-born infants Wi.s, and as Baptifm 
 feems to be intended for ; becaufe reprefented as the 
 Laver of our Regeneration : That, tho' it do not re- 
 quire an Immerlion, yet requiring fuch a general 
 Wafhing at lead, as aiay extend to the whole Body, 
 ai other than which cannat anfwer its Type, nor yec 
 that general, tho' internal Purgation which Baptifm 
 was intended to '•eprefent. 1 he C^me is to be faid yet 
 more upon the Account of our conforming to the 
 Death an:? Rerurre£tion of Chrift, which we learn 
 from St. Paul, to have been the Deftgn of Baptifm to 
 figni/y. For tho' that might be, and was well enough 
 reprefented by the baptized I'erfon's being buried in 
 Baptifm, and then rijing out of it ; yet can it not be 
 faid to be fo, or at leafi but veiy imperfe£fly, by the 
 bare pouring out, or fprinkling thebapiifmal Water on 
 him : But therefore, as there is fo much the more 
 
 Reafon 
 
( 142 ) 
 
 Res Ton to reprefent the Rite of Immerfion^ as the only 
 LfoiTiMATK Rite of Hptifm, becanfe the only 
 One that cm aiifwer the Ends of its lu/iitution^ and 
 thof'e 'I hings which were to hz fign'tfied by it ; foefpe- 
 cially if ('ai is well known, and undoubtedJy of great 
 Force) the general Praclice of the pnmitive Church 
 was agreeable thereto, and the Practice of rhe Greek 
 Chinch to this very Day. For who can think either 
 thiicne or the oihi-r would have been fo tenacious of fo 
 troub-efome a Rite, were it not, that they were well 
 afTured, as they of the primitive Church might very 
 well be, of its beino; the only instituted and 
 
 LEGITIMATE OnE ' 
 
 Tolerable good CcnaJ/u'^s^ confidering they come from 
 the Pens of thi.fe wh ^ pr.clifed Sprinkling, l^o thefe I 
 might add a Cl'>iid o( Witnefles, which teftify the fame 
 Thing, in Favour of what we protefs, rcfpe6ting the 
 ancient ami fcriptural Mode of Baptizing ; but (lull con- 
 tent mv fdf at prefent, with only citing the Words of 
 Dr. IVJjithy^ in his Paraphrafe and Commentary on the 
 New Tc/iarnent^ who thus expieflls himfcit on Rom. vi. — 
 JVi are buried with him in Baptifm. ' It being exprefsly 
 
 * declared here, and Col. ii. 12. lliat we are buried with 
 ' Chrifl: in Baptifm, by being buried under Water ; and 
 ' the Argument to oblige us to a Conformity to his 
 
 * Death bvd\ingto Sin, bemg taken hOnce ; and this 
 ' Jmmcrfin bemg relig ourtv obferved h\- all Chrijiians for 
 
 * thirteen Centuries^ and approved by tnir Chu'ch, and 
 
 * the Change of it into bp rink ling, even ii^th- 
 
 * out any Allowance from the Auilior of this Inst IT u- 
 
 * T ION, or any Licence tVom any Council of the Church., 
 ' being that whicii x.\\ti Roman iji '(k\\\ urceth, tojultify 
 
 * his Refufal of the Cup to tfie Laity ; it were to be 
 " wiftied that this Cuftom might be again of general 
 
 * Ufe.' 
 
 And as Dr. Gale fa' <;, JVhat follows concerning Afper- 
 Jion., being not to the Purpofe^ / omit it. 
 
 Let us now attend on Mr. F. to hear what he has to 
 obje^^ againft ua, on thi- f lead. 
 
 X. Says he, Sacraments are not natural but arbitrary 
 
 ^ Signs. 
 
( H3 ) 
 Signs. AnJ. I cannot but wonder what Advantage he 
 thinks to gain to his (Jaule by this Obfervation ! For isit 
 nof allowed by all, that there is always an Analogy or 
 Refemblance betwixr. the S'ign% and the Things fignified ? 
 Otheiwife how {hould the Signs lead us to the Things 
 fignified, or be helpful to our Faith in thofe Things ? As 
 all facramental Signs are appointed of God, fo alfo what 
 they (hould fignify : We are not of our own Heads to 
 imagine this or the other to be fignified by them, and 
 I then adapt the Signs to the Things fuppofed to be figni- 
 f fied, different from their firft Inftitution. Thus in the 
 [ Cafe before us : Bapcifm no way anfwers with what the 
 Apoftle here fets forth, but by Immerfion ; and it feems 
 Mr. F. faw this, when he a(ks us, why muft Signs bear 
 fuch a natural Refemblance of the Things by them figni - 
 fied ? intimating, that burying the Party in Baptifm, and 
 his Rifmg up again, hath a very natural^ lively and fuit- 
 able Refemblance of the Burial and Refurrecftion of Jcfus 
 Chrift, and of our dying to Sin, and rifing again to walk 
 in Ntwnefs of Life ; but was willing to turn it afide by 
 fome Artifice or another. Sacramental Signs are Arbi- 
 trary with Refpe<5l to the good Will and Pleafiire of their 
 Inftitutor ; but it does not therefore follow, they bear not 
 a natural Refemblance of the Things fignified by them ; 
 nay the contrary ismanifeft, whatever Mr. F. may think 
 proper to obje<9: againft it. 
 
 2. * But further (fays our Author) we are alfo faid by 
 
 * Baptifm to be planted together in the Likenefs of Chriji^s 
 
 * Death. Now he died hanging on the Crofs ; muft we 
 
 * therefore be fix'd on a Crois when baptized, that fo 
 
 * there may be a natural Refemblance ? 
 
 Anf The Aflembly of Divines, in their Annotation on 
 Rom. vi. 5. very beautifully and pertinently refute this 
 fneering Objedlion : Planted together \ they fay, * By 
 
 * this elegant Similitude, the Apoftle reprefenteth unto 
 ' us, that as Plants engrafted, receive Moifture and Juice 
 
 k * from the Stock, whereby they fprout out, and bear 
 f * Fruit .i fo we receive Vigour from Chrift, whereby we 
 
 * live fpiritually, and bear the Fruit of good Works ; 
 ' And as a Plant that is fet in the Earth, lyeth as dead 
 
 and 
 
( 144 ) 
 
 * and unmovable for a Time, but after fprlngs up and 
 
 * flourifheih , To ChiiU's Body lay dead for a vvliile in the 
 ' Grave, buifprun^^up and reflauriftied in his Refur- 
 
 * redion : And we alfo^ when we are bjpti%ed^ are buried 
 ' as it were in I Voter for a Time, but after are raifd up 
 
 * to Newnefs cf Life.' 
 
 In the folLwmi/ Paragraph, I think there are two or 
 three Objections thrown up together : i. That we fhould 
 prove that Dipping was thenufed. 2, That the Apoftle ' 
 ufed it ; and 3. That he approved it. As to the Firji, 
 'tis already proven, and confirmed by the joint Gonfent 
 of divers Teitimonies of Paedo-baptifts themfelves. 2dly, 
 w« have abundant Reafon to conclude the Apoftle ufed it, 
 becaufe he fets tiimfelf in with others who were buried 
 with Chrifi by Baptifin, Rom. 6. and 3, That he ap- 
 proved of Immeriion ; becaufe he puts the Roman and 
 Colofftan Chriilians in Mind of their Baptifm, thereby to 
 pjomote their dying to Sin, and rifing to Newnefs of Life; 
 which wasfoclearlv and fuitably reprefented, when they 
 were buried with Chnft therein. 
 
 Says he, * If an Ailufion to a Praflice will prove the 
 ' Approbation and Ufe of it, then we can prove that the 
 ' j..me Apoltle both ufed and approved the Olympiclc 
 
 * Games.' Anf We don't fay it will. But does Mr. 
 F. think this to be a parallel Cafe ? Were the Olympick 
 Games ordain'd of God r Did Chritt authorife them ? 
 Does the Apoftle fay, that himfelf and other Believers 
 aRed in them ? D-jes he any where intimate thefe were 
 defign'd to reprefent a Death to Sin, i^c. P No, not at 
 all J what then is ihis brought for, but to blindfold the 
 unwary Reader ? 
 
 * But for my Part (fays he) I do not believe the Apo- 
 
 * file alludes to the Mode of Dipping, in th^ Expreflions 
 ' of being buried and rifen with Chrilt in Baptifm.* 
 ^nf And wh;it of that ? why, his Unoelief can't make 
 the Word of God to be of none £fFc6t, tho' it mav har- 
 den fomc others 111 their like Unbelief ^lon^ with him. 
 'Tis added, ' any more than 1 beheve that he alludes to 
 ' fome Cuffom cf Chriflians being fallened to a Crofs in 
 
 * Baptifm by thofe other ExpreJiions, of being planted 
 
 * toacther 
 
( 145 ) 
 
 ' together in the LIkenefs of his Death ; for I can fee 
 
 * no more Reafon for believing the one than the other^ 
 
 * and tlie one Practice is without Proof as much as 
 
 * the oiher.' J/if. Were there any fuch Chrijiicins ('as 
 Mr. F. calls them) who ufed to fa(ten Peopie to a Crofs 
 in Baptifm, in the Apoftles Days ? Or d"es he read ia 
 Scripture, of any 1 hing in the Gircumflances of Bap- 
 tifm, that inclines him to think there is as much Reaf )n 
 for believing the one as the other ? XVnat a Stock of Affu' 
 ranee is here diicovered, when he tells us, That the 
 PraSfice of Dipping Perror)s in iBaptifm, is without 
 Procl, as much as falfening thera to a Crofs in Bapufm ! 
 I think it is hardly worth any Man's wJiile (o argue with 
 one, who won't ftick to utter fuch undigcfted Thoughts, 
 ^n Defence of his Cauie, when they come in his V\'ay ! 
 If the Cafe be as A4r. F. affirms, vvhat figniKes our Bibles 
 to us, or th;t we Ihould be told that John baptized the 
 Multitudes in the River of y.jrrt'^rw, and that Chrifl-, af- 
 ter he was baptized in Jordan, ftral^htway came up out 
 of the Water, i^c. But let the candid Reider judge if 
 there is not a great deal more Proof for tmrnerfion, thari 
 there is for faftening People to a Crofs in iJaptit-n, wheii 
 there is not the leafl Intimation of the latter, in all the 
 PafTages which fpeak of Baptifm. 
 
 It the Cafe be as Mr. F. aflertsj How came fuch a 
 great Body of eminent Divines to be fo miftaken in this 
 Matter ? Reafon tells us^ that there rtiuft be not only a 
 mere Probability, but fomevery great Certainty in the Cafe; 
 before thofe who pradtis'd Sprinklings would confefs 
 that Dipping was the ancient Mode of Baptizing, contra- 
 ry to their own Prafiice, Befides Mr, F. would do well 
 to confider, that he has not. given lis one Inftance where 
 Baptizo is rendred, or fignifies to pour or fprinkle. 
 
 He proceeds to account for the Apoftle's uhng fuch fi- 
 gurative Expreffions, and tells us, < That Chnft being 
 
 * the Covenant Head, and Reprefentative of his Ele<St^ 
 
 * they are faidto do and fuffer, what he did and fuffered 
 f in their ftead, becaufe reprefented by him, and have 
 
 * Communion in the Benefits of his Obedience and Suf- 
 
 * feriiigs, therefore they are faid to be crucified witH 
 ehrifti to be dead with him,' and buried and I'ikn witH 
 
r 146 ) 
 
 * him, yea and to fit with him in heavenly Places.* 
 
 Anf. The Death, Burial, and Refu rredtion cf Chrift, 
 togetiicr with our Death to Sin, and Refi;rie£lion to 
 Nevvncfs of Life, are the grea' Things which we affirm 
 to be fignified by Baptifm : Now we lee in thcfe fore ci- 
 ted Plates, how beautifuHv thefe Things are let forth in 
 the Sign ; Buried with Cbnj} in Bnptijm, wherein alfo 
 you are rifen with him through the Faith of the Operation 
 ofGod^ who hath rai fed him from the Dead. Mr. F. muft 
 either deny that ihe Apoftle meant Water Baptii'm in 
 this Place, or elfe be forc'd to fhujjle and twijl to evade 
 the Force of his Wo-^ds, which hold forth a 1'} mbolical, 
 or baptifrnal Burial, and biptilmal Rifing ; or elfe it 
 could not t>e faid, burled with Chrift in Baptifm -which 
 cannot be but by dipping the Party into Water, and ri- 
 fing up again : ' Buried with Chrift in Baptifm., wherein 
 alfo you are rifen with him : Thefc Exprcfnons uf the holy 
 Aooftle, bein?; f > perfedly agreeable with the Pradtice of 
 John, who baptized Perfons in the River Jordan, and in 
 Fnon., where there was much Water ; bting alfo con- 
 firmed by the beautiful and illuftrious Example of our a- 
 dored Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who was 
 baptized himfelf in Jordan, do fufficientlv refute the Ob- 
 jedlions of our Oppon.ents, and fully confirm our Faith in 
 this Point, That Immerfion, and no other, is the only 
 proper Scriptural Mode of Baptifm. VVe are alfo confi- 
 dent, tho' God fufri:u-s his Truth to be long dcfpifed, arid 
 treated by manv with Contempt and Difdam, that yet in 
 his own due Time, he will arife, and plead his own 
 Caufe, to the Joy and Satisfaction of all his People. 
 
 Mr. F. may <'ec briefly our Grounds for our Faith and 
 Pradice ; and if we are guilty, as he charges us, of ex- 
 cluding the Protedant Churches on thefe Grounds, let 
 him anfwer us in this Point, whether it be our Duty to 
 conform to the Pradice of thofc Churches, who hold 
 Sprinkling to-be Baptifm, or to the Word of God, 
 which holds forth Immerfion to be the proper Mode of ad- 
 jniniftring this holy Ordinance. 
 
 Having proven the Mode of Baptifm, from the Signi- 
 fication of tlie Word Baptizo, from the Piadice of the 
 priraitive Times, or bgripture hxamples, and from 
 
 Scripti*re 
 
f 147 ) 
 
 Scripture Allufion?, to be Immerfion ; and withil, refu- 
 ted Mr. F s Objedions againft it ; I need to be but verjr 
 brief in Remarking on whAt follows. 
 
 His fecund Aflcrtion is, * That the Scriptures alfFord 
 
 * clearer Grounds to us, in Favour of our Mode of Bap- 
 
 * tifm, than to our Opponents againfl it.' Say you fo ? 
 Then pray let us examine thofe Grounds : ifl:, ' It 
 
 * Teems to be prophefied of in i/i/. lii. 15. He foall fprin- 
 
 * kle many Nations. I don't fee one folid Reafon that can 
 
 * be advanc'd againft our referring, it to the Water of 
 
 * Baptifm, as well as to the Blood of Ghrift, and the 
 ' Do£lrine of theGofpel.' Reply. I remember he informs 
 us at ti^e Beginning:, that he intended his Perjormanci 
 for the Ufe of the Co.nmon People ; and truly they mult 
 be fuch, and of whufe Intellectuals he has no Reafon to 
 think any Thing but what is mean and contemptible, 
 or elfe that they ar€ already fully prepofiefs'd with his 
 Opinion, who will believe that this Text affords a clear- 
 er Ground for Sprinkling in Baptifm, than the Places I 
 have quoted do for hnmcrfion. The Folly and Im.perti- 
 rency of our Opponents in citing this Place, with this 
 Intent, can't be fuiiiciently deteSied : % A Text tbaC 
 hath no Manner of Relation to the Mode of Baptifm ; 
 nor any where referred to in all the New-Teftament, on 
 fuch an Occafion. Let Mr. F. fliew us the Place if he 
 can, which proves that this was fulfilled, by fprinkling 
 the Nations with Water, as he fuggefts ; or ceafe to mif- 
 guide the Comtnon People^ by wreding and {training 
 Texts of Scripture, to ferve his Purpofe, In a Word, 
 I can't but fully agree with the Reverend znd judicious 
 Mr. Gill, * faying, * Who in the World could ever 
 
 imagine, that the Or<iinance of Water- baptifm, with 
 the Mode of its Adminiflration, fnould be intended 
 here ? A Man muft have his Imagination prodigiouflf 
 heated indeed, and his Mind captivated with a mere 
 Jingle of Words, that can look upon fuch Proofs as 
 thefe, fecht out of the Old Teflament, as demonfcra- 
 tive Ones oi the true Mode of Baptising under the 
 New. 
 
 K 2 « 2dh\ 
 
 % Vid. Kir, Dickinfon^s Do£V. of Regeneration vin^. Pi 4© 41.— •» * ^t^ 
 feftee of tfee aniient Mede ef Baptising, p= x§i 
 
( h8 ) 
 
 ' ^dty^ The Scriptures give us Examples of fevera? 
 
 * Perfons who feem to have been baptized by Pouring 
 
 * or Sprinkling, more probably than by Dipping, as the 
 ' three Thoufand in Ads ii. 41.' Anf. But is there not 
 a far greater Probability that the three Thoufand were 
 baptized by Immerfion according to the Meaning of the 
 Word, and after the fame Manner that others virere, of 
 ■wh im we have a fuller Account than is here given ? 
 The Arguments raifcd in Favour oi Sprinkling from this 
 Text, are very inconfiderablc, and too weak by far to 
 bear the Strefs laid upon them ; for there is nothing ap- 
 pears to the Contrary, but the Seventy Difciples were 
 there together with the twelve Apollles-- feeing the 
 l^umher of Names together were about an Hundred and 
 1'u:cniy^ A£ls\. iv And thefe were together at the, 
 "Dxy oi Pentecojl^ Jds u. I. Hence it appears not, but 
 there were Adminiftrators fufficient to difpatch the 
 Work in a little Time. As to any further Objedions 
 thrown in the Way, they are either anfwered already, 
 or carry in them no Weight worth any One's while to 
 inake any Remarks on them. 
 
 * Again ('fays he) Cornelius and his Company afford 
 
 * us a good Argument, Jds \. 47. Peter's Words arc 
 
 * memorable. Can any forbid IVater, that thefe Jhould not 
 
 * be baptized ? He does not fay. Can any hinder to go 
 
 * to a Water, but. Can any faibid Water ? which is an 
 
 * Intimation that Water was to be brought.' Anf. Here 
 is nothing in this Inftance neither, that demonftrates 
 that Cornelius and his Company v/txt/prinkled ; for thofe 
 Places of Scripture which do but juft mention any 'thing, 
 are to be interpreted by others, which fpeak more clear 
 and full of the fame Thing ; An Injlance of this we have 
 before us, Verfe 48, compared with AS^s xix. 5. He 
 commanded them to be baptised in the Name of the Lord 
 (Jefus) May one hence conclude, becaufe the Father 
 and Holy Ghoft are not mention'd, that therefore thefe 
 Perfons were not baptized in the Name of the Father and 
 Holy Ghort, according to Mat. xxvJii. 19. but in the 
 Name of the Son only ? Not at all. So neither can arty 
 one conclude, tiiat they had the Ordinance adminiftred 
 wntQ thi;m in any other Manntr, than according to the 
 
 plain 
 
( 149 ) 
 
 plain zn& full Account given of this Matter^ in other 
 Places of the Holy Scripture, viz. by Immerfton^ or being 
 buried in Baptifm. 
 
 Mr. F. fays, * All Circumftances concur to (hew that 
 
 * 5W or P^«/ was not plung'd, ASfs'xx. i8, 19. He re- 
 
 * ceived Sight, arofe, and was baptized, received iVIeat 
 ' and was ftrengthned, all feems to have been done ia 
 
 * the Place where Ananias found him, viz. in the Houfe 
 
 * of Judas of Damafcus* Anf. There is a very good 
 Circumftance to conclude from, that Paul was not 
 fprinkled ; becaufe 'tis exprefly faid, he arose, and 
 was baptized : Now if the Ordinance had been adminif- 
 tred by Pouring or Sprinklirg^ there appears no Neceffity 
 for his moving or rijing from the Place where he fat or 
 lay : But what puts the Matter out of Doubt is, that 
 the Apoflle Paul puts himfelf in with others, who are 
 buried with Chriji by Baptifniy Rom. vi. 4. 
 
 ' Again in Ails xvi. 33. the Jaylor and his Houfe 
 
 * were baptized after Midnight ; nor have we any Rea- 
 
 * fon to fuppofe they all went out of the City, nor yet 
 
 * out of the Houfe for Water to plunge in ; but rather 
 
 * were there baptized, where they were converted, and 
 
 * that by Pouring or Sprinkling. R^ply. How Mr. Fj 
 can allow himfelf the Liberty tp argue after the Manner 
 he does, from the Paffage concerning the Jaylor's Bap- 
 tifm, as if he had been fprinkled in his Houfe, I can't 
 tell : For when we look into it, there is jiothing therein 
 that favours fuch a Notion, but quite the Contrary : For, 
 ift. The Jaylor brought PW and SzVa; out of Prifon, 
 Vcrfe 30. and 'tis very probable that he took them into 
 his Houfe, becaufe they fpake unto him the Word of the 
 Lord, and to all that were in his Houfe. idly. The Jay- 
 lor and his Houfliold, were not baptized in the Prifon^ 
 nor in his Houfe ; for after he and his Houfhold were 
 baptized, 'tis very exprefs, that he Jjrought Paul 2indi Si^ 
 las into his Houfe. All Circumftances being duly conli- 
 dered, do abundantly refute what our Opponents 
 urge from this Paff'age^ in Favour of Sprinkling. 
 
 Having gone through in examining the Places, which 
 Mr. P. has advanced to prove Sprinkling to be the right- 
 Modt Qi Baptifm s I find there does ngt appear ajij Thing 
 
 K 3 *f 
 
( ISO ; 
 
 of Fo«"cc or Weight, to countt.nancc that Pra(^lce ; there 
 is not one Inflance from Scripture, brought to us to con- 
 firm it ; nor any Conlequerice fufficient to fupport the 
 Behef of a feeking; Perfjn, that Baptifm was lb aJminif- 
 tred ; yet Mr. f. his the Vanify to fay, tiiat th^y out-da 
 us even in Scripture Examples j v<hen, in the mean Time, 
 lie has not produc'd one Example of any Perfon's being 
 fprinkled'—ViUt we read of Multitudes who were baptized 
 in the River "Jordan ; and amongft others, our blefled 
 Saviour ; who left us an Example^ that we Jhould follow 
 his Steps. I rind alfo, that Mr. F. is noc certain of it him- 
 ielf, that thofe Perfons he refers to were fprinkled, only 
 that it is much more probable that they were fprinkled than 
 dipt ; which cannot be, unlefs we had plainer Circum- 
 ftances and Evidences in Favour of Spnniciing, than w« 
 have of Dipping, or overwhelming ; which we find not. 
 It is therefore not only probable, but certain, tiiat Hap- 
 tifin was adminiltred to them, after the fame Manner it 
 ■was to Chrift himfelf, and Multitudes of others, vi%. by 
 Jmmerfton. T do therefore very fretly appeal to the 
 'Judgment of any Reader, who is not refolved to hold 
 Sprinkling to be the true Mode of Baptizing, right or 
 wrong, whether A4r. .F. ha'th made good his AfFertion, 
 viz. That he has clearer Grounds from Scripture for 
 Sprinkliiig, than we have for Dipping, in Baptifm ? 
 when he has not given' any Inftances of it, as we have of 
 Perfons who were formerly buried in Baptifm ; and *tis 
 therefore to be adminiftrcd by Immerfion flill, wherein 
 they arife to walk in Newnefs of Life. People ought 
 alfo to confider that the Ways and Appointments of God, 
 are not to be chang'd and alter'd by Men, according to 
 their Fancies and Inclinations ; even tho' good Mea 
 ihould do {i.^., or practife what is not according to the ori- 
 ginal Pattern (as in the Cafe of Sprinkling inflead of 
 Dipping) they are in<hat not to be followed, nor depend- 
 ed upon : 'Tis every One's Duty to fearch the Scripture, 
 to knew who are the Subjedls, and what is the Mode of 
 Baptifm, and prailife accordingly. 
 
 Mr. F. telk us, * If the Scriptures Jo fpeak lefs ex- 
 
 * predv of this Point, it is to teach us, that a peculiar 
 
 * Mode 15 not cfiential to the Ordinance, as our Oppo- 
 
 ' ncnts 
 
( isr ) 
 
 * nents fondly imagine if to be/ Fiaelv fpoken ! If a 
 peculiar Mode is not effential to this Odinjnce, how 
 come Mr. F. to affert, that Baptifm h rightly z-\m\m{iitd. 
 bv pouring or fprinkiing Water upon the Perfon bapti- 
 Eed ? And what m.ikts h:m foftrenuous in Vindication 
 of Sprinkling, if Baptifm may be adminiftred either Way, 
 or any Way ? And what Colour of Realon can our v^p- 
 ponents have for their Endeavours to expofe us to the 
 World, by their bafo Infinuations that Immerfi'.n is unh-- 
 cent, immodejl, and tends to Murder and Adultery, if it is 
 an indifferent Thing which Way the Ordinance is admi- 
 niftred ? Our Mode is certainly right, according to their 
 own Way of Arguing. I look on this FaiTage now before 
 me^ to be an Evidence of what we profefs to be the 
 Truth ; for had it been otherwife, I doulft not but Mr. 
 F. would readily affirm Sprinkli,ng to be the cK/y;)^r«/?«r 
 Mode of Baptifm : But by infinuating the Cafe to be 
 doubtful ('which is the Method in general of thofe who 
 would either introduce, or countenance talfhoodj he 
 might, the lefs fufpeded, plentifully fling his Dirt upon, 
 TivA Jirenuoujly oppofe the Scriptural Mode of Baptizing ; 
 and labour, at the fame Time, to eibblifli his Pradfice 
 to be the only proper Mode of Baptifm. But can any 
 Man who reads the Scripture, think there is no Matter 
 how Baptifm is done ; and conclude with Mr. F. that it 
 ' is enough if it be done with IVater ; but no Matter how the 
 Water is ufcd, or .to what Part of the Body it be ap- 
 plied ? Whatever Mr. F. (or any other j may think, we 
 are fure God never injlituttd any Ordinance to be carried 
 cnjufl-as Mens changeable Fancies, and diff- rent Noti- 
 ons, might happen to lead them, in the Admmiftration 
 of it ; for if he had, it would be to open a Door to endlefs 
 Difcords, Variance and Confuuons, amongft his Crea- 
 tures, and no Rule or Standard left them ever to con- 
 vince each other, or to decide their unavoidable and re- 
 medilefs Controverfies, and DifFerences ; which a God 
 of Order, never did. 
 
 Now feeing Mr. Finlefs AfTertion natively leads tt% 
 
 fuch Abfurditi'es, the Truth is, That fome peculiar Mode 
 
 is efTential to Baptifm ; and by all that has yet appeared, 
 
 that Mode is Imtnerfm, or Dipping ; Therefore our 
 
 K 4 pleading \ 
 
( 152 ) 
 
 pleading for it, does in Juftice deferve a better Name, 
 than fond Imagination. Further, Wliy (hould it be 
 urg'd that a proper Sunject is ein^ntial to Baptifni, but a 
 proper pecuhar Mode not eflential ? Can any one fee 
 the Reafon why the former lliould be fo, but not the 
 htter ? When both are fufficientiy revealed in Scripture, 
 equally/ plain to any one who u iU not thro' Prejudice, or 
 fuchlike, fnut hii Eves againit an evident Truth. And, 
 
 Th .' It may not be very reli/hing to the Palates of our 
 Opponents, yet. we are no^ afraid to tell them, that 
 ^htnthQv fprinklezn L,faKt, they obferve neither the 
 poocr Mod.-, nor have ihe proper Subjea of Baptifm ; 
 and '.IS but "ufing the Name of the ^7^0/^^/^ Tr inity 
 in a Wa.' never appointed by God, which can be no- 
 thing fiioit of taking his Holy Name in vain. 
 
 8a) s he, * As to the C^iantity of Water, we are told 
 
 * no more of it, than how much Bread and Wine fhall 
 
 * be ufed in the other Sacrament." 
 
 Jnf. As in the Lord's Supper fo much 5r^^^and Wine 
 is neceflary, as will anfwer to the facramental Anions of' 
 Eating and Drinking ; fo in IBaptihn, there is a Nece/Ti. 
 ty of (o much Water as will be fufficient to cover the 
 Per fan in ; for John was baptizing in Enon., hecaufe there 
 was tfiuch JVater there. ^ ■ ' , 
 
 3 //>•, Says our Author, ' Our Mode fully anfwers the 
 
 * Ends of Baptifm, and is moft fuitable and fignificant/- 
 Reply^ God will have tiie M7/7;2^r to be obferved, as well 
 as the End J as we fee in that Inrtarceof his Difpleafure" 
 againft IJrad\, when they were about to bung home the 
 Ailc upon a Cart 5 V^zu indeed was fm^tten for his own 
 Error ; but that was not all, for that fore. I^iialter ; ffec- 
 ted the Congregation 3 and David underitood by that 
 Stroke, that they were wrong in the Manner of carrying 
 the Ark upon a Cart, whereas it ought to have been 
 brouo;ht on the Shoulders of the P>i^p and Levites. 
 I Chron. xv. 13. For becauje ye did it not at the Firjl^ 
 ihe Lord our God made a Breach upon us, /or that we 
 fought him not after the D u 5 ' Or D E R . 
 
 Might thev not as well argue then, if the Ark was 
 brought home, what Matter which Wav it was done, if 
 It anjwen the End i jujft as our Qpponeuts now do, that 
 
 Sprinkling 
 
( 153 ) 
 
 Sprinkling anfwcrs the Ends of Baptifm ? But when the 
 Lord hath ordered otherwife, that Mode only is moft 
 fuitable and fignificant, which is according to his reveal- 
 ed Will and Appointment : Regard alfo rauft be had to 
 the due Order or Manner of our Obedience to God in 
 any Ordinance, as well as to the Ends of it ; otherwife 
 Perfons (even gracious) expofe themfelves to the fmart- 
 ing Corredions of God's Hand, for their Difregard 
 of his pofitive Inftitutions, or Negle£i of obfei'ving the 
 due Otder required in fubmitting to them, A few Drops 
 of Water wont ferve in the Admmiftration of Baptifm, 
 when Immerfion is prox'en to be the Mode according to 
 the Word of God ; and allowed by many Paeuo-baptift 
 Authors, to be the Way of Baptizing in Apoltglic 
 Times : Seeing the Ordinance is delign'd to reprefent 
 the Burial and Refurrection of Chrift, and our Death to 
 Sin, and Rifing to Newnefs of Life ; thefe Ends can't be 
 anfwered, but by Immerfion 3 buried with Chriji in 
 Baptijm. 
 
 * 1 hat Mode is moft fuitable, which can be praiSifed 
 < without Danger of Health in any 1 ime of the Year,- 
 • without Immodefty or Indecency to any Perfon, be- 
 ^ fore any Company, upon any Occafion, or in any 
 ' Place where Conveniency requires.' Jnf. It was a 
 great Part of ^vr<j<Jtftfm's Politicks,, to fecure the People 
 in his Intereft, by telling them, // is too much for you to 
 go up tojerufalem*. q. d. Ton need not endanger your 
 Lives and Healths^ by fuch fatiguing Journeys and Travels, 
 'tis too much for you---fee here is an eafy Method and Way of 
 Worfnp for )ou,- Pray what does Mr. F. mean by hi* 
 Inhnuation that Dipping is dangerous, and prejudicial to 
 People's Healths ? unlefs he had given Inftances of Per- 
 fons whofe Health had been injur'd by it ; but this he has 
 not, and I'm perfuaded cannot : 'Tis nothing therefore 
 but a mere Bugbear, to fright his Admirers from giving 
 due Obedience to Jefus Chrift, in this facred Ordi- 
 nance : And hereby he labours to continue an eafy (but 
 falfe) Way, in direa Oppofition to the beautiful Way 
 appointed of God. I may here add what Mr. Gill f 
 fays on the like Occafion, * If it is the Duty of Perfons 
 
 * to 
 
 ;* % Kings xii. aS. f Antient Mode of Baptiasiog, pag. 7S' 
 
(154 ) 
 to be baptized, it Is their Duty to be plunged ; for 
 there is no true Baptifm without it ? Rut what, in 
 the Depth of Winter ? Why not ? What Damage 
 is like to come by it ? Our Climate is not near fo 
 cold as Mufcovy^ where they always dip their Infants 
 in Baptifm, to this very Day ; as does alio the Greek 
 Church in all Parts of the World. But what, plunge 
 Perfons when under Confumptions, Catarrh^ (sV ? 
 Why not ? Perhaps it may be of Ufe t;> them, for the 
 Reftoration of Health ; and its being perfoi mcd on a 
 facred Account, can never be any Hindrance to it. 
 Whoever reads Sir John Floyer's Hiftory of Cold Bath- 
 ingy and the many Cures that have been performed 
 thereby, which he there relates, will never think that 
 this is a fufficient Objection againft Plunging m Bap- 
 tifm ; which learned Phyfician, has alfo of late pub- 
 lifhed An Effay to re/iore the Dipping of Infants in their 
 Baptifm ; which he argues for, not only from the Signi- 
 fication of Baptifm, and its Theological End, but 
 likewife from the Medicinal Ufe of Dipping, for pre- 
 venting and curing many Dii^empers. If it may be 
 ufeful for the Health of tender Infants, and is in many 
 Cafes now made Ufe of, it can never be prejudicial to 
 grown Perfons. He argues from the Liturgy and Ru- 
 brick of the Church of England^ which requites Dip' 
 ping in Baptifm, and on\y/ z)\ow5 pouring of IVaterm 
 Cafe of Weaknefs, and never fo much as granted a 
 PermiiTion for Sprinkling. He proves in this Book, 
 and more largely in his Former, that the conftant 
 Pradice of the Church of England^ ever lince the Plan- 
 tation of Chriflianity, was to dip or plunge in Bap- 
 tifm ; which he fays continued after the Reformation, 
 until King £<^«^rtry/ the Sixth's Time, and after : Nay, 
 that its Difufe has been within this Hundred Years. 
 And here I can't forbear mentioning a Paflage of his, 
 to this Purpofe, Our Fonts are built (fays he) with a 
 fufHcient Capacity for dipping of Infants, and they 
 have been fo ufed for Five Hundred Years in England^ 
 both Kings and common People have been dipped ; 
 but now our fonts Itand in our Churches as Monu^ 
 
 inent$> 
 
( 155 ) 
 
 * ments, to upbraid us with our Change or NegleiSl of 
 
 * our hzptifnvA ImTfierfton. And I wifn he had not Rea- 
 
 * fonto lay as he does, that Sprinkl ng was firft introduc'd 
 
 * by the AfFembly of Divines in 1643, by a Vote of 25 
 
 * againft 24, and eftablifli'd hy an Ordinance oi Parlia- 
 
 * ment in 1644/ 
 
 As to Mr. i^'s Suggeftion, that Dipping is immodejf 
 and indecent ; it mult be or.ly for want of better Argu- 
 ment ; for if he has ever hen the Ordinance admini- 
 ftred, he muft acknowledge it was done with all Modefly 
 and Decency becoming the Solemnity j if not, he fhould 
 not be fo ready to take up an 111- report againft his 
 Neighbours, and fpread if abroad upon hear-fay, frora 
 fome malicious and ill-difpofed Perfuns, who are not 
 backward to reproach the mofl decent and mo dell A6ts 
 of religious VVorfliip, at their Pleafure. 
 
 ' ^thly^ That the Mode which our Opponents contend 
 
 * for, is loaded witli Inconvenience, and chargeable 
 
 * with Abfuidities.' 
 What are they ? Why, 
 
 * They either dip Perfons naked, or not naked : If 
 
 * naked, 'tis evidently immodeft, an Incentive to Un- 
 
 * cleannefs, and a manifeft Violation of the Seventh 
 
 * Command ; if not naked, then they chiefly baptize only 
 
 * the Clothes, and do no more than foak the Body.' 
 Anf. I appeal to any modf-ft impartial Perfon, whether 
 
 Mr. F. hath not given more juft Occaiion to defile Peo- 
 ple's Minds, by this vain and impertinent Way of Talk- 
 ing, than ever we have given by adminiftring Baptifm by 
 Immerfion ? But fays he, if we baptize People in their 
 Clothes, we chiefly baptize only the Clothes, and do no 
 more than foak the Body. A mighty Inconveniency fure I 
 Juft as if baptizing a clothed Body in Water, was not bap- 
 tizing the Body ! As if a Body could not be faid to be bu- 
 ried in the Earth, unlefs it was buried naked ! Rare 
 Difcoveries ! Whatever he may imagine to gain by fuch 
 Kind of Reafoning, we can affure him, we don't yet 
 feel the Force of his fuppofed Inconveniency, or Ab- 
 furdity, pinching us. 
 
 ' Either the Minifter himfelf dips the whole Body, or 
 
 * only apart of it.'— All that Mr, F. adv^ceth on this 
 
 Head, 
 
r 156 ; 
 
 Head, is foon refuted, by the Inftance of the Eunuch's 
 Baptifm ; who was not carried, but vent himfelf into 
 the Water ; yet his going into tVe Water was no Part of 
 his Baptifm, for he was wiiolly dipt bv Philip. 
 
 Hence the Strengch of this Dilemma or horned Argu- 
 ment, is not like to turn us back from following the 
 Scriptural Mode of Baptizing ; for wc find the Horns 
 are not made of Iron as Zedekiah\ % were, but of hu- 
 man., feeble Dtvkes^ which will not ftand a Touch in 
 Battle, againft the invincible Word of God, Pro. xxi. 
 30. Ifa. viii. 9, 10. If Mr. F. would be found to aft 
 agreeable with the Practice in Apoftolical Times, he 
 ihould go with the Party to be bap'ized, or dipt, into 
 the Water too ; and nc;t call for a Beaton of Water to be 
 brought into a Mceting-h.^ule, oreifewhere, in order to 
 fprinkle a few Drops on the Perfuis Face ; which Prac- 
 tice hath no Peccknt i.i the Word of God. 
 
 * Either they b?.pt)z,e Perfons whenever they make 
 
 • a credible and faci^fadtory Profeffion of their Faith, and 
 
 * earneftly dcfire Baptifm, or they do not.' Jnf. Our 
 Antagonift would fain find fomcrhing here, that he may- 
 infer Baptizing or Dipping to be a Breach of the Sixth 
 Command ; and accordingly conjeftures and fuppofes di- 
 vers Things whicli may fall out, as that a Per/on may be 
 converted in the Depth ofJVinter. Well if lie is, and de- 
 fires Baptifm, he may be baptized, as many others have 
 been heretofore in cold Weather, without any Hurt or 
 Injury to the Baptizer or Baptized. This is not all, one 
 thay be taken fick with a dangerous Difeafe., the Pleurifjy 
 Flux., Small -I ex. Sic. and is then brought to believe in 
 Chnji., and convinced he ought to be baptized : Well, what 
 of that ? fVhy if Baptifm is denyd, God is difobey d ; 
 If he be plung'd. he will be kilN. I doubt not but fuch 
 kind oi ReaK-nings, are mafteriv Strokes in our Author's 
 Account; but before they will be of much Service to 
 him. Mr. F fhould fpeak out. That Baptifm is ahfoiutely 
 necfffary to Salvation ; or iftheftck Perfon fhould die un^ 
 bapt'-vced^ he would be certainly damn'd ; and not mmce 
 the Matter j for then we fhould know more certainly, 
 whether we muft anfwer him as a PrQtejianty or a Papijh 
 
 u 
 
 "l I Kuigi xxiu i^« 
 
( 157 ) 
 
 If he fays *tis not abfolutely necefTar^, then, in fucH 
 Circumftances, it can be neither Difjbedience to Godj 
 nor injurious to the fick Perfon, to defer his Baptifm (rf 
 he recovers) till fuch Time as he is capable to give Obe^ 
 dience to God therein. Let Mr. F. try how his A;gu- 
 menr here, will fuit with his own Practice ; fuppofe a 
 gracious Perfon to be hck of fuch Difeafes, and one who 
 not at allj or for fome great while paft, has not received 
 the Sacrament of the Supper ; but in his Sicknefs earncft- 
 ly defires to partake of it (for fuch a Thing hath been 
 to my certain Knowledge^ would he adminifter the Sup- 
 per to that fjck Perfon, or is it cuilomary for him to do 
 fo ? I believe not. Why then fhould it be charg'd as aa 
 Inconvcniency or Abfurdity on us, for not adminiftring 
 Baptifm on iuch an Occafion ? Why is the one Sacrament 
 more neceflary to fick Perfns than rhe other ? Or if one 
 may be deferred till convenient Time, why not the 
 ether ? Let him give us fomething like a folid and fub- 
 fiantial Reafon of the Difference in (he Cafe, why Bap- 
 tifm mufl be adminiftred to a fick Perfon who defires it, 
 but the Lord's Supper mufl not, tho' he defires it ever fo 
 much ? And when we have his Anfwer to thic Queftion, 
 we may, if need be, fpeak more to the Point : In the 
 mean Time, the Heap of Abfurdities this Gentleman 
 would willingly throw upon the Truth we profefs, do 
 Aide clean off ; for in Protejiant Language we'll venture 
 to fay, X « The want of the Sacraments doth not hurt, 
 when with Conveniengy a Man cannot enjoy 
 
 * them, but the Contempt or Negle£l of them when they 
 
 * may conveniently be come unto.' 
 
 Says our Author^ * Seeing the Scriptures afFord neither 
 
 * Precept, nor fo much as one undoubted Example of 
 ' Baptizing by Plunging, can it be thought lefs than an 
 
 * Abfurdity to make that Mode of Adminiflration effen- 
 
 * tial to the Ordinance, fo as nothing elfe can be Bap- 
 tifm. The Reader may fee how little they are favour- 
 
 * ed by the Etimology of the Word Baptizo, by Scripture 
 
 * Examples, or by Scripture Allufions ; and fo may judge 
 ' how Eflential to Baptifm, Dipping is.' Jnf. There is 
 no Reader who ads hkeaMan, will judge any Gafe, be- 
 fore 
 
 J Areh-bp. VOtuU Boij of Diy, p. 404, 
 
( 158 ) 
 
 fore he has heard and weighed both Sides : And here he 
 will find that the Learner' conOantly afflrm that Baptizo 
 nativt'ly and properly (igv.'.fics t' dip or p/unge. Let him 
 aHoobferve, that Mr. F. has not given him one Inftance, 
 where the Word is render'd, or fignifirs topour or fprinkle. 
 The judicious Reader is further dcfired ta obferve, that 
 we have the Commiflion of our Lord to baptize (i. e. to 
 dip) Believers ; hut there is no Commiflion lo fpr Inkle lit' 
 fonts. Tliat John baptized Perfons in the River Jordan^ 
 'and in Mnon \ that Philip and the Eunuch went both 
 down ifito the Water to celebrate this holy Ordinance : 
 But not one fingle Inftance of any one Perfon fprinkled in 
 an Houfe ; nor any neceflary Coiifeqnence to conclude 
 that any were : That the Apo^le Paul fpeaks of whole 
 Churches being buried by, or in Baptifm, which cannot 
 be true but by dipping Purfons in Water, when the Or- 
 dinance is adminiftred. Upon the whole, let the Reader 
 judge which is the ^W old Way of Baptizing marked out 
 in Scripture, and follow it accordingly. 
 
 ' Lartly, it fcems to me nofmall Abfurdity to exclude 
 
 * and unchriftian all the other Proteftant Churches on the 
 
 * Account of this Mode.' Jfnf. What an odd Way has 
 Mr. F. got of reprefenting Things ! When did he ever 
 hear any of us fay that there were no Chriftians in other 
 Denominations ? Or how is it poflible wc fliould unchri- 
 ftian them, when according to our Principles, we do not 
 adminifter Baptifm to anv but to thofe, who in the 
 Judgment of Charity, are look'd upon to be Chriftians ? 
 Does he think Infant- Bv^i'm to be Kflential to Chrifti- 
 anity, when he talks at this Rate } 1 hat if we deny the 
 one, we exclude the ©ther. Does a hociety unchriftian 
 all others with whom it cannot or doth not hold Commu- 
 nity ? If To, the Prefbyterian Society unchriftians all other 
 Communities with v/hom it cannot, or does not hold 
 Communion, 'Tis then high Time for Mr. F. to look 
 about him, and anfwer for himfelf. I wilh our Oppo- 
 nents would ftick to one Thing, and not flv backwards 
 and forwards : One while they reckon Baptifm among 
 the Ciycumjiantiah of Religion ; at another Time they 
 give out, that by our pleading for, and uling this Mode 
 cf Immerfion, wc uxichrijiun all th» othir Pretejiant 
 
r 159 ) 
 
 Churches. Juft as if the Eflentials of Religion could not 
 /«'y?//, v/hcre People are corrupt or defeaive in the Cir- 
 cuinftantiah ; or as if the Eflentials were overthrown, by 
 fpeaking or writing againft intolerable Corruptions in tb« 
 Circumftantials. But any Thing, tho' ever fo incon- 
 fiftent or Tenfelefs, to carton Oi/ium upon us ! 
 
 » To impofe any Thing as a Term of Communion, 
 
 * which Chrift has not made fj j and to unchriflian and 
 
 * exclude from Communion, ferious ChrMftians, upon 
 ' Account of fuch impofed Circumflances, is fchifma- 
 
 * tical, uncharitable, and downright Bigotry.' What 
 is all this, but an empty Noife, and groundlefs Exclama- 
 tion, raifed againrt us ? Granting, that v/e admit non« 
 to our Communion, but thofe who are regularly bapti- 
 zed, according to the Order of the Gofpel ; which is not 
 making new Terms of Communion ; When did we 
 ever attempt to impofe this upon any Chriftians whatfo- 
 ever, or in the leaft infringe on the Liberties of others ? 
 Have wc attempted any Thing in any Way, but what 
 the Scripture dire£ts, and allows, viz, to convince them 
 that differ from us by Scriptural Arguments? How can 
 Mr. F. fay, that vje unchrijlian and exclude from Csmmu- 
 n'lon ferious ChriJIiqns ; do we hinder theni from Com- 
 munion in their refpedive Societies .? And is it not tho 
 undoubted Privilege of all Chnftian Societies to judge for 
 themfelves, who fhall be admitted into their Communion ? 
 Have we exceeded thofc Bounds, or what is pradicai in 
 other Communities ? Let Mr. F. make.outthat we have, 
 or eife ceafe to raife falfe and empty Outcries againft us. 
 
 Butitmuftbeobferv'd, that Mr. /iV/A-j is a very unfit 
 Perfon to charge us with .Sr-^z/w: For is it not undeniably 
 notorious, that he is deeply guilty of /V himfelf, with others 
 of his AfTociates, from whofe ^larter this Piece before mc 
 came .? Do they call themfelves Pre/by teriam^ and f pro- 
 fefs to hold the same Confejfion oi Faith, Catechifms, and 
 Direaory, as the Synod does, and yet keep and maiiitain fe- 
 parate Communion from their Brethren of the fame Faith 
 and Praaice \ What is that but Sc H ism ? 
 
 Again, What are the new Ereaiom of Meeting Houfes 
 hard by Meeting Houfes, and Tents by Tents through the 
 
 Country, 
 t Vid. Mr. Blair's AnJnudrerfioni on Mr. Craighsad'i Receding, &c. p. i j. 
 
( i6o ) 
 
 Coiirttry, by the fame Denomination^ but vifible^xAJiafid' 
 ing Signs of Schism ? 
 
 Does Mr. F. think that he and his Brethren have fuffi- 
 cient Grounds to juftify themfelves in their prefent Situa- 
 tion i and will he not allow us the Liberty to ftand for what 
 we believe to be the CW^rand Appointment of Chrift, and 
 maintain our Communion feparate, while others can't fee 
 as we do, or we as they, without his charging our Praaice 
 to be fchifmatical, uncharitable^, and downright Bigotry ? 
 Strange Partiality ! 
 
 We might have had the leafb Reafon to exped the heavy 
 Charge otSchi/m, Uncharitablenefs, and Bigotry from that 
 Q-iarier above any.- --And if Mr. F. experts to do any 
 Thinii to Purpofe in this Debate, he muft ufe fome Me- 
 thod befules this, to convince us of wh.it be fuppofes to be 
 our Miftake. Hut it is not Bigotry to hold and maintain 
 Immerf.on to be the proper and /:r/>/«rtf /Mode of Baptizing, 
 anv (.cnerwife than holding the Truth is fo. 
 
 Finally : Seemg Sprinkling d'-es no V/ay accord with 
 the Mean ng of the Word Baptizo, nor with the Exam- 
 ples of Bapcifm in Scripture, nor hath any Inflances in 
 Holy Writ toconfim it } neither does it anfwer the great 
 Ends of Bap fm, it evidently appears to be not the Mode 
 appoiDtsd oi God, .but a mere human Invention : And 
 the coiurar) , viz. hnmerjion, to be the Only proper fcrip- 
 tuial Mode ol iUpt'ifm, fo fufHcier tly confirmed by divine 
 Authority, and worthily recommended to us, bv the 
 Doarine and Example of Chrift himlelf. and his blefled 
 Apoftles, for our conftant Imitation and Praaicc. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
A N 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 To the Foregoing . W O R K 5 
 
 BEING 
 
 REMARKS 
 
 On fome Particulars ina late PAMPHLETj 
 
 Entituled-, 
 
 Divine Right 0/ INFANT-BAPTISM, ^a 
 
 Written by another HAND, 
 
 PHILADELPHIA^: 
 
 Printed by B. FRAN K JL, I N; 
 T ^M,DCC,XL?Iir 
 
( i63 ) 
 
 A N 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 To the Foregoing W O R K ^ 
 BEING 
 
 R E M A R K S 
 
 OnfomePARTicuLARsinalatePAMPHLETj 
 Entituled, 
 
 Divine Right ^/INFANT-BAPTISM, ^cj 
 
 A V I N G feen and read the afore-mention- 
 ed Pamphlet written by ananonymous Author, 
 under the feigned Pretence (as I fuppofe) of 
 
 Difcourfe between a Minifter and one of his 
 
 Parifhioners ; tho' I can fee nothing in the faid Pamphlet 
 contained againft us who pradtife Adult-baptifm, and 
 queftion the Validity of Intant-baptifm, both as to the 
 Mode and Subjeds of it, but what hath been confuted 
 over and over, by learned Men of our Perfuafion, as Dr. 
 Gale, Mr. Keach, Mr. Stennet, and many others ; io 
 that there would be no Need of fpending Time and Pains 
 jn this AfFaifj were it not that the Advocates for the A- 
 bufe of the facred Ordinance of Baptifm, do ftill fhruft 
 their ReccSia Crambe, or Cawl Aildwym^ upon us, T ime 
 after Time ; which hath occafioned the foregoing Sheets 
 «n that Subjea, in Anfwer to Mr. F, wherein fome 
 
 L 2 Notice 
 
( M ( 
 
 Notice is alfo taken of the faid namelefs Author, yet I 
 think it is not out of the Way to fay fomerhing further 
 to the faid anonymous Pamphleteer. 
 
 Bv the Way, why is it left in the Dark, and not 
 made known to what Denomination of ['nedo-bapciils 
 that Author belongs, as there are four Denoniinarions 
 that p:a£{ife SDrinklinQ: of Infants, viz. Church of /,"«- 
 gland iVlcn, Independants. Prefb-terians, and Papifts i 
 and 'tis A Wonder it this Gentleman doth n(U belong to 
 one of the Four ; I C('iij<;cluje however, that lie is either 
 a Prefbyterian or a Fapill; ; if I knev/ where to fix him, 
 I fliould know better how to meet l)im onhiso(vn Prin- 
 ciples ; but now I mud treat him in Ambiguo : And as 
 feme of his Clamours againll us who piadtite Adult-bap- 
 tifm, are only fiich as were at the Reformation objected by 
 the Papifti againli the Reformers in general, and which 
 tl ey do to tliis Da\ ; therefore I cannot be much blamed, 
 if by Timeofhis Reafonings I ftiould think him a Papift } 
 or Lit leail, one that bears fimc Veneration for the Triple 
 Crown. — Concerning the Mode and Subjedsof B^ptifra, 
 fufficient hath been faid in the foregoing Work, that I 
 v/ill not at P.efent take it into Confideration, as to dwell 
 upon it. 
 
 In the eighth Page the Author afkelh his Neighbour a 
 Queftion, vit^. At ivhat Time do you fiifpofe Infant- baptifm 
 did fir/} univerfally obtain in the Church F and then brings 
 in his Neighbour (as uniead in Church-hi(^ory) to fay, 
 That the Authors he had read on that SubJeJf, did not fup- 
 pcfc this to have happen' d earlier than between three and four 
 Hundred Tears after Chri/fs Nativity— To which he rc- 
 p es, and fays. If you had read the ^Authors on the other 
 Side of the ^uejiiony' you would have found undoubted Evi- 
 dence f om the ancient Fathers^ that In'nnt bapiifm ccn- 
 Jiuntlj '.btained in the truly primitive Churchy ^c. By 
 /tuthors on the other Side of the Q;_ieltioii, doubtlcfs he 
 means rasdo-bapcifts ; and it muft oe contefTed, tlat fe- 
 deral o{ them (hke himielf) have been mote bold and 
 dogniatick ina/Ferting, than fuccefsful in producing fuch 
 Evidci.re : That it hsfth b^en alv.avs Aot only doubted, 
 but coiiiutcd, both tiom the Scripture, and the Fathers ; 
 
 yet 
 
(. i65 ) 
 vet if this Author was ingenuous, he muft own (unlefs 
 he is ill- read indeed) that a ^reat n.any of thofe learned 
 Authors who praaife Infant baptifm themfelves, have 
 frankly^ owned the quite contrary ; as the Reader may 
 U. in the foreaoin? She.is ; fee alfo Mr. Swmet aganjft 
 7^,/r>,, from>a^e 146 to 189; and them too of the 
 fi.lt Rank for Learning and Searching, and had better 
 Advantages to make \L.-qr\ry than our Au'hor, living la 
 Jmerica^ could have. I iLall have Occafion to mention 
 fom.th.ng in this, and the next Page afterwards, there- 
 fore 1 proceed to confiJer ibc tenth i'age of U"s Pam- 
 
 ^\n'Pa<re the lo^h, this Auth-r puts the Qiieftion to his 
 Ne-"-hbMir thus ; fLw came the Mnd men of Munjler ? 
 How came thrfir/i Anil fc.do huf'ifls m England by ihetr 
 BoMi'm ? ^('d thefe any other Baptifm than what they re- 
 ceive In Infancy ? If not (nsUUc,rialnth.-yhidnot) it 
 wufi follow, that either I^fnU haptljm n the Ordinance of 
 Chrljh or they could not havf a Right to aamtoijier that 
 Ordinance to others, which ihey had not received them- 
 felvcs ; the Mnlnlfiratl'm therefore (according to yvir own 
 Principled) muji he a Nullhy 'In the Begint.v.gandcoife- 
 quently mufi continue a Nullity ever fine e Th Bapujm 
 you pretend to^ was (upon theje Principles) firf. a'^mimji'ed 
 in En^^land by unhapilzed Perjons, by fuch .as wene not Jo 
 much Is vlflhie Chrljllans themfhes, by fuch who could 
 therefore have no Claim to the Gofpel Mtntfiry, nor any 
 Rhht to adminijfer facrcd Ordinances ; and copf pientl)'^ 
 tht whole Succejfton of your Allmf try from that rvne, mufi 
 remain unhaptized Ferj'ons ; and there can therefore be no 
 Baptifm amop.v you, any more than among us, until there be 
 a new Commljfton from Heaven to renew and reft ore this 
 Ordinance, which Is at prefent lofi out of the World. 
 
 As to the fint Part of this Queflion, vtz. How the 
 lAad men o/Munfter came by their Baptifm ; 1 think it is 
 not the Bufinefs of anv iVian in the Brltlfh Dominions, 
 to give an Account ofVuch foreign Tranladions, upon 
 whi'ch we build none of our Praftice j but 1 fuppofe this 
 is mentioned here, and in the foregoing Pige, ""/"'- 
 pofe to caft an Odium (ifpoffible) on oar Praaice of 
 ^ j_, J Adult- 
 
( i66 ) 
 
 Adiilt-baptifm : Now fuppofing this Author to be a 
 Prefbyterian, as perhaps he is, and therefore adhering to 
 the Model ofD .6trine and Difcipline fet up zxGeneval by 
 that famous Reformer Mr. Calvin and his Coliegues, if 
 this Gentleman will forfake every 1 hm"^ that had an o- 
 chous Name beftowed on it, or that was maintained by 
 /bme infamous Perfons, he mult of Courfe renounce the 
 mod, if not all the fundamental Truths he holds, on the 
 Account of infamous Names or fcandalous Perfons that 
 held the fame ; yea, he muft renounce the Genevian 
 Difcipline too, for Dr. Heyl'in faith, that the Genevian 
 Dijctpline, wns begotten in Rebellion^ horn in Sedition, and 
 fiurfed up by Fuclion ; fee Heylin's Cofmography, Piige 
 l6o, Edit. 6. but as to the Anti-P«do baptifts in E?ig. 
 land^ it is fufEcient in this Place to fay, they had not their 
 Baptifm from ihe Church of Rome, or any of her Pre- 
 ]ates ; and I fhall (fuppofing this Gentleman a Prefby- 
 terianj retort the Q^ieftion, and make bold to afk him. 
 How the Kirk of Scotland came by her Scripturelefs In- 
 fant Sprinkl.ng at firft ? I prefume it is not long fince 
 England zt\6 Scotland too, did wonder after the Beaft of 
 Rome, and had nothing in general but Idolatrous and An- 
 tichriftian Admlniltiarions : At the Reformation then. 
 How came the firft .Prefbvterians by their pretended 
 Baptifm r If they fay they had it from Rome, as it is very 
 like they will, then I infer, that the Kirk ohcotland 
 muft own, that Antichrift hath been et-trufted bv Chrift 
 to adminifter the Ordinances of his Gofpel, which is to 
 adoi n the Pope's Crown with a Feather, that Chrift ne- 
 ver intended the Son of Perdition to wear : His own Ar- 
 guments muft fuiely bear hard on this Author ; had we 
 our true Baptifm from fuch as were not vifible Chriftians 
 in his Account, he had a Scripturelefs Baptifm from vifi- 
 ble Antichriftians in nisown Account, unlefs our Author 
 is a Fapift ; were our fiift Adminiftrators unbaptized in 
 his Account, fo were the firft Prefljyterians j unlefs our 
 Author can prove, that Chrift did give a Commi/Tion to 
 Antichrift to alter the Odjnance if Baptifm, both as to 
 the Mode and Subject of it. 
 
 Our Aujijor fcems to argue, as if no Man may admi- 
 
 niflet; 
 
f i67 ) 
 «;fter otherwlfe than he received hlmfelf ; Why then 
 dotrno theKi,kof5c.^W 
 
 fhe Pap ft '^o ? How came the firft Prefbyter.ans to alter 
 XI vfrnner in which thev received it m their Infancy ? 
 May notThe Church of Rome caft the fame Refled-ons as 
 SonourAuihor (if he be a Proteftant) - he doth on 
 others ". But why may not a Communuy of Chrift.aa 
 People' by mutual Gonfent, an ! jomed together m Co- 
 vcnant warrantably reform their own Pradice, as well 
 Is Pr^cipTs, by the^Vord of God ; and rcftore the pn- 
 n^itive^u'fe o'fjofpel Ordinances -cordmg to the Inft. 
 tntion of Ghrift in the New-7 eftament : it this be deni 
 ed ^n the Kuk of ScoU.nd is highly faulty m wuh- 
 dr wng from the Rcrni^ ; and this would Raze the 
 Foundation of all the Reformation, to all Intents and 
 Purpores • If it be granted that Chrift-an Communities, 
 rsTread, may reform, then I fay, that our Ch.irches 
 a e upon a Level with other Proteftants and have Wa - 
 
 rant 'fuffic.ent to reform our own ^^--}ZVthcM{^ 
 nance of Baptifm, or any other, according to the Initi- 
 "ut^on of Chrift, and the primitive Patterns found m the 
 
 New-Teftament. And further, if (accordmg to our 
 
 Author's Way of Reafoning) noManmayadm.nifterotner 
 w (i thanhe receive^ himfelf(tho' wefeethe Kirk of 5../- 
 7aTd did not obferve this at the Reformation) How came 
 it to oafs that feme Prefby terians have made bold to bap- 
 tfea^du Perfonsby Dipping, which was other wife than 
 they re ived themfelves'? This is fad ; for Mr. Benja- 
 J Button was baptized by Dipping by o^e that jvas a 
 Prefbvterian Minifter (and if he had been dipped b Mt. 
 Dutton again, where would the Inconveniency be ?; be- 
 fides other of hke Inftances, we could produce Again, 
 This Gentleman will find it difficult to reconcile h.sRea- 
 fnninos aad the Prefbyterian Pradice together i for if 
 our Admmiftrat.ons we^re (as he faith) a Nullity in t1.e 
 Becrinnina, and mOa continue a Nulhty ever fince How 
 do'^the pTefby terians receive fome that come over from us 
 to them, without giving them a valid B-Pt'J'"' ^^ f y ^^^^^ 
 it but in Faa, they receive fuch; and I make no doubt but 
 our Author hlmfelf would do it,if.he had Opportunity, al- 
 
 L 4 " 
 
( 168 ) 
 tho' they had but a Nullity adminiflred by fuch as had 
 no R.ght to adm.n.fter facred Ordinances (if this Gentle- 
 man m^y be behevedj Let him extricate himfelf and 
 others from Inconfiftency in this AfFair if he can ? 
 
 In this laft cited Paragraph, there is fomething'infinu- 
 ated which is it feems) chiefly defigned by our Anthor 
 aga.nft our M.n.fters, as if they had n^o Right to adminif! 
 
 I7n'r 1^ T""'']- "^^ ^">' ^^^'"^ '^ ^he Gofpel Mi- 
 niftry Now, fuppo ing this namelefs Author to be a 
 Prefbytenan, I fhall prefume to a^' him a Q-.eftion, 
 
 How came the firft Prefbyterians by their Right to ad- 
 M nift'' ?""7 Ordinances, and a Claim to the Ck^fpel 
 Mm.ftry ^not that I d.fpute whether they have fuch a 
 K.ghtandClaimorno, that is not my Bufinefs) But how 
 came they by the Right and Claim they pofTefs ? If he 
 Will fay (as fome others have faid) that they have it bv 
 an uninterrupted SuccefTion of Men ordain'd from the 
 Apoft^s, then I demand the authentic Record of that 
 Succeffion till the Reformation at leaft, and who were the 
 Perfons in whom it was vefted at the Reformation, and 
 how It was conferred on the Prefbyterians ; if that Gen- 
 tieman, or fomebody for him, caniiot anfwer my De- 
 mand, I ftall conclude thattheBaptiftMiniflers (being- 
 endowed With G.Us by God, and called regula.ly by ou? 
 Churches) have a Right toadminifler facred Ordinances, 
 and as good a Claim to the Gofpel Miniilry as any other 
 (our Author not accepted) But perhaps he will derive his 
 Kight and Claim from R.me (as I am informed the Pref- 
 bytenans have of late) then I defire our Author may be 
 pleafedto inform us, whether the Kirk of Ro;^e was a 
 Chrifttian or Ant.chriftian Church, at the Time when the 
 ivirk ot bcoi/an^ did withdraw from her ? Now if the 
 Church of Rome was a regular Chriftian Church at 
 iV ^7^'/"^ ^^^ ^2^id Baptifm, Ordination, and other 
 J-flentials of a regular Chriftian Church ; then the Church 
 of 6../W was a Schifmatical Church at the Beginning, 
 and muft continue fo ever fince J and confequemlv her 
 Mimfters have but a Schifmatical Right to !he Gofpel 
 MaM{\ry, and the Adminiftration of facred Ordinances. 
 
 Oa 
 
r i69 ) 
 
 On the other Side, if the Church oi Rome^ at and before 
 the Reformation, was become Antichriftian, the Ivlylls- 
 ry of Babylon^ the Mother of Harlots, and the Pope An- 
 tichritt, the Beaft, and the Son of Perdition (as I think 
 it is not to be doubted of by any Proteftant) as Mr. Ru- 
 therford, Mr. Durbaniy and others, both Foreign and Do- 
 meltick, have made to appear j then fuch as derive their 
 Right and Claim to the Gofpel Miniftry from Rome Pa- 
 pal, muft have but a very defedtive Original ; and I 
 think that if the Baptifts did derive from the Mad- men 
 of Munjler^ it would not be a greater Ignominy, as 
 fcandalous as they are deemed to be. But fuch Prote- 
 ftants as would go to Rome for their firft Right to admi- 
 nifter Gofpel Ordinances, and a Claim to the Miniflry, 
 ought to make out thefe two Things very clear, w'z. 
 Firji^ That Antichrift hath been entrufted and authori- 
 zed by Chi ift, to convey valid Ordination to the Minif- 
 ters of his Gofpel : Secondly, That Gofpel Ordinances 
 were not ?>bufed and bafely ar'ukeraied by that Mother of 
 Harlots, the Church of 7?57«?. AstotheFirft, wehavethe 
 firft Reformers of the Church of Er:g land, difclaiming 
 any Orders from Rorne, and faying, VVe defy, deteft, 
 and abhor their Stinking, Greafy, Antichriftian Ordf^s. 
 The famous Whitaker fays, / would not have you thhk 
 that we make fuch Reckoning of pur Orders^ as to hold our 
 ovm Vocation unlaw fjil -without them : Whit. Jeer Contra 
 Dur/sum. Dr. Fulk alfo faith, Tou are much deceived., if 
 you think we efteem your Offices of Bifjops, Priejls, and Dea- 
 cons, any better than Lay tnen ; and you prcfufne too much ^ to 
 think that we receive your Orderings to be lawful ; Fulk's 
 Jnfwer to the Connterfit Catholick ; both cited by Mr. 
 Davifon in his Vindication of the Proteftant Minifter's 
 Mifiicn, p. 53, 54. and the faid Davifon in the fame 
 54th Page, cites Bifhop Burnet's Expofition on the 39 
 Articles of the Church oi England, p. 257. where are 
 thefe Words on the 23d Article, which relates to Ordi- 
 nation, This Article doth not re/olve this hftto any particular 
 Conjiitution^ hut leaves that Matter open and at large, for 
 fuch Accidents as had happened, and fuch as might Jlill hap- 
 pen ■ : They xvho drew it, had the State of the fevcral 
 
 Churches 
 
( >7o ) 
 
 Churches before their Eyes^ that had been differently reform' 
 ed ; and tho* their own had been Iffs forced to go out of the 
 beaten Path than others^ yel they knew that all Things a- 
 mong themfelves^ had not gone according to thofe Rules 
 which ought to be facred in regular Times j hut Necrjfity has 
 no Law, anj^ is a Law to it] elf. 
 
 We fee the Relormers of the Church of ^'to-Z^w^ did 
 not think proper to derive any Orders from Rome^ nor 
 that our Lord Jefus Chrift had entrufted Antichrift with 
 any fuch Orders, elfe they would pay their Deference, 
 and not their Abhorrence to fuch 0''dinations ; they 
 therefore without a new Commiflion did proceed to a 
 Reformation. And I muft in Charity think, that the 
 Church of Scotland went about a Reformation on the 
 fame Grounds, tho' in a different Manner, without 
 paying that Deference to i?5Wif, which (it feems) fome 
 that would be accounted SuccefTurs to thofe godly Re- 
 formers, are too willing to do. Now then, What Rea- 
 fon can be rendered why other Communities of Chrifti- 
 ans, as Baptifts and Independants, might not fet about a 
 further Reformation, tho' in a fome-what different iVlan- 
 ner, without either deriving their Right and Claim 
 from the Triple Crown, or yet pretending to a new Com- 
 mifTion from Heaven/ to renew and reftore Gofpel Or- 
 dinances, as this Author would infinuate ? 
 
 As to the Second, It was the common Complaint at 
 the Reformation, that the Church of Rome h^A neither 
 Oure Ordinances, nor regular Adminiflrations : And 
 iffo, then fuppofing, but not granting, that Infant- 
 fprinkling was an Ordinance of Chrift, the Prefbyterians 
 themfelves muft have it from unbaptized Perfons ; and 
 (which is far worfe) from vifible-Antichriftians ; and io 
 it muft be (according to our reverend Author himfelf) a 
 Nullity in the Beginning, and continue a Nullity ever 
 fince ; and then the Anti-paedo- baptifts are upon the 
 Par at leaft with the Kirk of Scotland, or any other, 
 without waiting for a new Commiflion ; if our Au- 
 thor could make out thofe Points, he would defervc 
 better of the See of Rorne, than any of her own delicate 
 
 Sons, _ 
 
 Our 
 
( 171 ) 
 
 Our Author in Page 8th hath thefe Words, Tou muji 
 allow^ that there was more than iioo Tears^ in which the 
 whole Chrijiian Church came into the united and conjiant 
 PraSiice of Infant baptifm ; you ca)it pretend that this 
 PraSlice was calle^ in ^i^^Jiion^ or mads a Matter of De- 
 bate in the Churchy till the Mad-men oflAwn'^txfet them- 
 (elves againji it^ ijfc. I am loth to think this Author 
 was as ignorant as he feigns himfelf to be, and as loth 
 to conclude that he took Liberty to fay any Thing to 
 prejudice the Populace againft Adult baptifm, and to 
 promote Bigotry ; but his Affertion is without good 
 Warrant, accoiding to the Judgment of many learned 
 Paedo-baptifts(as I hinted before) and it is too well known to 
 be denied, that Infant- baptifm was not mentioned in the 
 firft Century, and was not common till the third or 
 fourth Centuries, if not the Fifth ; and we have un- 
 doubted Account of Debate made about it in the Year 
 1025, by Gundulphus and his Followers in Italy \ fee 
 Cro/ifs Preface to Vol. i. of his Hiftory of the Englijh 
 Baptifts ; and Stennet againft Rufen^ Page 84 ; and Dr. 
 /i^tf// mentions Bruno and Begena>ius that apeared to op- 
 pofe it IC35, which was at Itraft three Hundred Years 
 before the Infurredioi of Muvjler ; by which it appears, 
 that the Account givtn b/ this Gentleman is not to be 
 depended on in this Aff< ir. 
 
 Our Author in Page the 9th, hath thefe Words, Now 
 during this long Period (\. e. the faid iiOO Yearsj What 
 became of our hhjfed Saviour's Promife, to be with his Mini- 
 Jiers always^ in the Adininijiration of this Ordinance 
 (meaning Baptifm) and demands an Anfwer, Was he 
 with them, or was he not ? And then draws Inferences 
 from an Affirmative or Negative Anfwer, faying, If you 
 Anfzvcr in the Affirmative^ you acknowledge Infant baptifm 
 to he his own Injiitution : If you Anfwer in the Negative, 
 you call his Veracity and Faithfulnefs into ^uejlion. Here 
 is a flrong Piece to be fure, in the Author's Account, 
 his Argument hath two Horns, but they are not good 
 Metal j for will he himfelf affirm this Promife is confined 
 to Baptifm only ? Or doth it not extend to the Teach- 
 ing mentioned before and after Baptifm, in the Com- 
 
 miflion 
 
( 17* ) 
 
 mJflion, Mat. xxviii, 19, 20 ? I mud in Charity hop« 
 that God hath bleffed the Dotftrire of thf Gofpel to the 
 favins; of many Souls, in the Mouths of fome Men who 
 do not regularly baptize ; as our Author for one, if a 
 Proteftant. And here I would afk this Pamphleteer, To 
 what Denomination of Minifters was that Promife fiilfil- 
 ed, during a great Part of that long Period, from the 4th 
 to the i6th Century ; for the true Church for a great 
 Part of tliat Time, hath been under the Height and 
 Heat of Antichrift's Tyranny, and the Promife. did not 
 appertain to the Minifters of Antichrift, tho' they pre- 
 tended to baptife : No, they were the devouring [,ocu(ls, 
 whofc King 'S the Angel of the Bottom LTs Pit ; fee Mr. 
 Durham on Revel. Page 416, l^c. Glaf. Edit. Nor was 
 it to the Prefbytcrian Minifters ; for that Denomination 
 was not heard of, till about the Year 1541. Our Au- 
 thor will not allow the Waidenfes to put in for the Subjedts 
 of our Lord's Promife, m that dark Time ; and good 
 Iveafon why, leaft he (hould countenance any Thing a- 
 gainft Infant- baptifm ; but by his Leave, that the JVal- 
 deufes and others I mentioned before, being Oppofeis of 
 Infant- baptifm, and in the Pradlice of Adult baptifm, 
 is not fuch a Figment, as our Author in Page nth would 
 have it to be j as appears by the Tef^imonies produced by 
 Mr. Stennet againft Ruffen^ Page 81-- 84. which I 
 fiiould have tranfcribed, but my Bounds will not permit j 
 and that the Firft that revived the ancient Pradice of 
 Adult-baptifm in England^ had it from them, is no more 
 unlikely, than for the Prefbyterians to have their Difci- 
 pline from Geneva ; for the Engllfh had Poflellion of 
 tiirife Pares of France where the ti'aldeyifes were moftly 
 countenailced, from the Year 1152 fo the Year 1452, 
 which was long enough for many Perfons to become ac- 
 quainted with the Principles and Practice of thofe godly 
 People, by fuch Intercourfe, and from their Example, to 
 endeavour a Reformation in England., tho' with no great 
 Succefi for a while : Our Author will find it difficult to 
 iix on any Subjects of that Promife, in the Weftern Parts 
 of the VVorld ; at leafl (if the //'fz/Vf^z/^j wer€ notj du- 
 ring a good Fait of that period i nor can he prove the 
 
 united 
 
( 173 ) 
 united Prai^iice of Tnfant-baptifm during the faid Periodj 
 while the faid Ifaldenfcs and others have oppofed it, and 
 pradifed otherwife, within the faid Term ; and if he 
 could, it would be but a Scripturelefs Pradice (till. 
 
 Now, upon the whole^ the Truth is, That the true 
 Church and Spoufe of Jefus Chrift, hath been in the 
 Wildernefs the moft Part of that long Period, and her 
 faithful Minifters very few (tho' there was moftly, if not 
 always, fume hidden ones) and ihofe few prophefying in 
 Sackcloth, as is faid. Revelation Chap. xi. 3. And it 
 feenis by fume Part of that Prophecy, that the WitneiTes 
 fhould be entirely killed, as to the outward Viiibility, 
 for a Time, and Popery in its Triumph ; and at fuch a 
 Time, the united Pradice muft be found in all Popery, 
 if ever : But when it pleafed God to bring Life and Im- 
 mortality to Light again by the Gofpel, all that forfook 
 the Antichrifliian See of Ro77ie^ had but the Foundation 
 of the Apoftles, and Chrift himfelf as a chief Corner 
 Stone, to build upon : At the Reformation therefore, 
 every Company of Chriftians, whom God moved by his 
 Spirit, and enabled by Grace, did fet about a Reformati- 
 on ; and as all then did not fee alike, and thro' their 
 feeing but in Part, it came to pafs ('as Bifhop Burnet^ a- 
 bove cited, faid) that feveral Churches were differently 
 reformed, and it being fo that they had neither pure Or- 
 dinances, nor regular Adminiftrators from Rorne^ it is 
 no Wonder that if by that NeceiTity thofe feveral Chriflian 
 Communities went out of the beaten Path (as the faid 
 Bifliop faid of the Church oi England) and could not go' 
 according to thofe Rules that ought to be facred in regu- 
 lar Times, in Matters of Ordination ; and upon the 
 fame Footing, all the Reformation flood ; and the Kirk 
 of Scotland muft fland fo likewife ; going to Geneva will' 
 not mend the Matter in the leaft ; for the Firfi: muft ei- 
 ther derive from Rome^ which Proteftants would not then 
 do, or elfe endeavour to follow the imitable Example of 
 the Apoftles in the Nev/-Teftament, tho' the Path had 
 been a while difufed and interrupted, by Reafon of 
 Ro?ni/h Cruelty, and the dark Smoak that afcended oat 
 of the Botomlefs Pit. 
 
 Wc- 
 
( J74 ) 
 
 We are perfuaded, not ^.thftandingany Thing our Au- 
 thor may endeavour to throw at our Miniftejs or our 
 Praflice, that we ftand on as good? Ground, as other 
 Proteltants do ; and we think with ths Reverend Mr. 
 Davifon afore-mentioned, that a SuccefTKjn of the Apof- 
 tles Dodrine beheved and received by a People of any 
 Nation, and being fatisfied of one another'.s Graces and 
 Principles, and being thereupon united together by mutu- 
 al Covenant, to promote the Glory of God, and the 
 mutual Advantage of each others Souls, and the Good of 
 others, in the publick Worfhip of God : We fay, fuch 
 a Community, have fufficient Authority from Chrift, to 
 call and conftitute whom they fhall judge qualifiird, to 
 minifler among them in holy Things. This being a^ ee- 
 able to the true Proteftant Principle, upon whicli the 
 whole Reformation was built. Upon this ProteftanC 
 principle therefore we fatisfy our felves, that our Chur- 
 ches have in them fufficient to give our Minifters as \alid 
 a Miffion as other Proteflants have ; and a regular Ri^ht 
 and Claim to preach the Gofpel, and to admirnfter tlie 
 facred Ordinances according to our Lord's pure Inftituti- 
 tlon, without going to Rome, or elfcwhere, for it, and 
 •without waiting for a new Commiflion from Heaven, to 
 renew and reftore them (as our Author vainly infinuates) 
 for we efteem the Commiflion, Mat. xxviii. 19. 20. 
 Mark xvi. 15, 16. as llili in force. 
 
 I {hall not trouble my felf at Prefent, with any Thing 
 further in the faid Pamphlet^ but advife the Author ^if 
 living) not to make further Ufe of old Romijh Clamours ; 
 and if he is a Minifter of any reformed Church, to be 
 more fparing of his Flings, lead he find them to hit him- 
 felf, and he be found Tapping the Grounds of the whole 
 Reformation, by • his zealous Endeavouring to defend 
 a Scripturelefs Pradice. 
 
 N 
 
 

 ?^^ 
 
 ^"?iS^4^ 
 
 >q5g>' 
 
 E R RATA. 
 
 PAGE 32, L g. for imitating, r. initia- 
 ting. Page 158, /. 10 from the Bottom^ 
 for Community, r. Communion. 
 
 By reafon of the Author* s Diflance and Ab- 
 fence Jrom the Prefs, Jome more Errors, befdes 
 thofe above noted, may perhaps be found in this 
 Work ', which the candid Reader is defred to 
 correSi, according to the Scope of the Difcourje^ 
 where they may occur. 
 
 
 *^^t 
 
..J^«, 
 
l^he Life and Death of the Righteom, 
 
 II — ■ — 
 
 A 
 
 SERMON, 
 
 PREACHED at 
 
 Chrifl-Churchy Philadelphia, 
 On Sunday, February the I3th5 17635 
 
 At the Funeral of 
 
 Mr., EVAN MORGAN. 
 
 By J A C O B t) U C H E, M. A, 
 
 One of the Minijiers of the united Churches of 
 Chrift- Church, and St. Peter's, Philadelphia^ 
 and Chaplain to the Right Honourable the Earl 
 of Stirling, 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 Printed by B; Franklin, and D. Hall; 
 MDCCLXIIL 
 
To R. L. Efq; 
 
 My dear Sir, 
 T H A D no fooner complied with the requefi 
 -* of the children of. my deceafed friend to let 
 this fermon be pri?ited, than I determined to 
 addrefs it to you. Our acquaintance^ you know, 
 commenced early at fchool, and a jimilarity of 
 natural difpofition confirmed it into an intimacy. 
 I flattered myfelf that our friendfljip was well 
 
 founded, difinterefted a?2djincere. In the eyes 
 of the world, it woidd have been deemed fo. 
 But, alas I the mofi efential ingredient was 
 wanting. A lafting frioidfljip muft have re- 
 ligion for its bafis. The love of God is the 
 only powerful cement by which an union of fouls 
 can be formed and maintained. And this love 
 can only be fhed abroad in our hearts by the 
 kind and gracious influences of his holy Jpirit. 
 'Tis hence we (ire taught to look upon Go.d as 
 our reconciled father /« Ch r i s t J e s u s . 'Tis 
 this fpirit of love which bears witnefs to our 
 
 fpirit, that we are his adopted children. The 
 love ^"Christ conftraineth us, not only to an 
 ardent return of love and defire towards him, 
 but likewife to the exercife of a flncere and 
 
 flrong affeBion towards one another, and efpe-. 
 daily toward fuch as are of the honfljold cf 
 
 jaith. 'The children of God alone, therefore, 
 are capable of a refined, diflnterefl.ed and lafl- 
 i}7g friendfiiip. 
 
 I HO P E, my dear Sir, yen will one day 
 
 feel the truth of what I now write to you» In- 
 A 2 deed 
 
[ iv ] 
 
 deed I cannot but tremble for you, when I re- 
 fledi upon your prefent fituation. Tour heart 
 Jeems to be too much wedded to this world, a?id 
 Eternity y I fear. Is feldom in your thoughts, 
 thanks be to God for his refraining grace, 
 you have hitherto been preferved from the noto- 
 rious vices of the age. Build mt, however, 
 7ipon this. StriBly moral as your aBions ?nay 
 have generally been, unlefs they have flowed 
 from a fmcere love of God your Saviour, 
 they will fand you in no ftead. Look a little 
 into your heart, and examijie it according to 
 this principle. Weigh it in this ballance of the 
 faniiuary, and you will foon find that you have 
 been greatly wanting. Shun the world as much 
 ' as you pofjibly can. Gaiety is by no means con- 
 ffle?it with a true feeker after fpiritual wifdom. 
 Scenes of dijjipation are fcenes of folly, [cents of 
 temptation and great danger. Fly them, my 
 dear friend. They are fatal rocks, upon which 
 many A thoughtlefs, fangimie youth hath been 
 fliipwmcked. If you are Jiaturally of a chear- 
 fid difpofition, and would fain indulge it to 
 the iitmofl, let me advij'e you, in the words 
 of our excellent chri/lian poet, to 
 " Retire and read your Bible to be gay." 
 AS you have always fl^ewn afingidar par- 
 tiality to every thing that came from me, I hope, 
 in the prefent cafe, my fentime7its will not be 
 tmfavourably received. 
 
 I am, with great fincerity. 
 
 Your true friend and well-wifher. 
 
[ 5 ] 
 
 PSALM XXXVII. 37. 
 
 Mark the perfcB man, and behold the upright -^ 
 for the end of that man is peace. 
 
 '^fcT'^UST thou art, and unto dull 
 I 1 thou flialt return," was the aw- 
 ji^ ful fentence denounced againfl 
 rebellious man by his infinite- 
 ly juft Creator. No fooner ^had he fallen 
 from that ftate of innocence and perfedion, 
 that ftate of intimate communion with God, 
 in which his light, and life, and happinefs fu- 
 preme confifted, than he became fubjed: to 
 the power and dominion of Sin and Sa- 
 tan. By his traiifgreffion Sin firfl entered 
 into the world, and became tlia prolific pa-= 
 rent of an innumerable offspring, that fet 
 themfelves continually in array againfi: the 
 peace and happinefs of 'man. The Lift, the 
 moll hideous and implacable of thefe is 
 Death, the king of terrors, to whofe iron 
 fway we muft all irrefiftibly fubmit. Neither 
 age, nor fex, nor rank, nor fortune, nor me- 
 rit, can exempt us. Thick, faft and fatal his 
 arrows fly abroad. Every one of us, in his 
 own little fphere, is almofi: daily prefented 
 with inftances of his unlimited power. And 
 could we be placed in a fituation, that would 
 
 enable 
 
[ 6 ] 
 
 enable us to take in the whole race of man- 
 kind at one view, the world would appear 
 to us like a vaft theatre, overfpread with 
 fcenes of blood, where this grim ghaftly 
 tyrant, with his infernal meflengers and at- 
 tendants, were continually ftalking from 
 place to place, increafing and exulting in 
 the carnage. 
 
 On one part, we fliould behold fields 
 covered with the carcafes of thoufands flain 
 in battle ; on another, whole cities unpeo- 
 pled by a deftroying peftilence : Here, we 
 iliould fee a monarch laid in the duft, who 
 was the darling and comfort of his fubjedts ; 
 there, an infamous opprefTor tumbled from 
 his throne, and conflrained himfelf to Hib- 
 mit to a fate, which he had frequently and 
 unjuftly haftened upon others. On this fide, 
 a difconfolate v/idow bewails the lofs of an 
 affedionate hulband ; on the other, a Ra- 
 chel is weeping for her children, and re- 
 fufes to he comforted, becaufe they are not. 
 Here, the Jong-loved partner of his heart 
 is torn from the embraces of an afflidied 
 fpoufe ; there, a pious, tender and indul- 
 gent father refigns without reludlance to the 
 ftroke, and leaves to his lamenting children 
 the rich legacy of an exemplary life and 
 death. 
 
 Amid this general daily devaftation, whilfl 
 *' thoufands fall befide us, and ten thoufands 
 at our right hand," one would think, we 
 
 lliould 
 
 1 
 
[ 7 ] 
 
 fliould fland in need of no other motive ta 
 awaken in us a fenfe of our danger, and ex- 
 cite us to lay hold of fuch methods as will 
 mofl effed:ua]Iy fupport us under it. One 
 would think that fo melancholy a profped: 
 would naturally lead us to fome fuch re- 
 £e(5tions as thefe : — 
 
 Every day almofl informs me of the 
 Death of one or other of my friends or ac- 
 quaintance. Many younger, and feemingly 
 more healthy than myfelf, have I followed 
 to the grave. Surely I am mortal as well as 
 they. Surely I am not exempt from the 
 common lot of human nature, but fooner or 
 later muft obey the fummons of Death. To- 
 day he knocks at the door of my neigh- 
 bour. To-morrow, perhaps, he may knock 
 at mine— And fhould this be the cafe;— - 
 
 am I prepared for fuch a vifit ! 
 
 The misfortune is, my brethren, that 
 men choofe to keep this profped at a di- 
 ftance ; and, whenever thefe refledions come 
 acrofs their minds, as frequently, and in fpite 
 of all their endeavours to refill them, they 
 will obtrude, they immediately feek to ba- 
 ni(h them,- by that round of worldly cares 
 and pleafures in which they are continually 
 engaged. But why, vain man ! why doll: 
 thou fo induftrioufly feek to drive from thy 
 heart the thought of Death .?— Is it, tLt it 
 embitters thy cup of delights, and caBs a 
 deadly damp upon thy fprightliefl enjoy- 
 ments ? 
 
[ 8 ] 
 
 ments ? Does his grim vifage and envenom- 
 ed fhaft affright thee? Does horror freeze 
 thy blood, when thy imagination prefents to 
 thee the fhroud, the coffin, the cold dark 
 grave, and all the difmal fcenery of death ? 
 — Doubtlefs, thefe objedts cannot but alarm 
 thee greatly. But if thou art fincere and 
 ingenuous, thou canft not but acknov^ledge, 
 that thy terror and uneafinefs proceeds not 
 fo much from the apprehenfions of death it- 
 felf, as of that fubfequent ftate into which it 
 inftantaneoufly hurries thee. 
 
 Fear is one of the moft difagreeable 
 fcnlations that human nature is fubjedl to; 
 and the fear oT death is the greatcft of all 
 fears. To overcome it, or even to allay it, 
 requires more than human fortitude. Our 
 natural flrength will fland us in poor ftead 
 at this dire encounter. There is, however, 
 a remedy, and a never-failing one too, 
 which a God of infinite love hath provided 
 for us. The fear of death is a fpiritual ma- 
 lady. The great phyfician of fouls hath, 
 therefore, furnifhed us with a noble Pre- 
 fcription. 'Tis at hand. You have it iri 
 my text : And, if you are humble and pa- 
 tient of inftru6tion, you cannot but derive 
 confiderable advantages from it : " Mark 
 ' the perfed: man, and behold the upright ; 
 for tile end of that man is peace." 
 
 That I might comply in fome meafure 
 with the dying requefl of my dear departed 
 
 friend. 
 
[ 9 ] 
 
 friend, by improving this melancholy o^ca= 
 lion to the fpiritual benefit of his furvivors, 
 I made choice of the words which I have 
 read to you, as elegantly expreffive of the 
 way and means, by which alone we can ob- 
 tain an undifturbed peace and ferenity of 
 mind through life, and an unfliaken iirmnefs 
 and confolation in death. This being the 
 great and important lefTon which they incul- 
 cate, i fliali naturally be led from them to 
 fet before you the life and death of the 
 RIGHTEOUS MAN ; Only making this pre- 
 vious obfervation, that by the words '' per- 
 fed" and " upright/' here made ufe of, we 
 are to underftand that degree of holinefs and 
 perfedion, which it is poffible for every one 
 of us to attain on this lide the grave. 
 
 I AM now fpeaking to a christian 
 AUDIENCE, and, as a christian mini- 
 ster, I am bound to give you the life and 
 charader of the righteous man, agreeable to 
 that glorious fyftem of divine truth, which 
 God hath been gracioufly pleafed to reveal 
 to mankind, by his own well-beloved Son. 
 According to this word of truth, the righ- 
 teous man is he, whofe adions are conform- 
 able to the WILL OF God, have an imme- 
 diate tendency to proTnote the glory of 
 God, and flow from no other motive than 
 the love of God. — But if thefe things are 
 fo, if it requires, all this to be righteous, who 
 is he that (hall be faved ? Does not this far 
 B furpafs 
 
[ lo ] 
 furpafs the natural ftrength of man ? — Afk 
 the experienced chrifhian, and he will not 
 be at a lofs for an anfwer. 
 
 Born in fin, and laden with adlual tranf- 
 greflion, poor guilty Man cannot advance 
 one fingle fl:ep in the paths of righteoufnefs, 
 till he lays hold by faith on the hand of a 
 Redeemer. Refting folely upon the me- 
 rits of his all-atoning blood, he dares to ap- 
 proach with confidence the throne of grace, 
 and aOc of his heavenly father that fandify- 
 ing .SPIRIT, which he hath promifed to 
 beftow liberally upon all thofe that believe 
 in his Son. Here then is a rich fountain 
 opened to the houfe of David. Here is 
 the pure inexhauflible fource from whence 
 aione true holinefs can flow. '' He that is 
 born of God, cannot but overcome the 
 world. The love of God can only be fhed 
 abroad in our hearts by his holy fpirit, which 
 he hath given us." Till we are born of this 
 fpirit, all our righteoufnefs is but unrigh- 
 teoufneli. I'ill we have this principle of 
 love in our fouls, all our doings are nothing 
 worth. That image of God, which man lofl 
 by his firft difobedience, can only be renew- 
 ed by the fame creating energy that breath- 
 ed into his noilrils the breath of life. '' 'Tis 
 the fpirit alone that beareth witnefs to our 
 fpirit that we are the children of God." Ac- 
 tuated by this divine principle," the good man, 
 mt of the good treafure of his heart, bringeth 
 
 forth 
 
[ » ] 
 
 forth good things." His adions muft be con- 
 formable to the will of God, they muft have 
 a tendency to promote thcglory of God, they 
 muft flow folely from a love and veneration 
 for God, becaufe they are immediately in- 
 fpired by the fpirit of God, by that fpirit, 
 " which worketh in us to will and to do, 
 according to his good pleafure/' 
 
 " Except your righteoufnefs (hall exceed 
 the righteoufnefs of the Scribes and Phari- 
 fees," fays our blessed Lord, " ye can- 
 not enter into the kingdom of Heaven." 
 Thefe Scribes and Pharifees were extremely 
 rigid and exad in their obfervance of the 
 ceremonial law, being fo very minute as to 
 pay tythes of mint, and annis, and cummino 
 How comes it then, that our Saviour fo 
 repeatedly condemns them ? Why, becaufe 
 their fole motive to this practice was a fmful 
 worldly onCj viz. that they might be iecn 
 of me'n^ that they might be diftinguifhed 
 by greetings in all public places, and ho- 
 noured with the venerable appellation of 
 " Rabbi, Rabbi." I would fain hope, 
 my brethren, that, among our chriftian fo- 
 cieties, there are very few that are aduated 
 by this pharifaical principle : I am afraid, 
 however, that there are too many who build 
 their hopes of falvation upon fundry external 
 performances, which are indeed right, and 
 their bounden duty, but which are of no 
 avail in the light of God, unlefs they flow 
 B 2 from 
 
I ^2 ] 
 
 from that fpirit of love, which I have jult 
 mentioned. All the outward ordinances of 
 religion are intended as channels of divine 
 grace, by which it is conveyed to thofe who 
 have it not, and strengthened and increaled 
 in thofe who have already received it. 'Tis 
 the children of God alone, thofe who have 
 received this fpirit of adoption and love, that 
 can. profit any thing by thefe outward ordi- 
 nances. 'Tis to them alone that they are 
 " the favour of life unto life." 
 
 Having thus (een the grand principle 
 and fource from whence alone all righteouf- 
 nefs can flow, let us now attend to the in- 
 fluence which it hath upon the life and 
 converfation of him, to whom God hath 
 vouchfafed to commtanicate it. " Mark the 
 perfed man, and behold the upright ; for 
 the end of that man is peace." 
 
 Observe him, firfl:, in his devout ex- 
 ercilbs of religion. — His very countenance 
 glows with the flame that is kindled in his 
 heart. By the fpirit of prayer, he is raifed 
 far above this fcene of vanity. The world, 
 with ail its empires and kingdoms, and rich^ 
 es, and pomps, and pleafures, finks beneath 
 his feet. He is borne upon the wings of 
 love to the heaven of heavens. He mixes 
 with that immortal choir of angels and fe- 
 r-iphs that furround the throne of God. Nay, 
 he enjoys, in fome degree, the beatific com- 
 munion of God himfelf. His foul is pofi^el- 
 
 fed 
 
I '3 ] 
 fed of that peace of God which paffeth all 
 underftanding, of that tranfcendently great 
 and glorious joy which is beyond the power 
 of words to exprefs. In the courfe of his 
 meditations, the wonders of redeeming 
 LOVE pafs in order before his view, and make 
 deeper and deeper impreffions upon his yield- 
 ing heart. His eyes are fixed to the top of 
 trembling Calvary, to a crucified Sa- 
 viour — groaning — bleeding — dying — for 
 his fins. At this inftance of unexampled 
 tendernefs and affection, his love blazes a- 
 frefh, his heart is melted beneath the flame, 
 and his whole foul rufhes forth, as it were, 
 to embrace fo compaifionate a Redeemer. 
 He has no refi: till he finds himfelf in the 
 arms of his BELovED^-^where, iliielded from 
 the temptations of the world, and the alTaults 
 of Satan, he enjoys a heavenly peace and 
 repofe, which nothing here below can rob 
 him of. " Mark the perfed: man, and be- 
 hold the upright j for the end of that m.an 
 is peace." 
 
 View him, fecondly, in the exercifeof the 
 feveral duties in which he ftands engaged to his 
 brethren, confidered either as the workman- 
 ihip of the fame almighty Creator, or as fel- 
 low-members with him of his Redeemer's 
 myftical body. For he cannot but attend to 
 the excellent diflindiion made by the apoftle, 
 and in conformity thereto, is confiantly dif- 
 pofed to " do good unto all men, but efpe- 
 
 cially 
 
[ H ] 
 cially unto thofe that are of the houfliold of 
 faith." — He is a companion of all thofe that 
 " fear God, and keep his commandments." 
 !His love to his brethren is always propor- 
 tioned to the degres of love which they ex- 
 ercife towards God. Confequently none can 
 be his intimates, but thofe whofe hearts are 
 animated by the fame warmth of afFedion, 
 which he continally feels. To others, how- 
 ever, he is always ready to minifter in tem- 
 poral as well as fpiritual things. " He is 
 eyes to the blind, and feet to the lame." His 
 prefence brightens the gloom of poverty, and 
 chears the retreats of diftrefs. At his ap- 
 proach the languifhing fick revive, and the 
 difconfolate mourner fmiles. The tears of 
 the orphan ceafe to flow, and the hopelefs 
 widow fmgs for joy. The fame fpirit of love 
 diffufes itfelf throughout his whole conduit in 
 every relation, which providence calls him to 
 fuftain. The fame divine principle, work- 
 ing in his foul, renders him a dutiful child, 
 an afFedlionate hufband, a tender father, a 
 kind mafter, an obedient fubjed:, a juft ma- 
 c^iftiate, a fincere friend. Thus is his whole 
 life a feries of benevolent ad:ions, every one 
 of which is attended with that fweet peace 
 of mind, that flows from an approving con- 
 fcience. *' Mark the perfeft man, and be^ 
 hold the upright -, for the end of that man 
 h peace." 
 
 Con- 
 
L 15 ] 
 
 Consider him, in the next place, either 
 as bleffed by the hand of providence with a 
 flow of profperity, or vifited with the rigours 
 of adverfity. In the former cafe, his afflu- 
 ence is fandificd to pious and charitable ufes. 
 He expends none of it upon the luxuries and 
 vanities of the world, but conliders himfelf 
 only as a fteward entrufted with it by his 
 lord and mafter for the good of his brethrenj 
 to be employed in the relief of thofe poor 
 famiflied fouls, for whom, as well as for 
 him, a merciful Saviour died. — Is adverlity 
 his portion, he fubmits to it with patience 
 and relignation 3 nay, he deems it a bleffing, 
 and l^ilTes the rod, wherewith he is cha- 
 ftifed. FJor he remembers, that " whom 
 the Lord loveth he correfteth, and chaft- 
 neth every fon that he receiveth." His 
 faith and love are always at hand, and admi- 
 hifter to him an unfailing confolation and 
 fupport. His peace of mind remains invio= 
 late, lince he is taught by the fpirit of truth, 
 that abideth in his breaft, to receive every 
 difpenfation of his heavenly father with fub-? 
 miffion, nay, with thankfgiving, 
 
 I NOW come to finirti the character of 
 the "perfect, upright man," by fetting be- 
 fore you the iirmnefs, peace and ferenity of 
 mind with which he meets the approaches 
 of Death. 
 
 Come, then^ my fellow-chriftians ! ac- 
 cgmpany me for once to a fcene, which I 
 
 could 
 
[ .6 ] 
 
 could wifli was more frequently the objed; 
 of your attention and ferious refle(flion ! Fol- 
 low mc to the death-bed of the righte- 
 ous — Nor be ye alarmed at the invitation, 
 or imagine that I intend to deprefs your fpi- 
 iits, and make you melancholy. 'Tis no 
 tragedy, I can alTure you, for the hero is 
 vidorious and triumphant. — 
 
 To a man, my brethren, who has ob- 
 tained an intereft by faith in the blood of 
 a Redeemer, who hath experienced the 
 birth of the Son of God in his foul, whofe 
 heart and affetftions are fan(5lified by the in- 
 dwelling of the SPIRIT of love, who, by 
 the powerful aid of the fame fpirit, hath 
 been enabled to triumph over the devil, the 
 world, and the flefh ; whofe converfation is 
 in heaven, and whofe hopes are fixed up- 
 on a better country ,^ on the other fide the 
 grave J — to fuch a man, death is fo far from 
 being a rude, unwelcome gueft, that he is 
 embraced Vv^ith all the eagernefs and fatisfac- 
 tion with which we receive a long-expected 
 Friend. Ghaftiy and terrific as he is, the 
 refledion, that he is come to refcue him 
 from this fcene of temptation, and tranf- 
 port him to the Bofopi of his Father and 
 his God, ftrips the monfter of his native 
 horrors, and irradiates the gloom that at- 
 tends his approaches. 
 
 Stretched upon a bed of ficknefs, ian- 
 guifhing beneath the fucceffive Shocks of 
 
 fome 
 
[ '7 J 
 fome inveterate difeafe ; furrounded, per- 
 haps, by an afflided wife, with her Httle; 
 lovely train of weeping innocents, behold 1 
 the good, perfe6t, upright man lies calm, 
 peaceful and unruffled amid fo many rude 
 aflaults. His faith hath fixed him to the 
 rock of ages ; and the ftorms of adverlity 
 can never beat him off. — " I know, that my 
 Redeemer liveth," fays the expiring hero. 
 I know that he that '' fpeaketh in righteouf- 
 nels, is mighty to fave : And tho' I walk 
 through the valley of the (hadow of Death, 
 I. will fear no. evil." Though the region I 
 am about to travel thro' is a dreary region, 
 covered with midnight darknefs, and in- 
 fefled with foul fiends, and legions of De- 
 vils^ — yet I know, that the rays of the Sun 
 OF Righteousness will enlighten my 
 path. I have his buckler to repel the fiery 
 darts of my adverfaries. I have his rod and 
 ftaff to comfort and fupport me. — The flrug- 
 gle betwixt life and death is a painful one, 
 'tis true — but 'tis a very fhort one» And 
 fhall I fhrink at the agony of a moment ^ 
 when that agony is to open the glories of pa~ 
 radife upon my foul ? — Shall I recoil from 
 the embraces of Death, when I know, that 
 he is my friend and deliverer, who alone 
 can unfetter my fouj, and let me out of this 
 prifon-houfe of clay ? — Weep not, then, 
 thou dear afflicted partner of my heart ! 
 C Weep 
 
[ i8 ] 
 Weep not ye fweet innocent pledges of our 
 chafte affedion ! — I have learned not to weep, 
 even for you — Surely you would not keep 
 me back from my Redeemer, when his 
 arms are flretched forth to receive me ! — 
 'Tis he alone that gives me confidence in 
 this hour of danger ; and the fame that I 
 feel for myfelf, he teaches me likewife to 
 feel for you. — He will be a hufband to my 
 difconfolate widow : He will be a father to 
 my poor orphan babes. — I have not then 
 one fingle worldly tie, that makes me wifh 
 a moment's longer ftay. " My defire is to 
 depart, and be with Christ." An holy 
 ipnpatience hath taken poffelTion of my foul. 
 1 can brook no delay, " O why are his 
 chariot wheels io long in coming ? Why 
 tarry the wheels of his chariot ! Come, 
 Lord Jesus, come^ quickly !" 
 
 Thus, my brethren, have I endeavoured 
 to fet before you, in the ftrongeft colours 
 that I was able, the characfler of the righ- 
 teous MAN, together with that peace and 
 ferenity of mind which accompanies him 
 through life, but is more fully and eminent- 
 ly difplayed at the approaches of Death = 
 '' Mark the perfed: man, and behold the 
 upright ; for the end of that man is 
 peace." — 
 
 And now permit me to add a few words 
 ;n memory of that departed Friend, whofe 
 
 remain? 
 
L 19 ] 
 remains will, in a few moments, be com- 
 mitted to the duft. 
 
 " Funeral panegyrics were originally 
 defigned as auxiliaries to us, in recommend- 
 ing piety and virtue from the conlideration 
 of fome ftriking inftance of mortality, or 
 from the excellencies of the perfon departed. 
 By degrees the beft inftitutions are corrupted. 
 The preacher was expe<fled to gratify the 
 vanity of furvivors by attributing all human 
 perfections to the perfon whofe memory he 
 celebrated. This naturally weakened the 
 force, and leiTened the credit of difcourfes 
 of this fort. But I am encouraged to lay 
 before you the example of my deceafed 
 friend by this happy circumftance, that you 
 yourfelves were witneiTes to moO: of his 
 virtues j and therefore, inftead of difgufling 
 by the imperfed: juflice I (hall do to his me- 
 mory, I might have been juftiy cenTured by 
 others, and fhould certainly have condemned 
 'myfelf for omitting it." Befides, the relation 
 in which I flood connected with him from 
 my infancy, demands this tribute at my 
 hands. He anfwered in my name at the 
 baptifmal font ; and from that time hath 
 been a faithful guardian over my fpiritual in- 
 tereft. And 'tis with fincere pleafure I now 
 acknowledge, that I received much affiftance 
 and improvement in practical religion from his 
 pious counfels, and exemplary converfation. 
 B 2 "From 
 
[ 2t. ] 
 
 From his carlieft years he was a zealous 
 profefTor of our true gofpel religion. That 
 gay and flowery fealbn of life, which too 
 many employ in the purfuit of fecular plea- 
 fures and vanities, did he feduloufly devote to 
 the attainment of the " one thing needful," 
 even the " knowledge of Jesus Christ, 
 and him crucified." His extraordinary fuc- 
 cefs herein foon manifefted itfelf by the vifi- 
 ble influence it had upon his conduct, in all 
 the different relations he was called upon to 
 fuftain. For 'tis the peculiar excellence of 
 chrifliianity, that all its fincere difciples are 
 thereby rendered capable of knowing and 
 fulfiUing their duty in all, even the mofi; dif- 
 ficult inftances. Influenced by this holy 
 principle, the private as well as public cha- 
 rader of our deceafed friend was in moft re- 
 Ipeds amiable and praife- worthy. 
 
 As to his private charadcr, he was indeed 
 naturally of a warm and impetuous temper, 
 fixed in an opinion he had once deliberately 
 formed, and rather impatient of oppofition. 
 This he would frequently acknowledge was 
 troublefomc and painful to him, and that he 
 was obliged to have recourfe to all the aids of 
 religion to keep it under. And yet even this 
 natural violence of temper, when feafoned by 
 the grace of God, contributed not a little to 
 his Ipiritual advancement. This warmtli, 
 v/hen it had once received a proper direction 
 
 from 
 
i 21 ] 
 
 from the fplrit of love, became a lincere and 
 ardent zeal for the glory of God. In other 
 refpedts, his paffions were generally under 
 the controul of religion, and he was always 
 diftinguifhed for a remarkable temperance^ 
 chaftity and fobriety. 
 
 If we coniider him in his private connec- 
 tions ; as an hulband, he had an high and af- 
 fectionate fenfe of the purity and dignity of 
 the conjugal flate ; as a father, he was not 
 fo much concerned for the temporal as the 
 eternal welfare of his children, which he 
 endeavoured to fecure as far as lay in his 
 power, by a good and pious education ; as a 
 friend, he was cautious of forming intima- 
 cies, but fixed and fincere, when he had 
 formed them. — Nor did his light fhine alone 
 before his family and friends, but was vifible 
 to the world, by his regular attendance on 
 the public ordinances of religion. So punc- 
 tual was he in. this refped:, that, unlefs lick» 
 nefs prevented him, thefe doors were never 
 open on the weekly days of prayer, but he 
 was one of the few that " negleded not the 
 alTembling themfelves together." 
 
 A MAN fo exemplary in his private life, 
 could not fail of attrading the public regard. 
 Civil as well as religious communities are ge- 
 nerally fond of enrolling men of virtue and 
 integrity in the number of their members. 
 I need not mention to thefe united conere- 
 
 o 
 
 gations 
 
[ 22 J 
 
 gations, the many great fervices which he 
 hath chearfully and induftrioufly rendered 
 to them, hy his faithful difcharge of the of- 
 fice of a church-warden and veftry-man for 
 above twenty years part. He had indeed the 
 intereft of thefe churches much at heart : 
 And 'tis owing greatly, under God, to his 
 adlive perfevering zea!, that we have at pre- 
 fent fo fair a profped of their increafe and 
 advancement. 
 
 Beside his'connecflions with the church, 
 he was hkewife honoured with a fecular di- 
 flintftion, having been for feveral years a 
 member of our honourable Houfe of Re- 
 prefentatives. And in this ftation he might 
 perhaps have been continued till his death, 
 by the voice of his countrymen, had not the 
 profpedl of parties and divifions in the ftate 
 threatened him with a breach of his peace of 
 mind, and prompted him to a timely refig- 
 nation, when he was convinced that the in- 
 fluence of a good mftn would have but little 
 weight*. The 
 
 * The author does not intend, in this part of the 
 charadler, to refleft upon the conduct of any particular fett 
 of men, who were at that lime concerned in the admini- 
 <lration of public affairs. 'Tis a matter of h&, that there 
 was too much heat and violence fliewn on both fides, by 
 the conicndin^ parties. It is not the author's bufinefs to 
 pronounce which of them were in the right. The cenfure 
 is meant as a general one, and the fentiment here exprefled 
 was that of the deceafed himfclf, which he has repeatedly 
 declared to numbers of his acquaintance. 
 
[ 23 ] 
 
 Tr^E laft public employment in which 
 he engaged, and which I believe he held 
 till his death, was as a manager of one 
 of the moft excellent inlHtutions that hu- 
 man benevolence could devife, an infti- 
 tution that will ever do honour to the me- 
 mory of its pious founders -, 1 mean the 
 hofpital, for the reception and relief of the 
 iick and lunatic in this province. Here his 
 charitable diipolitioji amply manifefled itfelf 
 to the eyes of all, as well by his generous 
 contribution to its iirft eftablifhment, as by 
 his regular attendance on the duties of his 
 ftation there, and the zeal which he at all 
 times exerted for its advancement. 
 
 In general, then, we may pronounce of 
 the character of our departed friend, tha£ 
 his life was diftinguifhed by a regular con-^ 
 ftant pradice of piety towards his God^ 
 and charity, in all its branches, to his bre- 
 thren. And as he was exemplary in his 
 life, fo was he alfo in his death. His life 
 was pious, and his death happy. PJe un- 
 derwent a lingering painful illnefs, with a 
 patience and refignation that was truly chri= 
 jftian. His hopes were extended to a better 
 country. Death and the grave, thereforCs 
 could have no terrors to him. Peaceful and 
 ferene, he took his farewel of mortality, 
 and fled on the wings of love to that para-^ 
 dife of biifs, where his Redeemer liveth^ 
 
 where 
 
[ 24 ] 
 
 where joys immortal clufter round the 
 throne of God, and faints ling everlafting 
 hallelujahs to God and the Lamb. 
 
 God grant that we may all fo profit 
 by this excellent example, that with him 
 we may be partakers of the fame hea- 
 venly kingdom, through Jesus Christ 
 OUR Lord. 
 
 The END.