I 
 
 h 
 
 ' 
 
 5^ 
 
 nj 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 CL 
 
 
 
 
 
 •J5r 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 Ic 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 Q. 
 0) 
 
 J5 
 
 
 
 
 
 tr ^ 
 
 15 
 
 CL 
 
 
 
 
 
 tj 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *g. ^ 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 >■ J „ 
 
 0) 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ s 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 <-* o 
 
 Csl) 
 
 
 
 
 
 »i« O 
 
 <t 
 
 
 
 
 
 © w 
 
 ~aj 
 
 
 !- ' 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 15 
 
 
 
 05 
 
 
 
 ^ H 
 
 -^ Pi 
 
 CO 
 
 
 ■|, 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 'S^ 
 
 cq 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 >1 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 
 Coll. 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 I/) 
 
 
 2> 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 "ZCa 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f\- 
 

 ^^ 
 
 <^ 
 
 C^fi^y^r ^e^ ^ 
 
 

Anti-Pa^ ciG'JRantifm Defe?2ded: 
 
 R E P L Y 
 
 Mr. SAMUEL FINLEY\ 
 
 Vindication of the Charitable Plea 
 for the SPEECHLESS. 
 
 WHEREIN 
 
 His Repeated Objections againft the Baptism 
 of Believers only, and the Mode of it by 
 IMMERSION, are again Examined and 
 Refuted. 
 
 By A*B E L ^ M O R G A N, 
 
 At Middletown, in Eafi-Jerjey. 
 
 And he /aid unto ihefn. Go ye into all the World, and preach 
 the Gojpel to enjery Creature. He that helienjeih, and is bap- 
 tized, ^all be fanned. Mark xvi. 15, 16. 
 
 Zuffer me a Utile, and I nvill Jheiv thee, that I have yet ta 
 /peak on God's Behalf. Job xxxvi. 2. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 Printed by B. Franklin, and D. KalLj" 
 in Markit-Jtrest, Mdcgl. 
 
It . 
 
[ i" ] 
 
 t H E 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 1^^^^^^^^^ HB Piece which occafioned the followiffg 
 Wr^^i. A %^Wm Remarksy gives itfelf out in Name, to be 
 A particular Coniideration and Refu- 
 tation of the Objediions made againfl 
 Infant Baptifm: Let theReader^ after his 
 Perufal of this Reply, judge for himfelf^ 
 if it has not quite failed in the Under- 
 taking, and tvas not at all able to perform what it freely 
 prom fed. 
 
 Mr. Finley begins his Preface hy faying, ** It is with 
 Relu6l:3nce that he is again innmerfed in this watery Con- 
 troverfy," So then, after all his RefieSiions on the Ana- 
 baptists, he is at length, tho' with Unwillingnefs, become 
 the Anabaptift in this Controverfy ; and, for my Part, he 
 is welcome to enjoy all the Benefits he thinks do belong to the 
 Name. But why dipped again in this Controverfy ? "Tis 
 like he, and Mr. * Flavell before him, do imagine this 
 Phraje beautifies their IntroduSiion \ tho' others think it is 
 Jpoken ifi Reference to Dipping (the fcriptural Mode of 
 Baptifm) by way of Derifion: Iffo, it cannot add any 
 great Lujire to their Entrance^ 
 to divert the Readers. 
 
 ' A 2 
 * Vindlclarum Vindc^i^ 
 
 tho it may ferve perhaps 
 'Tii 
 
[ iv ] 
 
 "Us no great Matter in which of the folhwing Ch[fes 
 he ranks us ; whether among the Slothful, who defpond of 
 ever finding Truth, hecavfe it lies deep ; or the Deceived, 
 who imagine thiy have jound it on the Surface ; or the Per- 
 verted, who having once made a confident Profejfion of Er- 
 ror, guard againji Convi£iion, and offcti InfaUihiliiy. — - 
 Since it appears that Believers Baptijm is a divine Truths 
 found in holy Scripture, held by us without Wavering, and 
 not to be furrenderd to any, Tjohat Name foever they bear ; 
 whilji he is bvftly employed in fe eking for Infant Sprinklings 
 hut cannot find' it to be the Truth of God, neither in thd 
 Deep, nor on the Surface \ and, iy this time, *■' He may 
 well be ready to conclude, agreeable to common Senfe, 
 that it is to be found no wheie in Scripture, tho', being 
 perverted by it, and having made a confident Profeflioii 
 of it, the Bent of his Heart, it fcems, m:ikes him ftand 
 on his Guard sgainfl Conviction, afFedting, as it were, 
 Infallibilitv and Unchangeablenefl." 
 
 He prejumesit xvill appear his Charitable Plea is not re- 
 futed: Let other s judge, when they have read the following 
 Pages, if that, ar.d his V\nd\czi\ou both, be not f'fftcient- 
 ly anfwerd. 
 
 Jphen he pretended to inform his Readers how Icr.g I was 
 about the former Treatife, lefl they fl.ould be at a Lofs to 
 know %vhy his Vindication took up jo jnuch Time, as from 
 OiSlober, 1747, to the Spring in 1749, before they could 
 get Sight of it ', he is pleafed to itfortn them, that he was 
 interrupted by his Employ, which otherwife is abundant ; as 
 if no Body elje met loiih any Evocations but himfelf, tho' 
 every One is not for making a plaufible Colour, to glofs the 
 P^ealify of Things from publick Notice. 
 
 With a Defgn to make good his Charge, 'that we were 
 the Aggreffors in this Controverfy, he fays, I introduced it 
 at FhiJadclphia, atid refers me to the Baptifts and ethers 
 there for Proof; and " appeals alfo to the People at 
 Cape- May, who he believes can ttflify, that fonie Ana- 
 baptiji Minifters, with feme of their unlearned Candi- 
 dates, introduced the Controverfy there." Reply. What 
 I fa id at Philadelphia, was no more than what was done 
 on both Sidesy " who all along, more or ki^^ pleaded for 
 
 their 
 
[ V ] 
 
 their Principles and Fradices, as Occafion required." 
 The Account from Cape- May turns out againji him : In a 
 Letter from thence, figned in Behalf of the Churchy there 
 are thefe Words: *' In the Month of June, in the Year 
 I''4i, Mr. Finley came to our Shore, without any Invi- 
 tation from the Baptifrs, who neverthelefs heard him 
 gladly, while he preached the Dodrines of Free grace, 
 which he continued to do for about three Vifits, which < 
 he made that Year ; but the fecond Summer, in the Year 
 3742, he preached a Sermon at Coldfpring, in our Coun- 
 ty, on the Foint of Piedobaptifm, fome confiderable 
 time before any of our Minifters, or their unlearned 
 Candidates (he'fpeaks of) came zmong us."-- Jnd the 
 Letter adds, *' From the aforefaid Occafion private Dif- 
 putes were continued ;--for the P^o baptijis were often 
 reviving the Difcourfe ;" that is, about Infant Baptifm. 
 Hence it appears it was he himfelf introduced the Contra- 
 verfy at Cape- May, hoiv willing foever. he is to father tty 
 quite unjujOy, on others. i -n t - r 
 
 I find he does not contradicl any Ihing of the Relation J 
 have given of the Affair refpeSling our Dijpute at Cape- 
 May ; he fays, *' I am very punaUious in my Account, 
 luhich is fo far an Evidence of its being a true One. Does 
 he call it a preaching on the Controverfy, when he has not 
 proved that I touched any Thing in the leafl about Infant 
 Baptifm at the Time referred to ; but opend the Nature 
 and Dep.gn of Baptifm, for the Help and Benefit of ihofe 
 Perfons that xvere expeaed to fubfnit to tt floortly ? If he 
 does, he may call all Sermons preaching on Controverfes', 
 hccaufe there is no Truth, hut is oppofed by fomebody or ano- 
 ther. He labours to jujlify his Conduct, tn propofing tae 
 faid public k Difpute, by pretending he had a Rtght m the 
 People of C^^e-Mzv, tffc. which Right he thinks denv d 
 from his being an Injirument to awaken a Number of t hem: 
 Suppofe he was ', Does that give him, who was but an 
 itinerant, or' tranftent Preacher among them, a Right to 
 the People there, particularly to the Hapt.fts, and thcje 
 v^ho were inclined to them? Did they ever put themjelves 
 ttnder his Government, or were they ever related to h.m vi 
 evy Church Order ? Did his fuppofed Right to them, de- 
 ■ A3 r^'^'' 
 
[ vi ] 
 prive them of their proper Right, to fend for a Mlni/ier 
 ef their own Perfwajion to preach the Word in their own 
 Meeting -Houfes, and adminijler the Sacraments among 
 them? What would he be at ; " Did his looking on 
 them as his People in a very peculiar Manner," take 
 away their Liberty of Confcience^ to look on him as nat 
 right in the Point ^Baptifm? Jgain ; Was it a f^iolatiou 
 cf his pretended Right, for any Baptift Mini/ier, on their 
 Requefi, to pay them a Vifit ? Was it any breaking in 
 upon his Labours, for any of us to anfwer their Requeji ? 
 If the Peopli there, were his People, and dearly related to 
 him, that he was careful, le/l they fhould be turned away 
 from him ; liozv came he to be fo careUfs of them, as to 
 turn away fro^n them, to dejert his FUck, and fettle elfe- 
 -where? Was not that fuffering them to be fcattered ? Was 
 his Difpofition fo arrogant and felfjh, that he would not 
 Jiay at the Capes, unlcfs he f})ould have all far his own,, 
 whether they could in Conjcience join with him, in thf 
 P««/ tf/ Infant Baptifm, or 7iot ? Truly, I fee no Re aj on. 
 to retract any thing I faid, in refpecf af his prcpofing the 
 public k Difpute. 
 
 *Tis obfervable (fays he) how rarely our Opponents 
 vifited Cape May, until the People were ftirrcd up to fo- 
 ]emn Concern about the State of their Souls, then they 
 thought was a fit Seafon for them to put in for a Share j 
 then their Minifters, with their unlearned Candidates^ 
 repair thither from various Parts." Anf Winn the Peo- 
 ple at the Capes Importuned us to vifit them, it tt^as furely 
 a fit Seafon for us to anfiver their Deflre ; tho'' it feems 
 neither their Requeft, nor our Compliance, tvas pleafmg to 
 Mr. F. But why unlearned Candidates ? Does he not here- 
 by labour d.fignedly to reproach us ? Why elfe does he go out 
 of his Way to ufe this Phrafe ? Is it any Part of our pre- 
 fnt Centroverfy^ whether Learning is effential to a Gofpel 
 Minijier ? Or, that the Wunt of fotne certain Degrees^ 
 renders a Afan, by divine Authority, incapabfe of the mini- 
 flerial Funaion ? Whatever Learning our Candidates lack, 
 he does not fcem to have any great Stock to impart, when he 
 gives us a falfe Conflruaion of Ads ii. 39. He adds, " The 
 Water was moved and n^uddy, ao'd bcfgre it would fet- 
 tle. 
 
[ vu ] 
 
 tie, was the Nick of Time to fifh for Profelytes to their 
 party." Pray what made it muddy ? Bis cajling in the 
 'Ruhhijh of Infant Sprinkling into the Stream ? In the afore- 
 faid Letter^ there is a ^ejlion propofcd, '' Who had the 
 inoft FiOiers for Profelytes at Cape-May ? We, whofe 
 Minifters and Attendance never exceeded the Number of 
 three at one Vifit ; or they, whofe Minifters and Atten- 
 dance fometimes amounted to the Number of Thirty ?" 
 ' Says Mr. F. " Nor has this been their Conduft in one 
 Place, or one Age only j I find it to be the Complaint 
 Of eminent Divines in every Age {\nce Anabaptifm he- 
 gan, that by fuch Condua they have marred the Pro- 
 grefs of Religion, by turning the Exercifes of awaken'd 
 Souls into another Channel ; and have obfervedj that 
 from among thofe, who were l?rought under fpiritual 
 Concern by the Labours of other Minifters, the Jna^ 
 haptijis have ordinarily had their Harveft." I have al- 
 ready Jhewn we had ajuji Right tovifit Cape-May, where 
 there were two Baptift Meeting- houfes, and a Churchy jet- 
 iled for many Tears pajl : (Vho then can ju/ily fay, we had 
 not an undoubted Right to preach to our own People at their 
 Requejl, in their own Meeting- houfes y and to as many as 
 /hould thini proper to come and hear ? Now, if the Com- 
 plaint of Divines againfi the Baptifts in dijiant Places and 
 Jges, is as groundlefs or unjiiji as Mr. Finley'j, 'tis no- 
 thing elfe in the one, or the other, but prejudicing the World 
 againfi a People, whofe Principles and Practices, by Argu^ 
 menty they cannot refute. How can it tend to mar the Pro- 
 grefs of Religion, when People (fuitably qualified) are di- 
 reatd to obey the Ordinances of Religion, which Chriji hath 
 appointed ? Did Peter mar the Progref of Religion, or 
 turn the Exercifes of awaken'd Souls into another Channel, 
 when he fpake to awaken d Souls, Repent, and be bapti- 
 zed. Ads ii. 37. 38. What Religion then can be marr'd 
 by fuch Condu£f, urilef it be the Prefbyferian One, in this 
 Point ? It feems they are not for any Difpute about thefe 
 outward (or carnal) Things, becaufe it mars the Progrefs 
 of their Religion ; but the fcriptural Do^rine of Believers 
 Baptifm muji he advanced in its Place, come of their Re- 
 ligion what will, further, IVhen can the Crime be, if one 
 A 4 /^'"^^ 
 
[ viii ] 
 Jbouldfow, end another reap, now, as well as furmer^ 
 
 L-mfelf to thofe who were baptized in Infancv, and (35 I 
 xvas cred.bly informed by thofe that heard him) he per- 
 fwaded them, on pain of Damnation, to be dipped,^ or 
 
 ^?n n^'p r^"'r''"5 '" ^"^^ ^ Denounc.ation ' Now. 
 w. 1 ^ot Reafon fajs that it was necefTarv for me to dif! 
 putethe Cafe with h.m before the People?" Reply Jf this 
 was the Reofon of his propofir., the pullick Di/pJief hola 
 
 ZullJ ""' A '"''''''' \tmhisjorn.rPrence, whuh 
 -^pld be n,uch rnore to h:s Purpcfe than all he has fend 
 
 how could t,ts makertneceffary for him to dijpute the Cafe 
 before the People ? Why aoes his Informer, aid my Accufir, 
 frji pofmvely charge me with having Jatd >, and then fall 
 away to ^nyncertatnty, hy faying, - Or ufed Wc-^ds 
 equivalent?" rhn J}.ws, at frjl Sight, the Story hangs 
 oddly together. ^ Jgatn, Why are thofe Words, which are 
 Jam to be equivalent, not exprejfed m Print, that others 
 ^^fn^dge whether they were jo or not ? Who is 'to blame, 
 
 7^^0'Jw J' '' ^;;\if'-^^-^ I^idMr. F. hear what 
 thofe Words were ? If he did, can he think it has the lea/} 
 ^hew of Jufhce tn it to keep them to htmfelf unextreflX 
 M he pubUckly Jiabs One^s CharaHeruLr aprfvat, 
 
 hVn 1 'f '^S' ''' ^' '"'^'f"^ '« ^y ^''' Mormer, when ' 
 he told him the Story, that he could not tell him what thofe 
 ^guimlent Words zvereP Iff, what Credit could be given 
 to hts Information? Let this falfe Report lie between Mr. 
 ^ .nley and his Informer, as becoming their Cavfe and Cha^ 
 
 V r I a"^ A ^^''''^' ""^'^^y ' ^ «^^^^^ perfwadcdthe 
 Paedo-bapt.fts at Cape-May to be dipped, on pain of Dam^ 
 
 nation; neither did J uf Words equivalent I fuch a De- 
 
 r.ounciation: And in Confirmation of what I fay, I fl^all 
 
 fubjomthe Teflimony of the People at C^Y^^-Uty from un- 
 
 der thetr Hands, zvho were pre fnt at the Time referred 
 
 r r T^^^'^f ^^r.Finley, in his Preface to the J'indica- 
 ttoH of his Charitable Plea, Page 6. hath pretended, as a. 
 
 Realon 
 
[ i^ 1 
 
 Rcafon for hh Dirpute about Pa:do baptifin, that he wzi 
 credibly informed that Mr. Morgan, in one of his firlt 
 Sermons at Cape-May, in the Year 1743, addrefilng 
 himfelf to the Pa:do baptijls, perfwaded them to be 
 dipped, on pain of Damnation, or ufed Words equiva- 
 lent to fuch a Denounciation : Concerning which Re^ 
 port, we the Baptijl Society at Cape- May, have made 
 Enquiry among the moft fubftantial of the Prcfiytcrians 
 in the County, that were of Mr. Morgan's Auditory at 
 the Time pointed out by Mr. Finley ; and they, with one 
 Confent, declared ttey never heard of it, till it came 
 out in Mr. Finlefs Book : And fome of their Elders and 
 Deacons faid, they believed Mr. Morgan never faid any 
 fuch Thing , and Jome of them faid, it was a Pity the 
 faid Informer was not knov/n, that their Society might 
 pot he under the Reproach of it. 
 
 Nathaniel Jenkins, junior. 
 
 WiL*^LiAM Smith, in Benalf of the Society.*' 
 
 They propofe the followmg ^ery en the Occafton ; " Of 
 •what Weight can the Credit of his Informer be, when 
 Mr. Fs own People do not believe the faid Informer, but 
 think him a Reproach to their Society V 
 
 His faying that feveral Anabaptifts have leen convinced 
 by their Minijien, does not reach the Obfervation.'--Can 
 he produce any Injiances of Baptifts convinced they xvere 
 wrong by hearing their oivn Minijiers treat on the Ordi- 
 nance ? 
 
 He enquires, *' Whoever yet faw the Writings of an 
 Anabaptijl on the prefent Controverfy, without the Em- 
 hellifliments of angry, perfonal Reflexions ? Or without 
 a frequent begging the Queftion, and pofitive AfTertionS;, 
 unfupported by Argument?" JinJ, The moft favourable 
 ConJlru£iion I can put on thefe Words, is, that he is not ac- 
 quainted with the JVritings of our Authors : If he is, he 
 has no great Regard to his Words, -ivhen he fays thus of 
 them. I would not he afraid to compare the Writings of 
 Baptifl Authors, either as to Learning, good Language, or ' 
 folid Arguments, with any he can produce on his Side, in 
 this Debate. 
 
 1 lOiJS 
 
 I 
 
[ X ] 
 
 / was aware before, when he would have his Argument 
 appear in their own Colour without Perverjion, that he had 
 prepared a Catholicon againjl all Maladies , now J find by 
 Experience I was not mijlaken in wy ConjeUure^ zuhen he 
 makes fuch an hideous Noife about his Arguments being con- 
 Jiantly perverted or evaded^ without Jhewing Grounds for 
 it, as he went along: He is far frorn having a Specimen 
 ef it in my Preface, when I not only mentioned fme of tht 
 Reafons of his former Publication, but plainly referred ta 
 all the reji, by faying, " Such (or like) pretended Rea- 
 fons ;"--• intimating that the others were of the like Weight 
 with thofe cited. - •'■ = os 
 
 How I have managed ihe Arguments in the following 
 Sheets, the Work f jail fp,ak for itfelf ; and /hall only addy 
 that I have, according to my f ma II Advantage and Abilities^ 
 endeavour d to mninfain an Ordinance of Chriji, as it is 
 revealed in holy Hct ipture. If the Lord is pleafed to fa- 
 vour my weak /It tempts with his Blejftng,- it will fuffice :■ 
 Unto him be Glory in the Church, by Chriji Jefus, tbtough' 
 out all Agesy World without End, Amen. 
 
 A. M. 
 
 Anti' 
 
t " "i 
 
 
 
 Antl-Pczdo-Rantifm Defended^ &c. 
 
 |^^^:p^ HE Apoftle 7^^^ eichorts us to fowi'^wi 
 ''"''""'""'"''"'^' earnejily for the Faith ^ woich was once de- 
 Uver'd to the Saints^ Verfe 3. of his Epi- 
 ftie. This Exhortation (in my Judg- 
 ment) leads us to obferve thefe following 
 ^^ , ^ Particulars, I. The NeceiTiry of know- 
 ing and embracing the Truths of the Gofpel, as they 
 are deliver'd to us in holy Scriptures. 2. There will not 
 be wanting induftrious Oppofers, who will exert their ut- 
 rnoft Endeavours to force away this rich and valuable 
 "bepofitum from its PolTeirors, 3. 'Tis an incumbeni 
 E)uiy on thofe who have received the Doctrines of the 
 Gofpel, in Faichfulnefs to God, and Love to the Truth, , 
 ^ealoufly, firmly, and conftantly to defend them. 
 
 That Point of Scripture-truth, in particular, which, 
 in Compliance with this divine Exhortation, the Cir- 
 cumftances of Things making it neceflary for us to con- 
 tend earneftly for at prefent, is the DofStrine of Believers 
 Baptifm ; which is again attacked by an Undertaking to 
 vindicate Infants Right to this New-Teilament Ordi- 
 cance. 
 
 • Therefore, to prevent Objeflions, let it be obferved, 
 that we, who, in our Meafure, do endeavour to defend 
 this Part of divine Truth againft renewed Attempts, de- 
 figned to overthrow it, can't juftly be charged with be- 
 xm the Difturbers of the Church's Peace, or the Au- ■ 
 
 thyrs. 
 
[ 12 ] 
 
 ihors and Promoters of Divifions and Faflions therein; 
 for if we be, there is no Way to comply with this apo- 
 ilolical Injundion, and be innocent at the fame time. 
 Undoubtedly the Guilt of Difcord and Divifions in the 
 Church, will unavoidably devolve upon the Heads of the 
 Broachers and Upholders of falfe Doftrines, and errone- 
 ous Pradices, the very Source of Confufions among 
 Chriflians. 
 
 And tho' Peace amongft all owning the Name of Chrift 
 be a very valuable Blefling, and truly defirable ; yet we 
 muft not (according to the Teftimony of a * late Au- 
 thor) give up Truth and Holinefs for its Sake, or in 
 order to obtain it. 
 
 The Gofpel Truth, with refpeft to the Subjeds of 
 Baptifm, which, in my former Treatife, I endeavoured 
 to maintain, is this, ** 7 hat thofe Per/on s xuho profrfs 
 their Faith in Chri/I, and Repentance for their Sins, are 
 the only proper SubjeSfs of Baptifm.'^ In Confirmation 
 hereot, I cited feveral Texts ot holy Scripture, which 
 Mr. Finhy grants do prove, that fuch as were taught, 
 and profefTed their Faith, were baptized : *' He allowi 
 fuch Believers are proper Subje^s of this Ordinance.'* 
 £ut then, in order to have fome Pretence foV his Prac- 
 tice, he cavils with the exclufive Particle only, and afk?. 
 How tvill it fcUsiv therefore none elfe were baptized f — 
 jfnd feems to wonder how we can he Jo confident of a Con" 
 duficn, which is contained in no Premijcs we have ever 
 found." Reply. Mr. Finley freely acknowledges, that 
 profefiing Believers are proper Subje£ls of Baptifm ; now 
 if the Scripture fpeaks of any other meet SubjecS^s of this 
 Ordinance, or gives any Examples of any others bapti- 
 zed, who had not, or were not required to have the pre- 
 vious Qualifications of Faith and Repentance j why has 
 rot this Advocate for Infants Right to Baptifm, in the 
 Courfe of our Debate, favour'd us with fome Inflances 
 of fuch a Pradice before now ? Is it not becaufe he ha^ 
 none to give? Undoubtedly it is io. Hence then it is 
 plain enough, that profefTing Believers are the only pro- 
 per Subjedts of Baptifm i tho' he would fain arnufe his 
 
 Readeis 
 * Mr, Tennenfi Ircnicum Ecdcfiaficum, Page 34. 
 
[ 13 1 ♦ 
 
 Readers with a groundlefs Objedion againft what we af- 
 fert, and charge us with begging the Queftion in De- 
 bate. Well, Mr. Finley takes it for granted, that Be- 
 lievers Infants were baptized in apoftolick Times, but 
 where has he proved it ? Truly no where : He has given 
 no Examples of Infants baptized, nor produced any 
 Text;, which require they fliould, who have not the 
 Pre-requifttes the Scripture every where calls for in the 
 Subjeas of Baptifm ; notwithftanding he urges on Peo- 
 ple his Opinion, unfupported by Scripture as it is, and 
 ftems difpleafed it Ihould not meet with univerfal Wel- 
 come ; tho' at the fame time he difcovers his Caule to be 
 indefenfible, when he charges us with begging the 
 Queftion, becaufe we ftridly adhere to exprefs Scripture 
 Dodrine and Teftimony, in the Caft before us. 
 
 Chrift commanded profeiTing Believers to be baptized, 
 Mark xvi. 15, 16. And it adds no fmall Confirmation 
 to the Point m hand, that the Apoftles underftood their 
 Lord's mind to be, that piofefling Believers only were 
 to be baptized, when, according to the concurring Te- 
 Itimony of holy Scriptures, in the whqle Courfe of their 
 Miniflry, they baptized only fuch as we have an Account 
 of. I fiill think, had it been the Will of God, that In- 
 fants fhould be baptized, he would have revealed it in 
 bis Word ; but feeing he has not, the Pradice of Infant 
 Baptifm depends only upon the Will of Mr. F. and other 
 mortal Men, like hi'm. No Article ought to be received 
 as a divine Truth, which wants a divine Revelation, 
 and fuch is Infant Baptifm. 
 
 '* Let them try (fays he) how this Mode of Reafonlng 
 will Juit in other Cafes. For Injlance^ Rom. x. 9. He 
 that confelfeth with his Mouth,— - Jliall be faved i-- there- 
 fore all dumb People are excluded from Salvation ; with the 
 Mouth confejfion is made unto Salvation ; therefore only fuch 
 as can confejs with the Mouth are capable of Salvation. — 
 Thefe are evidently falfe Arguments, but they are as good as 
 Mr. M'j. Ihey who profefs their Faith are to be bapti-zed, 
 therefore only fuch." Reply. In thefe Words of the Apo- 
 ille, Faith m Chrift, and Acknowledgment of him, arc 
 required,— And the Scripture faith, He that beliivcthnot, 
 ' pall 
 
[ H ] 
 Jhdl he damned, Mark xvi. i6. And he that den'ie'th Chriji 
 before Men, Jhall he denied before the Angeh of God, Luke 
 xii. 9. When God gives Laws and Rules to his Crea- 
 tures, they muft obferve them ; and It is finful to go out 
 of, or beyond thofe Bounds and Reftriaions. But does 
 he hereby bind hirnfelf ? Is he not fuvereign and free not- 
 ivithftanding to do whatfoever plieafeth him, even to fave 
 the Deaf and Dumb, if it feem him good, tho' they 
 never confefled Chrift ? But will thii diflblve the fixed 
 Obligation his Creatures are under to believe in Chrift, 
 and confefs him, in ordtr to Salvation ? No, in no wife. 
 Pray what fort of an Argument Would Mr. F. draw 
 from hence ? Is it becaufe God can difpenfe with his own 
 Inftitutions, Commands and Appointments ; or ad with- 
 out them, or above them, and fave one who cannot con- 
 fefs Chrift ; therefore Mr. F. may difpenfe with the Or- 
 der and Commands of God too, and baptize one with- 
 out the Pjofcffion of Faith and Repentance ? What 
 would the Man be at ? Hath he forgot the infinite Dif- 
 proportion between him and God ? Will he fay with 
 the proud Kmg ot Babylon, I will he like ibe Mofi High ? 
 \.tx. him fhew v/hether that which Gcd does in a fove- 
 reign Way, upknown to us, be in any Part the Rule of 
 our Obedience ; or his written Word, and nothing elfe, 
 that we are bound to adhere to, in all Matters of Faith 
 and Pra<f>ice ? 
 
 There appears nothing to the contrary in this Inftance, 
 but what our Mode of Reafoning fuits very well ; for as 
 it is the inftituted Way of God for Sinfters to believe in 
 Chrift, and confefs him, in order to Salvation, and on- 
 ly fuch fhall be faved, according to his ftated Order, and 
 cxprefs Inftitution, Tvlark xvi. 16. John iii. 36. So 
 aifo, according to his ftated and unvariable Appoint- 
 ment, revealed in holy Scripture, profefling Believers, 
 and none other, are the only proper bubjeds of Baptifm, 
 A£ii viii 37. xviii. 8. Matthew xxviii. 19. We readily 
 own God's free Sovereignty to do as he pleafeth ; but at the 
 fame time utterly deny Mr. /"s Right and Prerogative 
 to bring in any other Subjeas to this Ordinance, befides 
 thofe the Scripture exprefly mentions. The Reader may 
 
 obferve. 
 
[ 15 ] 
 
 obferve the more our Author tries to vindicate his Caufe, 
 the more he involves himfelf in Abfurdities. 
 
 Says he, *' The Scriptures ko where fay ^ that only fuch, 
 (x. e. profejfmg Believers) and nme elfe, are fit Subje^s of 
 this Ordinance. Anf, But the tjcripturer, fa), that pro- 
 feffing Believers are fit Subjects of this Oidinarce ; what 
 divine Authority then is there to admit any others ? The 
 Scripture furely does not prove Contraries to be both 
 true, if it undeniably proves, that Repentance and Faith 
 were cohftantly required to precede the Reception of 
 Baptifm, ,in all the Inftances of it recorded therein, a- 
 greeable to the Words of Inflitution : But that it does 
 fo, can't be gainfaid ; then it necefTarily excludes all o- 
 thers, who have not fuch Qualifications from any Right 
 to this Ordinance. The Door whe^by Mr. F. uould 
 bring in Believers Infants to be fit Subjeils of Baptifm, 
 will admit a Number of other Abfurdities ; and he muft 
 have fome Skill, beyond what is common, if he can, by 
 the fame Rule, fhew the one to be lawful, and the other 
 not. For Inftance ; The Scriptures no where fay, that 
 Bread only is to be ufed in the Supper j therefore it is 
 lawful to adminifler Flefh alfo therein. Again ; The 
 Scriptures no where fay, that Wine only Is to be ufed in 
 that Ordinance ; therefore it is lawful to mix Water 
 therewith in that Sacrament (as fome of the Antients 
 did) or ufe any other Liquid, as Rum or Brandy, with 
 it, or inflead of it. By the fame Rule he may ufe the 
 Sign of the Crofs in Baptifm-'-Baptife Bells--- Preach to 
 Beafts and Birds, and what not ? Thefe, and a thoufand 
 more fuperftitious Fooleries, are equally warranted by 
 Mr. F's Rule, as that which he would prove thereby, 
 viz. That Infants are fit Subjeds of Baptifm. Well, 
 Men may pleafe themfelves with tlieir Fancy, and abufe 
 Scripture to ferve their Purpofe ; but God will not be 
 mocked. This Rule of Mr.' i^'s, had it been good, and 
 would have bore the Tefl-, would have been worth its 
 Weight in Gold ; and more alfo to Nadab and Abihuy 
 Lev. X. I, 2, 3. who offered Jirange Fire before the 
 Lord, which he commanded them not. Does the Scripture 
 any where fay, they fhould oiFcf Fire from Heaven onfyy 
 
 and 
 
t i(S ] 
 
 and none elfe ? Therefore, according to Mr. fs cclebra* 
 ted Dodrine, and efpoufed Principle, they might offer 
 other Fire : But their doing fo, colt them very dear ; 
 for it was fo difpleafing to God, that there went out Fire 
 from him, which devoured them infiantly. And why 
 is this recorded, but to prevent alJ prcfumptuous Pradi- 
 ces of the like Nature for the future f And to admonfh 
 us ail in fucceeding Generations, that in God's Worflaip 
 God's Command, not Man's Wit or Will, muft be our 
 Rule, to which we muft adhere. Where the Scripture 
 hath no Mouth to fpeak, we fliould have no Eats to hearj 
 nor V/ill to obey. The Reader may obferve from this 
 Inftance of Nadab and Ji>ibu^ that Mr. F's Argument 
 here for his Practice of Infant's Baptifm, is built on a 
 very dangerous and God provoking Principle ; 'tis there- 
 fore unfafe for any once to prefume to be concerned in 
 it. 
 
 I obferved, that under the Name of controverting a- 
 bout Baptifm, the Debate is impertinently and ufelefly 
 carried off to another Subjedt, viz. Abraham's Cove- 
 uant. Mr. F. thinks this cafts fevere Rcfieaions on all 
 the learned Divines, who have defended Infant Baptifni 
 from Jhraham'a Covenant. As for his Part, he is fo fure 
 they were right in fo doing, that he would rather * die, 
 than acknowledge the contrary : But neither their Me- 
 thod, nor his extreme Confidence, removes the Diffi- 
 culty : For when we profeffedly undertake to debate a- 
 bout the Doctrine, and proper Subjeds of Baptifm, to 
 kave that, and fall on another Subjedi, that has not yec 
 been made appear to have any particular Relation to the 
 Cafe in hand, or to be of any real Service to them- 
 felves, is impertinent, and quite ufelefs. This Method 
 indeed ferves to amufe Mankind, and to continue the 
 unhappy Controvcrfy between us ; but hov/ fond foever 
 our Opponents may be of the Invention, yet their Con- 
 fequences from Abrahan'% Covenant, fo long before the 
 Inftitiition of Baptifm, arc too far fetched, to carry in 
 them any Evidence to prove that .there are fome fit Sub- 
 jedls of this Ordmance, befides thofg who are cxprtily 
 
 mentioned 
 . * Page 73. 
 
[ 17 ] 
 
 iai^ntioned in the New-Teflament j our Author's firong 
 Copfidence, on the Occafion, does but expofe his Prin- 
 ciples to Contempt and Ridicule, when the one appears 
 (p very ill grounded, and the other maintained by fuch 
 indirect, inconclufive Arguments, which hitherto have 
 failed to fliew the Pradice of baptizing Infants to be the 
 Lord's Appointment. 
 
 . ** However, ('fays. he) / think it is the fafeji Courfe 
 ip draw Inferences from both Tejiamenis^ compared toge- 
 ther J nor .dare I venture to rejeSl a 'text from the Old 
 Xeftament, as impertinent to prove a New Teftament 
 DoSlrine, for therein I Jhoidd impioujly refleSf on Chri/i 
 himfelf and his blejcd Jpojiles" Reply. Could hf, or 
 zny other, but once make appear, that Infant Baptifm, 
 is a Do'flrine taught in the New Teftament^ how in- 
 vincible would fuch Reafonings be ! But feeing he has 
 not hitherto (hewn that this Do(Srine is once exprefTed, 
 br the leaft Hint of fuch Pradlice found therein, there 
 is nothing in thefe Obfervations which will ferve his 
 Purpofe : And inafmuch as this New Teftament Ordi- 
 nance was not inflituted in the Old Teftament Times, 
 nor once revealed to the Saints then, 'tis quite improba- 
 ble, there fhould be any Texts in the Old Teftament 
 pertinent to prove, who are the fit Subjeils of it; this is 
 Mr. Fs pre/Ting Difficulty ; herewith is he forely pinch- 
 ed, that he can't fhew us the Dodrine of Infant Bap- 
 tifm, to be taught either in the Old or New Teftament; 
 tho' he talks as if it was plentifully ejiprefs'd in both. 
 And tho' at one Turn, he would not, yet at another, 
 I think he does inipiouny refle(St on Chrift himfelf, and 
 his bleffed Apoftles, when he infifts that Infant Baptifm 
 is a Gofpel Ordinance, which Chrift never inftituted, 
 and his Apoftles never taught j what can this be, but an 
 impious Reflection, either on the Wifdom of Chrift, 
 that he did not fee meet to appoint it, or elfe on the 
 Faithfulnefs of the Evangelifts and Apoftles, that they 
 ciid not commit all Chrift's Appointments to Writing, 
 if Infant Baptifm be one of them ? But as the Cafe 
 now ftands, I judge 'tis the fafeft Courfe to reject his 
 Confequences from Abraha7n''i Covenant, in Defence of 
 
 B it, 
 
- [ i8 ] 
 
 it, as impertinent and ufelefs ; which otherwife migh^ 
 perhaps byafs one to join with him in the fame impious 
 Refledlon on Chrift, and his bleffed Apoftles. 
 
 Our chief Difagreement in what follows, will be about 
 the Application of it. " To take Scriptures out of their 
 proper Connexion (fays he) is the ever lofting Method of 
 Errorijls. There is doubtlefs one confiftent Chain from 
 the Beginning of Genefis, to the End of Revelations." 
 I am apt to think it is fo ; or elfe our Opponents would 
 not wrclt any Texts out of their proper Connexion, 
 ■with a Defign to vindicate their Practice of Infant 
 Baptifm ; which Mr. F. knows is not once exprefled in 
 the BihUy from the Beginning of Genefs^ to the End of 
 Revelations ; or attempt to break the Chain of Scripture 
 Harmony refpefting that of Believers. 
 
 I need not enter on the Debate about Jbrahani's Co- 
 venant, in this Place, becaufe that will come in Courfe 
 hereafter ; I fliall offer a Remark, or two, and pafs on. 
 He argues, " That Abraham is the Prefident of our Pri- 
 viledges^ and how fiall we better know our Priviltdges and 
 Bljfings, than by looking to his?— Can the Heir know his 
 Patrimony^ and not know what his Father poffeffed ?" And 
 fays, *' Thus while Air. M. corrects our Divines^ he un- 
 atvares goes about to correSi the Apojiles : If we are herein 
 impertinent^ fo is infpir^d Pawl ; but we are in no Doubt^ 
 whether vje floall follow Paul, or Mr. M." Reply. Had Mr. 
 F. made appear, that I oppofed the Apoftle Paul in 
 that, wherein I oppofe him ; and that the Apoftle in- 
 tends Infants Church memberfhip, by Abraham' sBkiTwgy 
 and referred to Abraham's Covenant for Proof of it s 
 this kind of Talk migl t do; but feeing he has not, his 
 Lines here are of no more Force, than if he had filled 
 them up with A, b, c. And for him to look to Abta- 
 ham., or the former Adminiftration for Infants Right to 
 a New-Teftament Ordinance, is as if an Heir Ihould 
 look to pofTefs his Father's Clothes, which were quite 
 wore out, before he became feized of his Edate. 
 
 I obferved, " that having Recoznfe to Abraham's Co- 
 venant., fuppofes that Chrijl^ together zvith the Injlituticn 
 of Baptijm^ has not given us full and fufficient Informa- 
 
 tion. 
 
[ 19 ] 
 
 iioj:, who are the Subje^s of it." Ke replies, ** We 
 fay he has fully informed us, but where ? Is it not in the 
 Scriptures ? Or is the Old Tefiament no longer Scripture ? 
 JVas it written only for the Jews, and not far our LearU' 
 ing ?" Anf. Here are a Parcel of Queftions propofed ; 
 but how they ferve to remove the Abfurdity I charged 
 on my Opponent's Reafonings, I can't devife : Nay, 
 this round-about Way feems to befpeak, that Chrift has 
 not-- -there is a Defeil in the Directions! and fo the Ab- 
 surdity ftill remains, which is, that Chrift commanded 
 his Miniftcrs to baptize, but yet did not fully inform 
 them who ; and fo left them at an Uncertainty : He 
 neither told them they fhould baptize Infants, nor re- 
 ferred them \o Abrahams Covenant for Direction in the 
 Cafe ; and yet would have them baptized ; a Thing 
 quite unreafonable to be credited or fuppofed. And 
 tho' we do profeiTedly acknowledge the Old Teftament 
 to be Scripture, and that it was written for our Lcarn<- 
 Jng ; yet it does not teach us who are the Subjects of 
 Baptifm, becaufe this Ordinance is not at all revealed 
 therein : Will Mr. F. tell us, how we (hall learn that 
 from the Old Teftament, which it never taught ? One 
 would be ready to think, that when neither Old nor 
 New Teftament teaches that Infants are fit Subjedls of 
 this Ordinance, Mr. F. might very reafonably join with 
 us in difowning it to be a Scripture Dodlrine at all. 
 
 I obferved, that the Right and Title of any to Bap- 
 tifm, is of no older Date than the Inftitution of the 
 Ordinance itfelf- He anfwers, " Be it fo ; but what 
 ■does this arguing reprove ? We don't fay any had a Right 
 to be baptized before Baptifn was injiituted. ; but when it 
 was infiituied, we fay Believers Infants had a Right to it^ 
 which we prove from the Grant God has made of their 
 Church- memberfoip. Sic." Mr. i^. feems to allow, that 
 the Right of any to Baptifm is of no older Date than 
 the Inftitution of the Ordinance ; yet he will have it, 
 that fome have a Right to it, by Virtue of a former 
 Grant, long before the Inftitution of Baptifm ; what is 
 the Sum of his Talk here, but only this, that thofe who 
 are not commanded to be baotized, in the Inftitution of 
 
 B^2 this 
 
[ 20 ] 
 
 this Ordinance, have notwithftanding, as goo4 a Rigf^t 
 to it, as fchofe that are, Markxvi. 15, 16? Is there any 
 Need of Arguments to refute fuch abfurd Reafoning, 
 with its (hocking Confcquences ? Which natively tends 
 jto lay afide the Wifdom and Authority of God, in his 
 Commands ; and leads People todifregard them, by fet" 
 ting up an Inftitution of their own, collateral with, or 
 in Oppofition to his. Hence it appears, my Obfervation 
 was JLift and proper ; Mr. F. indeed offers no Arguments 
 here, in favour of what he fays, only refers to his fol- 
 lowing Pages : But when he intimates, he (hall have 
 Recourfe to Abrahatri% Covenant, where there is no 
 Mention of Baptifm, no Command for it, no Account 
 who are the Subjedls of it, or who are to be the, Mem- 
 bers of the New Teftament Church ; all folid Grounds 
 of Expe«Slation to find any hereafter, are alfo entirely 
 cut off. . . , . 
 
 He fays, I am puzzled to know the Ufe of his Di- 
 fiin<Siohs of a twofold being in the Covenant, and two- 
 fold Way of fealing it.- --But can any Anfwer be more 
 pertinent, than what I urg'd before ? That confidering 
 he has not improved the faid Diftindlions to his prefent 
 Purpofe, by giving, us fome In fiances of the Apoftle's 
 baptizing the Infant Seed of Believers on the Account 
 of their being vilibly in the Covenant of Grace.---But 
 as this was not poffible for him to do, his Diftinction3 
 are ufelefs in this prefent Controverfy ; efpecially ob- 
 ferving that our Opponents themfelves don't keep to 
 thefe Di(tin<5tions, when they aflert, * " that Infants are 
 Believers in Chri/i." And put them on a § Par with 
 believing Women, without any Diftinci^ion or Limita- 
 tion : And why not wi h believing Men too? Tes^ fays 
 Mr. i^ f *'. IVe ought to hope equally charitably of Be- 
 lievers Infants, as of aSiual Profeffors." Hence it appears 
 thcfe Diltindions don't ferve even fo much as to cut off 
 our Obje<Stions ; much lefs to prove that Infants ought 
 ^o be baptized ; Nay, our Objections are ftrengthened 
 by them, and their not keeping to them ; for if Belie- 
 vers Infants are Believers in Chrift, and are thus in 
 
 Covenant, 
 
 * Di'vine Right, Page 25. § Jb. 38. f Vind. Page 23. 
 
[ 2.1 ] 
 Covenant, they are in it hv'w^ly^ and fJialJ all be Taved,; 
 iinlefs they will fay that fome who are * united to Chrift 
 by Faith, (hal! perifh notwithrtanding ; and fince tliey 
 have no vifible Signs whereby they can dillinguifh their 
 Infants, which is a Reliever, and which not ; they muft 
 jieceflarily hold (according to thefe AfTertions) that they 
 are all Believers in Chrift, and united to him by Faith, 
 and fo are al! favingly in the Covenant, which contra- 
 dicts the Diftinctlon, which lays they are not. And 
 till thefe Contradictions are reconciled, Mr. F. may 
 thank himfelf and his Brethren, if he finds J pay no 
 Regard to his Diftinctions, which appear to be of no 
 Manner of Service, but to fill up his Pages, and blind 
 his Readers. He is pleafed to cry out '' En Animum 
 et Mentetn ! I was, (fays he) for jhewing my Meaning 
 in fome Phrafes^ which I had frequent Occafion to ufe^ 
 hut injlead of that^ I mufi, it fcems^ give li: fiances of 
 the Apofile\ haptizirig Infants.'' Reply. He might 
 {hew his Meaning in thofe Phrafes, as fully as he thought 
 proper: I did not requite Inftances instead of his 
 Meaning (as he very unjuflly infinuates) but aftfr, 
 he had ftiewn it ; which is plain enough, by faying he 
 bad not improved them to his prefeni Purpofe. But 
 when he full well kr\ew that he could not readily pro- 
 duce any Inftances of the Apoftle's baptizing Believers 
 Infants, it feems he is now under a NecefTity to give 
 my Reafoning thi,s Goby, and rather mifreprefent his 
 Opponent, than his Readers fhould think his Diftinctions 
 ufelefs in this Controverfy, or find that his Stir about 
 them is but an empty Amufement : Would it not be 
 ingenuous in Mr. E.. either to give them fome Examples 
 in the Cafe, if it could be done ; or elfe forbear to 
 detain them any longer from adhering to the expiefs 
 Scripture Account of the proper Subjects of Baptifm ? 
 
 Mr. F. has taken Pains to fliew, *' That I deny necef- 
 fary Confequences from Scripture to be the JVord of God >" 
 which he judges to be ** Avery corrupt Principle^ and of 
 dangerous Tendency •" and afTures us. Page 78. He would, 
 chufeDeath^ rather than fubfcribe this Article. ---Yon muft 
 
 B 3 know 
 
 f Divine Right, Page 33. 
 
t 22 ] 
 Icnow by all this it is corrupt indeed ! May we not expe£i 
 then to find the Corruption and dangerous Tendency of 
 it plainly open'd, and foundly refuted ? But, far from 
 that, when he does not feem to dillinguifh betwixt Con- 
 fequences from Scripture, and the proper, exprefs Senfe 
 of the Scripture, fays he, " It has hecn^ and f. ill is ^ th& 
 known Refuge of Se^arians and Errorifis ; yea, hence Er- 
 rors ordinarily rife, by catching at fame Words of Scripture 
 "without the Sefife ; and it is too plain, that all contradi3ing 
 SeSfs plead Scripture as patronizi?!g their various inccnfjlcrit 
 Dotages.^' And in Page 32. Itake theSsnfe and Mcanivg of 
 Scripture to be God's tVord^ and not the Letters and Syllables^ 
 ^vithout the Confequence and Refultofthcm in their Connexi-^ 
 en." Now whatfoever is the proper Senfc, and expiels 
 ]\Ieaningof Scripture, cannot be a Confcquencej other, 
 wife there is nothing but Confequences, which cannot be. 
 Whoever they be that catch at Scripture Words, with- 
 out the Senfe, I am perfwaded the Baptijh are clear e- 
 iiough of this Charge, in the Cafe of Believers Baptifm ; 
 for we have both the Words and Senfe of them, through- 
 out the New-Teftament,' in one unbroken Chain, in our 
 Favour ; and indeed there is no other Water- baptifm men- 
 tion'd or acknowledged therein : And if Mr. F, and o- 
 ther Sectarians and Errorifts, do catch at Words, with- 
 out the Sen^e, to fejvc their Purpofe, let them look to ir^ 
 how they will anfwer for fuch an Abufe of holy Scrip- 
 ture. Infant Sprinkling, I judge, may, without ai.y 
 Breach of Charity, be reckon'd for one, among thofe 
 various inconfiflent Dotages, tho' it comes much (hort of 
 many other Errors, in refpe<ft of Scripture Words, with- 
 out the Senfe to patronize it ; but is obliged to hold up its 
 Head, only by leaning on neceflary Confequcnces to be 
 the Word of God : W^hlch Bufition Mr. F. endeavours 
 to maintain, come of Scripture-Sufficiency what will. 
 It feems by him, there are but very few Things exprefly 
 taught and commanded in holy Scripture : The Mind 
 and Will of God, the great Teacher and Lawgiver of 
 his Church, for the mofl part, it feems, muft be learned 
 and proven by Confequences : It is like he thinks this 
 Reprefentation of Scripture ferves befl to exalt the Glo- 
 ry 
 
[ 23 ] 
 
 ry of God's WifJom in revealing his Mind to us j^and 
 alfo fervea the beft to recommend the Sufnciency of God's 
 "Word to thofe who difparage it ; at leaft this Account 
 fLiits his Purpofe the beft to couch in his darling Tenet 
 of Infant Baptifm, amongft almoft all other Thi^ngs, 
 which, according to him, cannot be proved but by Con • 
 fequences : Accordingly, he proceeds to offer feme of h|S 
 Arguments againft the faid Principle ; and herein his 
 /irft Attempt againft the Sufficiency of Scripture, if Con- 
 fequences be rejected, refpeds the Refutation of Errors ; 
 fays he, " Jf we rejeSt nece/far^ ConfcquenceSy %ue /})aU be 
 greatly pinched to refute many Herefies" Say you (ol And 
 is the Scripture then lefs fufficient now for Reproof; i.e. 
 to convince and confute Hereticks, and repel their Er- 
 rors, than it was in Paul's Day, 2 Tim. in. i6,- 17. Qr, 
 are not the found Dodrines contained in the faithful 
 Word fufficient to make one able to convince Gainfay- 
 ers, and ftop their Mouths now, as well as formerly ? 
 Yea, faith ihe Holy Ghofl, without referring us to Con- 
 fequences, Tit. i. 9, 1 1. No, fays Mr. F. if we re- 
 jea necefTary Confequences, we fhall be greatly pinched 
 to * refute many Herefies. Give an Inftance ; Why, 
 ■" Hoiu Jhould we refute ihe DoSirine of Tranfubjianiia- 
 tion^ if neceffary Confequences he rejeSled f " 'Tis more 
 than probable, his Confequences would be as ineffedual 
 to refute the Papifts, as this Inftance is invalid to confirm 
 his Argument : Nay, would they not rather rejoice at 
 this favourable Conceffion ? The like of which never, 
 perhaps, dropt from a Proteftant Pen before ; and inftead 
 of being refuted, be further eftablifhed in their grofs 
 Miftakes : If Air. F. thinks otherwife, let him make the 
 Experiment. But furely our Author is greatly pinched 
 B 4 fo"^ 
 
 * Melchior Cams, a Popifli Author, writeth, that there is 
 more EfScacy for Confutation of Hereticks, in Tradition, 
 than in Scripture. So Mr. F. commends the EfHcacy of Con- 
 fequences, to refute Hereticks, for if Confequences be rejeft- 
 ed, the Scripture itfelf will leave one to great Pinches, i. e 
 'tis very incfFeaaal to refute Hereticks : Both agree in difpa 
 raging the Sufficiency of Scripture, tho' upon fomcwhat difFc 
 rent Grounds. 
 
 e. 
 
[ 24 ] 
 for Inftances, when he is obliged to go along fuch a blind 
 Path alone to feek one ; contrary to the Body of Prote-' 
 ftant Divines, and- whole Churches, beyond Sea, who 
 unanimoufly afTert f " That theDo6irine of Tran/ubjiar^. 
 ttation IS repugnant to the plain PFords of Scripture " 
 Nay, had he gone no further than Philadelphia, an J 
 confulted X Mr. Tenneni, he would have told him, " That 
 the Apojile Paul calls that Bread five times over, which 
 Ghnft calls his Body." Can any Thing be more plain 
 and exprefs? Could he pofHbly have fixed on any Inftance 
 more remote from his Purpofe than this ? But feeing th-'s 
 erroneous Tenet is refuted \>y plain Words of Scripture^ 
 ins Inftance leaves his firft Argument to fland upon the 
 bare Authority of his own Word, which I don't think 
 to be a fubftantial Evidence againfl the Sufficiency of" 
 Scripture for Refutation of Herefies, if his necelTary 
 Confequences be not allowed to be the Word of God. 
 2. H^s next Attempt, which bears hard upon the Suffici'* 
 cncy of Scripture, if Confequences be rejeaed, is with 
 refpea to Doariirss and Duties", or what we are to be'- 
 Jjeve and pradife : His Words are (hefe : " Hcvo f,vj 
 Truths and Duties could we prove a^ainfl Ophonents if 
 Confequences are denied r'- AuC r. InrUpe6t'of doctr. 
 nalTru'hs, Chrift aflured the Difciples, John xv. I.^ 
 ^// tha^t I have heard of my Father, Ihave made knowH 
 ^■S^V^rf: n See alfo D^^,/. xviih i8. And was not the 
 tioly Ghoft as faithful to commit all to§ Writing ? Yc-<= 
 verily ; feeing tire Scriprure is fo fufEcient in refpect of 
 Doctrine, ^c. iTim. iii. i6, ,7. as to make the Man 
 f)t Crod perfect, throughly furnifhtd unto all'sood Works 
 Is not proving Truths againft Opponents a good Work i^' 
 i^oubtlefs It is J and here the Holy Ghofl teflifies the Sufi 
 
 ficiency 
 
 t Morning Exercife, Page 201, 
 
 X Sermons on Sacranier.lai Occafions, Page i 3 i 
 
 f.1 J^n A^"'^ ""'^T "'^">' ^^'^^^^ ^h^^ft ^^'•o^ght to con- 
 2 ..yet all the Doe.nnes he received topublilh to his Church. 
 xvhKh were fo confirmed, are written. To the fame I'ur- 
 pofe, fee Morning Exercife, Page 17- 
 
[ 25 ] 
 £ciency of Scripture for it, without fo much as implying 
 that very few Points of Truths could be proven, unleis 
 Recourfe be had to Confequences. If the Cafe be as Mr; 
 F. fays, why did not he give us fome Inftances hereof, 
 at leaft one out of many ? What makes Errorifts of all 
 Sorts, and in ail Ages, decry the Sufficiency of Scripture 
 in fome Shape cr other, but a Deilgn to maintain and 
 propagate fome corrupt Notion ? And why fhould Mr. /!, 
 fymbolize with them herein, but becaufe he has the Cafe 
 ©f Infant Sprinkling in hand, which obliges him to dif- 
 parage the Sufficiency of Scripture Doctrine, contrary tu 
 Scripture Teftimony ? To me it is a flrong Evidence, 
 that that Doctrine is not of God, which ^Or its Defence 
 necefTarily forces its Votaries on difparaging tl">e Word of 
 God ; as tho' it was fome how infufficient, without Re- 
 courfe had, either to oral Traditions, new Revelations, 
 or fome fuppofed necellary Confequences, to make a 
 compleat Rule of Faith and Practice. Alas ! no wonder 
 if our Opponents countenance the Introduction of un- 
 fcriptural Baptifm, when they have Foreheads hard e- 
 nough with fuch glaring Injuftice to miireprefent the 
 Scripture itfelf ; as tho' of all Truths and Duties, which 
 we are to prove, there are but very few exprefly revealed 
 therein j than vvliich, vihat can be more wicked and 
 falfe? 
 
 '■ 3. In refpect of Practice he fays, " How few Duties 
 could we prove againji Opponents^ if Confequences are de- 
 tifd ? Reply. But hath not the Lord (hewed in his 
 Word, whatfoever he requires of Man in Point of Obe- 
 dience? And it is Man's Duty to keep his Command- 
 ments, and- to fay unto Opponents as the Godly of old 
 did J ** Thus hath the Lord commanded us." ASis xiii. 
 46. Luke xxiv. 47. Mr. F. cannot fay to his Oppo- 
 nents, in favour of Infant Baptifm, " Ihus hath the 
 Lord commanded us.''* He gives us here two Examples, 
 '* JVomens receiving the Supper, and Change of the Sah- 
 hath." As to the tirft, I have before cited a Scripture 
 * Kiftoiy of it: It may fuffice in this Place, to obferve, 
 that the Word Jnthropos, uled by the Apoflle, i Cor. xi. 
 
 2%. 
 '^ Jnti. Pa^e 81. 
 
C 26 ] 
 
 28. 13 of the Co7nmune Gender, and comprehends both 
 Sexes ; that is, *' Let a Mandr Woman,'* &c. which js 
 confiderably more exprefs than Mr. F. would infinuate. 
 As to the latter he fays, *' Nor is it near Jo eajy to •prove 
 the Change of the Sabbath from the feventh to the firjl 
 Day by Confequences, as to prove hifant Baptijm to be 
 light." Anf. This is not fo ; for there are apoflolical 
 , J^xamplcs for the Obfervation of the fiift Day of the 
 Week, which is exprefly called The Lord's Day ; but 
 there are none for Infant Baptifm, nor is it any where 
 called Ihe Lord's Ordinance. 
 
 His third Argument, defigned for the Refutation of 
 faid Principle, is thus : *' '2"u the Command of Chrijiy 
 in John v. 39. that xve fearch the Scriptures j hut if we 
 are not to regard neceffary Confequences., it is quite needlefs 
 to fearch ; for alt Things lie on the Surface." Anf. By 
 Things lying on the Surface, I underftand he means 
 Things that are plainly exprelTed. But to regard theho]y 
 Scriptures only as the Word of God, does not render 
 our Search needltfs ; for Chrift referred the unbelieving 
 yews to them : And becaufe the Scriptures contained 
 exprefs Teftimonies concerning himfelf, that he was the 
 Mejfiah, therefore he commanded the Jews to fearch 
 them (1 hope Mr. F. will not fay, there are not a Multi- 
 tude of exprefs Teftimonies concerning Chrift in the 
 Prophets) And. why will not the fame Reafon hold good 
 at this Day, that we fliould fearch the Scriptures, to 
 jcnow and believe their exprefs Teftimony concerninfT 
 the whole Will of God ? Mr. F. brings that as an Ar- 
 gument againft fearching the Scriptures, which Chrifl 
 brings for it. Chrift bids us fearch them, becaufe they 
 contain exprefs Teftimonies concerning himfelf j Mr. F. 
 teaches it is quite needlefs to fearch the Scriptures, when 
 Things are plainly exprefled, or lie on the Surface. 
 When his Dodrine ftands in Oppofition to Chrift's, the' 
 It may fuit him the beft to uphold an anti-fcriptural 
 Pradlice, we think it quite needlefs to regard it ; and 
 therefore reje(5l it with deferving Abhorrence. Hence it 
 appearr, we are under no Neceflity to regard Confequen- 
 ces as the Word of God, nor yet diminifh ought from 
 
 our 
 
[ 27 ] 
 pur Obedience to thjs Command of fearching the Scrip* 
 
 ^^^T' " On this Plan (fays he) 'tis an Impertinence far 
 Minl/Iers to pretend to explain Scripture ; for the DcSirmiS 
 drawn from it, by vecefary Confeauencc. are not ia oe e. 
 fteemedas the Mind of God" Anf. Having vitwcu.ch.s 
 Argument, with his Defign therein, ^ ^^ferve it r. la 
 Ihortof Stature, and has fuch a downward Calt of the 
 Eve that it will not look towards tiie Point m ^.and, 
 unlefs Mr. F. or fome other, will undertake to give it a 
 topping Lift, and place thole Explanatioiis and >«^''f ^ 
 ^rire^pon the high Afcent of infali^bihry Does^Mr. 
 F. call the Comments, Explanations or Gloiresot.-UY 
 f.€urs Henry, Flavcll, Sydenham.^ the Word of God.?- il 
 fo why does not he cite thtir Words in this LqntnM-ier- 
 f/, wherein he is fo pinchinoly ftranenM tor divine i.u. 
 ■ thority, and fay, ", Thus fuV^ the Lord^" iN^aymorc, 
 if fo, why not his own Gloffes, his Arguments, U^ 
 Charitable Plea and Vindication, all to be the Ward of 
 God, without Contradiction f If not, is it an imper- 
 tinence in him or them to pretend to explain Scriptuie 
 according to their Underftanding ? And alter all to lub- 
 ; init their Explanations and Doctrines to the Determina- 
 ' tion of the Supreme Judge, even tlie holy Scriptures i 
 Bv which all Doctrines advanced by Men aie to be exa- 
 mined, and religious Controverfies decided ^ and no 
 Doctrines are to be efleemed as the Mind of God, which 
 he hath not fpokeri in his Woid. The Doanneof Be- 
 lievers Baptifm isexpreffed in his Word, ana therefore I 
 can very confiftently believe it to be the Truth of God, 
 and at the fame time denv any others to be fit Subjects.- - 
 I think there is a large Field for Minifters to labour in, 
 without incurring the Chargeof Impertinence on the one 
 Hand, or prefuming, on the other, to put their unin- 
 fnired Comments and Explanations on an Equality with 
 the infpired Writings, and then call ih^m. The h or d of 
 God ; which to do, would be the highefl Act of Treafon 
 againft the King of Heaven, and thereby cxpofe them- 
 fdves to the moft awful Curfes denounced in the Booic 
 of God, Diut, iv. 2» Prov, xxx, 6. Rev, xxn. i8. And, 
 
[ 28 ] . 
 m my Judgment, 'tis Honour fufficient to what you may 
 call neceirary Confequences, to fet them on an Equalitv 
 with the unmfpired Comments and Explanations of 
 Men without attributing to them the Name of the inr 
 
 wit'h thTm ''"^'' ""' ^^'^""'"S '^^^^ °f ^q^al Authority 
 
 /?w r ^n f' ^^^ ^^^'" ^^^ "^^ 'nujijay, Godwillnot 
 -frf, V ^ '^'' '''''^^"■^ C.«^^^.„.., ,/ hh Wordr Anf 
 well, If we fay fo, pray what Text of Scripture (hall 
 we contradict ? Yea, or what Scripture Article of Faith 
 Ihall we difannul, or make void ? Says he, " We dare 
 irujimne of them, if even the Jitongcfi Confequences are 
 no dtvtneAuthomyr Anf. By/ no Means'; feeing you 
 have nothmg elffe, when yourftrongeft Gonfequences for 
 inlant Sprinkling carry you to practife what is repugnant 
 to the Scripture Doctrine, and to all the Scriptur? Ex- 
 amples of Baptifm. Further he fays, -. If the necejary 
 ^onfequenu of any Text can foffibly h falfe, the Text iL 
 M ts faf i for tt IS a fef evident Maxim, that nothing 
 but Truth can natively and regularly follow from Truths. 
 Doubtlefs every Word of God is perfect Truth ; but the 
 Uncertainty is in refpect of the Confequence ; for what 
 )s It but the Judgment of fallible Men, that this or that 
 Js natively deducible, or not deducible, from fuch a Text? 
 J^or Inftance, in the Cafe before us, what one Confe- 
 quence, which our Opponents bring for Infant Baptifm, 
 JS It that IS natively deduced from the Texts they cite ? 
 And yet thefe Mr. K will have to be the Word of God 
 Again; obferve, '' That God's knowing every pofible Con^ 
 jequence ofzvbat he Ims revealed^ adds no Strength to 
 Air i' s Obfervation, neither carries any Weight in it 
 to ferve his Purpofe;--.for God equally knows all the 
 corrupt Glofles which would be made on his Word, and 
 ■^W the finfu! Abufes of it ; are they therefore to be al- 
 iowed ;> Jn no wife : So neither is Mr. Fs Infinuation, 
 that Confequences are the Mind and Will of God, be- 
 caufe he knows them, or iox^{2,\v them. 
 
 Says he, " Mr. M. is obliged either 'to refute thefe Ar. 
 iume?its with others that may be urged, or no longer Jay, 
 ^bat we have no divine JVarrant for our Pra^ice, if wc 
 
 have 
 
[ 29 ] 
 
 have it by necejfary Conjequence" Anf. Whether I have 
 ref'uted thefe Arguments, the Reader may judge if he 
 pleafes : But I hope to be exculed for not refuting his o- 
 ther Arguments, which he fays might be urged, or fay 
 with Mr. * F. they are nothing to the Purpofe, before I 
 fee them. Perhaps they contain his Proof, which he 
 thought beft to leave to the f Poftfcript : However, he 
 is fo extremely confident that the Principle he oppofes is 
 corrupt, that when he hath no more Arguments to offer, 
 he declares he would J die, rather than fubfcribe it ; 
 but I don't know that our Controverfy is to be deter- 
 mined by fuch noify Pretences, and vain Declarations ; 
 which is the vulgar Pradice of profligate Perfons, 
 in confirming tfieir AfTertions j neither do I think 
 that his dying in the Cafe would be any Decifion 
 of the controverted Point,; or that his efi^ufed Blood 
 would give any divine Sandion to his Opinion, or 
 refute the Contrary: We look for his Arguments, or 
 Scripture Authorities ; and if they manifeflly fail him, 
 he may keep his Declarations about Dying, at Home. 
 Hence, it does not yet appear, that I am under anyNe- 
 ceflity of owning he has any divine Authority for his 
 Pradice : The Rule § of Faith ought to be certain, 
 clear and plain, prefcnbed by God alone ; received and 
 publick : But are Confequcnces fo ? If all Confequences, 
 however oppofiteone to the other, that Men of different 
 and contrary Judgments pretend to draw from Scripture 
 as neceflary and native, mufl be all effeemed the Word 
 of God j then it follows, the Word of God is contrary 
 toitfelf: But if only fome of them. Where has our 
 Author given us any certain Rule to know, what Con- 
 fequences do necelFarily and natively follow from Scrip- 
 ture ? What one thinks to be fo, another thinks not fo; 
 ?nd is there any Man, or Sett of Men, deputed by an 
 higher Power, and placed above the Rtfl, to draw Con- 
 fequences infallibly, that all others muft fubmit to them, 
 on the Peril of rejeding the Word of God ? If there 
 be, we would know who they are, and alfo a full Proof 
 
 of 
 
 * VinJ. Page 112. f lb. Page 56. % lb. Page 78. 
 § Vid, Mr. T?nnint''% T^'enty-three Sermons, Page 80, &c. 
 
L 30 ] 
 
 of their being inverted with fuch a Truft : But if not; 
 then we may as juftly draw Confequences, and call them 
 native and tieceflary ; and urge them on our Opponents, 
 in dire{Si: Oppofition to their Confequences, to be re- 
 ceived and efteemed as the Word of God, as they do 
 on the contrary : And what a flrange Piece of Work 
 would it be, for every differing Sect, to have the Word 
 of God by Confequence fully on their Side, and "at the 
 fame Time fully contrary to itfelf ! But I think it is a 
 very furc and certain Rule, thofc Confequences, tho' 
 they be called neccffary and native, are not fo, nor in 
 the leaft to be efteemed the Word of God, or his Mind, 
 which tend to introduce any Dodlrine repugnant to the 
 Dodirins cxprefTed by Qod, in his VVofd j and fuch is 
 the Dc6lrinc of Infant-Baptifm, which fliews the Con- 
 fequences drawn in its Favour, are not genuine. Again ; 
 A neceflary Confequence (fo called) from Scrpture 
 to be the Word of God, feems to be a Contradiilion irl 
 Terms; for if it be the Word of God, God hach fpo- 
 kcn it, and 'tis no more a Confequence j it is either 
 Scripture, or not Scripture ; if it is Scripture, it is ex- 
 prefs'd by God, and cannot be a Confequence; if not 
 Scripture, it is not the Word of God. But further ; 
 
 Where does our Author find the pecuhar diftinguifh- 
 ing Properties of God's Word, any where attributed to 
 Confequences ? As i. That they are divinely infpircd : 
 To give the Name of the infpired Writings, to Confe- 
 quences drawn by Men, who are uninipired ; or to kt 
 uninfpired Confequences on a Par with the infpired 
 Writing?, muft be altogetl^er unwarrantable; 'tis to 
 make no Diftinftion where there is the greateft Diffe- 
 rence ; 'tis to fmk the proper and peculiar Dignity of 
 Holy Scripture : The Attempt is fu rely bold, and the 
 AiTertion dingerous ! 2. The Word cf God is certain 
 and infallible ; but to fay that Confequences drawn by 
 Men are infallible, is'to fay, that uninfpired Men can- 
 not be miftaken. Mr. F. indeed,- juft mentions that 
 Chrift proved the Refurre(5tioa by Confequence, Page 
 78. but it feems, the Inftance would not bear Iniprove- 
 ment by Application to the Cafe in Hand : The Doc- 
 
 t'ine 
 
[ 31 ] 
 
 trine of the Refurre^tion is abundantly proved by expref? 
 Scriptures, which Infant Baptifm is not : What Chrift 
 faid, was the Word of God ; he was infalhble, and 
 could not be miflaken, but Mr. F. may ; for Men 
 have been miftaken in their Confequences from the Word 
 of God, and there is no Certainty but they may again. 
 
 * Auguftine^ one of the Fathers, inferred the Neceffi- 
 ty of communicating little Children from Johnv'i. 53; 
 and took his Confequence to be an evident Truth, as 
 our Opponents do theirs ; and imagined nothing but Ob • 
 ftinacy would refift it. Others again, have inferred 
 the abfolute Neceility of baptizing Infants, front 
 yohn iii. 5.^ Some of the Difciples concluded from the 
 Words of the Lord, in John xxi. 2i, 22, 23. that the 
 beloved Difciple flwuld not die : They were good Men, 
 gracious and Confcientious Men ; and what are our Op- 
 ponents more ? It appeared to them to be a necefiary 
 Confequence, native and regular, from the Word of the 
 Lord ; they underflood Chrift fhould have faid, the be- 
 loved Difciple fhould tarry till he came- --thence con- 
 cluded, it necefTarily and unavoidably followed that he 
 ftiould not die: Will it be faid, they mifapprehended 
 the Words of Chrift, and therefore their Confequence; 
 was wrong? Pray what Evidence can our Opponents 
 give us that theirs is not the fame Cafe ? But furely they 
 thought they did not, and that their Confequence was 
 necefTary and regular, or elfe it would never have paft 
 fo current among the Brethren for Divine Authority^ or 
 the Word of God, that the beloved Difciple fhould not 
 die : And what can our Opponents fay more .? Why, 
 indeed the Saying is gone abroad among the Brethren, 
 that Believers Infants ftiould be baptized ; but as ill- 
 grounded as the other : Nay, in this their Confequence 
 exceeded thofe of our Opponents, tho' it was contrary 
 to Scripture Teftimony in general, which inform'd them, 
 that all Men muft die, Pf. Ixxxix. 48. yet there were 
 two Examples to fupport it, of Men, who were the 
 fpecial Favourites of Heaven, that did not fee Death, 
 to wit, Enoch and Elijah. But the fuppofed native and 
 
 necefiary 
 
 * Vid. Monficur La Roque*i HiHory of Eucharifi, P. 128. 
 
[ 32 3 
 
 receflary Gonfequences of our Opponents for Infant 
 Sprinkling, are not only contrary to the whole Account 
 of Scripture, in the Cafe of Baptifm ; but have no Ex- 
 ample at all therein for fuch a Pra(5tice to fupport them. 
 Now if Confequences l;iave fail'd once, they are not 
 to be depended upon as certain and infallible j they are 
 not a proper Foundation of Faith ; for furely, that can 
 never be the Ground of Faith, which in its Kind hath 
 failed opce : And if good and gracious Men have recei- 
 ved Confequence for the Word of the Lord, or divine 
 Authority, which was not fo, let us, being informed of 
 their Error, avoid falling into the like Miftake ; let us 
 cleave to the Scripture only, as that which is certain and 
 infallible, 2 Pet. i. 19. The Evangeiift obfefves, " Tet 
 Jefus [aid not unto him^ he fixtll not die-- -But ^ if I 
 will that he tarry till I conie^ So the Lord faid not that 
 the Infant Seed of Believers are vifibly in the Covenant 
 of Grace- — But, that the Bleffing of Abraham might 
 come on the Gentiles, thro' Jefus Chrift, &c. Uc. 
 
 On this Head, pur Author talks of Commands by 
 Confequence-— of Reading by unavoidable Confequence, 
 fomething that is not written, or exprefTed in the Book 
 which he reads. Tho' Mr. F. may pleafe himfelf with 
 the Conceit, that the People he oppoles, are a Company 
 of mere Ignaro's, fit to be entertained with any Tale 
 which comes to his Mind ; yet one might think, a due 
 Regard to his judicious Readers, would oblige him to 
 treat them with better 'i^n^t^ than this comes to ; and 
 in Honour to his Caufs fhevv them, tb?t he has furer 
 Grounds for his Principles, than unexpreffed Proofs, 
 and flronger Defence againft his Opponents than unwrit- 
 ten Texts! Who will fay, but this Art of Reading in., 
 Scripture, what is not written in Scripture, is a rare 
 Art, much in Practice among thofe, whofe Principles 
 require a large Bible to fupport them ? I defire to be in- 
 formed, how we fliall know, whether the fubjed Mat- 
 ter thus read, be the Mind of the Author, or only the 
 Imagination of the Reader I i. e. Whether Mr. F. here- 
 by reads the Truths of God, or his own Dreams ? Jer, 
 xxiii. 26, 28, 31. It feems to me, this Reading of 
 
 his 
 
[ 33 ] 
 
 his (like little Childrens reading white Paper) is not di- 
 feded by any Words of the Book read, but by the arbi- 
 trary Pleafure of the Reader's Mind, under the fair Pre- 
 tence of unavoidable Confequence : If ever there was 
 an Invention found out, more efFedtual, to make the 
 Scripture a leaden Rule, and a moveable Dial to fuit al! 
 Mens Meafures and Purpofes, than this, l&t the Wife 
 declare ? And upon this I would afk again, did the My- 
 ftery of Iniquity at any time ereft a more advantageous 
 Refuge for the Safety of Error, than this is ? For, by 
 readmg in Scripture what is not written in it, or by 
 taking up that out of it, which never was laid down iit 
 it. Men have found out Peter's, and his SuccefTors Pri- 
 macy---the'real Prefence-— the Prieft's Power to forgive 
 Sins-- -voluntary Poverty--- Pennance, ISc. if * Stories 
 are right. And by this fame profitable Invention Mr, 
 F. reads, " That Believers Infants are vifihly in the Co- 
 venant of. Grace —A divine Command for baptizing In- 
 fants— Their Right to a New-Tejiament Ordinance—^ 
 And that Infants were Members in the -primitive Churches 
 planted by the Apr>Jiles" And who can tell, but Men of 
 long Heads, and fharp Eyes, by the Help of this fame 
 Art, will read in Scripture Ten Thoufand Things more, 
 which were never exprefTcd nor contained therein ? But 
 if, after all the Cry and Confidence, we deny Mr. Fs 
 Pofitions to be true, which he has advanced by this kind 
 of Reading, how will he help himfelf ? He can't dire£t 
 us to the Scriptures, and f*y of each, *' It is written" 
 No ; but only to his Confequences : If it be further de- 
 manded, whether his Confequences may be depended 
 upon for divine Authority ? He anfwers. Yes ; But there 
 is no divine Word produced by him, to prove his Afler- 
 tion : So then, when we come to the lafl of the Matter, 
 the Sum is this. Believers Infants are vifibly in Cove- 
 hant---have a Right to Baptifm---were Members of the 
 apoflolical Churches— -and commanded to be baptized 5 
 for which, inftead of Proof, . you have Mr, Fs bare 
 Word, if that will fatisfie you i but God's Word tells 
 
 C yovi 
 
 * Vid. Cartvjrigbt, on the New-Teftament, Pa^c 220. 
 
[ 34 ] 
 ydti ho fuch Thing, therefore let your Principles be no 
 Jarger than your Bibles. 
 
 Mr. R comes at length to his firft Aflertion, which 
 is, " TJjot the Infant Seed of Church Members were once 
 by divine Appointment taken into Covenant with their Pa- 
 rents, had the then Seal of it apply^d to them^ and fo were 
 Members of the vifible Church'* In my former Publica- 
 tion, I {hew'd the Weaknefs and Inconclufivenefs of 
 the Argument from the Covenant, fuppofing (but not ' 
 granting) the Cafe to be, even as our Opponents urge, 
 that Believers Infants were onee taken into Covenant 
 With their Parents} and to difcover the Invalidity of 
 their Argument thence, I obferved, " That there were 
 true Believers in Abraham'^ Days, viz. Shem, Melchi- 
 zedeck and Lot, yet they were not circumcifed ; and if 
 gracious Men, -who lived in the Days of Abraham were 
 not circumcifed, hecaufe God had not appointed or command- 
 ed them ; jHuch lefs then are the carnal Seed of Believers 
 now to he baptized without his Command or Appointment. 
 Hence we learn, it was not a being in the Covenant y 
 which gave any one a Warrant or Title to Ordinances^ hut 
 the exprefs Order and pofitive Command of God." Mr. 
 /l replies, " Here are a Parcel of InJlru£lions and 
 Obfervations, that feem to make for Mr. M'j Caufe (it 
 is well he grants fo rnuch) but fays, we.muji have a new 
 Bible to warrant our receiving them J* Anf. 1 readily 
 acknowledge our Opponents mull have a new Bible to 
 refute them ; for according -to our Bible, Lot had no 
 Command to be circumcifed, and for him to be cir- 
 cumcifed without God's Command, would be Will- 
 worftiip, as * before. 
 
 Says he, " May we not htre argue a fortiore ; if 
 righteous Lot, Abraham'^ KinJ?nan, -would have greatly 
 fmned, in being circumcifed, much more Pagan Profelytes. '* 
 Anf. I charg'd my Opponents before, with making 
 light of God's exprefs Order, as an indifferent Thing ; 
 here h further Ground for the fame Charge, and tliere- 
 fore have Occafion again to remind Mr. F. of his over- 
 looking God's Order and Commands : 'Twas lawful for 
 
 an 
 * A/iti, Page 20, 
 
t 35 ] 
 
 an Edomlte^ or Egyptian^ who renounced his Idolatry, 
 to be circumcifed, and to enter into the Congregation ; 
 and why ? Becaufe the Lord ordered fo, Deut, xxiii. 
 But will this prove that it was lawful for Lot^ without 
 God's Command, to be circumcifed ? Very far from it. 
 Mr. F. Teems to have taken no Notice of God's Com- 
 mand, which makes fo great Difference in the Cafe, or 
 elfe he pays fo little Regard to it, that whether there be a 
 Command or not, the Difference, in his Judgment, is 
 not worth the minding : The Sum total of the Force of 
 his Argument a fortiore, juft amounts to this; that it 
 is as lawful for one good Man to do that without God's 
 Commands, as it is for another to do it with them ; if 
 this is a good Argument, let him inform his Readers 
 the next time what is not. 
 
 *' Circumcifton ('fays he) was a Seal of the Rights ouf- 
 nefs of Faith ; but Lot had Faith^ therefore it was lawful 
 for him to have the Seal of it." Anf. It was \o to Abra- 
 ham j but the Scriptures inform us o^ no other, who 
 received Circumcifton, a Seal of the Righteoufnefs of 
 Faith which he had yet being uncircumcifed, befides the 
 Father of the Faithful: It is inconclufive to argue from. 
 ' a Particular to a General ; let Mr. F. prove, that all 
 who had Faith, had a Right to Circumcifion ; and to 
 do this, he mufl: fliew God's Command to circumcife 
 all Believers, when the Scriptures extend it no furthet 
 for Hundreds of Years, than to Abraham and his 
 Houfhold in their Generations, Gen. xvii. And if the 
 Lord did not give the Covenant of Circumcifion to Lot 
 (but to Abraham^ ASis vii. 8.) nor commanded him to 
 be circumcifed, it will follow, that it was not lawful 
 for him to be circumcifed, tho' he had Faith. T^er« 
 is nothingi^re which helps our Opponent's Caufe, unlefs 
 it be this Maxim, that it is lawful for a Believer to do 
 that which God commanded him not; and let him 
 make the beft Advantage he can hereof in Defence of 
 his Principles. 
 
 I faid God had not commanded Lot to be circumcifed ; 
 
 hereupon Mr. F. afks, " But how is this evident ? TVs 
 
 imU read, that he was commanded by Name,, neither it 
 
 C 2 Mr, 
 
[ 3^ ] 
 
 Mr. M. coinmanded by Na7ne to be a Chrijhanin all the Bi- 
 ble ; is it therefore Will luorjhip and Prefumption in him to 
 he one?" Anf. Not at all ; and I wifh 1 was abetter 
 Chriftian than I am ; but I think this to be no parallel 
 Cafe: Compariions, they fay, don't run upon all-four-- 
 ic is well if Mr. F\ Comparifon here can hop a little 
 upon one : Wherever the Gofpel is preached, God com- 
 mands all Perfons, capable of hearing, without Di- 
 ilin6tion, to be Chriftians, or to repent and believe the 
 Gofpel, which is the fame Thing ; but there was no 
 Command given to all in general to be circumcifed ; 
 there v/as that very great Man Melchi-zedec^ King of 
 Salem^ and Pri.yl of the mojl high God, Gen. xiv. i8. 
 greater than Abraham^ Heb. vii. 4, 7. and it is alfo very 
 reafonable to fuppofe there were at leaft fome, if not 
 ■very many truly gracious Perfons at Salem., amoiigft 
 Vv^hom fo excellent a Man reigned and miniftered in his 
 Prieftly Office, yet the Command to circumcife was not 
 given in general to all Believers and their Seed (which if 
 it was, it would indeed have included holy MelchizedeCy 
 Lot., and oihers, even ail the Godly then in the Worldj 
 but in particular to Abraham., and his Seed, in their Ge- 
 nerations, to thofe born in his Houfe, and bought with hism 
 Money, Gen. xvii. 12, 13, 26, 27. Lot was not one 
 in Abraham's Family, Gen. xiii. 14. and fo coulS not 
 be circumcifed as one of thetn ;*and Mr. F. fays he- was 
 not commanded by Name : Nor have we any Account 
 that God give any Orders about Profelytes, till Ifrael\ 
 Return oat of Egypt ; hen'ce it appears" on all Confide- 
 rations, that Lot was not commanded to be circumcifed. 
 " But fuppofe ('fays he) what Mr. M. fays, were true., 
 how will the ArguTTlent ftand ? Not circumcijed, therefore 
 not in Abraham'^ Covenant j juji as if Circff^ifon was 
 the Covenant, and the Covenant nothing but Circumcifion; 
 whereas i^e are in Abraham'j Covenant, yet we are not 
 circumcifed." Anf. Well, let us fuppofe too, that it 
 was even fo that there were godly Perfons in Abraham'^ 
 Covenant, and yet not circumcifed ; then it flill follows, 
 that being in Covenant does not entitle Perfons to an 
 Ordinance j elfe why were not thofe godly Men circum- 
 cifed t 
 
[ 37 ] 
 
 died ? Let Mr. F. fpeak out, was it not becaufe they 
 were not commanded ? And if our Opponents be in A- 
 iraham's Covenant, yet it does not entitle their Infants 
 to Baptifm without a Command, as hereafter will ap- 
 pear. 
 
 Having gone thus far, Mr. F. fays, *' Now fince his 
 Foundation is rozV, the SuperftruBure cannot Ji and ^ he 
 has tio Argument now left to prove, that being in Cove- 
 nant gives no Title to Ordinances" Anf. But that is a 
 great Miftalce of his ; iiotwithftanding his leveral At- 
 tempts made againft it, my Foundation abides unfhaken, 
 which is, that there were Perfons in Abraham's Day in 
 the Covenant of Grace, and yet were not circurncifed, 
 becaufe not commanded ; and my Superftru£lure is well 
 fixed upon the Foundation, that being in Covenant does 
 not therefoYe entitle Perfons to Ordinances: Nor is thers 
 any Need I fhould offer further Arguments on this Head, 
 till what I have advanced be overthrown. 
 
 Page 9. Mr. F. proceeds, and afks feveral Queflions, 
 *' TVill he ajfert that fealing Ordinances are adminijiered 
 cut of the Covenant. If be own Baptifm is commanded to. 
 be difpenfed on a fpiritual Account, then I would know 
 whether fpiritual Favours come to us, otherwife than by. 
 way of Covenant ?' If he fay-— only by way of Covenant, 
 the Point is gaind \ and thence it will follow, that being 
 in covenant gives a Right to fealing Ordinances, and no- 
 thing beftdes can give it." Anf. I have already obferved 
 the Command to circumcife was not given in general to 
 all Believers and their Seed ; now the Queftion is, whe- 
 ther all that were in covenant, had a Right to Ordi- 
 nances without God's Command ? Pray, did fpiritual 
 Favours come to Lot, and the reft, otherwife than by- 
 Covenant ? And if only by way of Covenant, why was 
 not Lot, and all Believers, and their Seed, then circurn- 
 cifed ? If it gives a Right to fealing Ordinances at one 
 Time without a Command, why not at all Times ? 
 Why not to the Behevers of old, if to the unbelieving 
 Infants now ? Nay, on Mr. F's Plan, what Need is 
 there of a Command at all ? Our Author is as far as 
 ever from gaining the Point, unlets he had (hewn, that 
 G 3 beir^g 
 
[ 38 ] 
 
 being in Covenant, entitles all Believers to Ordinances, 
 without God's Command : But he has not, and, I pre- 
 fume, never can {hew, that it ever entitled one to an 
 Ordinance, without God's exprefs Order. 
 
 '* But (fays he) what tho' Lot had neither been in 
 Abraham'j Covenant, nor yet had Right to Circunicifion ? 
 It would not hurt our Caufe^ who take Abraham for the 
 Prefident of our Privileges^ and not Lot." And then 
 with fufficient Warmth, he further adds, " So that his 
 Argument would have been equally good^ had he /aid Con- 
 itantine was not circumcifed, therefore Believers Infants 
 may not be baptized'^ Anf. If Lot^ being a gracious Man, 
 and yet had no Right to Circumcifion, then being in 
 Covenant does not entitle Perfons to Ordinances, yvhich 
 hurts their Caufe fo much, that it even overturns their 
 very Foundation of Infants Baptifm ; which is built up- 
 on the Notion of Believers Infants being in Covenant : 
 For if it once appears, as I think it does, that there 
 were any of pld in the Covenant of Grace, and yet not 
 -entitled to the Ordinance then being; it teaches us plain- 
 ly, that in our adminiftring and receiving of Ordinances, 
 we mufl: have God's exprefs Order, and pofitive Com- 
 mand, to give us a Warrant or Title to them refpedively, 
 and nothing elfe can give it ; otherwife to receive Or- 
 dinances, is neither a Priviledge nor Duty. And tho' our 
 Opponents take Abraham for the Prefident of their Pri- 
 viledges, their Difficulty is not one Whit rernoved, for 
 reither Abraham himfelf, nor his Infant Seed, had any 
 Right to Circumcifion, till he received the Command of 
 God for it ; and as our Opponents have not (hewn any 
 Command of God to baptize their Infants (on the.Sup- 
 pofition their Seed were in Covenant) yet without the 
 Order of God they have no more Right to Baptifm, 
 than Lot had to Circumcifion ; or Abraham before hd 
 was commanded. Mr. i^'s vaft Stretch in putting Con- 
 Jlantine on a Par with Lot here, muft furely be the 
 Fruit of fome over-heated Paffion, and not the Refult 
 of deliberate Judgment : For that old purblind Gentle- 
 man Common Sense, to whofe Judgment he fubmits 
 his Performance, will foon difcover his Error in this 
 
 Cafe, 
 
[ 39 ] 
 
 Cafe, viz. That Circumcifion was in Force in Lst't 
 Day, but in the Time of Conjiantine it was abolifhed. 
 
 Having thus followed Mr. F, thro' ail he offers o\\ 
 this Head with any Shew of Argument, i-can't but ob- 
 ferve on the whole, that he talks like one much at a 
 Lofs what to fay, and, trying to make good his Caufe, 
 he overlooks God's Commands, and fails into a great 
 Abfurdity in his Argument, in preferring the good 
 Qualifications of a Man as a better Topick to difcourfe 
 from, than divine Appointments. I have only now to 
 add his Declaration, Page 7&-. " T:hat he would chufe 
 Death rather than fubjcrile thefe Points ;" viz. That Lot 
 would have been guilty of Will-v/orfbip, had he been 
 circumcifed i and that being in Covenant gives no Ti- 
 tle to Ordinances. This Declaration it feems is intend- 
 ed to fupply his Want of Argument, and probably it 
 may do Wonders among thofe who implicitly believe all 
 he advances by his reading unwritten Things : But with 
 thofe, who are for feeing with their own Eyes in Mat- 
 ters of Religion, and are * not willing to give one De- 
 gree of AfTent to any Propofition beyond the Evidence 
 pf its Truth, a Declaration of this Kind, is but an In- 
 dication of a bad Caufe. 
 
 Thus I h^ve fliewn the Inconclufivenefs of their Ar- 
 gument from the Covenant, on the Suppofition the Cafe 
 was, as they urge j and I am fo far from being obliged 
 to unfay, what I h^ve before faid, as Mr. R fondly ima- 
 gines, that the Way is clear for me to fay again, ** That 
 their PraSiice of baptizing In/ants is unwarrantable, and 
 an Aa of Will-worjhip^ even when examined on tks 
 Grounds, whereby they would fain confirm it." 
 
 In order to obviate a common Objection of theirs, 
 which is, " That Infants were formerly circumcifed, and 
 they ought noiv to be baptized r I argued, " Ihe Cafes 
 are not parallel ; there was God's Command for the former ^ 
 but not fo for the latter. -That Mr. F. makes light of God's 
 pofitive Commands and exprefs Order, as an indifferent 
 Thing, whetihe afferts, they ham as good Ground to bap- 
 me Infants, as Abraham had to circumcife them." To 
 
 C 4 wnicK 
 
 * Preface, Page 4. 
 
[ 40 ] 
 which he brifkly reph^es, " If then we have the fame Co- 
 venant, have we not the fame Grounds P Let Common Senfc 
 witnefs whether this be a making Light of God's tofitive 
 Orders." Anf. All the fame ! Mraham had the (Jove'- 
 nant, at Jeaft Twenty-four Years, before he had any 
 Ground to circumcifc, Gen. xii. 2, 3, 4. Heb. xi. 8. 
 compared with Gen. xvii. i, 7. But what gave him 
 Ground to circumcife was God's pofitivc Command, 
 jvbich was inftitutive of that Ordinance of Circumci- 
 fion, Gen. xvii. 9. And when he, and all his, were cir- 
 cumcifed, it was by Virtue of, and in Compliance with 
 Gods Command, Gen. xvii. 23. Circumcifion dep?nd- 
 •ed on a divme Command ; upon this was it founded ; 
 ihis gave a Being to that Ordinance ; when Abraham re- 
 ceived the Command, then did his Right to Circumci- 
 ion commence; and by Virtue hereof was Circumci- 
 !on continued ; and when the Command was revoked, it 
 reafed : Had it been founded on the Covenant, or hid 
 "hat exclufive of, or antecedent to, a Command, beert 
 rnltitutive of this Ordinance, or given a Right to it, 
 why was not ^^r^A^/w circumcifed before he received the - 
 Command.? Did he difobey God all that while in this 
 Cafe r Did he Jive for fo long a Time in the Neglea of 
 his rightful Privilege? Surely No. Now if cur Oppo- 
 nents have the fame Covenant, yet having no pofitive 
 inftitution for baptizing Infants, their having the Co- 
 venant will give them no more Ground to baptize In- 
 fants,^ wi^thout the Inflitution of Infant-baptifm, or hav- 
 ing God's Command for it, than Abraha7n\ havino- the 
 Covenant Twenty- four Years, gave him Ground to 
 circumcife before he vi^as commanded. And, ifour Op- 
 ponents don't make light of God's Commands, what 
 makes them affert they fland on equal Ground with A- 
 braham? Their Argument from their having the fame 
 Covenant, you fee is altogether groundlefs and invalid • 
 Abraham had the Command of God to circumcifc In- 
 fants, and that only which gave any a Right to Circum- 
 cihon ; but our Opponents have none to baptize them, 
 and yet fay, they have as good Ground as he: To what 
 Jurpofc thenfervcs the Command of God? 'Tis evi- 
 
 dentlj 
 
[ 41 ] 
 
 rientlyan indifferent Thing, if the Cafe be To, whether 
 there be a Command or not. Their Argument come* 
 juft to this, that the Covenant gives them as good Ground, 
 •wfthout any Command, to adminifter an uninftituted 
 Ceremony, even Infant- fprinkling, as Abraham^ when 
 commanded, had, to adminifter an inftituted Ordinance. 
 Does Mr. F. defign his Aflertion here, and his Talk 
 about it to be in Part, that plain Demonftration, he* 
 fpeaks of, which I fhould fubmit to? Truly, fhould I 
 yield to fuch groundlefs Affertions, and Anti^fcriptural 
 Pofitions, I might indeed be juftly charged to have at 
 once quitted my Claim to Honefty and Common Senfe. 
 
 Says he, " Is the Covenant of God nothing in Mr M'j 
 Ejieem ?" Yes, very much ; nor have I aflerted any thing 
 to the contrary : Why is this Qiieftion afk'd, but becaufe 
 I oppos'd his prefumptuous Abufe of the Covenant, to 
 countenance the Practice of an uncommanded Ceremo~ 
 ny ? He adds, " Are his Commands to be conjidered as 
 having no Relation to his Covenant f Can we have his Co- 
 venant^ and not his Command? Don't Mr. M, knovj that 
 tue are fo far from difregarding God's Command., that., on 
 the contrary., we injiji it warrants our PraSiice ?" Anf* 
 I have Ihewn already, that Abraham had his Covenant 
 a long while before he had the Command to circumcife ; 
 and muft Mr. F. be told again, that if they have the 
 fame Covenant now, it is nothing to their Purpofe in 
 Dilpute, without an exprefs Command, And if Mr. F. 
 knows of any, let him (hew it ; for my Part, I know 
 of no divine Command they have to infift on, which 
 warrants their Pradice of Infant- baptifm : Their infift- 
 ing that the abrogated Command to circumcife Infants, is 
 any ways in Force now to baptife them, involves our 
 Opponents in a Labyrinth of inextricable Dif?iculties » 
 when they go about to fhew, how a Command, which, 
 when it was in Force, never required any to be baptized, 
 but now being wholly difanull'd, fhould neverthelefs be 
 fufficiently f valid to warrant their Practice, or in any 
 way authorize their baptizing of Infants, is fuch a labo- 
 rious 
 
 * Preface^ Page S. f Divine Right, Pa^e 20, 
 
[ 42 ] 
 rious Tafk, they cannot go through with, at leaft they 
 have not let us know tHfey can. 
 
 Having taken a Review of the Ground of our Au- 
 thor's Pretences, we find him much where he was, re- 
 peating his Aflertion unfupported by Scripture, and un- 
 juftly advancing to an Equality with Abraham : I fhall 
 therefore put it to him again, as a Cafe of Confcience, 
 Is the exprefs Order of God nothing in his Efleem ? Does 
 the Command of God make no difFerence in the Cafe in 
 his Account ? Has he as good Ground to proceed with- 
 out it, as Abraham or others with it ? Let perpetual 
 Darknefs fully his prefumptuous Lines of infatuated Zeal— , 
 I am ftill quite free to fay, my Opponent can never make 
 good his Aflertion, for there is an eternal Difference be- 
 twixt what God has commanded, and what he has not. 
 
 Moreover, in refpedi of the Covenant mentioned in 
 his firft Affertion, into which they fay Infants were ta- 
 ken with their Parents, I obferved, our Opponents run 
 themfelves far out of the way of Truth, in their afTert- 
 j'ng the Covenant of Grace to be made with Man, on 
 Behalf of others : .And inafmuch as the * Author of the 
 Whole Duty of Man, had been feverely cenfured by 
 them, as being very corrupt in his Notions concerning 
 the Covenant, I judg'd the moft probable Way to con- 
 vince them of their Abfurdity, and to correft their Ex- 
 travagancy, would be, to compare their Account of it and 
 his together, thereby to (hew their near Agreement; and 
 therefore obferved, there was but little Odds betwixt that 
 Author's faying the Covenant of Grace was made with 
 Adam, and their faying it was made with Abraham ; his 
 faying it was made with us in Adam, and their afferting it 
 was made on Behalf of Jews and Gentiles with Abraham ', 
 his requiring Duties on our Part, and their faying, that 
 Degeneracy breaks Perfons off from the fame Priviledges 
 which Abraham enjoy'd : But my doing fo, fecms to have 
 rouzed Mr. Fs Refentment to a very high Degree ; very 
 probable he is not well pleafed, the World fliould at all 
 be informed how near at Times their own Writings 
 agree with an Author, which, at another Turn, they To 
 
 publickly 
 
 * Confideration of the ^erijit, Page 24, &c. 
 
[ 43 ] 
 publickly condemned : But for my Part I don*t fee any 
 Reafon to palliate the Unfoundnefs of their Ddftrine, 
 more than his. Mr. F. fays, " He may ivell know we 
 hold no fuch Principle" Anf. I well know they fhould 
 not ; * and therefore urged th«m to reconcile their Af- 
 fertion in this Debate, " That the Covenant of Grace 
 xuas made ivith Abraham, on Behalf of hitnfelf and all 
 his Seed" with that in their Larger Cgtechifm, " That 
 it was made with Chriji, and in him^ with all the Ele^, 
 as his Seed" Which Mr. F. has not thought proper to 
 attempt ; for I am apt to think it appeared to him, as 
 it does to me, to be an irreconcilable Contradidlion. 
 
 Mr. F. is pleafed to fay, that in making the above 
 Comparifon, " I have rent off his iFords from their Con- 
 i^exion, perverted their Meanings and violently tortured , 
 them" &c. Thefe high Charges require, 1 fhould lay 
 before the Readers, the PafTaire referred to, at large, 
 which runs thus ; Charitable Plea, Page 45. " Abraham 
 tuas the Root from whence the jews fprang, and the firft 
 Fruits of the Nation to God, The Prcmifes of the Cove- 
 nant adminlfiered by the Ordinances of God's Houfe, were 
 the Fatnefs of which he partook, and which nourijhed his 
 Soul, as the Fatnefs of the Ground nourijhes an Olive-tree. 
 Novjas the Branches that grow upon the Root, do partake 
 of tie fame Juice and Fatnefs of which the Root or Stock 
 partakes^ while they are united, and not lopped off ; " then 
 come in the Words I quoted, '* £w« /o, Abraham's 
 Poflerity enjoy d the fame Priviledges, Liberties and Jm - 
 triunities in the Church as himfelf did, until by their De- 
 generacy fome of them were broken off" Let the Reader 
 judge if thefe Words, I cited, as they are ftridly con- 
 neded with what goes before, without any Violence or 
 Torture, do not plainly aflert, that Abraham'^ Pofleri- 
 ty enjoyed the fame Soul-nourifhment from the Promifes 
 of the Covenant, as he did, until by their Degeneracy 
 fome of them were broken ofF. For what is here faid 
 of Abraham, is affirmed of his Poflerity: Was he in the 
 ^Church ? So were they. Did he partake of Soul-nou- 
 rilhment from the Promifes of the Covenant ? So did 
 
 they 
 
 * Anti, Pages 17, 18. 
 
I 44 J 
 they until their Degeneracy ; or elfe the Connexion is 
 broken, which fays, *' Even fo they enjoy' d the Jams 
 Priviledges in the Church as he did." If Mr. F. in- 
 tends no more hereby, than that thofe degenerate 
 Branches once enjoy'd Church Ordinances, without any 
 Soul-nourifliment, then he breaks the Connexion of 
 his own Words himfelf j fuch a Meaning as he would 
 affign contradids them ; nor can his Affertion refpeding 
 the degenerate Pofterity of Abraham be true, neither is 
 there any Congruity in his Comparifon, of the Branches 
 partaking of the same Juice and Fatnefs of which 
 the Root partakes, while they are united, and not lopp'd 
 off, if this be defigned. 
 
 Pray, wherein then have I rent the Connexion, or 
 tortur'd his Words, by obrerving, that, for not doing 
 their Duty on their Part, they forfeited their Right in 
 the Covenant ? Does he affign any Thing elfe, as a Rea- 
 fon, why they were deprived of the fame Priviledges 
 which Abraham enjoy'd, but their Degeneracv, /. e. not 
 doing their Duty? And if he now diflikes 'the abfurd 
 Dodrine his Words contain, in their proper, natural, 
 and unwrefted Connexion, who' can he blame but him- 
 felf for writlng-fo? For him to make a Stir, and to 
 call me an uhc^ndid, unfair Opponent, "^and charge me 
 with Antimmianifm^ will not remove the Difficulty ; his 
 Bufinefs is to make good his Dodrine,' and fhew that 
 Works are the Condition of ftanding in the new Cove- 
 nant, and for want of them, that Perfons who were in 
 the Covenant of Grace, do forfeit their Right, and are 
 excluded: What is this but. Do and live?. Is there 
 any real Difference between him, and the Whole Duty 
 tf Man, in this Point ? Or elfe let him fay, that his 
 Meaning and the Words, in the cited Paragraph, look 
 contrary Ways. 
 
 On this Head, he refers us to Charitable Plea, Page 
 47. •' None, (fays he) can be broken off from true inherent. 
 HoUnefi\ nor from Elc£iion, nor from the invifihle Church. 
 But how does this help him ? The .Queflion is, are there 
 any others befides the Eka, and triily Holy, in the Co- 
 venanl of Grace ? If pot, how can any forfeit their 
 
 Right 
 
[ 45 ] 
 Right in the Covenant, when none can be broken off 
 from true Holinefs ? But if there are fome in the Cove- 
 nant without true inherent Holinefs, and Soul, nourifh- 
 ment from the Promifes of it, then fuch don't enjoy th<j 
 fame Priviledges in the Church, until their Degenera- 
 cy, as jfbra ham did i which gainfays his Afiertion : But 
 it is no new Thing, for one, who is an Advocate for 
 Error, to contradict himfelf, and alfo to run into ma- 
 ny more in Defence of it. 
 
 Again, I obferved in the Dialogue^ this Pofition, 
 " That it was truly the Covenant of Grace^ made with 
 Abraham, on Behalf of himfelf^ and both his natural and 
 Jpiritual Seed, both Jews and Gentiles." Mr. F. would 
 glofs over this anti-fcriptural Pofition, and excufe the 
 Author, by faying, " He is fatisfied the Author meant na 
 more than he does." An ingenious Salvo ! Pray, does the 
 Author's Meaning point South, and his Words due 
 North ? What a Difficulty is it to deal with Men, who 
 fliift frcun the exprefs Meaning of their Words, to a 
 hidden, or unexprefs'd Meaning ! Why does Mr. F, con- 
 demn the * Moravians, for (hifcing, and being equivo- 
 cal ? When he flies here from the Author's exprefs 
 V/ords, and infmuatcs I miftake his Meaning : What 
 is this but to fay, that if Men's Words and Aflertions 
 be ever fo corrupt, yet ' their Meaning muft be account- 
 ed good and found ? Why then was the f Author of 
 the Whole Duty of Man condemned, as no Chrifiian ? 
 Might not he as well be excufed in the fame Manner ? 
 Is it becaufe he unhappily pitched on Adam, inftead of 
 Abraham, to be a publick Head in the Covenant of 
 Grace I Where elfe lies the Difference, between mak- 
 ing the Covenant with us in Adam, and making it on 
 our Behalf with Abraham? But till Mr. F. tcJls us how 
 we (hall judge of Peoples Meaning, but by their Words, 
 we will judge according to the latter : Now if he, and 
 the Author of the Dialogue, underftand by God's efta- 
 blifhing a Covenant with Abraham and his Seed, Gen. 
 
 xvii. 
 
 * Vid. his Preface to Satan firlpfd of his angelick Robe, 
 Pages 9, II. 
 
 •f Qonfideratiox of the ^erijis. Page 26. 
 
[ 46 ] 
 
 XV ii. 7. life, that Abraham was a publick Perfon in th6 
 Covenant of Grace, according to this Aflertion, I don't 
 fcruple to fay that both their Meanings are very cor- 
 rupt, as well as their Words ; but if nor, their Words 
 in this Afiertion, and the Mind of God in thofe PlaceSj 
 are vaftly different. But is not Mr. F. fatisfied alio, that 
 my Remarks on what the Author of the Dialogue fays, 
 are juft and proper, when he has not offered to contra- 
 di6l them ? Now, if Mr. F. holds no fuch Principle, as 
 is afTerted in the Dialogue, where is his Regard for 
 Truth ? His Care for the Good of Souls ? Or his pro- 
 fefTed Efleem for the Covenant of Grace ? When he 
 hears fuch Dodlrine advanced, which dire£lly and na- 
 tively jufiles Chriflout of his mediatorial Dignity ? Sinks 
 the Glory of the new Covena'nt ; leads People away 
 from the Truth, and difhonours God ; without protefl- 
 ing againfl it, or fo much as acknowledging the Au- 
 thor's Words were very corrupt, let his unfeen Mean- 
 ing be what it will ? Muft a fundamental Error,.yea, an 
 Error of the firfl Magnitude, if it be found in an inge- 
 nious Dialogue (as he unjuftly calls it) if it feemingly 
 make for his Caufe, or in his Party-Fviend, be flily paft 
 over, and artfully excufed from the Notice of his Read- 
 ers ? Efpecially by a Man, who at other Times pro- 
 fefTes he would chufe Death, rather than fubfcribe that^ 
 which is contray to his Opinion ? Intolerable Partiality 
 and Unfaithfulnefs I Is Infant-baptifm fo delightful to 
 our Opponents, that it muil be maintained at any Rate ? 
 Mufl efTential Truths be fupprelTed, and fundamental 
 Errors winked at, to make way for their darling Tenet ? 
 Is not this theexacSl Character of a deluded Confcience? 
 Mr. F. afks, " Who can think him fo ignorant as not 
 to know, that this is not the Matter in Difpute between 
 us ?" Anf. Every one, that knows any Thing of the 
 Matter, knows that we are led by our Opponents to 
 difpute about the Covenant, into which they plead In- 
 fants were taken ; And when we hear them fpeaking 
 their Minds about it, and afTerting that it was the Co- 
 venant of Grace made with Abraham on Behalf of all 
 his Seed, Jews and Gentiki : Common Senfe (Mr. F's 
 
 Judge 
 
[ 47 ] 
 
 Judge in this Controverfy) teaches, that it becomes us. 
 to fpeak to the very Matter in Hand, or elfe we fliould 
 be chargeable with what Mr. F. (o unjuftly charges us, 
 that is, evading their Arguments. And when Jbraham is 
 reprefented to be a publick Head in the Covenant if 
 Grace,is it any Wonder at all that it ihould furprize cne7 
 Did I give fuch a Principle any other Names than what 
 it deferved ? I faid it was an abfurd Pofition, pregnant 
 with intolerable Falfhoods ; nor do I fee any Caufe as 
 yet to alter my Sentiments: And had not I good Reafon 
 to father it upon our Opponents ? When I cited their 
 Book and Page where it is found, which Mr. F. has not 
 been able to deny ; the' he feems defirous to excufc the 
 Author, if poffible, and willing enough to have no talk 
 made about it, by his objedling, that it is no Part of our 
 prefent Controverfy ; And I think I had juft Ground to 
 reafon laborioufly againft fuch Anti-chriftian Dodrine, 
 wherever it occurr'd, and fo fliould Mr. F. too, if his 
 efpoufed Caufe will permit him. Now if he will deal 
 fairly, and above-board, with his Readers, in this Point, 
 he will either vindicate, that Abraham was a publick 
 Head in the Covenant of Grace, and fo oblige himfelf 
 to anfwer my Arguments advanc'd againft it, in my for- 
 mer Treatife ; or elfe he will inform them to the con- 
 trary, by retracing thofe Paflages (I excepted againft) 
 which tend to carry them off from the Truth. But for 
 him to fay, they hold no fuch Principle, when fuch a 
 Principle is exprefs'd in their Writing, is to fay, that 
 they don't hold what they write, nor mean what they 
 fpeak, which is a great Inconfiftency in Gentlemen of 
 Senfe. 
 
 Our Author thinks proper further to fay, " Mr. M. has 
 Jhuffied in^ and infi/ied on this Argument ^ whether hhx^- 
 ham be Reprejentative in the Covenant of Grace ; and in 
 Page 24. calls it the Foundation of our whole Stru£fure, 
 whereas it does not fo much as enter into the Difpute about 
 Baptifm at all.'" Reply j But his charging me herewith 
 won't be believed by any, where the Truth is known : 
 The Author of the Dialogue introcluced it, before I put 
 Pen to Paper, and induftrioufly Jabout'd to poffefs his 
 
 Neighbour 
 
[ 48 J 
 
 Neighbour with the Notion ; for, after he had reafoned 
 about the Covenant for three or four Pages, he thus 
 winds up his Argument, * " / hope, by this 1ime\ you 
 are convinced^ that this Covenant contains in it fomethir.g 
 more than temporal Mercies ; and that it was truly the 
 Covenant of Grace made with Abraham, on Behalf of hi??i~ 
 felf and both his natural and fpiritual Seedy both Jews 
 and GentiJer,." Hence it plainly appears, the Author 
 endeavcuied to convince his Neighbour, amongft other- 
 Things, that this Covenant of Grace he had been fpeak- 
 ingof, w^as made with Abraham^ on Behalf of himfelf, 
 and all his Seed, notwithflanding Mr. F. has the Cou- 
 rage to charge me with Shuffling in this Argument ! Now 
 fmce our Opponents have fhuffled it in, let them make 
 the beft of it they can, in this Difpute, and take it out 
 again, when they have dojie with it. What .1 called 
 the Foundation of rheir whole Strudure, in Page 24. 
 is Abraham^ Covenant, they fpeak fo much of ;"and if 
 this does not fo much as enter into the Difpute about 
 Baptifm at all, why do oiir Opponents go out of their 
 Way to infiit on it .? Their Milbke in the Foundation 
 I nlentioned, is their reprefenting Abraham to be a publick 
 Head in the Covenant of Grace, as the Dialogue ex- 
 prefly teaches. 
 
 I obferved, " That the Covtnant of Grace zuas madi 
 iXjith ChriJi-'-That of all the Seed ^/Abraham, the Re- 
 generate only were in Covenant-— As for others who died 
 in their natural State^ that they were no further impri- 
 viledged at the ?nofi, but only to partake of Ordinances ap- 
 pointed of Gody during the Continuance of thai dark^ lie- 
 gal, and typical Difpenfation^ which is very different from 
 their being in the Covenant of Grace." To which Mr. 
 F. replies, " 'Tts different from being in it favingly : But 
 is it different from being in it in the Sight of th3 viflble 
 Church ? This is what he Jhould have affirmed, if he de- 
 figned to contradi£i me." Anf \i \ take Mr. F. right 
 in this Place, he grants and affirms, that partaking of 
 Ordinances in the Church, is not different from being 
 rifibly in Covenant j, /. e. it is one and the fame i then 
 
 I fay 
 * Divine Right, Page 16. 
 
[ 49 1 
 
 I fay Believers Infants were taken with their Parents 
 into the Covenant itfelf, or only into the outward Ad- 
 miniftratiort of it ? If into the Covenant itfelf, then 
 there is a great deal more to be underftood by their being 
 vifibly in Covenant, than juft partaking of Ordinances^ 
 even their receiving and enjoying fpiritual Blefiings, fronx 
 Chrift to their Souls; and fo Mr. F. tnuft recal hi* 
 Conce/Tion. But if they were admitted only into the 
 outward Adminiftration, then his firft Aflertion is falla- 
 cious, which afHrms, they were taken into Covenant^ 
 which he interprets to be the pure Covenant of Grace*. 
 Why is the protcfTiag World thus impofed on by their 
 Doftrine ? For^, according to our Author in this Place, 
 Believers Infants were only admitted into the outward 
 Adminiftration to partake of Ordinances, and no more? 
 Why is not the Cafe fet forth in its clear and proper 
 Light, that People might not be led out of the Way of 
 Truth ? ^nd what fauftering feizes our Opponent, whem 
 he is about to vindicate his Allertion, that he fhould drop 
 through his high ExprelTions and lofty Terms ufed there- 
 in ; and can make nothing more of them, than what 
 we fay ! And tho' Mr. F. feems to grant, that partak- 
 ing of Ordinances, and being vifibly in Covenant, 
 is one and the fame Thing ; yet by his following Words, 
 it feems as if he intended fom.ething more hereby : Says 
 he, *' fFe dont pkad for the Continuance of the fame 
 Adminijiration^ hut of the fame Covenant ; and the ^^le- 
 flion is not whether thofe typical Ordinances are ahoUjhed ? 
 But^ whether the Covenant is aboUfied too f" Reply. 
 What Covenant? If he means that made with Chrift 
 ffom Everlafting, who ever queftioned, whether that is 
 abolifhed? ButTf he means any other, let him explain 
 himfelf. And what is it to his prcfent Purpofe, if that 
 Covenant of Grace continues the fame, when Infants 
 were never taken, together with their beheving Parents, 
 into the Covenant itfelf, made with Chrift, but only 
 formerly into the outward Adminiftration? Truly, no- 
 thing at all. Or does Mr. F. take the Covenant and the 
 Adminiftration of it, to be one and the fame Thing ? If 
 he does, how could the Adminiftration be aboliihed, and 
 
 D not 
 
, L 50 ■ J 
 
 not the Covenant too ? Is not the Goven?int of Grace un- 
 changeable ? So muft the Adminiftration of it be alfo, if it 
 is one and the fame Thing. And it would hence further 
 follow, that thofe who were once vifibly in it (as our 
 Opponents phrafe it) could never fall away, which Mr. 
 F. dares not affirm. But he fays, " They don't plead for 
 the Continuance of the fame AdnuniftnQt'ton^ hut of the 
 fame Covenant'* Therefore the Adminiftration is one 
 Thing, and the Covenant another. Hence, 
 
 Mr. Ps Afiertion, and my Refutation ftand thus: 
 Affertion ; *' Believers Infants were once by divine Ap- 
 pointment taken into Covenant with their Parents" Refu- 
 tation ; Believers Infants, as fuch, were never taken 
 into Covenant with their Parents, but only under the 
 former Adminiftration, they were admitted to partake 
 of Ordinances by divine Appointment. And unlefs Mr. 
 F. will prove his Aflertion, pr make appear, that there 
 is more in being vifibly in Covenant, than being ad- 
 mitted into the outward Adminiftration ; his /^flertion, 
 ■whether he acknowledges it, or not, will always ftand re- 
 futed, as now it does. As to thofe Texts he cited, with 
 a Defign to prove it, I obferved they refer to the fpiritual 
 Seed only : Nor has Mr. F. been able to (hew, that 
 thofe Places confirm what he propofed to prove by them 9 
 they prove indeed, the fpiritual Seied to be in Covenant^ 
 but this was not the Thing he propofed. Mr. F. has 
 rot (hewn (and I believe never can fhew) that the Seed 
 of Believers were in the pure Covenant of Grace, an- 
 tecedent to their Vocation, Juftification, and Participa- 
 tion of the Holy Ghoft ; then what a mere Amufement 
 is it to talk of their being in Covenant, when all that 
 he can make out, is, that they were once taken into the 
 outward Adminiftration : If he calls this the Covenanto 
 it will not help his Caufe in the leaft, becaufe the for- 
 mer Adminiftration is abolifhed. 
 
 Further, our Concern is not (o much, how Abrahant 
 was to underftand the Promife : Certainly he could not 
 iihderftand that all his Seed were in the Covenant of 
 Grace, or any of them befides Ifaac^ Gen. xvii. 19. 
 ?^xv» 2, tho*, scry like, he might be as unwilling to caft 
 
 out 
 
[ 51 ] 
 
 OMt his Son IJhma elf Gen. xx'i: jo^ ir, I2. as our Oppo- 
 nents now are to acknowledge their Infants not to be ia 
 Covenant ; but in particular, how are we to underftand 
 it ? Now Mr. F. hath not been able hitherto to (hew 
 us, that any other but the Children of the Promife (/. g, 
 true Believers) are counted for the Seed, Rom. ix. 8. 
 
 Upon the whole, in anfwer to Mr. F'sJirA Aflertion^ 
 I have particularly fliewn, i. The Inconclufivenefs of 
 their Argument from Jhrabam's Covenant, if the Cafe 
 was as they urge, 2. The effential Difference between 
 their Cafe, and Jhrabam's : That Jbraharn had the 
 Command of God for Circumcifion, but they have 
 none for Infants Baptifm : Moreover I have fhewn that 
 the Covenant did not give a Being to Circumcifion, but 
 the divine Command, becaufe Abraham had the Cove- 
 nant fo long before he was circumcifed. 3. The Abfur- 
 dities our Opponents fall into, by pleadmg for Infants 
 Right to Baptifm. 4. That Infants were never taken into 
 Covenant v/ith their believing Parents, unlefs our Op- 
 ponents mean the outward Adminiftration, by the Co- 
 venant of Grace ; and if fo, yet it will do their Caufe: 
 no Service. Laft3y, That the Scriptures Mr. F. pro- 
 duced, do riot ferve his Purpofe, And I fball now leave 
 it freely to the Determination of the judicious Reader^ 
 ■whether I have not only argued direcSlly againft his Af-~ 
 fertion, but alfo really undermined and overturned the 
 very Foundation of Infant- baptifm ? , 
 
 I {hall juft detain the Reader a little, while I ftep back 
 ts catch fome of Mr. F% commanding Officers, which 
 he has commiflioned out againft us, no doubt with a 
 Defigri to be the chief Engineers in this Engagement; 
 fuch as thefe, ** Here., if ever., Mr, M. Jhevoi his Ahili^ 
 1y in Terglverfat'im—'Whilj} he makes a Shew of anfwer ' 
 ing my Arguments., he only raifes Duji— -Hides himfelf 
 among an Heap oflthings quite foreign to the Point---1hat 
 vje retain not the fame Idea of the Covenant., is Mr. M'jr 
 tzvn FiSiion-'-He foars into Bomhad- --Behold the Tergi" 
 VirJation--lVbat ReferveS'-Rubbip" &c, Thefe Com- 
 pliments, as they are inconfiftent with the Truth of 
 Things on this Head, fo alfo with Mr. i^'s protefting 
 D 2 againft 
 
t 5» ] 
 
 againft angry, perfonal Reflcdions, in religious Contro- 
 verfies; and quite contrary to his Profeflion of being an 
 Advocate for Meeknefsand Humility, in the Search after 
 Truth. Bat, leaving them bound and difarmed by the 
 Way, I pafs on to his fecond Head ; which is, 
 
 ** Whether {he aforefald Appointment he repealed ?^^ I 
 anfwer again, Yes. For Infants Right to Circumcifiori 
 flood upon the Bafis of God's exprefs Command ; this 
 is that vi'hich gave a Being to that Appointment of In- 
 fant memberfhip, and Circumcifion, in the yewijl? 
 Church ; and by Virtue of the fame divine Authority 
 was it continued in fuccelfive Ages, till the Defign of 
 God therein was fulfilled ; and when the Command 
 which was inftitutive of that Ordinance, was difannull'd, 
 the Appointment ceafed with it, as I have already ob- 
 kxvedy or elfe an Appointment would {land without its 
 Foundation, which cannot be. Having the Covenant 
 (as we have feen) did not give a Being to this Appoint- 
 ment, for Abraham had the Covenant of Promife a long 
 Time before the Being of Circumcifion, or any Right 
 to it. Nor has Mr. F. as yet (hewn that Infants were 
 taken into the Covenant of Grace, but only admitted 
 formerly to the outward Adminiflration, which is now 
 aboliftied j fo that the plain State of the Qi^ieftion is, 
 whether Infants are to partake of Baptifm, under the 
 prefent Adminiflration, as they were circumcifed for- 
 merly ? If they are, there mufl: be the like Ground for 
 the one, as there was for the other, even God's exprefs 
 Command, but this can't be (hewn ; for at the very 
 Beginning of the Gofpel Difpenfation, a Profe/fion of 
 Faith and Repentance was always required by yohn^ the 
 Forerunner of Chrift, in order to Baptifm ; for which 
 I cited feveral * Texts of Holy Writ j which ftand fair 
 in Defence of this Truth,That fuch, and none elfe, were 
 baptized according to the Scripture. Mr. F. will have 
 it, that yohn's requiring a Profefiion of Faith from 
 grown Perfons, does not exclude Infants : But the Argu- 
 ment he pretends to frame for us, fhould be mended 
 thus f " Ue who conjiantly requirsi a Profejfion of Faith, 
 
 ♦ Afiti, Page z-j. 
 
L 53 ] 
 
 tic. from all that come to his Bapttfmy baptizes none with' 
 out fuch a ProfeJJion : But John con/lantly reqtnred Pro-^ 
 fejjton of Faith ^ Sic. from all that came to his Baptifm'i 
 therefore John baptized none without Juch a ProfeJJion." 
 This Argument holds good, according to the Account 
 we find in Scripture of "John's Baptizing; and what 
 Room is there for Mr. F. to object, unlefs he has Re- 
 courfe to his Art of Reading what is not written : But 
 this he * profefTes to rejedl, and yet has he any other 
 Ground for his Conclufion, ** That there is no Room to 
 doubt, but John baptized Believers Infants " but this ? 
 He would do well to confider, that John did not baptize 
 Perfons by Virtue of the Command given to circumcife; 
 for that was not inftitutive of Bapttfm; and if not by 
 Virtue of it, then there is no Colour of Reafon to con- 
 clude, that he conformed to it, inadminiftering Baptifm, 
 which had no Dependance on it ; but was fent of God 
 immediately with divine Authority to baptize, John i. 33, 
 And before our Author can have any Room to imagine 
 that John bapti^/d Infants, he muft make appear, that 
 4he Order which God gave him, required him to bap- 
 tize them, which 1 believe is a Tailc too heavy for Mr. 
 F. to perform. John's baptizing none but ProfelTors, 
 according to the Scripture Account, very plainly be- 
 fpeaks that this was the Order he received immediately 
 from God, Neither did Chrift lay any Unfaithfulnefs 
 to his Charge j nor, indeed, can it rationally be fup- 
 pofed, that that holy and excellent Man, did not a6l in- 
 variably, and exadlly according to the divine Dire^ions 
 which he immediately received from God. 
 
 The Confideration, that John received the Command 
 to baptize immediately from God, futHciently refutes Mr. 
 F's " Pretences of the Right of Infants to Baptifm, tho* 
 grown wicked Perfons- had forfeited their Right, and were 
 rejeifed.'* Pray, what Right had Infants? Or, how 
 came they by it ? They had a Plight to Circumcifion, 
 becaufe God commanded fo ; if it were allowed they 
 were in Covenant, yet that would not do without a Com- 
 mand, as we have already feen. How does their Right 
 D 3 to 
 
 Find:, Page 15, 
 
[ 54 ] 
 
 to Baptlfm appear, unlefs it appeared, that God com- 
 inande<i5^«;^« to baptize them ? Why, in no wife. And 
 when Mr. F. can produce the Command of God givea 
 to John to baptize Infants, we promife we will hear- 
 ien to him with both our Ears, pleading their Right to 
 Baptifm : But till he does that, I {hall pay no other Re- 
 gard to all he fays on this Head, than what falfe Doc- 
 trines and unfcriptural Principles do defer ve. As for 
 any Thing he has faid againft my Argument, I may 
 venture to refume it ; " The Cafe is ihts^ either it was 
 the Will and JppQintr.ifnt of God, that Johnjhould baptize 
 JSelievers Infants., or it was not F If any fay it was, they 
 make that holy Alan (who received hisMiffion immediately 
 from God) a vile Iranfgreffhr of the divine JVill and Ap- 
 'poinXment : But fuch an horrid Criine vjas never charged 
 an him, who was fa highly commended by Chrijl him f elf : 
 ^Then it follows^ that it was not the F/ilt and Appointment 
 tf God, for him to baptize Infants.*' Now, unlefs it 
 could be made appear, that Jchn baptized Infants j or that 
 he (hould, but did not; neither of which hath ever been 
 proved, it remains undeniably evident,' maugre all Op* 
 jjoC'ion, and Error itfelf, that it was not the VViH, iiid 
 J^ppointment of God, they Ihould be baptized. 
 
 Mr. F, fays, " ^his Argmr,ent -makes a Rumbling like 
 BaraliptonJ* To be fure I You fee it made fuch a 
 Rumbling in his Ears, that he could not fland to refute 
 it ; but, at a DiflanceofF,cries out, *' 'Tis ridiculous--"Tis 
 41 bare-fac'd begging the ^uejiion in Difpute,*' without 
 Ihewing wherein, or how it i^s fo. And a(ks, *' Can it 
 he, that I expeSied a ferious Anfwer to this Argument?'* 
 Not reafonably, becaufe 1 might readily judge he had 
 Hone to give. However, inftead of ferious Anfwers, he 
 ixiufl fay fomething, if it is no more than charging 
 jne with begging the Queftion, and rehearfmg his for- 
 mer Talk : But he may know I am by this Time more 
 us'd to the Battle, than to be fcar'd with the Sound of 
 his Trumpet, or loud Huzza's : Are Things come to 
 that Pafs with Mr. F. that he calls my Adherence to 
 exprefs Scripture Teflimony in the Cafe of 'John, a 
 barefac'd begging the Queftign \ 'Tis furcly pinching 
 
 Times 
 
I S5 1 
 
 Times with him ! The Point I obferved, and which the 
 Scriptures formerly quoted do prafe, That John bap- 
 tized none upon any other Confideration, but upon Pro- 
 feffion of Faith, and Confefiion of Sin, makes it appear 
 this was the Order he received from God ; and (hews 
 that Infants were not baptized fanlefs our Opponent 
 could fhew from Scripture, that he baptized fome with- 
 out thefe Quahfications, which if he could, doubtlefs he 
 would before now) and effectually refutes his Plea, that 
 Infants are not intended in thofe Texts; therefore 
 they were baptized upon fome other Confideration, let 
 that be (hewn. He fays (at leaft he would have hisRea- 
 ders believe fo) that John baptized Believers Infants; 
 Let him tell us, whether this does not more juftly deferve 
 the Name of barefac'd begging the Queftion inDifpute, 
 which has no Hint in Scripture to fupport it? But the 
 •Way he takes to efcape the Force of my Obfervations, 
 is thus, ^■^ There is no Ground to believe John did not bap- 
 tize Believers Infants', and (fays he) this is enough at 
 prefent until I come to advance pofitive Proof. ^' Reply. 
 Truly then this muft be, enough always; for he does not 
 come to advance pofitive Proof, that John baptized Be- 
 lievers Infants all thro*' his Pamphlet; I do therefore 
 publickly call orf him to produce a pofitivs Proof from 
 Scripture, x.\\d,tJohn ever baptized one Infant; or elfe 
 forbear to prejudice unwary- Souls j^ainft Gofpel 
 Truths : Whatan Impofition muft it be on his Pleaders, 
 that he (hould talk at this Rate, when he cannot but 
 know at the fame Time, there is no pofitive Proof for 
 it to be found in the Word of God! nor even fo hiuch 
 as a ]u&. Confequence to fupport the Infinuation ; fincc 
 yoZ'w baptized by Virtue of the Command he received 
 immediately from God, and not by that given to circum- 
 cife. Says he, " The Scriptures don't fay that John did 
 not baptize Infants on the fame Day with their Parents'* 
 And again, " The Scriptures don't fay he did not urge 
 the Parents to bring their Children to Baptijm." Reply. 
 The Scriptures don't fay, that John did not circumcife 
 all that came to him to be baptized. Again, The Scrip- 
 tures dbn't fay, he did not fign them all with the Sign 
 D4 «^ 
 
[ 56 ] 
 
 of the Crofs, whom he baptized in the Name of him that 
 was to come : But fiiall we believe he did, becaufe the 
 Scriptures don't fajfthe Contrary ? In no wife. And aie 
 Mr. F's trifling Obje(SHons, in favouT of his Opinion, 
 any better, or in the leaft to be regarded ? Not at all ; 
 neither indeed are they of any Ufe to his Gaufe, unlefs 
 it be to {hew us the Wcaknefs of it, and the Manner 
 whereby our Opponents labour to defend it ! After he 
 he has obferved, the Scriptures don't (ay Ais, nor don't 
 fay that, he appeals to his Reader's Judgment ; *' Read- 
 er (fays he) are thefe pertinent Topicks to prove a Repeal 
 of Abraham's Covenant F" Anf. If he xnear.s by jib? a ^ 
 /^;«'s Covenant, that Covenant of Grace" made with 
 Chrift from Everjafting, in which all true Believers are 
 interefted, thefe Topicks were never defigned to prove 
 a Repeal of it ; nor does our Caufe require us to attempt 
 the leaft Thing of that Kind ; for Believers Infants, as 
 fuch, were never taken into it with their Parents : But 
 if he means hereby the outward Adminiftration, which 
 obtain'd under the Old Teftament, thefe * Obfervations 
 are pertinent to fhew that New Teftament Ordinances 
 are not founded on former Laws and Appointments i 
 when the Scripture gives us no Ground to believe that 
 yohn baptized any without the previous Qualifications 
 of Faith and Repentance, in all the Places which fpeak 
 of his adminiftering the Ordinance. 
 
 In Page i6. Mr. F. after his wonted Manner, would 
 make his Readers believe, that his Arguments from Heb. 
 viii. 7, 8. are untouched, and thinks his Caufe very 
 fafe ; and feems to admire, how I could fatisfy myfelf, 
 without anfwering his Argument ; as if I were obliged 
 to prove the Covenant of Grace made with Chrift from 
 Everlafting to be repealed ; or (hew, that it is not the 
 fame for ever ; or that it was not revealed to Abraham ; 
 or that true Believers were not in it formerly as well as 
 now: Are thefe Things the Points in Debate? No. 
 How then is Mr. Fs Judgment fo beclouded in the Mat- 
 ter ? Have we any Difpute at all about the fpiritual Seed ? 
 My proper Bufmefs was to refute his Flea for Infant- 
 
 member- 
 f Anti, Page 28. ^ 
 
[ 57 ] 
 
 memberfhip, and their Right to Ordinances In the Chri- 
 ftian Church, derived from a former Appointment? 
 And have I not done that already, beyond any jull Ex- 
 ception, by {hewing the former Adminiftration to be abo- 
 lilhed ? I iliall obferve,to him again. That that whereby 
 God took the Jew'ijh Nation and their Seed, as fuch, to 
 be his vifible Church, and was an Hulband to them, 
 Jer. xxxi. 32. Let Mr. F. call it, the Ceremonial IVor- 
 fl)ip, or Abrahams Covenant, or whatever other Name 
 he is pleafed to give it, this Paflage of Scripture, in Heb. 
 viii. undeniably proves it to be abolifhed : However I 
 call it the old Adminillration, v/ithout * " Fear of any 
 Oppofition^" and therefore fay, if no'thing ca'n be under- 
 itood or proved, by Infants being vifibly in Covenant, 
 further than that they were formerly taken with their 
 Jbrents into the outward Adminiftration, this Place of 
 Scripture is full to our Purpofe ; But if there is, let Mr* 
 F. make it appear, which hitherto he has not done. And 
 when did that Adrninillration begin, but in the Days of 
 Abraham ? Then was Circumcifion inftituted, and then 
 began the JewiJ}) GEconomy, which "was fully fet up at 
 Ijraers Return out of Ec:jpt : Now this Place evidently 
 proves a Repeal, or difannulling of that Adminiftration : 
 *' He hath made the FirJ} old,*' Verfe 13. Therefore to 
 iay, that the aforefaid Appointment of Infant-member- 
 fhip, and their Right to Ordinances, is not repealed, 
 when that fame divine Command which gave a Being 
 to it, and upon which it was founded, is now^ repealed, 
 as a Part of that old Covenant, or former Adminiftra- 
 tion, I profefs, is fuch a Myftery to me, which I have 
 not as yet feen unfolded, nor don't expeil I ever fhall : 
 Neither can I at prefent fee but two Things, which our 
 Opponents gan betake themfelves to, on this Head; and 
 feach hath its own Perplexity ; either, i.. To prove, that 
 there was much more in Believers Infants being vifibly 
 in Covenant, than their Admiffion to the outward Ad- 
 miniftration ; that is to fay, that they were all taken 
 into the Covenant of Grace itfelf : But to aflert this, 
 would indeed oblige our Opponents to encounter with 
 
 invinci- 
 • VirJ. Page 18, 
 
[ 58 ] 
 
 invincible Difficulties, either to (hew, that there Is a 
 falling from a State of Grace j or elfe that all the.OfF- 
 fpring of Believers, how wicked foever, (hall notwith- 
 ftanding be all faved. Or, 2. To {hew a divine Com- 
 mand for this Appointment, under the new Covenant, 
 or Gofpel Adminiftration : But this Mr. R difclaims, as 
 none of his Bufinefsi It feems he is fo afraid to mimick 
 me (as his phrafe is) that he would not concern him- 
 felf with tiaat which judicious Readers judge to have 
 been his proper, peculiar Bufinefs, on this Head, had he 
 done any Thing to Purpofe in the Debate : And, for my 
 Part, I fee'no Reafon to think otherwifc ; but the Dif- 
 ficulty is, no fuch Command can be found. In a Word, 
 till Mr. F. can (hew that the aforefaitj Appointment 
 •was no Fart of the old Covenant, or former Admini- 
 fcration, or elfe that the new is according to it, in 
 this Particular j this Place of holy Scripture, whether 
 he owns it, or not, will always prove that Appoiatment 
 to be repealed. ' ' . ;; - ■ .. 
 
 On the whole, let Mr. F. (hew tjie leaft Ground, from 
 myArgument, for his Infinuatipn, ** That 1 leave the 
 Scripture in Contradiction to itfelf** When I affirm the 
 Covenant of Grace to be made with Chrift, and by 
 the old and new Covenam in Heb. viii. is to be un- 
 derftood the two Adminiftrations ; the one dark, legal, 
 and typical, the other clear and evangelical j the one 
 faulty, the other perfe<£l 5 the former took the Jewijh 
 Nation to be the vifibie Church, the latter Profefibrs 
 only, out of all Nations, to be the vifibie Church ; that 
 abolifhed, this fully eflablifhed : And this new Covenant 
 is not according to the old among otherThings, in this 
 Particular, that it does not admit Infants to a Gofpel Or- 
 dinance, as that did to a legal and typical one; Let Mr. F, 
 deny any of thefe Particulars, and prove the contrary,-if 
 he can J 'tis what we have long looked for, but hitherto 
 in vain. I argued from Rom. '\x. 7, 8. thus, " 'Tis evir 
 dent from thefe Words^ that none^ whether ^ews or Gentiles* 
 are counted the fpiritual Seedy but true Believers only : Now 
 fnethinks, all will grant ^that the Infant Seed of believingGen-^ 
 iiksartinet Abt&hzwJsJleJbly Sud j andJldr, F. in his Di- 
 
 Jiinilisns, 
 
[ 59 ] 
 
 JfinJiionSy Joes not undertake to firdu, that they are his 
 Jpiriiual Seed : Ihen it follows^ that the Infant Seed of 
 Gentile Believers^ as fuch, are not the Seed of Abraham 
 in any Refpe£i at all \ the Confequence then is unavoidabUy 
 that they are not ^ as fuch^ the SubjeSis of any Promife given 
 to the Seed of Abraham, becaufe they are not included in 
 it ; fo that irijhad of abufing this Scripture^ our Infe- 
 rences are natural and genuine^ and mufl continue foy un^ 
 lefs Mr. F. can make appear.^ that the Infants of Gen- 
 tile Believers are Abraham'^ Seed^ in either of the tw» 
 forementicned RefpeSls., for in a ^Ihird they canU be. Thus 
 you fee., that if hzfants are to be baptized., it muji he bj 
 fame other Grant., than the Charter given to the Seed of 
 Abraham, for that does not reach ihetn 5 and we find ns 
 In/litution for it in the Gofpel : Therefore they are not 
 the Subje£is of Baptifm.'' Mr. F. here, inftead of (hew- 
 ing that the Seed of GentiU Believers are the Seed of 
 Abraham., in either of the two Refpeits mentioned, lays 
 hold on my faying, " He does not undertake in his Di- 
 flinSlions,'" Sec. and fo runs quite away from the Point in 
 Hand ; which was to fhev/, that the Seed of believing 
 Gentiles are in either Refpedl the Seed of Abraham. 
 
 The Blefliug of Abraham was not to ariy Seed but his 
 own, either after the Flelh or Spirit ; for our Opponents 
 then, to take it for granted, Hand over Head, that the 
 BleiTing of Abraham is come on their Seed, when they 
 don't fnew us, that they are Abraham^ Seed in any Re- 
 fpe<ft at all, has neither Scripture nor Reafon to fupport 
 it : Probably the Difficulty which Mr. F. faw in his 
 Way here to anfwer my Arguments fairly, made him 
 catch at fomething to make his Readers believe he is not 
 put to Silence ; when the plain, obvious Senfe of my 
 Words, which he makes fo great a Noife about, is, that 
 the natural Offspring of Gentile Believers, as fuch, are 
 not Abraham's fpiritual Seed. In like Manner, he makes 
 a Stir about my not overthrowing his Expofition of the 
 Place ; but is there any Thing therein, which proves 
 the Seed of Gentile Believers, as fuch, to be in any Re- 
 fpe£l the Seed of Abraham ? Not at all. Kow then can 
 Mr, F, imagine my Caufe required a Refutation of his 
 
 Expo- 
 
[ eo ] 
 
 Expofition ? I can't readily think that, " Tf^at the Apa- 
 file fays here^ was applicable to the Old Te/tament Churchy 
 in any Period of it, as well as to the New." For the Chil - 
 dren of the FJefh, mentioned in this Text, had a Rioht 
 to, and accordingly did, under the former Adminiftra- 
 tion, partake of the Ordinances then being, for every 
 Man-child of Ahraha7rC% Seed was to be circumcifed at 
 eight Days old : IVIr. F. defires to know on what Ac- 
 count ? Anf. In Obedience to God's Command : A very 
 good Reafon too ; not as the fpiritual Seed, but as natu- 
 ral Defcendants from Abraham^ Gen. xvii. 12. The 
 Scripture informs us of no Qualification required to re- 
 ceive Circumcifion, but to be born of fewijh Parents, 
 or a Jineal Defcent from Abraham: Now if Mr. F. will 
 ihew us from Scripture, that a lineal Defcent, or being 
 born of believing Parents^ qualified any to be meet Sub- 
 je<Si:s of Baptifm, or that any were ordered by God to 
 be baptized on this Account, I promife to give him as 
 Jiumble a Bow, as he can defne, and Thanks withal ; 
 but in the mean Time, we maintain, that a Profeffion 
 of Faith is a necelTary Qualification, abfolutely required 
 in all the Subjects of this Gofpel Ordinance. Our Au- 
 thor fays. Page 20. " This Place does not fo much as 
 hint at the Grounds on which Ordinances are adminifier-d.'* 
 And yet he makes fome faint Ellays, Page 21. by way 
 of Enquiry, to ftiew that Believers Infants are the fpi- 
 ritual Seed, as well as adlual ProfeiTors : And for what 
 End ? Doubtlefs, that he might thence infer, agree- 
 able to the * Scope of his Performance, they ought to 
 be baptized , as well as to have Ground of Charity for 
 them. It feems he knows how to improve the Place to 
 his Purpofe, tho' he can't fee how we can to ours. He 
 allcs, *' But will this Scripture prove, that all vifible cre^ 
 dible ProfeJJors are the fpiritual Seed, and none but fuch f* 
 Mr. Fs own Words, in his Expofition of this Place, 
 anfwer the Queflion, " Thefe only (f&ys he) are to be. 
 accounted the fpiritual Seed, and the Children of the PrO' 
 rnije, who have the real Blefftngs of the Covenant in their 
 Hearts, and not others, who have not, the' they bt under 
 
 thf 
 • Vind, Page 40. 
 
[ 6i ] 
 
 ihe oUHvard D'tfpenfation^ and have a vifthle Right to the 
 Promife." Here he defcribes the fpiritual Seed pofitively 
 and negatively ; therefore a Profeflion with their Mouths 
 of thofe real Bleilings in their Hearts, accompanied with 
 Fruits of Righteoufnefs in their Lives, gives a rational 
 and folid Ground to judge charitably, that fuch are the 
 Spiritual Seed, and in the Covenant of Grace ; fuch are 
 the only proper -Subjedts of Baptifm : The Ends and De- 
 fign of this Ordinance are not anfwered in any at their 
 Reception of it, but in fuch ; thefe only are capable to 
 ^nfwer a good Confcience towards God, when they fub- 
 mic to the Ordinance, i Pet. iii. 2i. And to give up them- 
 felves unto him therein, to live and walk in Newhefs 
 of Life : 'Tis to them that Baptifm is a Sign of their 
 Fellowfnip with Chrift in his Death and Refurre6lion ; 
 of RemifHon of their Sins, Regeneration, and Adoption. 
 According to Mr. F. here, we learn, that fuch as are 
 under the indefinite Promifes of Grace and Salvation, 
 or under the outward Difpenfation, are not therefore, 
 or merely on that Confideration, to be accounted the 
 fpiritual Seed, but thofe only who have the Bleflings of 
 the Covenant in their Hearts ; Pray, what are their In- 
 fanti at the moft, but under the outward Difpenfation, 
 according to his own Way of talking? Now when none 
 ^re to be accounted the fpiritual Seed, tho' they be un- 
 der the outwatd Difpenfation, but thofe who have the 
 real BlelTmgs of the Covenant in their Hearts ; and 
 when there arc no more Signs of thofe Bleflings to be 
 feen in their Infants, than in the Infants of Infidels : 
 What Ground have they to judge, that they are the fpi- 
 ritual Seed, and fit Subjedls of Baptifm ? None at all ! 
 Neither can they baptize them as fit Subjedls, unlefs 
 they judge that carnal Subjedis are fit for a Gofpel Ordi- 
 nance ! Dead Stones proper Materials to build z fpiritual 
 Houfe, I Pet. ii. 5. And fo mingle the New-Teftament 
 Church, and the World together, which Chrift defigncd 
 to be feparate. 
 
 Formerly, indeed, Jbraham*^ natural Offspring, as 
 fiich, had a Right to partake of carnal Ordinances, and 
 50 enter into a worldly San<auary i but iince Chrift came 
 
 to 
 
[ ^2 ] 
 
 to fet up his New-Teftament Church, we don't find he 
 gave Diredions to admit any into it, but the fpiritual 
 Seed, or Beh'evers, on Profeflion of their Faith in him : 
 Let Mr. F, fee, by his admitting in the natural Seed, 
 whether he does not plainly, deviate from the Diredlions 
 which Chrift has given him in the Cafe ? The Law 
 which gave Ground for their Admittance into the yew* 
 ifli Church, is abolifhed, as a Part of the o'd Covenant, 
 as already obferved : Let him look for that Word of di- 
 vine Authority, which warrants his Admiffion of theni 
 Jiow, or elfe he won't be able to fay, when he gives ufj 
 his Account, " Lnrd^ It is done as thou hcji commanded^* 
 But fuppofe the Word of God bad taken EfFsiSt in feme 
 of their Infants, yet when there are no Fruits or Signs 
 of it rrianifeft, it requires in Mr. F. ** A 'Judgment^ 
 not only of Charityy but Infallibility ^ to determine who of 
 them may he admitted to Baptifm^ and who not :" Or elfc 
 he mufl baptize them all as the fpiritual Seed, and there* 
 by (hew that he has no Ufe for his Diftindfions, *' Of a 
 twofold Way of being in Covenant " becaufe in the 
 Sight of the vjfiblc Church they arb all the fpiritual 
 Seed, if em is fo, and favingly in the Covenant of 
 Grace ; when yet, at the (lime t^me, there is no Ground 
 to judge rationally, that one of them is fo, any more 
 than the Infants of Non-mecnuers ; for the Rule is, 
 *' None are to be accounted thi fpiritual Secd^ tha^ 
 ihey be under the cutvjard Difpenfation^ but fuch only, 
 who have the real Blefftngs of the Covenant in their Hearts, 
 6r in whom the Word of God has had its Effi^^" 'Th 
 like, if an Anabaptifi (houM talk at the Rate our Op- 
 ponents do, Mr. F. would readily call it * religious Gar- 
 bage, and Nonfenfe ; But irf the Phrafe does not pleafe 
 him, let it be failed unintelligible Divinity ! 
 
 Mr. F. pleafes himfelf with the Fancy, that I am got 
 into fame Box with him ; but if I were, I (hould find an 
 open door to get out, and fhut him in where he is; for 
 he has no manifeft Evidence of the Word of God hav* 
 ing taken EfFed in the Hearts of any Infants, to judge 
 charitably by, that they are fpiritual Seed, and fhall be 
 
 faved, 
 
 ♦ Find, Page 80. 
 
L ^3 J 
 
 , faved, as I have in credible Profcflbrs : Then the Reader 
 may fee that his Judgment is without any rational Evi- 
 dence, and his Charity, in the Cafe of their Infants, but 
 felfifli Fondnefs. 
 
 In treating on Gal. iii. i6. Mr. F. very confidently 
 cafts the Heterodox upon me, for faying the Promifes 
 were made primarily to Ghrift perfonal : And indeed if 
 big Words, and noify Exclamations, will do for Proof, 
 he has enough of them at hand ; but one good Argu- 
 ment would be worth them all, either to convince or 
 refute me ; tho' among thofe, who take noify Outcries 
 for Arguments, they may pafs : But after all, if this is 
 fuch an Heterodox Principle, why did not he (hew the 
 Promifes were not firft made to Chrift perfonal ? And 
 that the Promifes of God were not firft in the Perfon 
 of Chriftj before they can be Yea and Amen to Be- 
 hevers ? However, to obviate Objedions, I (hall add the 
 Expreffiqns of fome learned Divines, which are expreffive 
 of the Defign of my Words; Mr. f Erjkine hysy " Not 
 only all Necefaries far Redemption^ but alfo all Ne- 
 cejfaries for the powerful and effectual application of thai 
 Redemption, are fir/i promifed in the Covenant to him 
 (i, e. Ghrift) and then to us in him, upon his fulfilling the 
 Csndition of perfect Obedience. Is Jujlif cation promised ? 
 It is fir/t^ to him, and then to us in him, Ifai. liii. ii. Is 
 SanSfification and the Spirit promifed ? It is fir/i to him^ 
 and then to us in him, Ifai. xlii. i. Is Glorification pro- 
 mifed? his ftrjl to him, and then to us in him, Rom. 
 
 viii. 17. So is the Confiitution of the Covenant., the 
 
 Promifes are all made to him, and in the Application of it^ 
 they are made to us in him ; primarily and mediately 
 they are made to him, fecondarily and immediately to us 
 in him.'* 
 
 Says Dr. ♦ Goodwin, " Js all Promifes are made in 
 him, fo all Promifes were fir fl made to him, and to us, as 
 »ne with him ; therefore fays the ApoflU, not to Seeds, as 
 tfmany, but to Seed, as of one, which is Chriji:* Our 
 Author, in his great Hurry and Throng of Bufincfs, has 
 
 herQ 
 
 f Serm. Vol. I. Pages 264., 26 f. 
 
 * V©1.1IL Part S.Page 28, ' 
 
[ 6.4 ] 
 here forae how quite miftaken the Matter, and imagin'd 
 that I aflerted the Covenant of Grace was made with 
 Chrift perfonally for himfelf only ; which is neither ex- 
 preffed nor implied in my Words: One would think he 
 might readily have difcover'd his Miftakc from my Re- 
 ferences, Ant'i. Page 33. unlefs he were prepofTeffed with 
 an unkind Defire of loading his Refpondent with ground- 
 lefs Clamours and Reproaches, where Arguments failed 
 him. Now, do the Promifes of the Covenant, made 
 primarily to Chrift, belong to any but Believers ? Or 
 have any others a Right to them ? No ; for as already 
 obferved. The Scripture hath concluded all under Sin, that 
 the Promife, by Faith of Jefus ChrijU rnight ie given to 
 them that believe^ Gal. iii. 22. *' The Promije was made to 
 Chriji, as Head of the vlfible Church j and then (fays he) 
 it will extend to Believers in him, and alfo to their Seed." 
 I fay again, one might think the very mentioning of this 
 Argument would be a fufficient Refutation of it ; for the 
 Promife of Juflification, Adoption, the Gift of the Ho- 
 ly Ghoft, and Salvation, in no Age of the Church, ex- 
 tended to Believers Seed as fuch ; /. e. That they were in- 
 titled to, and interefted in thefe Blefiings, on the Ac- 
 count of their Parents Faith : But if Mr. F. can make 
 out, that the Infants born of Believers are on that Ac- 
 count Believers, he will do fomething towards proving 
 them to be in Covenant, or that the Promife extends to 
 them alfo ; otherwife, whether he will or no, the Scrip- 
 tures have concluded them all under Sin, as well as other 
 Unbelievers : And to be under Sin^ and in the Cove- 
 nant of Grace, at the fame time, is a Contradiction too 
 great to be reconciled. Their being related to believing 
 Parents naturally, does not unite them to Chrifl fpiritu- 
 ally ; and without Union with him, there is no "Com- 
 munion in thefe fpiritual Bleflings, or the Promife does 
 not extend to them. It has never been (hewn, that na- 
 tural Relation to Believers is appointed to be a Conduit 
 Pipe, whereby the Promife of fpiritual BlelTings fhould 
 be conveyM from Chrift to their Offspring. People may 
 indeed be united to the Church of Chrift, and at the fame 
 time have no Union with Chrift, the Head of the 
 
 Church, 
 
t 65 j 
 
 ibhurch, for want of Faith j then they have no Intereil 
 in the Promifes made to Chrift, or the Benefits prGmife4 
 to Believers. The Promife of thefe fpiritual Bleffings did 
 not extend to the Offspring of Abraham himfelf ac- 
 cording to the FJefli, in that Confideration, Rom. iv. 
 J2, 13, 16, And how is it po/Tible it can extend to 
 the Seed of Gentile Believers as fuch \ Wherein then, 
 was it amifs to obferve that Mr. 'P. ufes a wild Way of 
 'arguing on this Head, when he talks, as tho' Church 
 xnemberfliip entitled Infants to the Promife, wiiich was 
 made primarily to Chrift, and in him to true Believers 
 only? I requir'd him to fhew, where God has pro- 
 mis'd thefe fpiritual Bleffings ftiould be entail'd on an/ 
 fle(hlv Line? He pretends *' nothing is eafier,** and 
 cites Exod. XX. 6. with that Defign •.—^''He willjhevi 
 Mercy to a thoufand Generations of them that love him^ 
 and keep his Commandments :" And then vain gloriouily 
 afks, " Is not a thoufand Generations a long Line f But 
 will Mr. F. {land to it, that thefe fpiritual Bleffings 
 are certainly entail'd on Believers Seed to a thoufand 
 Generations? No, " He does not conceive that all the 
 Seed of all Believers zbill be converted.''* But the Quefti- 
 bn is, if the Promife of Juftificatiori and Salvation is 
 entail'd, why not to one, as well as the other ? Why 
 not all converted, as well ai fome ; when it is 
 affirmed that the Promife is entailed on all Believers, 
 and their flefhiy Seed, to a thoufand Generations ? Fur- 
 ther, will our Author fay that the Parents Works of O7 
 bedience to the moral Law entails the Promife on their 
 Seed, when the Parents theiiifelves are not entitled toi 
 the Promife of Juftification, Adoption, and Salvation, 
 by all the Works of the Law they Can poffibly do, as 
 the Apoflje teftifies, Rom. iv. 14. '"'• If they which are 
 of the Law be Heirs^ Faith is made void., and the Pro* 
 mife of none EffeSf." Hence it may be obferved again, 
 that to be born of godly Parents, does not entitle any 
 to thefe fpiritual Bleffings, nor bring any nearer to God 
 in a fpiritual Relation, nor have fuch any thing to 
 boaft of above others on this Account : If any, the 
 Seed oi Abraham^ according to the Flelh, But a na- 
 
 E tural 
 
[ 65 ] 
 
 fural Defcerit from Abraham avails nothing in th^s 
 Cafe, Rom. ix. 7, 8. Adoption does not come this 
 Way: Men don't commence Children of God by 
 their flefhly Defcent, they are not born of Blood,- 
 John i. 13. but of God, who are the Sons of God. 
 None are Heirs to thefe promifed fpiritual Bleffings 
 but Believers, Gal. iii. 29. And there can't be an 
 entail of the Promife on their natural Offspring, un- 
 lefs Mr. F. will fliew that their Infant Seed are Be- 
 lievers alfo, which he has not yet done ; or (hew that 
 the Promife of fpiritual Bleflingi is entailed by virtue 
 of, and connected with the Works of the Law, and 
 fo make Faith void, and th? Promife of none Effect. 
 
 Another Scripture Mr. F. cites with a Defign to 
 prove that fpiritual BlefTmgs are entailed on a fiefhly 
 Line, is Ifa. 59. 21. God will give his Spirit to hrs 
 People, and their Seed, and Seeds Seed, from henceforth, 
 and for ever. And then vauntingly afks, *' /j not for ^ 
 tver a long Line P Let Mr, M. /peak, and fay, is it not 
 very long f" But the Words ot the Text, which he 
 quotes, and miferably perverts, are thefe, " Js for me^ 
 this is my Covenant with them, faith the Lord, my Spirit 
 that is upon thee, and my Words, which I have put in thy 
 Mouth, flmll not depart out of thy Mouth, nor out of the 
 . Mouth of thy Seed, nor out of the Mouth of thy Seed's 
 'Seed, faith the Lord, from henceforth, and for ever" Mr, 
 F. underftands and argues, that fpiritual Bleffings are 
 here promifed to, and entailed on the Church, and her 
 Offspring, according to the FleOi (as fuch) but without 
 the Jeaft Foundation in the Text. 'Tis no unufual 
 Thing in Scripture to call Believers the Children of 
 Zion, Ifa. Ixvi, 8. Pfal. cxlix. 2. And that by Seed 
 here is meant Believers, is manifeft from the Words* 
 themfelves : 'Tis to Believers, this Seed of Zion, the 
 Continuance of the XVord and Spirit of God is promi- 
 fed ; with the fpiritual Seed (let them be of what Nati- 
 on foever) do thefe fpiritual Bleffings abide, in all fuc- 
 ceeding Ages : Not as Mr. F. dreams, that the Word 
 and Spirit of God are with the Infant Offspring of 
 Believers, Is the Word of God in the Mouth of all 
 
 Infants, 
 
[ 6? ] 
 
 Infants, or in the Mouth of any one of them ? This 
 abfolute Promife cannot intend any other Kind, but 
 that Seed, to every Individual, whereof it is, and fhall 
 be infallibly fulfilled, which is true only refpedling the 
 fpiritual Seed. But I rather think, Chrift is mure efpe- 
 cial intended, and not the Church, by the Pronoun 
 (thee) in the Text,, and Co 'tis to be underftood of the 
 Promife which God the Father made to Chrifl: (who 
 is mentioned in the former Vcrfe) and hi^ Seed, evert 
 true Believ'eis in general ; Prophets, Apoftles, and Mi - 
 nifters in particular ; that the Spirit he received with-, 
 out Meafure, 7i?^» iii. 34. • And the Words put in his 
 Mouth, John xii. 49, fhould , not depart from himfelf 
 and Seed for ever, Ifa. Jiii. 10. Pfal Ixxii. 17. But: 
 whether it be meant of Chrift, or the Church, it leaves 
 not the leaft Ground for Mr. F's Pretence to prove 
 from this Place a flefhly Entail of the Promife j when 
 by the Seed fucceffively, can't rationally be underftood 
 any other, confillent with the Text, and general Scope 
 of holy Scripture, but true Believers only in all Ages, 
 with whpm the Word and Spirit of God do infeparably 
 abide. Now it remains to iie obferved again, that it is 
 really marvellous our Opponents will wreft Texts of 
 Scripture, which (peak particularly, and only of the fpi- 
 ritual Seed } or true Believers to countenance their Fan-t 
 cies about the Right of their Infant Seed to Churc/l 
 Mimberfhipand Baptifm 1 If they do thus through Ig- 
 norance, and for want of knowing better, they &te 
 much to be pitied, and ought to be timely inftruded t 
 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. ii, 17. jv. 2. Hence it 
 appears, .how little Reafon Mr, F. has to put Believ- 
 ers Infants on a Par with actual Profeflors, at the Clofe 
 of this Paragraph 1 And alfo how groundlefs it is to ad- 
 minifter Baptifm to Infants, without any Autht)rity 
 from God, on a vain Suppofition that fpiritual Blef- 
 ijngs are entailed on a flefhly Line, which needs Proof, 
 before it can be received for Trutih ! . , 
 
 £ a I r«« 
 
[ 6S ] 
 
 I requfred our Opponents to (hew us from Scfipture, 
 that Infants were taken into the Gofpel Church : But 
 Mr. F. in Page 23, inftead of giving us ^any New Tc- 
 ftanient Proof hetecf, as was demariied, recurs to the 
 'Jeiinjh Church, and fays to thi> Purpofe : " T^hey were 
 Memben of the Jtwifh Church- now if it was- • the 
 fame inSuh/idnce u,ith the Chrijliafl- -it ivill foilav that 
 the Materials of the Church ore JUII the fame. Hence tf 
 Infants were once Alaie^ials of it, they arefo/iill." Re- 
 ply. In the Jewrjh vUible Church, Infant, who de- 
 fcended from Abraham, were Materials ; tfie natural 
 Seed had a Right (founded on a pofitive Command) ift 
 that Houfe, which continued 'till the End of the for- 
 mer Adminiftration, when the Jewifh Church State 
 was abohfhed ; and the Ri ht of the natural Seed end- 
 ed with it : And when the Gofpel Church was fet up*, 
 jirofefTing Believers, and none elfe, were the Materials, 
 of it. I fhall offer an Argument or two in Favour of' 
 •what I fay, and then conlider Mr. Fs on '.he contra- 
 ry. 
 
 1. There is a maiiifeft, real Difference, between thie 
 Conftitution of one, and of the other ; the Jewifh vi- 
 fible Church neither was, nor could be' built on the 
 Foundation of the Apoftlts ; /. e. the Apoftles Doc- 
 trine of Chrift exhibited in the Flcfii, or aheady come, 
 as the new Teflament Church is, Eph. ii. 20. But, at 
 the moft, only on the Promife of Chrill to co#ie. 
 Hence it appears, that was not the fame with this ; 
 and if not the fame, then the new 'leflament Church 
 is a new conftituted Church ; and in this new Formati- 
 on we find no other Materials, but profcfling Believers ; 
 nor any other among the Multitudes added to it, but 
 fuch, Aas'u 15. ii. 4ii 42-^ 43' 44- 47- 
 
 2. That Covenant Adminiftration, whereby God 
 took the Jewifh Nation to be his vifible Church, is abo- 
 lifhed, Deut. xxvi. 16,17, 18, 19. 7^r.xxxi. 31,32. 
 Heb. viii. 8, 9, lO, 13. Therefore their viiible Church 
 State ceafed with it. "And the new Covenant, as 1 have 
 obferved ahead , is not accoiding to that: This admits 
 
 ^ Rone intq a vifible Church Suie but pi oleiring Believers, 
 
[ 69 ] 
 
 fisall the Places in the New Teftament, which fpeafc 
 of the Admiffion of Members into the Gofpel Churcn 
 do teltify, J^ls. iv. 4. v. 13, 14. But, 
 
 I proceed to confider Mi. F's Arguments for the 
 Samenefs of the Church under both Dfpenrations. 
 I. Sivs he, '' //" t/je Jewifh and Chrt/iian Church be dif- 
 ferent in Subjiance, th^y had one Way to Heaven^ arid we 
 another y Anf. Thib Argument ma\ do fumtthing to- 
 wards proving the ^amenefs of the invifible Chuich in 
 all Ages, if any deny it ; for AbeU Enochs and Noah^ 
 had the fame Way to Heaven, before the Conftitution 
 of the Gufpel Church, or Jeivip) either, as all the 
 Saved fince, have': And wht ox that? But how 
 this Inference pjoves the vifiblc Church to be the fame 
 in the Senfe we fpeak of, does not yet appear ! 2. " It 
 would follow, that Ab'aham could not be the Father both 
 of the circumcifei^ and uncircumcifed." Anf. Abraham 
 was a Pattern of Faith to Believers, •', hether circumci- 
 fed or uncircumcifvid : But the Queftion is not about 
 the Exefcifesof Faith. 3. Says he, " It would follow ^ 
 that the Jews did not ^at the fame fph itual Meat., nor 
 drink the jame fpiritual Drink^ as Chriflians do." Anf. 
 Who doubts but true Bclieveis among the 'Jews fed 
 by Faith on Chrift promifed, as we do on Chnft ex- 
 hibited, which was typify 'd unto them by the Manna 
 from Heaven, and Water out of the Rock ? But what 
 is this to the Point in Hand ? 4. " It would follow, that 
 the Jews could not be Exsmplss and Patterns of Faith to 
 Chrijiians.'* Anf. This does not militate againft us, 
 unlefs we faid, there were no Briievers in the Jewijh 
 Church, which we never did: What we fay, is, that 
 the Jewifb national Church State, wherein Infants were 
 Materials, is now ab )li(hefJ. 5. Says he, " .// would 
 
 follow, that the Je vs and Chriflians are not made one 
 Church, nor the middle IVall of Partition broken down for 
 that Purpofe." Aif Mr. F. * " Readily Grants., fhat 
 Chriflians are not grafted into the Jewifli Church, as it 
 
 flood under the Laio." How then ? As it flood under 
 the Gofpel.? Why then it was a number of Jews, f 
 
 F 3 pro- 
 
 * Vind. Page 43. f Charit. Plea Page 65. 
 
C 7° ] 
 
 profelyted to Ciiriflia#iity by the preaching of i^e Go- 
 fpel, who profefled their Faith in Chrift crucified, and 
 thereupon were baptized : A Church gathered and 
 formed from among thofe . other jfezvs^ who were yet 
 ignorant of Chriftianity : .This is the New Tefta- 
 ment vifible Church we contend for, with which the 
 believing Gentiles were united in one Body. For by 
 one Spirit are zve all baptized into one Body, vuhether we 
 ^^ Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; and 
 have been all Tnade to drink into one Spirit^ I Cor. xiiw 
 13. What Church is that wherein Jeu/i and Gentiles 
 ^re made one ? The 'fewi/h vifible Church ? No fure- 
 ]y ! For the Ordinance of Baptifm was never an Ordi- 
 nance gf Entrance into the y^w;/}^ Church, properly fo 
 called j bit into the New Telfament vifible Church :■ 
 Here Jews and Gentiles are made one Body, and the 
 middle Wall of Partition broken down for that Pur-, 
 pofe. Now let Mr. F. Ihcw that this Church, thus ga- 
 thered and formed from :<mono;ft other Jews, be (till the 
 fame Church, refpeding its Form and Conftitution, 
 vith that under the Law : Let him run the Parallel, 
 and prove it if he can, that Infants were ever the Ma- 
 terials of this vifible Church, whereinto believing y^ft:;; 
 and Gentiles were admitted by Baptifm ; this would end 
 the Difpute* ' ! .; 
 
 6. Sa\'s he, " Thg?: the Chrt/lian Church is not built. 
 9n the Foundation of the Prophets, but only the ApO' 
 files." Well, Mr. ,^. judges if the New Tellament 
 Church was built on the Foundation of .the Apoftles on- 
 ly, it would make a fubftantial Difference between this 
 and that. .Why then won't the Argument hold on the 
 other Hand, firxe it ismanifeft the Jewifo Church was 
 built on the Foundation of the Prophets only ; /. e. 
 the Promifeof Chrift tocome? (Certainly it does, if 
 M. F's Way of arguing be right : < And till he can 
 imake appear that the Jewijh vifible Church was built 
 qn the Foundation of the Apoftles,: Chrift exhibited, 
 in the Flefli, as well as promifed, even as the Nev/. 
 Teftament Church is, whether he will own it, or not, 
 there will always appear fuch a DifFerence between that 
 
 and 
 
[ 7' ] 
 
 and this, that it cannot be the fame, in the Senfe coij- 
 troverted. However, it hence appears, there muft at 
 leaft be a new Conilitution of the Church, before it 
 can be faid to be built on the Foundation of the Apoflles, 
 as already explain'd : Neither does the former Confti- 
 tution enter, much lefs continue in the Gofpel Church, 
 but is wholly aboliOied, or at an End ; for it is no Part 
 of theChriflian Faith in the New Teflament Church, 
 to believe Chrift yet to come in the FleOi, as it was 
 an Article of Faith in the Jewijhy before hs came ; 
 though we do indeed believe the Promifes of his Exhi- 
 bition in the Flefb, fpoken by the Prophets, yet now no 
 othervvife, but as already fulfilled. Now it was m that 
 Church Infants were Members, the natural Seed Ma- 
 terials ; and that Church State, on folid Grounds, we fay 
 is at an End: Then it unavoidably follows, that Infants 
 Church memberfhip in the Jew'ijh Church is ended alfo. 
 Now it ftill lies at the Door of our Opponents to ihew 
 us if they can, that Infants were taken into the Gof- 
 pel vifible Church, and not put us off with .what was 
 done under the legal Adminiftration ; for the Jewijh 
 CEconomy is long^fince aboliflied, and we expert New 
 Teftament Proof, for ;what pertains to a NewTefta- 
 ment vifible Church. But if they can't, their Say-fo 
 will not do. ■ 
 
 And laftly, fays he, " If the Jewifli and Chnjitatz 
 Church be differ ent in Suhjiance, it would follow that it is a 
 falfe and deceiving Method of proceedings to exprefs what 
 pertains to the New Teftament Church and TVorJhtp, hy the 
 fame Words which were ufed to exprefs what pertained 
 to the Church and Worjhip of the Old Tejiament." Anf. 
 To be fure ! The Church is the fame in Subftance, in 
 the Senfe we fpeak of ; /. e. that Infants are Materials 
 of it in all Ages ; becaufe New Teftament Writers 
 make ufcof the fame Words whereby the Types were 
 called, to exprefs the Antitypes ! To ufe fome of Mr. 
 Fs Language, " A famous Confequence this f f Had 
 he cafi Lots what to fay, might he not hit the Purpofe full 
 fswellf" Why does not he alfg fay, the Types and 
 
 E 4 Anti- 
 
 ■f Vind. Page 22. 
 
[ 7^ ] 
 
 Antitypes are materlaHy the fame ? And (o (I dread to 
 ipeak itj Chrift and the pafchal Lamb are materially the 
 fame ? The heavenly San(^uary and earthly the fame in 
 Subftance, &c. as well as the Church ! And if ufing 
 the fame Words don't prove the Types and Antitypes to 
 be materially the fame, much lefs will it prove the vi- 
 fible Church, under both Difpenfations, to be fo. I muft 
 think Mr F. Jook'd more to the Number of his Argu- 
 ments here, than their Solidity : But what could he do ? 
 The Point itfelf is unfcriptural, then his Arguments muft 
 needs be ineflFeaual. In Page 25, and 26^ Mr. F. dif- 
 courfes about the Pale of the Church : He imagines, " /. 
 Jay great Strefs on the Obfervation ; cvd fugge/is, that I am 
 afraid oftheJ*ower of the? ale : But he is fo kind, as to 
 ajfure me, he had no Defignagainfi me by that Word" Well, 
 for my Part he is welcome to ufe it, if he has amind, by 
 that Note, or any other, to diftinguifh his Church from 
 the truly Jewijh, and purely Chriftian, to be a Third, 
 compounded of both, in taking Infant- memberfhip 
 from the one, and nominal Ordinances from the other, 
 furrounded with a Pale of an outlandifh Form, to in- 
 clude Infant Semi- members fome how dtftin<5l both from 
 the Church and the World. 
 
 In reply to Mr. F'i repeated AlTertion, That Abra- 
 liam*$ BlefT-ng is come on believing Gentiles^ and their 
 Seed, I obfbrve again, that Abraham was a Father in 
 a two fold Refpedt ; accordingly he had a two fold Seed, 
 fpiritual and natural, John viii. 37, 39. The Blefling 
 of Abraham, which the Nfew Teftament afierts to have 
 come on G^«///<r Believers, is Juftification, Rom. iv. ir. 
 The Gift of the Holy Ghoft, Gal. iii. 14. Adoption, 
 &c. Gal. iii. 26. This Bkffing did not come on -^/Jra- 
 ham^ Offspring, as his natural Seed, or becaufe they 
 fprang from him by natural Generation : But on the 
 Regenerate among them, Rom. iv. 12. This was the 
 Seed the Promife definitely refpeded, Rom. ix. 8. 
 jv. 16. Now if this Bleffing did not extgnd to 
 Abraham^ own natural Seed, as fuch, fo neither does it 
 eJctend to the believing Gentiles, and their natural OfF- 
 fpring, as fuch ; And therefore, unlefs Mr. F, can make 
 
 appear. 
 
[ n ] 
 
 appear, that the natural Offspring of Gentile Believers 
 have fomcihing more in them than Nature, they are 
 not that Seed of Abrahamtht Prt nuCe referred to. How- 
 ever, Mr. F. will hive it, '* That Ahrah<«m'j BlrJJing 
 comes on Gentile Believers^ and on their Seed inrtefinite- 
 ly.*^ Reply, But was it fo ro Abraharnsowu iiiinjt-diate 
 Seed? VJtxc IJbmatl^ Zirrt'^am, Jock/han M<dan^ Mi" 
 dian^ Jfhbak and Shuah^ Gen. xxv. 2. under ^r^y Tuch in- 
 definite FromiTc? No , tor the fromile was expicfl/ 
 limited to Ifaac, Gen. xvii. ig. The Lord indeed 
 promifed to blcfs Ijhmael with earthly Favours, but 
 makes an Exception with refpedt to the Prumife of fpi- 
 fitual Bleflings, Gen. xvii. 21. This was in particular 
 to Ifaac^ who is faid to be born a'ter tlie Spific, and was 
 a Type or Figure of the fpiritual Seed, whethc;r Jews or 
 QentiUs, under the Gofpel Difpenfati .n, whom the Pro- 
 mife definitely refpeded. Now if Abrahams own im- 
 mediate Seed were not under any fuch indefinite pro- 
 mifed Bleiflng, as our Opponents talk of, how came 
 theirs to be fo ? And thence imagine they have a 
 Right to'Baptifm, when Abraham's were not fo, nor 
 were circumcifed on that Account. For Inftance, IJh' 
 mael, whom Abraham could not but know before he cir- 
 cumcifed him, was under no fuch indefinite Promife, 
 Gen. xvii. 19,- --23. Therefore he mufl have been cir- 
 cumcifed on fome other Account, and that was in Com- 
 pliance with God's Command, as I have already obferv- 
 cd. Hence then it appears, that the Blefling of Abra- 
 ham^ which the Scriptures fpeak of, cannot confiflentiy 
 come indefinitely on all the Seed of Genlile Believers, 
 becaufe it was not fo to Abraham's own Seed ; nor on any 
 of them, unlefs they be the Children of the Promife, as 
 Ifaac was ; and if they be, 'tis by Grace, not by Na- 
 ture. How then my Argument proves either too httle, 
 or too much, as Mr. F. unjuflly infinuates ; or contra- 
 dicts Scripture, as much as my Opponents, does not yet 
 appear : Nay, the Guilt of falfe Conclufions lies at his 
 own Door, when he infers, contrary to Scripture, that 
 AbrahanC^ Bleffing is come on the Seed of Gentile Be- 
 lievers, as fuch, indefinitely 3 when the Scripture leaches 
 
[ 74 ] 
 
 It was to Ifaacy and the Children of the Promife, as he 
 was definitely. 
 
 But for him to imagine that Church memberfhip in 
 the fleOily Line, is what the ApoftlCjGfl/. iii. intends by 
 Abraham % Bleffing, in Whole, or in Part, not only hath 
 not yet been fhewn, but it is inconfiftent with the very 
 Scope of his Epiftle and Defign therein, which was to 
 reclaim the Galat'iam from Judaifm ; and in doing of 
 this, among other Things, plainly ftiews what Abra- 
 hams Blefling is, and who are his Seed, to whom the 
 Promifes pertained, diftinft froqi the other, who are 
 faid to be in Bondage. 
 
 ** Why then ffays he, Page 47) it feems Church-mem' 
 berjhtp is no Blejfing jjcw^ though it was in Abraham*ir 
 Days : Was it a temporal Ihing, or xvas it a Blejfing to be 
 in the Jewifli Churchy and is it a Blejfing to he out of the 
 Chrijiian ? &c. What Paradoxes are thefe f" 'Tis not 
 unknown, that, our Opponents have Recourfe to this 
 Argument, as one of their main Fortrefles, in favour* 
 of their Principle, and urge it on People with feeming 
 great Plaufibility. To which I anfwer, we afRrm botH 
 together, that Church-meniberfhip was a Blefling, and 
 is fo, with this Limitation, that it be according to di- 
 vine Inftitution ; otherwife, for any to be Church- 
 members, is not a Blefling to them, nor the Way to 
 bring a Blefling on them, but a CurTe. People can't 
 reafcnably expe£t a Blefling but in God's Way, and ac- 
 cording to his Appointments ; and for any to partake 
 t)f that which does not belong to them, is no Blefl^ing, 
 It was no Blefling to the Men of Shechem to be circum- 
 cifed, for all their Hafl:e and Contrivance to make a 
 numerous Church, Gen. xxxiv. 21 — 25. though it wa^ 
 to the Seed of Jacob ; neither was it juftifiable in the 
 Sons of Jacob, to abufe the Ordinance of Circumci* 
 fion, Verfes 15, 16. any more than it is in our Oppo- 
 nents to adminifl:er Baptifm, not according to God's cx- 
 prefs Directions. It was no Blefling to the Philijiines to 
 have the Ark of God among them, i Sam. v. 6. iJc, 
 though it was to Ifrael. Nor was it any Blefling to the 
 Men of Beth-Jkcmejb, or to U^za, to come fo near the 
 
 Ark, 
 
[ 75 ] 
 
 Ark, I Sam. vi. 19. i Chro. xiii. 9. tho' it was ta 
 the Priefts and Levites. So neither is it any Blefling td 
 Infants to be Church- members now, whatever it wasoC 
 ©Id, unlefs there be God's Inftitution for it now, as 
 there was then ; which we have often defired our Op- 
 ponents to {hew, but in vain ! I think I have already 
 proved the Jewijh Church State itfelf to have been 
 temporal ; that is, it continued no longer than till 
 /Chrift came to fet up the Gofpel Church ; then it ne- 
 ccfTarily follows, that Infants Alemberfhip in the "Jewish 
 Church (founded on a divine Command, which is now 
 abrogated) was temporal alfo ; as feveral other Things 
 were, 1 formerly * mentioned, which were peculiar ta 
 Abraham and his Seed. It was a Bleffing to be in the 
 yevjiffj Church j but it is a greater Biefling that the JeW' 
 i/h CEcoromy is abolifhed, and the Gofpel Difpenfati- 
 6n eftablifhed ; as much as the Miniftration of the Spi- 
 rit an^ of Righteoufnefs excels the contrary, 2 Cor. iii. 
 6-- II. Therefore, the Seed or 05springof Believers, 
 enjoy a greater Bleffing now, tho' they are not Mem- 
 bers, in having the' Advantage to behold the unvail'd 
 GiOry of tlie Lord fliinning full upon them, by the 
 Beams of an unma/k'd Gofpel, whereby they are chang- 
 ed into the fame Image, 2 'Cor. iii. 18. and fo fitted 
 ftjr Communion in the Gofpel Church, than the 'Jew- 
 ;^ Offspring had, tho' they were Members of that na-_ 
 tional Church ; who neverthelefs were all their Life- 
 time under a Vail, and fubje<3: to an intollerable Yoke 
 of Bondage, Gal. v. .1. A£ls xv. lo. This View of 
 the Care,'^fufficiently unfolds Mr. i^'s Riddles, to the 
 full Satisfadlion of an unprejudiced Mind ; tho' perhaps 
 he may (in Defence of his received Principle) think 
 proper to keep on ftill, in drawing his Line of Parodox- 
 es J and alFerting, contrary to Evidence, that I have no 
 Medium at all to prove the forefaid Appointment to 
 be repeal'd. In Pages 28, 29. Mr, F. treats on what 
 he calls the Devices of the Anahaptijis^ to prove the 
 Repeal of the faid Appointment of Infant- member-* 
 (hip, and their Right to Ordinances : But for my Partj 
 
 I judge- 
 * Anti. Page 36, &c. 
 
[ 7.6 ] 
 
 2 judge 'tis already fufEciently proved to be repealed j 
 there is therefore no need to dwell on the Devices he 
 mentions at all : Yet I may make a remark or two, 
 on what he fays, and proceed. He endeavours to infet 
 from my Words, *' T'bat we mufi be under both Cove^ 
 nantSy of Works and Grace at once." And then n(ks, 
 *' is not this a Depth unfathomable f" Yes, as much fo, 
 as to find the Reafon of his Inference from my Obfer- 
 vation, when I fay, " The Law (as a rigorous Covenant 
 cf IVorks) is fubfervient to the Gcfpel^ by convincing Men 
 cf Sin^ and condemning for Sin:" That is, tbat the Law, 
 without the leaft Abatement, on pain of Damnation, 
 lequires an exadi:, full and conftant Conformity, to all 
 its Precepts, at the Hand of every one that is under it. 
 Gal. hi. 10. Which when the Tranfgreflbr is convin- 
 ced of by the Law, Rom. iii. 2o. Gal. u. 19. he can 
 have no Hope left to be juftified by it ; but is through 
 Grace brought to embrace the Righteoufnefs of ^hriil, 
 which the Gofpel propofes ; and thus delivered from the 
 Curfeofthe Law, and no more under it, as a Covenant 
 cf Works, but under Grace ; though 'tis to the Belie* 
 ver a perfect Rule of Holinefs. Does not' this fubfervc 
 the Gofpel ? But how this tends to infer, that we are 
 under both Covenants at once, when I exprefly argue 
 the contrary, 1 can't devife. Does Mr. F. mean that 
 Law and Grace make up one Covenant, when he 
 fays, by way of Oppofition, *' The Law is fubfervient 
 to the Gofpel F' If fo, the pure Covenant of Grace he 
 fpeaks of, is a mix'd Covenant with a Witnefs 1 He 
 denies the Law in its rigorous Exaction, or as a Cove- 
 nant of Works, to be fubfervient to the Gofpel : How 
 then as relax'd and lenify'd to the Sinner under its 
 Power ? Let that be {hewn confiftent with their con- 
 demning the f Author of the whole Duty of Man. Or 
 is it no Subferviency to the Gofpel, that the Law (hould 
 convince the Sinner of his Guiltinefs, condemn him 
 without Mercy, and kill his Hope and Expectation of 
 Life and Juflification that Way he once look'd for 
 tliefe Things .? 
 
 In 
 •[ CQnfidcratlon of theQuerifts, Page 27. 
 
[ 77 ] 
 
 in r>eut. iv. 13. Exod. xxxiv, 28. the Law is calW 
 a Covenant : What Covenant? Of Grace or Works ? 
 If of Grace, how then does the Ap^ftle fay, that ly 
 the Deeds of the Law, Jhall no Flejh be jujiified ? But if 
 a Covenant of Works, it is then demanded, whether it 
 was fubfervient to the Gofpel or not ? This he isdefired 
 to an fwer. Says he, Page 29, " Had it been a Cove'- 
 nant of IVorks^ it could not have led to Chrifi^ but fromy 
 him." I hen it muft be a Covenant of Grace ; and fo 
 verily Righteoufnefs is by the Law ! Farewel then all 
 Diftindtions between Law and Gofpel, Works and 
 Grace ! We have no need of you ! The Law is a 
 Covenant of Grace, and the Gofpel a Covenant of 
 Grace : The one fully condemns all that are undei it, 
 without Favour to the Offender ; and the other fully 
 juftifies all under it, without Merit in the Sinner ; and 
 yet, at the fjme time, both one and the fame Covenant of 
 Grace too ! For, fays he, *' The Sinai Covenant {and 
 there the Law was given) was really a Covenant of 
 Grace, and the fame in Sub/lance with that in Heb. viii.** 
 According to Mr. FlaveWs and Mr. Finlefs Ballance, 
 what anexa(5l Poife muft we then be in, " To be fully 
 jujiified, and fully condemned at the fame lime. Sec''* 
 Who knows but thefe areftimeof Mr F's plain Demon- 
 ftra'iors I (hould yield to ? Well, I yield to him, they 
 are plain Demonftrations that his Talk on this Head rs 
 involved in much Confufion. I obferv'd, that kis Argu- 
 ment feems to turn out thus, That the Law was given 
 to be a Covenant of Grace. He anfwers, / think the 
 Caje feems to turn out thus. That Mr. M. is not fufficient' 
 ly apprehenfive of the Force of an Argument, to undertake 
 the Refutation of my Book." 'Tis no woiider at all, if 
 one that has not * Senfe, fhould be at a lofs to appre- 
 hend the invifible Force of an Argument of them that 
 have ! But 'tis' pleafant to fee him bring out the 
 Force of his own Argument thus, *' They who fought 
 yujiification by the Law, thought it was defigned for a 
 Covenant of Works: But they who j ought J ujlif cation 
 hy it^ mifhok its Defign^ therefore it was not given- to be 
 
 if €»" 
 ♦V,ind. Page 52. 
 
■ [ 7S ] 
 
 ii Covenant of JVorks.''* What then ? to be a Covenant 
 of Grace ? (for the Law is called a Covenant) If fo, 
 they virere furely in the right to feek Juftification by it, 
 tho* as many as are of the Works of the Law, be un- 
 der the Curfe. A forcible Argument. 
 
 In the following Pages, our Author having feme Lei- 
 fure, and Freedom from his * abundant Hurry, and hap- 
 pening to be in a v6ry good Humour,' *' or utmoU 
 Colmnefs," diverts himfelf and his Readers for a while,, 
 with an imaginary Profped of" rny Shifting and ^uib- 
 lling, Dijhonejly end Secrecy, Sculking and Hidings Non- 
 fenje and Heterodoxy.^* Good Evidences of a calm Tern-- 
 per I But as long as the Truth is fafe, I fhall leave him 
 to rejoice in his fanciful Entertainment, ai^d pafs on ; 
 tho' 1 might have obfcrv'd by the Way, how willing 
 he is to prefs me to labour in his Stead.. 'Tis himfelf 
 that argues from what he calls Abrahafri% Covenant : 
 And if he does not like the Name, or is at a lofs tq, know 
 ^.^ what kind of Covenant it was," why does he argue 
 from it ? Let him define it, if he thinks proper : Let 
 him give it what Name fuits him ; 'tis enough for mc 
 to call it by^ that Name which he gives it, whilft I am 
 jliewing that his Arguments therefrom, are intirely in- 
 conclufive in the Cafe of Infant Baptifm. • 
 
 What he offers in Page 31, has been fubftantialljr 
 confidered and refuted already. We have exprefs Scrip- 
 ture in our Favour, thzt Ifrael ^nd Judah on their 
 breaking the Covenant were difregarded, and the Co- 
 venant itfelf made old, or aboliihed, Jer. xxxi. 32. 
 fleb. viii. 9. 13. Now unlefs he could produce Scrip- 
 ture which foretels, and declares, that on Peoples coun- 
 teracting their baptifmal Engagements, the Covenant 
 they are now under is aboli{hed,,and that another fhall 
 be made different from it, his Difcourfe is nothing to 
 the Matter : My Argument proves juft enough, that 
 the old Covenant is aboliftied, as was foretold, becanfe 
 they continued not in it \ and all the Appointments un- 
 der it (not excepting Infant memberfhip in that national 
 Church) which were pecuhar £o it, aieaboliihed with it» 
 
 ta 
 • Preface, Page 4, 
 
^ 79 1 . „^, 
 
 In Page 32. fays he, " Mr. M. often requires us ii. 
 give exprefs Proofs in fo many Words^ that Infants are 
 Members in the New Teflament Church ; we require an eX'. 
 prefs Repeal of their Church- inemberjijip. Lei us fee once 
 for all^ vjhich df us have befi Reafon for our rejpe£tive De^, 
 hands. Methinks it is a felf-'cvident Truth, that an 
 Ordinance onte enjoined^ or a competent Authority, muji needs- 
 be in force, until it be repealed by the fame Authority," 
 &c. Anf. I am not unwilling to come to the Trial of 
 our refpeilive Demands, hoping it may have fome good 
 EfFe£t, and bring Things to a defirable IfTue. 'Tis 
 granted on both Sides, that the fame Authority which 
 appoints, can difannul.-— Then we'll proceed: The Pro- 
 inifes made to Abraham, Gen. xii. 2, 3. he had Twen* 
 ty-four Years before he was circumcifed ; hence it ap- 
 pears, that it was not the Promife, but the exprefs Com- 
 inand of God, that was inftitutive of that Ordinance of 
 Circumcifion, and gave him, and his Seed, a Warrant 
 Jo be circumcifed. Now that Law, which gave a Being 
 to Infant-memberfliip and Circumcifion is abolifhed by 
 <iivine Authority, as a Part of the former Admiftiftra- 
 tion ; this muft be granted, or eife Circumcifion is yet 
 m force. Now methinks it is a felf-evident Truth, 
 that when a Law, which gives Being to any Ordinance 
 or Appointment, is abrogated, that Ordinance or Ap- 
 pointment is repealed. Again, that very Covenant Ad- 
 miniftration, whereby the Jewi/h Nation was taken in- 
 to a vifible Church-ftate, is now waxed old, and vanifli- 
 cd, as before fhewn. And further, That Church-ftate, 
 whereinto Infants were admitted as Members and Mate 
 rials, is now abolifhed, as already obferved ; fince the 
 Cafe is thus, that we make appear from Scripture, that 
 the fame divine Authority, v/hich gave a Being to every 
 Particular, which our Opponents infift on in Defence of 
 their Principles, the fame divine Authority hath nov7 
 difannull'd "every of them. It remains therefore, that 
 we have jufl Grounds to require them to produce us ex- 
 prefs Scriptures to prove that Infants are the Subjeds of 
 JBaptifm, and Members in the New Teftament Church; 
 ©therwife they have no Right there, by Virtue of any 
 
 former 
 
, [ So ] 
 
 Ibririer Appointmfnt. But this has never been done, 
 Sind I prefume never will ; and t'll this is done, the Read^ 
 er may fee there is no Reafon I {hould renounce my 
 favourite Principles, as Mr. F. calls them : Seeing they 
 are unmoveably founded on Holy Scripture, even that 
 J)rofefring Btlieveis are the only proper Subjedts of Bap- 
 tifm ; let all Men therefore jud^e betwixt us, which of 
 us have the befj Reafon for our refpe6l^ive Demands. 
 
 Mr. F. " New comes to his t'.ird AJfcrUon^ viz. That 
 God has aBually renewed and confirmed the afore/aid Ap~ 
 fointmem under the New Te/Iament D'ljpmjation : This^ 
 (fays he) /■» the very Propcfal, Jheivs the Falfity oj Mr. M'j 
 Affertion^ that I bring no Scripture to prove the Right- of 
 infants to Baptifm j or that thiy are vifibly in the Co^ 
 venant of Grace." Reply. If AiTertions propofed will 
 {hew the contrary to be falfe, I grant Mr. F. is like to 
 do fumething in this Controverfy, for he has enough of 
 them. If the Cafe be thus, then he, who can pile up the 
 greateft Heap of Aflertions, will carry the Caufe : VV hat 
 Need then is there of Argument or Proof at all ^. But 
 how his AfTertion in the very Propofal (hews the Falfity 
 of mine, which is, that they bring no Scripture to prove 
 the Right of Infants to Bapfifm, when neither in the 
 Propofal itfelf, nor afterwards, any Scripture Proofs ara 
 produced, is very dark, and wants fi/rther Illuftration. 1 
 have already traced the former Appointment from the Be- 
 ginning to the End, and fhewn that tlie Laws whereupoA 
 it depended is abrogated, and the Church ftate in which it 
 was in Force, is ended alfo. Mr. F's proper Province is'i 
 to (hew the inftitution of Infantb Baptifm, or elfe we 
 will ftill plead that none hut profefTing BeHevers are to 
 be baptized according to Chrift's Inftitution, and always 
 fay, as we now do, that he has not the leafl: divine Au- 
 thority for his Piadlicc. Our Author repeatedly refers 
 to thofe Scriptures, which, he fays, " Prove Abraham's 
 Covenant to be the pure Covenant of Grace ^ and therefore 
 confequently is confirmed" If he means by Abraham^ Co- 
 venant, that Covenant of Grace made with Chrift Jcfus, 
 were Believer's Infants, as fuch, ever taken with their 
 Parents into that ? Or if he intends the Covenant Pro- 
 
 mifes 
 
: : . [ 8l ] 
 
 rtiifes publiihed to Abraham^ which he embraced by FaitHi 
 Infants are not interefted in them unlets they are Be-- 
 lievcrs, and fo the fpiritual Seed j nor was the Promife 
 of Grace and Salvation indefinite to Ai^raham' sow a Sced^ 
 as we have already feen. All that Mr. F. has as yet 
 made appear is, that Parents and Children under the 
 former Adminiftration were admitted to partake of Or- 
 dinances j and what is that to his Purpofc ? Truly no* 
 thing at all, fince that Adminiftration with its Appointr 
 ments are long fmce abolifhed. We arc now looleing for 
 the exprefs Inftitution of Infants Baptifm,. and i( he- 
 can't produce any, let him no longer impofef the Prac* 
 tice of it on the World. What can he bring from Jhra* 
 ham's Covenant, in favour of his Principle, when he 
 pleads. Page. 33, ** The NeceJ/ity of Faith to intereji: ut 
 a£luall\ in the Covenant of Grace j and that God requires 
 our Cqnfent to his Terms, and confirms the Covenant t» 
 us on Condition of believing^ this is a making the Covenant 
 with Many Well, then, according to his own Way 
 of talking, the Terms mufl necefTarily be propofed to 
 each in particular, and their Confent obtained, or elfe 
 they are not adtually in the Covenant of Grace. Hence 
 it follows, that Infants are not adually in the Covenant 
 of Grace they fpeak of, for they are not capable of con- 
 fidering the Terms propofed, nor of giving their Confent 
 to them, nor of believing the Faithfulnefs of him who 
 propofes them: Hence it will further follow, that Abra-^ 
 ham's Covenant is confirm'd to none elle but Believers, 
 which is ftill far from the iVIatter in Hand. To fay, 
 that Believers Infants are in Covenant in the Sight of 
 the vifible Church, when yet, at the fame time, they 
 ^e actually out of Covenant in the Sight of the vifible 
 Church, becaufe they have never confented to the Terms 
 propjfed, is another Myftery of their ProfefTion, who 
 arc Advocates for Infants Right to Baptifm. But if he 
 ays, the Confent of the Parents to ihefe Terms brings 
 ''eir Infant Seed alfo with them into Covenant Rektion 
 > God, then it gives room to reply, that Mr, F. repre- 
 nts not only Abraham to be a publick Head in the Co- 
 Ik nant of Grace, but alfo every Head. of a Family in his 
 F Meafurc 
 
[ 82 ] 
 
 Meafure to be fo ; and (o the Covenant of Grace is 
 znade or confirmed with an infinite Number of publick 
 Heads, on behalf of their Seed, * who are not capable, 
 perfonally and explicitly, to covenant for themftlves. 
 Who then can blame the Author of the IVhole Duty of 
 Jldan^ tor his Prudence in contriving a pi.blick Head, 
 as early as the Being of the firft Family on Earth ? 
 - I can't fee, that it is any Reproach to my Judgment, 
 flill to fay, " That Gal. iii, 8. is as remote from his 
 Buftnefsy as any he had cited before.'" This Text (hews, 
 the Gofpel was preached to Abraham^ which we never 
 gaiiifaid. Abraham was in the Covenant of Grace, and 
 io are all his (piritual Seed, whether fevos or Gentiles^ in 
 all At'cs : But what is this to the Cafe in Hand, when he 
 lias not fhewn that Infants were taken into it with their be- 
 lieving Parents ; or that the Covenant was ever confirm- 
 ed to any but true Believers, as the Text itfelf (hews. But 
 fuppofmg the contrary, it would not do, as already ap- 
 pears, without the Inftitution of Infant^ Baptilm, which 
 ^Nc are now looking for, but have not yet Jpund it. 
 
 However, if his Aflertion is not proved, it is not for 
 >vant of repeating the fame groundiefs Arguments over 
 and over ; m Page 34. he again fays, " The Bleffing of 
 Abraham is come on the Gentiles, and their Seed" &c. 
 This has been confidcred already. " He wonders hy 
 what Rule we are to judge that this or thtit particular In- 
 fant is not the Jpiritual Seed, feeing the Proviije is indefi' 
 nite 3 zvere Ahi^hzm's Seed excluded from the Churchy be- 
 taufe it could not be infallibly known, which was the fpirt- 
 tual ^eedF Anf. By his own Rule, f^ind. Page 19. which 
 is thus : " Thefe only are to be accounted the fpiriiual Seed 
 and Children of the Prorhije, who have the real Bliffings 
 of the Covenant in their tnearts^ and not others^ who have 
 not, rho' they be under the outward Difpenjation, and have 
 it vifible Right to the Promije" Here is the Ruie ; where 
 sire his diftin^uifhing fvlaiks whereby tlie fpiritual Seed 
 ihav be known from other Inrants, e'llher oi Chrijiians 
 or Pagans P Has he any outward Evidences ot the real 
 Bleiiin^s of the Covenant in the Hearts of Believers 
 
 Intants ? 
 * Divine Right, Page 39. 
 
I ^3 ] 
 
 thfsR iT '^""'^ 'I' ^P'^^'^"^^ S^^^' according to 
 tha'.U ^K "°."' 'u^ '° be accounted the fpi?itual S?ed,' 
 ;tno they be under the outward Difpenfation, but thofe 
 only who have the real «]effings of the Covenant in 
 
 It In ri p"^ ''^^ "°' "j '^' ^P'^'^"^J Seed, then not 
 at , all for the Promife to Mraham and his Seed does not 
 
 ,0dude them when they are not the Seed oi Abraham 
 n any Refpecl. .. But for him to fay, that Behe vers In- 
 tent beed, are now to be baptized, as Abraham's were 
 
 vncible Difficulty of producing the exprefs Command 
 
 a e nf n ^'' r' >"^ inconfequential Confequences, 
 dolJ K T"^.^'' ^'^'^ °"^>' ^''^ 'hem, who^refo? 
 doing what God commanded them not. Infants were 
 once commanded to be circumcifed j What then? That 
 
 Ter Th K a''^'"'"'^' ^"^^^''' Command, and ano- 
 ther Church flate, different from what we are now con- 
 cerned with ; and therefore no Proof can be brought 
 trom an abrogated Law, and abolifhed Church-ftatc, to 
 Ihew who are the Subjeas of a Gofpel Ordinance, and 
 Members of a New Teftament conftftuted Church. 
 TnfJn; ^- h^^/^gg^ft^'^ more than once, that I called 
 
 rZ. t!fff'^ ? V^" y^"^'^ Church an infipid 
 1 hing; but I cfeny the Charge ; what I called fo. Page 
 43. IS their Infants Church -memberfhip, /. e. the Mem- 
 benh.p of our Opponents Infants in the Prejlyterian 
 Church is an infipid Thing. To ufe Mr. F\ Words. 
 ^ lis no more to be relljhed than the White of an Egg J* 
 becaufe it^has no divine Inflitution to fupport it: Nor 
 Will my Words in their true grammatical Conflruaion, 
 and bcope, bear another Senfe. But he muft fay fome! 
 tning, m order to charge me with « Wickednejs;' that 
 he m.ght make his Readers believe, « I boldly LtradiSi 
 f^prefs Scripture,'' when in the mean while it is not fo. 
 i he hrfi 1 ext Mr. F. ch.efly inf.fts on, is J^s ii. 30. 
 IJ^el^romiJe IS to you, and to your Children, and to all 
 
 \ ,f ^^7 ''^'";^ ^-^^ ^'"^^ '^^ '"'^"y ^' ^^' Lord our God /ball 
 ^^il. in anfww to his Plea for Infants Right to Baptifnx 
 
 ^ 2 ffojn 
 
■ f «4 ] 
 
 from this Place, I obferved, i. " Tloe Promife is'ihe 
 fame both to the Parents and Children ; if it is the Promife 
 of Pardon of Sins and Gift of the HolyGhofl to Parents^ Uts 
 
 fo to the Children : 'Tis Jironze that Mr. ¥. who charges 
 us with curtailing Abraham'5 Blcffvg^fjould himielf cut tail 
 this Promife, that the Parents were to have Remrffiorl of 
 Sins^ hut all that is pL-aded for their Infants, is that they 
 were to enjoy outzvard Priviledges-- to be. -baptized -Does 
 the Apo file make any fuch Difference ^'^ He fays, No, nei- 
 ther does he : Does not he, when he pleads, that Parents 
 
 • have prefent Forgivenefs of Sins, a:.d Children but out- 
 ward Privrledees? Thofe have the Application of Chrift's 
 Blood by Faith, and the San£l:ification of the Spirit; 
 Thefe not : Believing Parents have the prefent, actual 
 Efficacy of the i-*romife in their Hearts, but Infants only 
 a prefent Right : Thofe are in a State of Peace with 
 God : T htTe Children of Wrath. And yet he makes no 
 Difference f *Tis true, the Apoftle makes no fuch Di- 
 itinition, nor h there any Ground for it in the Text ; 
 tho' our Opponents would willingly flrain it to fer^ye their 
 favourite Principle of Infant-baptifm, and curta 1 this 
 Promife to Children, and fufpend them from the Bleffings 
 of the Promife, who, they lay, have a Right to the Pro- 
 mifr, without the leaft Foundation in the Words to 
 giatify their Defigns. Sa\s he, '*' What we fay is plain 
 enough, viz. That God has engd^ed himf elf by Promife to 
 Believers and their Seid ; hence the Parent's Faith is the 
 Condition of the Childrens Right to the Promife, for the 
 Seed of the Righteous .fkall be bleffed. Reply; Inlttad.df 
 being plain enough, this makes triC'Carc'llri'll darker : To 
 fay thar tiie Parent's Faith is th^- Conditron oF the Chil- 
 drens Right to the Fromife, is a Point of Divitiny, that 
 needs ftnther Pi oof than Mr. /^s bare faying, *' It Was 
 good in Anrahani'x, and in Petet'j Day" F(»r it is Faith, 
 and not naiur li Butnright, that is appointed to interefl 
 us in the Promifci^ Heb. xi 33 Have the Children on 
 this Condition a Right to the BlefTings ot the Promife, 
 or only to die Pnunife without the Bleilings oi it? If to 
 t-he BifcfTings pioniis'd, then kc him fhew, that the Chil- 
 <k-6ii uf Bclieveis^ as fuch, have any more Right to the 
 
 Pardon 
 
[ 85 ] 
 
 Pardon of Sin, than the Children of Unbelievers, Galf 
 iii. 22. Epb. ii. 3. Ezek. xviii. 20. unlefs they are borij 
 Belidveis ; other wify to fay, that Unbelievers upon any 
 Condition have a Right to Jullificaaon, Adoption and 
 Salvation, is too grofs an Error in Divinity once to b? 
 alloA-ed ; for none has, nor ever had any Right to Hea- 
 ven but re2;enerate Souls, John iii. 3. It does not 
 appear, that any have a Right to thefe promifed Bkflings, 
 tut ih )fc who by Faith do lay hold on the Promife : I 
 am not necefTitated to argue againft Abrahan^% Covenant, 
 as he fuggells, when I argue againft his Mifjeprefenta- 
 tions oi it ; for none of the Seed of Abraham had a 
 Right to the Pardon of Sin and Salvation, becaufe they 
 were the Seed of Abraham according to the Fiefh, as 
 thefe Scnptuies teftify, Rom. iv. i6 ix. 7, 8. Gal. iii- 7, 
 9, 10. Hut if Children, on the Condition of their Pa- 
 rent's Faith, have only a Right to the Promife, and no 
 Intereft m the Bleflinga promifed, where is there any 
 Ground for this Diftindlion, in the Text under Confi- 
 deiation ? Let it be made appear, that any have an Inte- 
 xell: ill the Promife of Pa. don of Sin, Juftification and 
 eternal Life, who have not at the fame time, the Bene- 
 fits promifed, John iii. 36. Says he, " The Seed of the 
 Righteous Jhall be bUffed." What then? Chrift is given 
 for a Lighc to thcGcntiUs^ that he might be the Lord's 
 Salvation unto the End of the Earth ; and fo there is a 
 Promife, That in him Jhall all Nations be hleffcd. Let us 
 compare both together, according to our Opponents 
 Way of arguing: Are Believers Infants vifibly in Cove- 
 nant ? So are all the unbelieving Nations, as much as they. 
 Shall they be blelTed .? So fhall all Nations, Are they 
 under indefinite Promifes? So are all Nations as much. 
 Has God declared it to be his Pleafurc to give Salvation, 
 with all its Pre-requifites, to Believers Seed ? So has he 
 alfo to all Nations, or elfe they can't be blefTed, A good- 
 ly Argument to prove the Inftitution of Infant baptifm ! 
 You fee Mr. F's Proof from this Text, for Infants Right 
 to this New Teflament Ordinance is full ftrong, whea 
 •it proves fo much, that all Nations may be baptized by 
 Virtue of the Promife to them, as well as Infants ! For 
 F 3 their 
 
[ 86 ] 
 
 their unbelieving Infants, and the unbelieving Nations, 
 have juft a like vifible Right to the Promifes , both are 
 deftitute of the prefent Efficacy of them : And if one Par- 
 ty has thereby a prefent Right to Baptifm, fo has the other. ' 
 But the Truth is, before either one or the other pofTefs 
 any Part of the Eflate (as he words it) or enjoy Church 
 Priviledges, they muft, in the firft Place, give in Evi- 
 dence, according to Law, of their being proper Heirs, 
 even a ProfefTion of their Faith and Repentance, other- 
 wife their PofTeffion is illegal, according to the New Te- 
 itamcnt Laws. Says he, *' Js the Parents were baptized, 
 lecaufe the Promife belonged to them, fo alfo the Children." 
 Does he mean the Children were alfo baptized ? We have 
 only Mr. /"share Word for this : The divine Hiftorian 
 informs us of no fuch Thing ; *tis therefore a bold Im- 
 pofition on his Readers, to affirm they were : f judge, 
 this Article of his Faith needs the Confirmation of new 
 Miracles, before it can be received as one of the Truths 
 of God, who hath not written to us, that any Infants 
 ever were, or fhould be baptized j and had not our Au- 
 thor been ftrongly biafi'd with Error, he would not 
 have once prefum'd to infinuate, much lefs afTert, the 
 Children were baptized, in the Manner he has done. 
 
 2. To (hew the Inconclufivenefs of his Argument 
 from this Text, I further obferv'd, *' The Go/pel is not 
 preached to Infants, neither do the Precepts of it enjoin 
 Jlepentanee on Infants as a Duty in that Capacity ; and 
 ftnce Repentance always precedes Baptifm., J deftrd him ta 
 Jhecv the fcriptural Grsunds of his Practice, cr even the reO' 
 foHablenefs of his Opinion, that Infants are capable of 
 giving Obedience to God in Baptifm, when they are inca- 
 pablt to repent " &c. He anfwers, *'. This Argument is 
 to be Jpoken to afterwards in courfe." And again refers 
 Us to Circumcilion ; an aboliflied Rite, and an abro- 
 gated Command it feems is the Ground he has for In- 
 fant Baptifm ; But when he fo often refers to that 
 Cuftom, 'tis reafonable he fhould give us Scripture 
 Authority, which requires our adminiflering Baptifm, 
 conformable to the Law and Cuftom of Circumcifion, 
 which be has not yet done. Sa^-s he, " /; would have 
 
 y. : . ' dotJi 
 
[ 87 ] 
 
 4one equal Execution among Ahc^ham's Infants^ whower$ 
 as- uncapable to believe and repent^ as ours." Repl^, 
 There was the exprefs Command of God, to circum- 
 cife AbraharrC^ Infants ; and by that Command, thofe 
 were required to be circumcifed, who at the time v.ere 
 incapable to repent. But Baptifm is another Ordinance, 
 founded on another Command, which every where re- 
 quires Repentance to precede the Reception of this Ordi- 
 nance, in hII the Subjects uf it : Let him ihew us the 
 exprefs Command which warrants the baptizing of In- 
 fants, who are incapable to repent, and it will end the 
 Difpute ; otherwife this Argument will do Execution in 
 theprefent Cafe, and not touch Abraham'^ Infants, He 
 a{ks, " Mujl every Thing that is required of grown 
 Perfons, be required of Infants ?" Anf. No; by Rea- 
 fon of their Incapacit)^, 'tis not required of them to re- 
 pent, and. if not to repent, neither is it required they 
 fhould fubmit to BaptiTm ; for that Duty is always re- 
 quired toforegothis, according to the Scriptures : Unlefshe' 
 ftill reads the Scriptures backward, be baptized, and repent. 
 Says our Author, " I fuppofe he thinks it much to his 
 Purpofe^ to obferve^ that it is certain a Promife can never 
 make that to be a Duty, which is not commanded." Anf. 
 Yes, very much. Ada/n, Jbel, Seth and Enochs had 
 the Promife : But the Pron^ife did not make it a Duty 
 to them to be circumcifed, or baptized, as we have an 
 Account of. Abraham h2Ld the Promife Twenty- four 
 ^ Years, before it was his Duty to be circumcifed. There* 
 .fore it is not the Promife that- is inflitutive of an Ordi- 
 nance, or warrants one to partake of it, as our Oppo- 
 nents fondly imagine ; but the Command of God. Now 
 if they had the fame Promife, they may have it to the 
 End of Time, before it will give them Ground to bap- 
 tize their Infants, without the Inftitution of Infant Bap- 
 tifm, or having the exprefs Command of God for it : 
 And therefore I ftill fay for them to urge the baptizing 
 of Infants from this Place, is a fad Abufe of this Pro- 
 mife. 
 
 3. I obferv'd, that by [Children] here we are to un- 
 
 deriiand not Infants, but Children grown to iuch Years 
 
 F 4 pf 
 
. [ S8 ] 
 
 of Maturity, as to be capable of receiving the Holy 
 Ghoft, by hearing the Gofpel ; and for this Purpole, f 
 compared this 39th Verfe with the 17th of the fame 
 Chapter. He abfks, *' H'ho told me that the fame are 
 fpoken in both Places f" Anf. If no Body had told me, 
 the Truth is ftill the fame. To compare Scripture with 
 itfelf, Mr. F. allows to be a good Way todetccl Errors ; 
 and fo by looking to Verfe 17, where thoie, who are 
 here called Children, are there *' Sons and Da'ttphterx 
 frepbefying.^* Confidering alfo, what the Promife is, we 
 are enabled to difcover his Error in this Cafe; when he 
 "Would have it, that Infants arc here intended, and that 
 the Promife was to them, and to the Infants of tbofe 
 mentioned in Verfe 17. But the Children in Verfe the 
 J7th, to whom the Promife belonged, were grown capable 
 to receive the Holy Ghoft by hearing, and to prophe- 
 fy^ and there are no other Children mentioned there : 
 Such then muft be underftood by Children in the 39th 
 Verfe, where there is a Reference to the fame Proniife. 
 He proceeds with a View to prove that Infants are 
 meant in this Text, and hopes to do it unanfwerably ; 
 accordingly he gees about to fhape fomething, which he 
 calls unanfwerable Arguments. The firft is taken from 
 /the Apoftle^s changing the Perfons : Says he, " If grown 
 I^erfsns^ capable' ef hearing the Werd^ he meant ^ why 
 does the yfpojile change the Perjsns ? They were grown Per- 
 fons he/poke to ; that is granted : But who are the Perjons 
 hefpskeef? He calk them Children : If they were growKy 
 capable of hearing, why does he not /peak to them F Why 
 net fay, the Prrmife is to you Parents, and you Children j 
 and fa make them o different Divifion by themj elves? hlav- 
 ing fs-id, the Pramife li to you ; why Jbould he fay, and 
 yoitr Children, unlefs he meant theit Infants F" Anf. 
 The Apofile fpake w^ith Regard to the Promife in Jsel 
 ii. 28. whofe Wards he recites, j£is ii. 17. jfnd it ft.alt 
 (om» to pafs in the^ la^ Days {faith God) I will pour gut of 
 my Spir ii upon till Fltjh^ and your Som, and your Daugh- 
 1(grs Jball p^ophefy, and your youvg men fnall Jse fifiens^ 
 4md your old Men fhall dream Dreami. Now, here ob- 
 fcrvcj according to Mr. /"s own. Rule, and by the Force 
 
 of 
 
[ 89 ] 
 
 of the fame Argument, thefe Si)ns and Daufrhfers, young 
 Men and old Men, are all Infan's, becaul'e they ate 
 fpoken of, and not fpoken to ; for why Ihould he fay, 
 and your Sons, and your Daujirhters, and your young 
 Men, and vour old Men, unltfs hi- triKant their infanta? 
 This is one of Mr. F's unanfwcrable Ai^umenis, to 
 prove that Infants are ineanr in this Text, l>v the VVord 
 Children. iA goodly one indee-i ! Is it po/Iibie to con- 
 trive any Thing more rrdiculous an<i incc'iu tuSive ? And 
 what Dependance is to be made on his Judjiment, when 
 he looks on this to be an unanfvverabie Argument, is foon 
 difcerned. He muft ntceHdrily fav, thefe vtiung Men, 
 a'nd old Men, are all Infants, according to his Way of 
 arguing, or elfe own (which he is verv unwilling to do^ 
 that the Apoftle's Words are agreeable to the univerfal 
 Form of fpeakmg among Men ; and fo are very intelli- 
 gible, tho* Iniants are not to be undeiftood by this Word 
 Children. • 
 
 ':- 2. He argues from the Apoftle's Defign in the Words, 
 which '* IVas (fays he) to encourage ihe Jews to embrace 
 ChriRianity," <ije. Anf. That the Apoftie hereby de- 
 j&gned to encourage thofe of the yezvs, who were prick'd 
 in their Hearty to look unto Ghrift, for Relief from 
 their prefent.Diftrefs, iis granted : But that he deligned 
 hereby to inform them that their Infants had a Right to 
 Baptifm, is deny'd, for it does not appear from this 
 Place, or eitewhera ; neither could the y^tyj, who were 
 imder an awakening Seryfe of tlieir Guilt, be fo mifta- 
 ken, as to think their infants had a Right to the Pardon 
 of Sin and Salvation, by their Faith : And tho' the un- 
 believing y^u*j indeed, were very tenacious of their Birth 
 Priviledges, and valu'd themfeWes highly above others, 
 en the Account of their being the Off; priBg of godly 
 Anceftois j but thefe who weve under fuch folemn Im- 
 preiiions, were Perfons of a different Character. Our 
 Author is at a Lofs to know how thefe fewi did at 
 once become Jmi-p^diybapttjis', but why is not he at \ 
 greater Lofs, to know how they did at once become 
 ChriJIiam, who a little before crucified Chrift: But that 
 frtflic divine Power which effedsd ths greatef^*was f'ft- 
 
 .. ,1 . ... cicat 
 
[ 9° ] 
 
 clent alfo to efFeft the lefler ; /. e. to inform them of the 
 Nature and Order of the Gofpel Church, 
 
 3. Says he, " T.h'ts Prc7nife is the fame in Subjiance 
 ruitb Abraham's Covenant; but his Covenant comprehended 
 his Infant Seed ; therefore the Infants of Believers an in- 
 tended in this Promife." Anf. This is a I'n mife of the 
 Outpouring of the Spirit, J£is ii. 17. And in«in ordinary 
 Way, theSpiritand the Word go together, Ifai. lix. 21. 
 And according to God's flated Order, is poured out bv tHe 
 Miniftry of the Word, j^^s x. 44. Therefore this Pro- 
 mife intends Children capable of hearing the Word, and 
 iiot in their Infant-ftate, which does not ferve Mr. F^* 
 Purpofe, if he means by Abraham's Covenant, the for- 
 mer Appointment of Infant memberlhip in the Jewijh 
 Church, for that is Ihevvn to be abolished ; and it yet 
 remains to prove it was ever renewed in the Gofpel- 
 Church, which this Promife is not hkely to do ; not 
 only becaufe it does not appear that Infants arc intended 
 in it, but alfo, becaufe a Promife is not inflitutiveof an 
 Ordinance, but the Command of God. 
 
 To obviate a Cavil of theirs, which is, that ^^^e caft 
 away Infants utterly j I obferved, we are not fpeaking 
 of what God does with Infants, but of his Order in the 
 Gofpel with thofe come to Years of Underftanding. 
 Mr. F. in Page 39. thinks this to be a fufficient Ground 
 for the Charge j ** Jnd if we a5i according to our Prin- 
 ciples (fays he) we never' plead for the Salvation of a dy- 
 ing Child:' Anf. Why ail this Noife ? Mr. F. their 
 Advocate, who charitably pleads the Infant Caufe, has 
 not made appear, they ever were in the Covenant of 
 Grace; 'twill be time enough to charge us with carting 
 them out, when he makes good his Afiertion : And as 
 to our praying for them, I fhall make bold to afk him 
 a Queftion on this Occafion, Vv^hat does he make of the 
 Apoftles Words, " I exhort, that Prayers be made far 
 all Alenf* Does Mr. F. pray for all Men, or not? If 
 for all Men, what Ground has he to go upon, when 
 he pieads there is no Promife to thofe who are out 
 of Covena*nt ? Are all Men vifibly in the Cove- 
 rant v^ But if he prays- only for fomc Men, how does 
 
L 9' ] 
 
 he obey this Precept ? Were there any Kings In the 
 viflble Church in Paul's Time ? And if we are not to 
 pray for any out of the viable Church, how came Paul 
 to be fo miftaken, as to exhort Timothy to pray for thofe 
 out of the viflble Church, if the Cafe be as Mr. F. 
 teaches ? Nay, how came Paul to forget himfclf, when 
 he pray'd for King Jgrippa and Fe/ius, and the reft of 
 them, JSfs xxvi. 29, xxv. 23. were they vifibly in the 
 Covenant ^ If not, how came Paul to defire they might 
 fhare the fame fpiritua! Bleflings with himfclf? Did 
 Paul know of any fuch Covenant as our Opponents talk 
 of? Or did he then pray without a Promife ? Again, 
 does Mr. F. ever pray for the Heathen^ that God would 
 give them Salvation, with all its Pre-requ«fitcs ? Jf he 
 does, what Ground has he to pray for thofe who are 
 out of Covenant, and.to whom there is no Promife ac- 
 cording to his * Principles ? If not, then he never fays 
 the LordU Prayer. More might be added, but this fuf- 
 fices to detedt the Folly of his V/ay of talking on this 
 Head, when his own Principles involve him in the fame 
 Inconfiftency which he endeavours fo faften on us. 
 
 4. I obferved, '* That the Promife runs exactly the 
 fame to the unconverted Gentiles, in the Prefent Tenfe^ as 
 it does to toe Children^ and if Children were in Covenant^ 
 in the Manner our Opponents plead for, by Virtue of this 
 Promife^ fo were the unconverted Gentiles." Mr. F. an- 
 fwers, ''^ He may^ with equal Power of Logick, fay, if 
 the unconverted Gentiles had no Right in this Promife^ 
 neither had the Parents.-- -Thus he has found out a Way 
 to prove, that the Promife was at prefent either to ally or' 
 to none at all.'* Reply j ' Tis true, I have found* out a 
 Way to fhew the Invalidity of his Argument from this 
 Text, in Favour of his Pradlice. But he might have 
 known, had he pleas'd, that I deny'd either Parents, 
 Children or Gentiles, to have any Right in this Promife, 
 but according to the Order of the Gofpel, A^s xx. 21, 
 And tho' the Promife is exprefled in the Prefent Tenfe, 
 yet that does not prove the prefent Right of any to it, 
 but thofe who do by Faith embrace it 3 whether they ht 
 
 Parents, 
 * Vind. Page -^6. 
 
I 9^ ] 
 
 Parents, Children, or Gentiles. Where then can the 
 gVeat Abfurdity be? Truly it lies on his Side, in fjying 
 the Promife fhall be to the Gentiles, contrary to the 
 grammatical Confl:ru£^ion of the Words. '* New, fays 
 he, let him try, whether he can avoid, either to Jay, the 
 laji Claufe of the Verfe limits the former, or elfe to own, that 
 tny Conftru£iion is jujl and grammatical? Or laflly,* fay, 
 that the unconverted Gentiles had a Right in the Promife ?" 
 Anf. 'Tis true, he fays, I quit the old Refuge of ih? 
 Jnabapti/ls, " That the laji Claufe of this Verfe is a Li- 
 mitation of the former." He (hews \xi, he is veiy wil- 
 ling to receive ; furely my faying that it i3 not our 
 main Strength, does not infer it is none at all. I '■'• pro- 
 fefs every where to deny'* that any have a Right to, or 
 Jntereft in, the Promife, but called Ones, or thofe who 
 do by Faith embrace it, and vet at the h^me time fav, 
 the Promife is exprefs'd in the Prefent Terfe to'the Gen^ 
 tiles : And if this is a plain Contradiction, as hc.fuggefts, 
 "tis fucha Contradidibn which iMr. F. himfelf ^muil fall 
 into ; or elfe, let him do his pofTibles, yea, tho' he fay 
 he will * rather die than own the Conclufion, he can't 
 avoid it, which is, that the unconverted Gentiles have 
 as much Right in the Promife, as uriconverted Chil- 
 dren ; for the Promife is exprefs'd in the Prefent Tenfe^ 
 and runs exactly the fame to one, full as much as the 
 other: For him to fay, *' f // is to the Gentiles when- 
 ever they fkall le. called," does but give us Room to fay, 
 it is to the Children, whenever they fhall be called. 
 But if Children have a vifible Right in the Promife, and 
 are therefore to be baptized,- b^caufe it is to them at 
 prefent; the fame AgUment with equal Force does 
 prove fhe Gentiles have a vifible Right in the Promife, 
 iind muft therefore be baptized, becaufe it is to them at 
 prefent alfo : And if thofe afar off are not uader the 
 Call of the Gofpel, neither are Infants. Mr. Fi Aigu- 
 ment from this Text, unhappily proves a great deal too 
 much for him, and therefore nothing at all to his hurpofe. 
 How well he underftands Grammar, I am not concerned ; 
 
 but 
 
 • Vind. Page 78. f Charitable Pica, Page 43. • 
 
[ 93 ] 
 
 but he is far from obliging me to acknowledge his Cow-' 
 ftrucSlion of the Words to be juft and grammatical. 
 
 5. And laftly, *' That which fully overthrows all thai ^ 
 our Opponents have rois'd from this Scripture in Favour of 
 their Practice, and which will fur ever render all thAr fw 
 ture Endeavours ufelefs and invalid on this Head^ ts the 
 Jc.ount which the Scripture gives us of this /Affair, AOis ii. 
 41, 42. Then they that gladly received his Word were bap~ 
 iized ; and the fame Day there were added unto them about 
 Three Thoujand Souls. And they continued Jiedfajily in the 
 Jpofiles DoSfrine and Fellowjhip., and in breaking of Breads 
 and in Prayers. Here is no Mention of any baptized., but 
 thofe who received the Gcfpel gladly : Not a Word of any 
 Infants baptized" Sec In anfwer, Mr. F. fays, " Here- 
 en he breaks out into a Catara^ of Pity for us---We would 
 have the Matter proven., not taken for granted---! would 
 ofk., were they not baptized who had an Interefl in the 
 Promife ? Yes doubtlefs., for the Promife is mentioned as 
 the Ground of their Engagement to be baptized." Reply ; 
 The Matter is proven already, beyond any juft Excep- 
 tion, when the Scripture mentions none that were bap- 
 tized, but thofe who received the Word gladly. Our 
 Opponent certainly forgets himfelf, when he requires us 
 to prove that Infants were not baptized : He affirms 
 they were ; we deny ; 'tis his Place to prove what he 
 affiims: But where is his Proof ? What Scripture fays 
 they were? None at all : Yet he concludes confidently, 
 *tis " Yes., doubtlefs" with him, without the leaft Scrip- 
 ture Hiftory to teftify in favour of it. He does not 
 know there was one Infant baptized for all his Confi- 
 dence, much lefs hath he proven from Scripture there 
 were. *' His Principles feems to admit of no Probabilities,'* 
 tho' attended with the utmoft Uncertainty. He can tell 
 his Readers of dying, and what not, rather than owning 
 the contrary ; all Confidence, and no Proof. This Place 
 laft cited, very evidently (hews who they were, which 
 had an Inteieft in the Promife, even thofe who gladly 
 receiyed it. Here is not a Word that the Infants had ara 
 Interefl in the Promife, on the Account of their Parents 
 F*iith ; According to thefe Vcrfes, that Intereft in the 
 
 Promifea 
 
: ; ,[ 94 ] 
 
 Promife, which qualified any for Baptifm, was obtained 
 by receiving the Word of Promife publlflied, which In- 
 fants were incapable of, therefore they were not bap- 
 tized. It is Mr. Ps own * Rule, and it is a colden One 
 too, the bcft I find in his Book, " J^haf God hath not 
 Jaid, he don't require us to believe." God hath not faid 
 that the Jnfant.s of the Thiee Thoufand wcie baptized 
 or that any others fliould ; thercfoi-e he doth not require 
 us to beheve it : And how Mr. F. dares ' to impofe it 
 on the World, as ati Article of Faith, X^hen God dbfs 
 not require it ftiould be believed, he wdUlfl^ do well to 
 confider. r.nVr j. »■ , 
 
 There is nothing now in the Way to hinder^'my ob'- 
 ferving again, that our Opponents may as well fay, and 
 with as much Truth, that Infants received the Lord'* 
 Supper, as to fay they were baptized j for the Scripture 
 does not give the leali Ground to believe the one, more 
 than the other. 'Tis a pitiful Cafe, that he fliould be 
 confident, even unto Death, of a Point for which he 
 hath not (hewn us one Command, Example, or Hint 
 in the Word of Gi.d. ^ ' • •' 
 
 In Page 40, Mr. F. comes to treat on Rom. xi. i6' 
 17. which he reckons clear to his Purpofe, and unan^ 
 fwerable: And hence infifts, that the loederal Holinefsof 
 Believers Children is here afTerted, and that the grafting 
 Jn, is juft anfwerable to the breaking off. I have already 
 Ihewn the Inconclufivenefs of his Arguments, for Infant- 
 memberfhip, and their Right to Baplifm from this Text 
 He imagines *' I amfenfehly perplexed b^ thU Place, when 
 all my Force confijh in begging the ^uejVton- That my IVords 
 are like the I'l/ords of one who would fay Jonuthmg, but 
 knows not ivhat ;" wiih a deal mure oi fucli neediefs, as 
 well as groundlefs Chmours. I obfcrv'd the Gentiles ' 
 were not grafted into the Jm^/; Church, as it ftuod un- 
 der the Law, which Mr. F readilv grants. Then they 
 muft have been grafted into the Ne'vv Feitament Church - 
 A vifible Church, quite different in its Ccnftitution froni 
 thcjewtjh : A Church made- up of profefling Believers, 
 and none clie, that we can find : Tho' Mr.>. inccnll- 
 
 derately 
 * Vinda Page 76, 
 
t 9S J 
 
 derately affirms, " That the Jewsjood no more (i. c. in 
 the former Church) by fosderal Hol'tnefi^ and <vithout Faith 
 in the Mejfiah, than Chri/iians do." For which Furpofe, 
 he cites three Places of Scripture, Exod. xii. 15. xxii. 
 20. xxiii. 20, 21. and ttlls us, he might quote Three 
 Hundred to prove it, I do not know of any Body that 
 quellioiis but he might, and all as far from the Purpofe, 
 as the three he cites. I did not argue in Oppofition to 
 thefe Quotations, that fcederal Holinefs would fecure Per- 
 fons from utter Deftrudion, who were found guilty of fla- 
 gitious Crimes, or open Violation of God's Commands, 
 any more than a bare ProfefTion of Faith will now ; but 
 that the Terms of ftanding in the Jiwijh and Chriftian 
 Church, are different. Thofe who were Defcendents 
 from Abraham, had a Right to be in the Jewljh Church, 
 and partake ot its Priviledges, according to, and by vir- 
 tue of, divine Appointment ; even tho' they had no 
 Faith in the Mefliah. This methinks Mr. F. himfeif 
 can't deny ; for it will be hard for him to fhew, either, 
 I. That the Millions of Infants of Abraham's Line, at 
 eight Days old, had Faith in Chrift, or that it was* re- 
 quired they fhould : Or, 2. That they had no Right 
 to ftand iH the Jewijh Church. This is the Cafe, let him 
 take his Choice, and as he fayselfewhere, anfwer for it. 
 Again, when Chrift was upon Earth, and whilft the 
 Jewijh Church State was not yetabolifhed, grown wick- 
 ed People, who, I believe Mr. F. himfeif wiU hardly 
 fay, they had any Faith in Chrift, when they affirmed 
 that Chrift was poireffed with the Devil, John vii. 20. 
 Yet^thofe very People had a Right to ftand in the Jew', 
 ijh Church, and to hkve their Children circumcifed, ac- 
 cording to the Law of God, Verfes 22, 23. andean 
 Mr. F. affign any other Reafon for their ftanding there, 
 bu: becaufe they were Abraham's Seed, or as he words 
 it, fcederally Holy? (Could he once {hew, that Infants 
 had a Standing in the Gofpel Church, it would end the 
 Difputq) And thus it continued, till the Time fully 
 came, ^when the Jewijh Nation was broken ofF from 
 their Church Relation to God : The Charter, or Co- 
 venant Adminiftraaon, whereby he took that Nation in- 
 
 t« 
 
. ■ ■ I 96 1 
 
 JO a vifible Cluirch Sfate, and was an Hufband un(6 
 them, he himfelf hath made old, and regards them no 
 more as h<s Church, on ihe Account of it, Jer. j^xxi. 
 32. Heh. viii. 9 --IS" Then the old Koufe was demo- 
 JUhed, Circumcifion, Infant- niemberfhip, and what cur 
 Opponents call foederal Hdinefs, ended wi'hit, as to any 
 1 »fing that yet appears to the contrary. Then ti e new 
 Covenant tobk Place, ?.nd the New Teflament Church 
 was gloriouily eftabliflied. And thofe jfews who were 
 admitted into it, were not admitte'd on the Terms of 
 their ftanding, in the former Church j i.e. becaufc they 
 were the Chiltjren of j^brahaniy wliich is intimated at tlie 
 very Dawn c)f ihe Golpel Difpefifation, Mat. iii. 8. 9. 
 but on the Ter.ftis of the New Teftament Church ; /. e, 
 receiving the Word of Promife gladly, even believing 
 in Chnft exhibited ancl crucified, A^s ii. 41. But we 
 have no Mention made here, nor elfewhere, that their In- 
 fants were admitted with theni into the Gofpel Church, 
 on the Account of any foederal Holinefs. This is a Point 
 which highly concerns Mr. F. to proye, if it could.be 
 done J or elfe throw up his d^vhng TcneC of Ihta,ht Bap- 
 tifm, which he is very unwilling to do ; But inftead ov 
 proving it, he takes it for granted, and it is fo clear to 
 him, that he thinics it is mere Obfiinacv in us not to fee 
 it ; " JVe fljut our Eyes^ and it is hard for hi?n to give Uf 
 Light." What is the Light he has to give ? .VV^hy, 
 ^' The believing Jews zoere not broken cff. and confequent- 
 ly were continued in the Pojfrjjion of their former Priv'ilcdgeit 
 which extended aljo to their Children." hut did tliey con- 
 tinue in the former Church ? No, they were added to 
 the New Teftament vifibie Church, Jt^s W. 41. which 
 was made up at firft of a Number of 'Jews profelyted 
 to Chiiftianity. Now. unlefs Mr. R could (liew, that 
 their Infants were added with them, he is but jurt where 
 he was ; and as ciofe as he imagines our Eyes to be, we 
 can fee well enough that he tries to build up his Princi- 
 ple, without any real Foundation in Scripture, 
 
 And as inconclufive is his Reafoning, from the Man- 
 ner of conveying ftederal Holinefs, and niakiiig as ma- 
 ny RoQt* as Branches. This lays him under t,he DifK- 
 
 culty 
 
culty of ftiewing, that any Infants were ^ver takenr witfa 
 their Parents into the Gofpel Church. The old Co- 
 venant, which took the Jewijh Nation into a vifible 
 Church, as we have feen, is abolifhed : And the new Co- 
 venant is not according to it. Let Mr. F. fhew, that 
 any now are taken into a vifiblc Church, but Believ- 
 ers, out of all Nations } this would finifh our Contro- 
 Verfy. 
 
 Our Author indeed fays,' " That the Grafting in, zOat 
 anfwerable to the Breaking off \^' i. e: that as Unbelievers 
 and their Seed were broken oiF; fo Believers and their 
 Seed were grafted in. This he looks on to be ** an e- 
 vident Truth ;" but fo far otherwifc, that it feems to be- 
 tiothing but a Conjedlure " of his own, fram'd to give 
 fame agreeable Colour to his Prz6li.ce, which can no 
 wife be admitted for Truth ; becaufe it is inconfiftent 
 vl^ith the Scripture Account of.the Nev?' Teftament 
 Church : Neither indeed is it reafonable to fuCpofe, that 
 tjie Infants of Gentiles were grafted into the New Tefta- 
 rhent Church, together with their believing Parents, 
 when the Jewijh Infants were not, as hath ever yet 
 been made appear. If the Cafe be thus, Mr. F. thinks 
 ** Abraham is no Prejident of our Previle^ges, but ijue 
 mufi feek for another Father." Truly, Lcan't fay, but 
 if our Opponents fought lefs to Abrahani, and more to 
 Chrift, they would fee the Order of the Gofpel Church 
 much better than they do. But why all this ? Is Abra- 
 ham no Prefident of our Priviledges, if Infant-mem- 
 berfliip be abolifhed ? How does this ftrange Confequenc« 
 follow? Let it, be confidered in what Circumftances 
 Abraham is propofed as the Prefident of our Priviled- 
 ges, and it will appear it was before the Conftitutionof the. 
 Jewijh Church, or the Inftitution of Infant-memberfhip 
 therein j even whilft he was in Uncircumcifion, Rom. 
 iv. 9, fo II. Gen. xv. 6/. Therefore, nothing hind- 
 ers but he may be the Prefident of our Priviledges after 
 t"he Jewijh Church is at an End, and Infant-member- 
 fhip abolifhed, as he was propofed before the Being of 
 either. I may here argue again by Suppofition, as I did 
 before : Now fuppofe the Cafe was as he urges ; yet 
 G tiii 
 
[ 98 ] 
 
 his Argument would be ftill inconclufive : For it is not 
 foederal Holinefs, but the Command of God, that is 
 inftitutive of an Ordinance. Abraham was foederally Ho- 
 ly Twenty-four Years before he had any Right to Cir- 
 cumcifion. Had Foederal Holinefs been inftitutive of 
 Circumcifion, or given y^/rrt^^/n a Right to it, without 
 God's exprefs Command, why was he not circumcifed 
 all that While? And if our Opponents Infants were 
 fcsderally holy, yet that is not inftitutive of their Bap- 
 tifm, without the exprefs Command of God to baptize 
 them y this is the great Thing neceflary for our Oppo- 
 nents in the Controverfy, but it can't be met with, 
 that Infants Baptifm is God's Ordinance, founded on his 
 Command j therefore, at the beft, they are doing that 
 which God has not commanded them : Tfcey may call 
 this what they pleafe, but I make free to call it Will- 
 •worfhip. I fee no Reafon as yet to correct my former 
 Conclufion, *' Ihat Infant 7nemberflnpy under the New 
 Tejiament Difpenfation, is an AJfertion without Proofs 
 not worth any one's Notice or Regard. The Sum is juji 
 ihist That believing Jews and Gentiles were united toge- 
 ther in one Body, in the New Tejlamcnt Church ; and fo 
 were Partakers together of the precious and nourifhing Be- 
 nefits of the GofpelofChriJir 
 
 The Reverend. Mr f Gill expounds the Text contro- 
 verted thus, *' For if the fir/l Fruits be holy, he- By them 
 are intended the firfl Converts among the Jews, under the 
 .Gofpel Difpenfation ', it being ufual ivith the Jpojile to call 
 ihofe Perfons that were fir/i converted in any Place, the 
 fir ft Fruits of it : See Rom. xvi 5. I Cor. xvi, 15. 
 Thefe were they, who received the fir ft Fruits of the Spi- 
 rit in Judea ; and who firjl among the Jews hoped and be- 
 lieved in Chrift ', thefe were but few in Number, as the 
 firfi Fruit is but fmall in Cornparifon of the Lump, and 
 mean, abjeif, and dejpicable, as the Root under, and in a 
 dry Ground, is ; but yet were Pledges and Prefages of a 
 larger Number of Souls among that People, to be converted 
 in the latter Day. Now the ApoJiW s Argument is, if the 
 firji Fruit be holy, the Lump is alfo holy^ and if the Root 
 
 bt 
 
 . f Expofition of the New Tcftament. 
 
I 99 1 
 
 be holy, Jo are the Branches ; that is, that whereas ihofe 
 Per Jons who were converted among the Jews, however few 
 in Number^ and defpicahle in appearance they might he ^ 
 yet were truly fan£iified by the Spirit of God ; and as they 
 were^ Jo Jhould the whole Body of that People be in the laji 
 Days^ when Holinefs fhall be upon the Horfes Bellsy and eve- 
 ry Pot in Judea, and Jeiu(akm,Jhall be Holinefs unto ths 
 Lord of Ho/is y Zech. xiv. 20, 21. By which metapho- 
 rical Expreffions is meant ^ that Holinefs Jhould be common 
 to the whole Nation^ and all the Inhabitants of it^ of which 
 the Call of fame few among them^ was a Pledge and Pre^ 
 fage. The Allufion in the former Claufe, is to the holy of- 
 fering of the firji Fruits to the Lordy the two wave Loaves^ 
 Lev. xxiii. 14, 17. whereby the whole Lump wasfanSii-^ 
 fed for after Ufe, throughout the Tear following ; ii>nd that 
 in the latter Claufe, to the Holinefs of Trees j that is^ to 
 Trees devoted to facredUfe, or that were planted in a Field 
 appropriated thereunto." 
 
 Verfe 17. " Jnd if fome of the Branches be broken of^ 
 Sec. This is to be underjiood^ not of the Exclufion of the 
 Jews, from their national Church j for the Perfons defign- 
 ed by the Branches ^ were the principle Members of it, as 
 the Civil and Ecclefiajiical Rulers, the Priejls, Scribes and 
 P bar i fees, and the far greater Part of the People : And on. 
 the other Hand, the Apoftles and Followers of Chriji, were 
 ■put out of their Synagogues, and deemed by them Hereticks 
 and Apojlates : Nor of the DeJlruSlion of the Jewilh Na- 
 tion, City^ and Temple j for as yet they exifled as m NatU 
 on, their City <?/" Jerufalcm was in Being, and their Tem- 
 ple /landing : But of their being left out of the Gofpel 
 Church, gathered among them^ they not believing in the Mef- 
 ftahy but rejeSfsd and crucified him ; and tho' afterwards 
 the Gofpel was preached to them, they defpifed, contradi^- 
 ed, and blafphemed it ; fo that it pleafed God to take it 
 wholly away from them, when they might be truly faid i9 
 be as Branches broken off :-~- And with thempartakeji of the 
 Root and Fatnefs of the Olive Tree ; the Gofpel Church 
 is fo called, for its Excellency.— -Now /-6<' Gentiles being 
 grafted into a Gofpel Church State with the believing Jews, 
 partook of the fame Root and Fatnejs, ai they did." &c. 
 
 G 2 Sayi 
 
[ 100 ] . 
 
 Says Mr. F! in Page 43, " He feemi defirom to dim't- 
 fiijh the E(leem ofexternalOrdtnances^ and qua ics what Fat- 
 vrfs is there in external Privi ledges /imply conftdered ? Anf. 
 Their Hearts have Reafonto meditateTerror, who never find 
 ih'etr Souls filled with Marrow and Fatnefs^ while they 
 vuait upon God in the Way of his Ordinances." Reply. 
 And have not their Hearts as much, if not more Reafori 
 to meditateTerror, who abufe God's facred Ordinance, 
 bv pretending to adminifter it to Infants, who were ne- 
 ver appointed by God to be the Subjects of it, as they 
 can {hew ; and who are utterly incapable to wait on him 
 therein, and therefore can receive no Soul Nourifhment 
 thereby ; unlefs Mr. F, means, that the bare outward 
 /ia" confers Grace ; or expels a BlciTing without any 
 Promife, for there is none annexed to Infants Baptifm. 
 I will not fay, that Obedience to God's Order is a 
 mighty Nothing ; but I- will fay again, that Infant Bap- 
 tifm is a mighty Nothing; becaufe it is not God's Or- 
 der : And Obedience thereto, is.b-Jt Obedience to Man's 
 Order, as for any Thing Mr. F. has yet difcovered to 
 the contrary. 
 
 In Page 44, He undertakes to (hew us, the Good and 
 Benefit there is in Infants Baptifm ; and fays, '* there is 
 as much Profit every IVay of Infant Baptifm, as of In- 
 fant Ctrcumcifion." Had Mr. F. produced a Command 
 of God for the one, as there was for the other, he might 
 fay this with the better Grace : Or had he {hewn thar 
 it fervestoas good Purpofes, and that it is as lawful for 
 him to adminifter Baptifm to Infants without a Coni- 
 inand, as it was to Abraham to circumcife them, when 
 commanded, it would alter the Cafe : But as he has done 
 neither, he hath left us Room to fay, that ht fets up art 
 Appointment of Man, or a mere human Invention, on 
 an Equality with the Ordinance of God ; and cites a' 
 Number of Scriptures, which fpeak nothing to the Point 
 in Hand ; for in none of them is there the leaft Men- 
 tion of any Advantage or Benefit in Baptifm to Infants; 
 and yet he pretends to tell us feveral, which is jufl as 
 forcible, as to hear a Papijl telling the Advantage and 
 Benefit of k s CrolTes, Mafl'es, of any other fuperftitiou* 
 
 Foolery i 
 
J. J^.^ ] 
 
 Foolery ; jpr.as to any Thing that has yet appesre^J, la- 
 /ant Baptifm is as Scripturelef's as any of them' : If I may 
 iife Mr. F's Words, without offending my Readers Chi- 
 ftity, I would fay, f '* Had he retairid fome Tendetnefs of 
 £onfcience, and had his Judgment ndt been debauched with 
 Error y'^ he would not have once dar'd to fet a mere In- 
 vention of Man, on a Level with God's Inftitution. And 
 .further, in his polifhed Language (for probably he under- 
 flands that beft) J " Jlas ! what horrendous Precipices 
 are in the JVays of Error ! And what a lamentable Caufe is 
 ■.it that requires fuch Defences I What (hoc king and defperat? 
 things will fame Perfons fay-, in Defence of a Party Prin- 
 ciple /" In a Word, I deny that Iijfant Baptifm ferve? 
 'for any of thefc Purpofes he has rnentiojied : Let him 
 therefore prove that there is any more Grace, any more 
 Relation to Qod, any more Promifes of Mercy, any 
 more Motives or Encouragements to fofake Sin, any more 
 Hope of Salvation, any more Caufe of Joy and Wonder, 
 any more Ground of Thankfulnefs, &c. in Infant Bap- 
 tifm, than without it ; when it doth not appear that 
 God hath inftituted it. Let Mr. F. fhew the Inftituti- 
 on of Infants Baptifm in Scripture, or no longer urge the 
 Advantage and Benefit of it. 
 
 In Page 45. he comes to the third Scripture he ad.- 
 vanced, i Cor, vii, 14. f^r the unbelieving Hujband'i$ 
 fanSfifed }>y the IVife., and the unbelieving Wife is faniii- 
 fied by the Hnftand^ elfs luere your Children unclean^ but 
 now are they holy. Here I obferved, " That all that Mr. 
 F. advances from this Scripture., tq ferve his Purpofe., is 
 eafily refuted., by obferving the Occafion of the Words, and 
 Scope of the Apojile in them., which was to rejolve the Co- 
 rinthians in a Cafe of Conscience, refpeSiing Divorcement^ 
 Verfes 1 2, 13. For if the Jews of old were firiSily for^ 
 bid to marry with other Nations., t)eut. vii. 3, 4. and 
 ' thofe who did, were feverely punijhedy Neh. xiii. 23, 25. 
 and were taught by Ezra, what was the Will of God in 
 that Cafy Separate yourf elves from the People of the 
 Land, and from the Jlrange Wives, Ezra x. 10, il. / 
 <}bferved, 'tis not improbable, the Scruple of the Corlnthi- 
 G 3 ana 
 
 t Vind. Page 78. % lb. Page 51, ' 
 
[ 102 ] 
 
 ans arofe upon the Covftderation of GoeTs former Appoint * 
 went among the Jews, and fo thought them/elves polluted By 
 dwelling with Infidels^ and that it was difpleaftng to God. 
 Hence their ^uefiion feeni'd to be whether their Marriage 
 vjas dijfolved on one^s e?nbracing Chrijlianity, and the other 
 net— 'Or whether on this Account the unbelieving Party 
 was to be put away ? The Apojlle refolves the Cafe, That 
 the unbelieving Party is by no Means to be put away by the 
 Believing— -Tour Marriage is not dlJfolvcd— -The conjugal 
 Soci?ty of the Unbelieving is fanciified [i. e. fays Mr. Cra- 
 dock, made lawful and allowed) to the believing Party. I 
 rather think {fays Poolej it (\. e. ths Word fan£iifiid) fig- 
 fiifies, hrought into fuch a State.; that the Believer^ 
 without Offence to the Law of God, may continue in a 
 married State with fuch a Yoke-fellow ; and the State of 
 Marriage is an holy State^ notwithjianding the Difpariiy 
 with Reference to Religion;*' elfe were your Children' 
 unclean, that is, illegitimate j but now are they holy, born 
 in lawful Wedlock, or legitimate Children. This ap- 
 pears to be the genuine Senfe of the Place. In Oppoli- 
 tion to what we urge, Mr. F. fays, " That unclean is the 
 ufual Scripture Chara6ier of thofe ivho live without the 
 Pale of the vifible Church, A£ls x. 14, i^.--And they 
 who are Church members, are called holy^ Anf. That 
 Uncleanenefs fpokeri of in Ails x. is ceremonial ; Peter^ 
 who was a few, had hitherto obferved the ceremonial 
 Law i he had never eaten any Thing that is common or 
 unclean : He had not a(iied contrary to the ceremonial 
 Law, Lev. xi. whis;h is now abolifhed by Chrifl: God 
 here teaches him, that there was an End put to it ; 
 Diftindlions of fewszwA Gentiles on that Account were 
 now laid afide ; the Gofpel Difpenfation was now taking 
 Place; What God hath cleanfed, that call not thou common. 
 And forour Opponents to bring mjudaifm into the Gofpel 
 Difpenfation, under any Colour, or in any Shape what- 
 foevei-, is diredly contrary to its Defign ; as they do 
 when they labour to uphold a Diftindion between the 
 Infant Offspring of Church-members, and Children of 
 Non-members, as if thcfe were born within the Church, 
 clean or holy, and the other without, unclean : But our 
 
 Opponents 
 
[ 103 3 
 
 Opponents would do welf to prove that this ceremoniai 
 Diftindion remains in Gofpel Times, before they urge 
 it (o confidently as an Article of the Ghriftian Faith. 
 Another Objection is, *' T^at holy in Scripture^ always 
 denotes the Separation of a Per/on or Thing to God, —either 
 immediately, or fecondarily : Believers and their Seed, are 
 immediately fepar at ed unto him-* Reply j That Believers 
 are feparated to God, I grant, becauie they are called 
 out of the World by his Grace ; but that their Infant 
 Offspring are on that Account holy (in Mr. F% Senfe of 
 the Place) that is, Members of the New-Teftament 
 Church, and the Subjects of Baptifm, I deny ; becaufe 
 fuch a Principle appears to have no Foundation in the 
 Text, nor any wife confiftent with the Scope of the 
 Apoftle in this Place, nor acknowledged by the Gofpel 
 Difpenfation. If Mr. F's * Teftimony be right, 'tis the 
 Way of Errorifts to catch at fome Words of Scripture, 
 without the Senfe, to countenance their Opinions ; 
 what Ground is there to imagine, that Infants are holy 
 to God immediately, any more than the Infidel Party, 
 which is faid to be fandified ? Is not the Holinefs of 
 one, and of the other, of the fame kind ? yet he does 
 noc pretend that fuch are immediatly feparated to God, 
 Members of the Church, and Subje£ls of Baptifm ; we 
 have therefore a Right to demand fome convincing Proof, 
 why one is to be baptized any more than the other, e- 
 fpecially confidering there is no Ground for, nor Exam- 
 ple of, baptizing Believers Infants, any more than In- 
 fidels. But, we may look unto other Places of Scripture, 
 which help to confirm the Senfe given of this Text be- 
 fore us, in I T^hef. iv. -^, 4. San£lification fignifies Cha- 
 ftity, contrary to Uncleannefs, and fo fandified here 
 fignifies, that fuch Perfons did not live in Uncleannefs, 
 but in Chaftity ; and therefore their Children were not 
 the Produdl of an unclean, but chafte Bed, that is, not 
 bafe, but born of lawful Marriage. In i Tim. iv. 3, 4, 
 5. The Apoftle reprehends Seducers, who forbad lawful 
 Marriage, and made Diftindion of Meats ; which Di- 
 ilin(5tion of Meats the Apoftle utterly difapprwes, and 
 G 4 ftiews 
 
 • yind. Page 6, 
 
[ I04 ] 
 
 ftiews there is no Prohibition of any now under this 
 evangelical Difpenfation ; fo that every Creature of God 
 is good, and nothing to be refufed, but all kind of Meat 
 fandified ; that is, may be lawfully ufed, or eaten \^y 
 believing Chriftians. The Word Unclean is alfo pu,t 
 for Whoredoms, in feveral other Scriptures, as Rom. i. 
 24. vi. 19. £pij. V. 3. Cg/. iii. 5. Thus we may difcern 
 the trueSenfe and Meaning of thefe VVords, Sandified, 
 Unclean, and Holy, in the Text before us. Says he, in 
 favour of his Argument, " Out of the Church nothing is 
 holy." Then let the Qiicftion be, whether the Infidel 
 Hufband, or Wife, who is faid to be fandified, or mads 
 holy, be in the Chuicb, or not? -If in the G.h"-rchi 
 then they are the-Subje^s of Baptifmj according to his 
 own * Way of talking ; if not, then there is fomething 
 out of the Church fanaified-, or made holy. But fur- 
 ther, will our Author fay, that grown Perfons, v. ho 
 were never Church members, are not holy, when renews. 
 «d by the Spirit of God, before they are received into 
 Church Feliowfliip? Does he not expe£l f Signs anji 
 Pruits of Holinefs in fuch, before he would willingly re- 
 ceive them into the vifibie Church ? Then this Rule ojc 
 his needs Amendment ; as Things appear at prefent, ic 
 will not in any. w-ife hinder my faying confiftently, That 
 Infants are holy, in the Senfe of this Text, and yet at 
 tiie Tame Time out of the Church, and if out of the 
 Church, Baptii'm is not to be adminiflered to them, tiU 
 they profefs ibeir Faith in Chrift, and Obedience to. 
 him, which is what we plead for. . , 
 
 Says he, " How. can zve think that God has given up 
 his Right in his People's Offspring f He ufed formerly tp 
 call them his Children^ Eztk. xvi. 21." Mr. /'. may fuU 
 as well afk, how can we think he has given up his Right 
 in his People Ifrael and Judahf He ufed formerly to cal.l 
 them his People. It fcepis our .Author is dcfjrous to fr^mc 
 a Gofpel Church, after the Pattern of the, J ezvijh r.^r 
 tional Church ; Here is the Difference between us ; he 
 is for a Gofpel Church, after xhejetvifo Model, and fo 
 ^ar gives into Judaifm -, I am for a Gofpel Church, \U 
 \ti the Ncw-Teflament Model, and fhall pay no Regard 
 
 to 
 • Charitable Plea, Vn^fi ^6. f Ibid, Pages 64, 65, 
 
[ 105 ] 
 
 to his Plan, till he makes appear the Jew'ijl] QEconomy 
 is not yet abolifhed, or (hews, that Infants were Mem- 
 bers in the Apoftolical Church, which laft he has not 
 yet done, and very probable never can. Poole obferves 
 on the Place, " My Children ('Heb. Sons) fays he^ Sons 
 here are firji horny which peculiarly were devoted to God, 
 he referved a fpecial Right in thefe" Hence Mr. F. may 
 as w^;ll aflc, hath God giver, up his fpecial Right in the 
 Firft-born? But of this enough, feeing it proves nothing 
 who are Members of the New Teftament Church, and 
 the fit Subjedsof Baptifm ; or, in other Words, it doeij 
 not prove the Inftitution of Infant-baptifm. 
 • Says he, according to us, *' It will follow ^ that the 
 unbelieving IVife is fanRified by the unbelieving Hufband^ 
 es well as by the Believing^ which is dire£fly oppofite it 
 
 the Apoflle\s Scope in this Place and to the Ufage 
 
 df Scripture A Thing muji he lawful^ before it 
 
 uin be fanSiified" Anf. VVhat is the manifeft Scope of 
 the Apoftle here but this? To inform the Corinthians, 
 that Marriages already contradled in Unbelief, were not 
 difannuil'd, tho' one of the Parties afterwards embraced 
 Chri/iianity ; the Chrijlian Law did not oblige to pui 
 away the other, who did not believe, whatever the 
 Jewi/I) Order of old recjuired : Therefore he exhorts the 
 believing Party, not to put away, or depart from the 
 Unbeliever. Mr. F. might have alfo obferved, that i^ 
 i:j contrary to the Ufage of Scripture to afcribe the 
 Sanctifying of an Unbeliever to a Wornan, which is 
 ufually afcnbed to God j therefore this Word here mufl 
 needs be underftood in fome other Senfe, than what it 
 generally is, as Mr. Poole on the Place obferves, " San^i- 
 fying in holy Writings generally ftgnifieth the Separation^ 
 er Jetting apart of a P erf on or Ihing^ from a common ^ to^ 
 and for y an holy Ufe^ whether it be by fome external Rites 
 and Ceremonies, or by the infufmg of fome inward jpiri" 
 tuol Habits. In this Place it feems to have a different 
 Senfe from^ what it ufually hath in holy Writ j for it can 
 neither fignify the SanSlification of the Perfon^ by infufed 
 Habits of Grace ; for neither is the unbelieving Hufband,^ 
 thus fan£tified by the bdisving JViffy ndtbfr is the unht" 
 • ' \ lievi'ng 
 
[ io6 ] 
 
 lieving TVife thus fanaifitd by the believhrg Hufband. Nor 
 are either of them thus fet apart for the Service of God, 
 fy any legal Rites, which hath made a great Difference 
 in ike Notions of Interpreters, how the unbelieving Huf- 
 band is fanaified by the believing Wife, or the unbelieving 
 Wife by the believing Hufband." Now if fanaified in 
 this Place, has a different Senfe from what it ufually 
 hath in Scripture, let Mr. F. fhew that it means fomc- 
 thing more in this Text, than the Meaning we affign, 
 before he urge his Conclufions, or fay that the Children 
 of Unbelievers are Baftards, when no body queflions the 
 Validity of their Marriages. 
 
 He feems apprehenfive, that I will urge he ftated the 
 Queftfon the fame Way himfelf; but to prevent any 
 Advantage that Way, he charges me with perverting 
 hisSenfe—However, now he gives us his Meaning (which 
 could not readily be difcerned before^ " That he did not 
 vnderjiand Lawful /« Oppofition to Fornication, but to Irre- 
 ligion and Impiety — And fays, if our Glofs be true^ the 
 Jpofile does not refolve their Scruple ; they queried whether 
 their continued Cohabitation was ftnful? He anfwers, it is 
 mi Fornication ; but they might urge, iho' it be not Forni- 
 cation, may it not be irreligious and difpleafing to God? 
 May it not provoke him to withhold his Blefftng from us f 
 And Jhall not our Children be reckoned unclean, and ex- 
 cluded from the Church ? Can we expeSi the Priviledges 
 'of thofe who are married to Believers ?'* Reply j When 
 Mr. F. talks at this Rate, it is very obfervable, that he 
 takes it for granted, that the Children, whofe Parents 
 were both Believers, were Church- members : Had he 
 any where proven this Point, he might go on better with 
 thefe fuppofititious Queries, in favour of his Notion, that 
 the Children who h^d but one believing Parent were 
 Members : Or is he fo taken up in charging his Oppo- 
 rients with begging the Queftion, that he has no Time 
 to prove his Part ? 'Tis furely enough, if the Apoftle re- 
 loWes the Queftion propofed; muft our Glofs be falfe, 
 becaufc he does not refolve all the invented Scruples and 
 Cpnjed^ures oi the Padobapti/ls, in favour of their Prin- 
 ciples, which were never propofed by the Corinthians to 
 
 the 
 
[ 107 J 
 the Apoftle ? Had the Apoftles, and firft Planters Sf 
 Chrijlianity, conftantly taught, that the Infants of be- 
 lieving Parents were to be baptized, and that the In- 
 fants of Parents, when one Party only was a BeHever, 
 were foederally holy, and the Subjects of Baptilm, as 
 well as when both were Believers ; and had it al- 
 ways been a Cuftom from the Beginning of Chrijiianity, 
 to baptize fuch Infants, there does not appear the leaft 
 Ground for this Scruple to rife at all j whether it was 
 lawful for a Believer and Unbeliever to dwell toge- 
 ther, in the Light Mr. F. reprefents it ? Could they 
 forget what they heard ? If the Cafe were fo, might 
 they not know, that their Infants were not excluded, 
 if they were baptized along with the believing Parent I 
 Did, they not dailv fee that their Children enjoyed the 
 fame Priviledges as others, and therefore had no Reafon to 
 imagine their Cohabitation was irreligious, and dif- 
 pleafing to God ? On this Suppofition, pray where coulcS, 
 their Doubt proceed from ? What Colour of Reafon can 
 be fuppofed for the Rife of their Scruple ? In a Word, 
 our Author muft needs own, there were no Infants bap- 
 tized at the firft Plantation of Chrijiianity in Cbrinth\ 
 or elfe allow the Scruples he mentions, are but ground* 
 lefs Conje£lures of his own, and not thofe which can be 
 rationally thought to have been propofed by the Corin" 
 thian Church. He would argue from the Word Holy^ 
 that Infants are Church -members ; beffdes the Argu-' 
 ments formerly us'd, which ftiew the Abfurdity of hi? 
 Reafoning, I may add. Church-members are faid to be" 
 fanilified ; fome Infidels are faid to be fandlified, there- 
 fore fome Infidels are Church -members. This Argu- 
 ment is as good as Mr. F'Sy to prove Infants to be 
 Church -members, becaufe they are called holy. 
 
 His having Recourfe to the former Difpenfation, is no 
 Refutation of my Arguments, to prove that Infants are 
 not Members of the Gofpel Church j unlefs he had {hewn 
 that the New-Teftament Church is not a new confti-- 
 tuted Church, or that Infants were ever in it by divine 
 Appointment. He need not infinuate that I cannot, or will, 
 not underftand what foed«ral Holinefs is j I think I un- 
 
 dcrftand 
 
,[ io8 J 
 
 derftand it (o well, that I obferve he is altogether a,t pi 
 Xofs, to find any Ground for it in the New-Teftament 
 Times. 
 
 He imagines, if the Cafe be as I fay, *' 7^^ Generali- 
 ty of the Pagans may be called an holy People— -But this is 
 contrary to Scripture---Such a Senfe cannot obtain amon^ 
 Mankind^ no not among the Anabaptifts," Anf. The 
 Baptijis are not alone m their Judgment of the Place; 
 as Mr. Gill obferves, the Sen fe they give," *' « agreea- 
 ble to the Mind of fever al Interpreters^ ancient and mO' 
 dern^ as Jerom, Ambrofe, Erafmus, Camerarlus,'"Muf- 
 culus, ^V. which laji Writer, niakes this ingenuous Con- 
 fcjjion ; Formerly, Jays he, I have abufed this Place againji 
 'the Anabaptifts, thinking the Meaning was, that the Chil- 
 dren were holy for the Parents Faith, which, tho* true, the 
 'pre/ent Place makes nothing for the Purpoje." Hence then 
 it feems, others are under the like NecefTity of calling 
 the Pagans an holy People, befides the Baptijfs, if this 
 Interpretation of the Text lays any under that Neceffi- 
 'ty. Marriage being God's Ordinance, is honourable in 
 all, 'tis not contiary to the whole Scripture, to diftiri- 
 ^uifh between thofe who live and a6l according to his 
 *Ojdinance, and thofe who do not. 
 
 Now after all that hath been faid, it may be juftly ob- 
 ferved, that Mr. F. hath not produced any Inftitution of 
 TJnfant-baptifm : His Conclufion therefore, " That adu(/ 
 "Baptifm evidently depends upon the Perverjion of Scripture^ 
 'end Contradifiion to Common Senfe," is like the Principle 
 ^he contends for, without Proof. I don't know of one 
 "of our Number, " TVho afferts, that our Opponents do not 
 'advance Scripture." I think, what is generally faid,' is, 
 • ihat the Scriptures advanced by them, don't prove what 
 "they bring them for, and in the Way he goes on, he is 
 pot likely to hinder our faying fo. 
 
 In' Page 48. Mr. F. comes to the laft Scripture, which 
 jie advanced with a Defign, to prove Infants Memberfliip, 
 'and their Right to Baptifm, Mark x.,i3, 14. Tho' I 
 "have before fufficiently (hewn the Inconclufivenefs of his 
 "Arguments from this Text, in favour of his Practice, 
 'by obfcrving that thpfe Infants brought to Chrift were 
 ' ' ' - ~ not 
 
not baptized, nor brought to him with that I^efign, &c. 
 yet he makes a Stir, as tho' I had mifs'd the Point, 
 overlook'd his Arguments, or chofe to miftalce them. 
 Error it feems, is attended with Ncife, and defended by 
 Clamour. He now tells us what he fixed on, as follows;. 
 *' Suffer little Children to come unto me^ and forbid thnn 
 not \ and the Reafon he gives is fuch as will hold good at 
 this Dayy as well as that ; for of fuch is the Kingdom of 
 Heaven j now whether we underjland by the Kingdom of 
 Heaven^ the Kingdom of Grace ^ or the Kingdom of Glory, 
 it makes all one to our prefent Purpofe, for vifibly to belong 
 to the Kingdom of Glory, is nothing mere than to be a visi- 
 ble Member of the Kingdom of Grace ; fo then our Lord's 
 own Words do Jl:ew that he would have Believers Infants 
 io be received as Members of the vifible Church.'^ Reply ; 
 This Mr, Z". calls his only Argument from the Text, 
 and truly it is nothing at all to his Purpofe. He pleads 
 thefe were the Children of believing Parents; this needs 
 Proof i but fuppofe they were. What of that? His Ar- 
 gument for Infants Baptifm is flill inconclufive, when' 
 thofe very Children brought to Ghrift were not baptized, 
 not by Chrift himfelf, for he baptized none ; not by 
 "John, for he does not think it worth his While, to dif- 
 pute the Point with me, that they were baptized by him, 
 nor do we find that Chrift commanded his Difciples to 
 baptize them. What (hall we then conclude, but this ? 
 That thofe young Children brought to Chrift were not 
 baptized ; and if fo, then the Difficulty is, if fome 
 Believers Children are to be baptized, why not all of 
 them ? Why not thofe brought to Chrift, as well as the 
 Infants of cur Opponents ? If Chrift did not fee mee^ 
 to order them little Children to be baptifed, how comes 
 it to pafs that Mr. F. without his Command, or Exam- 
 ple, Orders they (hould be now ? Is the Servant vvifeil 
 than the Mafter ? And if Chrift did not require thofe lit- 
 tle Ones to be received as Members of the vtfible Church, 
 by ordering Baptifm to be adminiftred to them, how cati 
 his Words be rationally underftood, to intend that others 
 fhould be thus received ? Not at all- Could Mr. F. give 
 as an Account that the little Ones brought to Chrift 
 
[ no ] 
 
 were baptized, his Argument might do; but till this be 
 done, his ConciufiOn is of no Force in the prefent Con- 
 troverfy. Let us fuppofe again, the Cafe to be as our 
 Opponents urge j yet the Argument concludes not, f for 
 Abraham vifibly belonged to the Kingdom of Glory 
 Twenty-four YeaVs before he had any Right to Cir- 
 cumcifion. Had his vifibie Relation to the Kingdom of 
 Glory exclufive of, or antecedent to a Command, been 
 inftitutive of Circy/ncifion, why was not Abraham cir- 
 cumcifed ail that While ? And if Believers Infants do 
 vifibly belong to the Kingdom of Glory, yet that is not 
 inftitutive of Infant Baptifm, without the exprefs Corii- 
 jnand of God to baptize them, which is the great Thing 
 wanting, but it can be no where found : For the Law 
 of Circumcifion is aboliftied j and Chrift's Commiffion 
 requires none to be baptized, but thofe it requires to be 
 firft taught, as ever yet appeared. Hence we are ftill 
 kft to conclude, that Infants have no Right to Baptifm, 
 btcaufe Infant Baptifm is not yet inftituted : But fup- 
 pofing further, that Infants areto be received as Members 
 of thevi/ible Church ; how blame-worthy then muft 
 our Opponents be, in withholdmg them from the Pri- 
 viledge:- of Church- members ? I mean, from the Lord's 
 Supper ! Has Chrift any where debarred a great Num- 
 ber of Church- members from his holy Supper? Or has 
 he any where faid, that fuch only, who can examine 
 themfelves, and none elfe, are to receive this Sacrament ? 
 If not, then our Opponents ought certainly to admit 
 them to it, on the fame Pica, as th'ey do to Saptifm, when 
 they aflert it to be the Lord's Will theyfhould be receiv- 
 ed as Members of his vilible Church ; or eifefhew us, that 
 fome by divine Appointment, are fit to be received as 
 Members of the Gofpel Church ; who, at the fame time, 
 are not fit to enjoy the Priviledges of the Church. 
 
 Our Author will have it, that we are fome how- 
 chargeable with forbidding Children to come to Chrifl. 
 I obferv'd he intimated, that thofe Children were 
 brought to Chrifl with a Defign to have their baptized, 
 "when he tells us, " The Dijciplci forbad the Children to he 
 
 brought 
 ■\ Heb. xi. 8. Gen. .xii, 4. xvll. i. 
 
[in 3 
 
 brought to ChrtJ}, as the Anabaptifts now do." Anc^ a- 
 gain, " The Anabaptijis cannot prove that thofe Children 
 were not baptized before by John." But inftead of an- 
 fwering what I remark'd, he labours to faften an Incon- 
 fiftency on my Words, though he has not (hewn where- 
 in : Pray is it the leaft Inconfiftency, to fay that he in- 
 timates that one while, which he does not at another 
 turn urge or dwell upon ? But he muft fay fomething, 
 if it could be, to evade the Force of my Arguments ; and 
 as groundlefs is the Charge, when he fays, ** I put a Gl^fi 
 en his Words., contrary to the Words themselves ;" what 
 are his Words but thefe ? *' The Anabaptifts ffay^ he^ 
 cannot prove that thofe Children were not baptised before., 
 by John the Bapti/i^ which feems the more probable., in thai 
 Chriji laid his Hands on them, which was an extraordina^ 
 ry Ordinance then in ufe, and always adminiflred after 
 Baptifm." What Glofs did I put on his Words, but on- 
 ly this natural One ? " That if thofe Children were bap- 
 tized before by John (as Mr. F. thinks it to be the more 
 probable Opinion) certainly then they were not brought t9 
 Chri/i with any View to have them baptized, unlefs their 
 Parents (or whoever brought them) were for having their 
 Children twice baptized, which is not very likely." Can 
 any One, exerciftng Common Senfe, fee this Glofs to be 
 contrary to the Words themfelves ? He tells us, " We 
 are chargeable with a ftmilar Crime to that of the Dif- 
 ciples." I would fain know wherein ? For if it feems 
 the more probable that thofe Children were baptized be- 
 fore by John, it is nof»likely they were brought to Chrift 
 with any Defign to have them baptized ; there can't there- 
 fore be any Refemblance between the Difciples and us in 
 this Cafe ; and Mr. F. does not plead they have any 
 Right to that extraordinary Ordinance- -Can we then 
 be faid to forbid them to come, which no body offers to 
 bring ? In no wife : He calls this '* a trifling Evafion /" 
 Why fo ? Is it becaufe it ferves in its Place to difcover 
 his Charge to be groundlefs, which he is unwilling to 
 have in any Meafure difcovered ? " But (fays he) the 
 Anabaptifts miijl be told, that they are chargeable with 
 forbidding Children to be brought to Chriji^ when they for- 
 bid 
 
hid them to he admitted into the Churchy and csfl them out 
 as unclean" Wei), here is the Charge ; but before it 
 can be made good, Mr. F. \% obliged to ftiew that thofe 
 Children were brought to Chrift with a View to be ad-; 
 mitted into the Church, and that the Difciples forbad 
 them that brought them on that Account : Were not 
 they jeivi/h Children ? If fo, they were in that national 
 Church before; and alfo, he is to fhew it to be the 
 Will of Chrift, that Infants fhould be admitted into the 
 Church by Baptifm, otherwife his charging us with a 
 Cmilar Crime to that of the Difciples, falls, to the 
 Ground of itfelf, and all his. Noife about it, whereby 
 he would amufe the World, dies with it. 
 
 He proceeds, and heaps up a deal of his. clamorous 
 Expreflions, becaufe I obfervcd, *' // feems here is a 
 new modelld Argument^ which. Mr. F, would frame from 
 thtfe Words ^ viz.. Chrijl laid his Hands on them Children 
 as baptized Perfons., iherefore Children are to be baptized." 
 J^ow follows his fcurrilous Language, " .This Condu£l 
 (fays he) ynay fuit Mr. M'j Caufe^ but I heartily blefs my- 
 f elf from Juch a Caufe^ as not only drives one., in Defence 
 of it., to the manifold Perverfion of Scripture., but aljo ta 
 ihe Jhamelcfs falfifying if his Opponent's Arguments., and 
 endeavouring to imfoje on Common Senfe. I deny there is 
 any fuch Argument as the abovefaid in all my Bo$k, and 
 Mr. M . is obliged io Jhew it., or elfe lie under the Scandal 
 ifbafe ConduSi., to fay no worfe.--But he, without Truth ^ 
 fays., I affirm it., and argiie from it ; and js his Confidence 
 is flrengthencd." Reply ; But what can be the Reafon' 
 of all this Uproar, which Mr. F. mc:kes .? The' Truth 
 Xieeds not the Defence of corrupt and fenfelefs Paffions,' 
 yet it feems Error does,' why clfe is it thus defended ?' 
 He faid, *' The Anabaptifts cannot prove that thofe Chil- 
 dren were not baptized before by Js hn the Baptifi., which 
 ' feems the more probable, ih that Chrift laid his Hands on 
 them, which was an extraordinary Ordinance then in Vfe., 
 and always adminijiercd after Baptifm." Hence 1 faid, 
 ft feems here is a new modell'd Argument, which Mr. 
 F. would frame from thefe Words.-- Obfcrve, I did not 
 fay, he had framed it, and that he argued from it, a« 
 
 he 
 
lie unjuftly affirms. ^ What is more common In Writing, 
 than to obviate Obje£tjons which feem to arife? Whcd 
 he thinks proper to difcover fo much of his uncurb'd 
 Temper, he is unavoidably obliged to fliew any other 
 Argument he can model from thefe Words of his, 
 which will ferve his prcfent Purpofe ; this would be 
 much more convincing, than his hearty Bleffing him- 
 felf, -prophane like, or all his empty PufFs befides. Now 
 if Mr. F, would not have it believed thofe Children 
 ivere baptized by Jehn, why does he fay it is probable.^ 
 And if he would not have it received as a Truth, that 
 Chrift laid his Hands upon them as baptized Perfonsj 
 ■why does he mention Impofition of Hands as an Ordi- 
 nance then in Ufe^ and always adrtiiniflered after Bap- 
 tifm? Again, if he did not defign hereby, at leaft ia 
 Part, to infer the Lawfulnefs of Infant- baptifm, why- 
 did he mention any thing about this at all? The Reader 
 will fee, I did neither exceed the Bounds of Truth, nor 
 have charged him wrongfully ; and if for fome Reafons, 
 beft known to himfelf, he does not like to fee his own 
 Words made ufe of, let him blame himfelf, and not 
 ^ifgorge his Gall and Bitternefs on one without Gaufe, 
 in the Manner he has done. 
 
 In anfwer to a Citation out of BKhop Taylor y which 
 ^ews the Inconclufivenefs of his Argument, from 'this 
 Text, Mr. F. fays, *'. He needs not urge Bijhop Tay- 
 lor'j Judgment^ for 1 am taught not to call any Man 
 Majier^ if the Cafe depends on Argument" Reply ; Me- 
 thinks one that is careful not to call any Man Mafter, 
 fhould be as careful to cut off all Occafion of being fo 
 called by others. Is it not full enoitgh for the Servant 
 to require and expedt A/Tent to the Dodrines he brings, 
 when he fhews the Seal of his Lord to them? Now if 
 Mr. F. does not defire to be called Mafter by others, 
 the* he is not willing to call another fo, why does he 
 fet his human Confcquences on a Par with the infpircd 
 VVritmgs ? Did not the Pharifees fo, with their corrupt 
 Glcffes on Scripture ' Why (hould he fay. Page 36. 
 That the Children of the Three Thoufand were bap- 
 fiz«d, which the Lord has no where faid ? Further, if 
 
 H he 
 
lis 13 not for being called Mailer, how came he, in Ps^ge 
 44. to fct a Tradition of Men, on a Level with God's 
 Inftitution ; as did the Pharifees of old, which Chrift 
 condemned, Mark vii. 7---13. If Mr. F's Pradlice is 
 jiot contrary to Chrilt's Charge in Matt, xxiii. 8. I 
 would willingly know what is ? 
 
 I think, I have already fhewn his Argument from this 
 Place in favour of Infant- baptifm, to be invalid, there 
 is therefore no Neceflity of writing the fame Things 
 over agahi, to manifeft the Inconclufivenefs of his Con- 
 iequence, n\ Oppolition to Bifhop 'Taylor's jufl; Obfer- 
 vaiions. 
 
 In Page 50. fays Mr. F. *' His Reafonings abcut Im» 
 fofttion of Hands 1 /hall not tr$uhle myfelf ivith at prefent, 
 as being impertinent to our Bvfmejs ; otherwife it were 
 eofy to Jhew their Fanity : In particular., what can be more 
 unjcriptural than his Obfervation^ that the Scripture Ac^ 
 count of Impofition of Hands does not well fuit with lay- 
 ing on of Hands on Officers in the Church ? Let fober 
 Chri/iians judge y whether fuch Pofitions are more to be la^ 
 merited^ condemned, or fobcrly reafoned againji.'* Anf. 
 If this Point is impertinent to our Bufinefs, who intro- 
 duced it, but he himfcJI? Who affirmed that Impofrtion 
 of Hands waj an extraordinary Ordinance, and always 
 adminill:ered after Baptifm in the primitive Times .^ 
 Was it not Mr. F? And to prove that it was fo, he cited 
 jtSIs xVk. 5, 6. And fince he has brought it into the Con- 
 troverfy, he ftiould firfl have try'd to refute my Reafon- 
 ings for the Continuance of laying on of Hands on bap- 
 tized Perfons in the Church, before he publifhed his vain 
 Afiertion, that it were eafy to (hew their Vanity. Let 
 Mr. F. Ihew any fuch Obfervation in my Book, which 
 be is pleafcd to charge me with, viz. That the Scripture 
 Account of Impofition of Hands, does not well fuit with 
 laying on of Hands on Officers in the Church : Where 
 do I deny the Ordination of Officers \ Or the Impofition 
 of Hands on them to be fcriptural ? What I faid, is, that 
 the Account we have of this Ordinance in A^s xix. 5. 
 6. viii. 14-- 17. and Heb. vi. 2. does not well fuit with 
 lading on of Hands gn Officers, becaufe it was admini- 
 
 ilere4 
 
t "5 ] 
 
 ftered to baptized Believers as fuch. Men and Women, 
 'Tis not a Jittle ftrange and furf^rifing, that Mr. F. 
 abo-.'c any Man, whofe Tongue and Pen is fo full of 
 Clamours againft others, fhould himfelf be guilty of 
 (uch open Falfification, and manifert Perverfion of 
 Words fo plain and innocent, which notwithftanding h* 
 himfelf muft necefTarily own to be true, or elfe pray for 
 what Reafon did he quote A^s xix. 5, 6 ? Was it to 
 prove the Ordination of Officers? Is that an extraordi- 
 nary Ordinance ? Is not that afed now as well as then ? 
 Were all thofe Officers in the Church, to whom 
 this extraordinary Ordinance was always adminiftered 
 after Baptifm ? Let him anfwer us. But it is very plain 
 he did not intend that, but Impofition of Hands on bap- 
 tized Perfons ; an Ordinance which he calls extraordi- 
 nary, and proved it to be formerly ufed ; which we plead 
 is yet in Force, and ought now to be always adminiftered 
 after Baptifm, as it was in apoftolic Times : How un- 
 fair then has he aded, in mifreprefenting the Cafe ! Is 
 a fcriptural Point unfcriptural, becaufe it is not intended 
 in every Scripture ? Should I fay that the Account we 
 have of the Dead rifing In John v. 25. Col iii. I — -3. 
 does not well fuit with the Doftrine of the Refurreaicii 
 of dead Bodies, according to Mr. /"s Charge, I {hould 
 deny the Refurreftion of the Dead to be fcriptural ; 
 •when, at the fame time, I had faid nothing agamft it. 
 What a manifeft Piece of Injuftice muft it be in him, 
 firft to charge me falfly, and then gravely fubmit his 
 forged Pofiticns to the Judgment of fober Chriftians ? 
 What could his Drift be in fuch Sophiftry, whether he 
 calls it thick or * thin ? Unlefs he defigned hereby to 
 blind the Eyes of his Readers from obferving that the 
 Prejbyterians have loft the Order and Beauty of the Go- 
 fpel Church, among the Rubbifli of Error : For this Or- 
 dinance (which Mr. F. fays was then in Ufe, and always 
 adminiftered after Baptifm) is quite loft among them, and 
 Baptifm, for the moft Part, is gone to the very Name. 
 
 But to return: He charges us with holding thofe 
 Children were only propofed as Emblems of Humility, 
 H 2 But 
 
 * Vind, Page 12, 
 
[ ir6 J 
 
 Bat as he has cited no Ba*uji Author who argues in the 
 Klanner he talks, I may with very good Face, and have 
 '1 ruth on my Side, Hill fay, thofeofour Authors I had 
 confulted on the Place, do not argue fo ; where he got this 
 from, I am not concerned : His Reafonings are (hewn 
 to be inconclufive without the Help of this Argument ; 
 rievertherlefs it may ftill be obferved, that fome of the 
 Fcsdobapt'ijh themfelvesdo not difcountenance this Argu- 
 ment, as appears by the Paflagcs I quoted. 
 
 in Page 51. he endeavours to fllew the Promifes are 
 to Believers, and their Seed, " Tmt there ari no Promifes 
 in the Bible to Infidels^ and their Seed^ whilji fuch^ he. 
 Anf. Mr. F. fhould have remembered, there is a Pro- 
 Biife to them afar off, ^^s ii, 39.. And were not they 
 Infidels, when that Promife was given ? A Promife that 
 in thee J}:all all Nations be bleffed. Gal. iii. And were 
 not the greateft Part of all Nations Infidels, when that 
 Promife was fpoken ? A Promife of Light to the blind 
 Gentiles, Jjci, xlix. 6. xlii. 6. I think it were dif- 
 ficult to diftingulfli between blind Gentiles and 
 Infidels; what are Infidels but blind GentiUi ? Yet 
 here is a Promife of Salvation with all its Pre-re- 
 quifites to them : But it feems, what Mr. F. would- 
 be at (or at leaft {hould be at) is to (hew that Unbe- 
 lievers, whilft fuch, have not an adual Jntereft in the' 
 Promife, becaufe they have not received it ; which we 
 do not gainfay ; but this is a quite different Point ; for 
 the Promulgation of the Promife is one Thing, and the 
 Keception, or Application of it, another.' And fo I flill 
 fay, their unbelieving Children, and the unbelieving Gen- 
 tiles, arejuft on a Par : Mr. F. may have equal Ground" 
 of Charity for one, as well as the other, till the vifible 
 Fruits of the Promife taking hold of one, diftinguilhes 
 him from another. Further, in anfvver to what he would 
 urge from his Quotations, Who denies that the Promifes' 
 were made to Chrif}, and to the Eled in him, fcattercd 
 abroad among all Nationsof the World .? Thefe are they 
 Jo whom he will give Life eternal ) who were purchafed 
 with his own Blood, whom in Time he wafliesand fanc- 
 ftifirs, and will at laft prefent without Spot or Wrin- 
 hk ; Bui who they are in particular, is a Secret hid in- 
 
 God. 
 
[ i'7 3 
 
 iGod. When he fays, that *' The Promifes of Salvation 
 are rejiri5ied to the Church ; " if he means Jiereby the vi- 
 sible Church, what is it but to fay, that Church Coni- 
 fnunion is eflential to Salvation ? That if any of the fi- 
 le*!^ are converted, and die before they are joined to the 
 vilible Church, yet there are no Promifes of Salvation 
 to them ; and confeqaently cannot be faved ! What 
 vaft Abfurdities are thefe I Again, if the Cafe be fo, 
 that there are no Promifes '* to anywho are out of the 
 (vifible) Church " how is it pofiible, that any out of the 
 Church fhould believe, if there is no Promiie to them 
 to lay hold on ? Or does Mr. F. defign that thofe v.'ho 
 are grown up, out of the vifible Church, muft be adfnit- 
 ted into it in the State of Unbelief ? Why then is a Pro- 
 feilion of Faith always required from fuch, according to 
 the Scriptures, before they may be admitted ? It does 
 not in the leafl furprife me, whether he accounts me 
 " fit to he difputed with as a Chrijitan,'" or not, becaufe 
 I oppofehis abfurd Notions ; nor do I think his bring- 
 ing in Believers Infants into the Church, ^without God's 
 Order, gives any more Ground to hope the better of 
 their Salvation, or that Chrift receives them only, and 
 none others, than without it ; unlefs it could be thought 
 that Will-worfhip pleafes God, or that the Performance 
 of an uncommanded Ceremony furthers the Salvation cf 
 dying Infants. 
 
 His AlTertion, that Chrifl gave Orders to treat the 
 Children of Believers as Members of his Church, hath 
 been confidered already. Says he, *' /f Mr. M./i devot" 
 ed to Words of Scripture^ as not to take the Anions of Chrijf 
 for Proof without them r"' Anf Yes ; for many of the 
 AiSlions of Chrift arc not recorded for our Imitation, 
 (^. g.) his anointing the Eyes of the Blind w th Clay— t 
 raifing the Dead---walking on the Sea --But for the 
 Confirmation of the Principles of the Gofpel, which wc 
 are to believe and pra6lice ; and according to f Cart- 
 ^iright already cited, the Adlions of Chrift refpe£ting the 
 Children brought to him, were peculiar to himfclf, and 
 H 3 were 
 
 f Anti. Page 62, 
 
[ ii8 ] 
 
 xvcre not imitated by his Difciples or Apoflles, before or 
 after his Afcenfion. 
 
 I obferv'd, that it is a bold Encroachment on Chrift's 
 kinp^ly Prerogative, to enjoin the baptizing of Infants, 
 which the Lord Jefus hath no where commanded : And 
 cited a PafTage from the Apology of the Brunfwick Pref- 
 bytery, againft making new religious Laws in the 
 Church ; And argued, that no Law given by Ghrilf for 
 baptizing Infants, can be found any where Vegiflred in 
 the Rolls of divine Laws ; therefore it muft be done 
 without Law, or elfe by a Law of Mens making, which 
 is attended with all the dreadiul Confequences of fuch a 
 Pradfice, as expre{r<;d in the cited Paragraph. In Anfwer 
 hereto, the Fruits of Mr. Fs good Temper plentifully 
 appear again : He fays, " Does he not .know that we at 
 Icaji pretend to warrant our Pra£lice from Chriji's own 
 Laws already made P Hew ridiculous is it, thus to beg the 
 ^UfJIion, and triumph ? Any Man of Senfe would be ajtatn- 
 ed to do fo : Hs is Jo big with Confidence, as to tell us ve- 
 7y often, that Chriji has given no Law for Infant Baptifm.'* 
 Keply. What is the Matter with Mr./" ? Is he con- 
 fcicus tohimfelf, that there is no divine Law for it, when 
 i)c fcemsfo much difturbed in the AfFar? By this Time 
 I judge we have a pretty good Proof, that no Law for In- 
 fant Baptifm canatallbe found in the Rolls of divineLaws j 
 therefore it cannot be any longer call'd a beggi-ng the 
 Queflion ; for if there were, it is highly probable, the 
 Straits and Pinches Mr. F. is preffed with, in defending 
 his Opinion, would have, long before now, obliged him 
 to diredus the Flacc, and fay j '' Thus it is written:* 
 One would be apt to think, that when he pretends to 
 warrant his Pradice by divine Laws already made, and 
 jet can never produce thole Laws fo much talked of, 
 in favour of his Pradice, he might indeed well be afham- 
 edofhis Pietences, and forbear giving that Honour or 
 Regard to his fallible Confequences, which is due to 
 Chi ift's Laws alone ; left he be found commencing King 
 in his Kingdom, or rather fetting up a Kingdom of his 
 o^vn, in Oppolition to his. 
 
 Mr. 
 
[ "9 ] 
 
 Mr. F. pretends hinifcif ignorant of any inconfiflicuf 
 cy, in his arguing that Baptifm is an initiating Ordi- 
 nance, whereby Perfons are received into the Church; 
 and again, that * Church-members ought to be baptized. 
 Let the Reader judge, if both can be affirmed together, 
 for if any are Church-members before Baptifm, then 
 Baptifm is not an initiating Ordiisance : But if Baptifm 
 be an initiating Ordinance, then none are Church Mem- 
 bers before they are baptized ; and fo I am not obliged to 
 ftiew that there are fomc Church-members who ought not 
 to be baptized : Says he, " Believers Infants, or adult 
 Pro/cJJorSy are virtually Church-members before Baptifm." 
 Reply J virtually, but not fvifibly Members! 'Tis hard 
 to find whereabouts their Infants are fituated ! By Mr. 
 i^'s Way of Talking, it feems Infants are a<Stually Non- 
 members ; and if (o^ let him (hew that any, who are 
 out of the vifible Church, are to be admitted without % 
 Profe/Tion of Faith, confiftent with the Affembly's Ca- 
 techifm. His Comparifon here, is of little Weight : 
 What though an Heir to the Crown be a King when 
 proclaimed ? But their Infants have not been proclaim- 
 ed to have a Right to Church- memberfhip ; they are 
 therefore not (o much as virtually Members of the New 
 Teftament vifible Church. 
 
 In Page 53. Mr. F. is furpriz'd, .that I fhould give 
 the World a Tafle of the Manner how Infant Baptifm 
 is fupported : The Account is not pleafing to him ; and 
 no wonder, for Error loves not the Light. He calls my 
 juft Obfervations " pajftonate InveSiives^ prooflefs Ajfer- 
 tions, and falfe Defamations" 'Tis very obfervable, 
 that Glamours, and the Charge of begging the Queftion, 
 gre two of Mr. Fs main Helps in this Controverfy ; to 
 thefe he frequently betakes himfelf in pinching Dif- 
 ficulties. Did I fay the Minifler declares he is fatisfied 
 Infant Baptifm is right ? This I had from Mr. F. § him- 
 felf. And if this is not improved in various Shapes, to bear 
 down the poor Enquirer, why did the Author of the Di- 
 alogue infifl on it, in Defence of Infant Baptifm ? Page 
 H 4 ' 5. " -C^* 
 
 * Charit. Plea, Page 56. f Divine Right, Page 30. 
 
 ^ Charit. Plea, Page 57. 
 
[ 120 ] 
 
 f "r^'i ^^" ^^"^^ *^^ Minljier is in the wrong ? Is he un- 
 bapttfed? Not in Covenant tvith God P No Minifttr? 
 No v'.jible ChrijUan r With much more of the like Na^ 
 -ture Again, in Pages 6, 7.--thereare fumm'd up the 
 Conrequence.of rejea.ng Infant Baptifm : 'Tis, fays the 
 Author, To rejea all puhlick Ordinances— Tg cali Con^ 
 iempt on Chriji -.To of end againji God' s Children— To 
 reprejentthe whole Church Jor Hundreds of Tears, to be in 
 ^J^tate of Heathemfm-.-'Tis to provoke God, and offer In^ 
 dtgmy to the ble/Jld Spirit, &c." If thefc artful inlinuati- 
 onsana detcftable Methods do not furprize and perplex 
 the hnqu.rer, inftead of fhewing him a divine Inflituti- 
 onfor Infant liaptifm, let the Dialogue relohe the 
 Jj^ueltion. The Author informs us, what EfFed thefe 
 i iiings had on his Neighbour ; his Words are thefe, Page 
 y ■ ; • ^' ^^^ ^^^^ Converfation ferves but to iticreafe my 
 r^rplextty, and to thy ow new Difficulties in my Way, but 
 in no wife releajes my Mind and Confcience from the DUirefi 
 liuas under Hefore-.-lhis does not Jhew m( a divine Injlitu^ 
 pon J or hfant Baptifm:' This Account comes up full/ 
 lo what 1 fa,d. Nuw unlefs Mr. F. will prove the Au- 
 thor s ^arratlve to be falfe, and not at all to be credited, 
 h^ cann-ot with any Judice charge me with proofiefs Af- 
 icrt.ons, and fa fe Defamations : U it be faid the Dialoaue 
 isonfy afie,gned Difourfe, this helps not the Matter; 
 tor then the. Author mull forefee the native Tendency 
 i?'s Arguments had to perplex and confound, but not to 
 Satisfy tender Enquirers. Jv^or is there any Reafon to 
 qucfhon, but oun Opponents pradife what the Dialogue 
 teaches; and thus with their Noife about Antiq-^ity, 
 i>ucceirion, In/ailibihty, Univerfality, &c. Popijh hke, 
 t^ey keep the People jn Awe, and terrify thofe among 
 them who at any time queilions the Vahdityof Infant 
 iJaptiim ; and hereby keep them in perpetual Fetters of 
 human Invention, put on them whilit Infants, fiom giv- 
 ing due Obedience to the Lord Jefus, according to his 
 Appointment : This well known Pradiceof theirs can- 
 jnot be deny'd, unlefs Mr. F, will refute the Dialogue, 
 >yh!ch is a flanding Evidence to vindicate the Truth of 
 What I have faid j he will prpbabJy underhand what 
 
 *' Litira 
 
[ 121 1 
 
 f* Litera Scripta manet" fignifies. I defired Proof, that 
 rejtdiing Infant Baptifm is attended with allthefe frightful 
 Confequences. Says our Author, '* If he wants Proof that 
 the aforefaid Confequences follow, after reading the Dia- 
 logue, I judge himincapalle of receiving ANY ; for it is e- 
 vident they do follow, and mufl we have Light to fee the 
 Sun f" No ; we can fee the Sun by its own Light ; but 
 we want Light to fee the Juftnefs of thefe Confequences, 
 v/hich we are not hke to get from Mr. F. All that he 
 is pleafed to favour us with, is his ""^ pojitive Affertiony 
 unfupported by Argument ;" 'tis evident, ^c. and hi» 
 Refledlion on my Capacity. But in Oppofition to him, 
 I fay. It is not evident, nor ever will be fo, that thefc 
 Confequences follow the rejedling of Infant Baptifm ; 
 iinlefs he could fliew, that it was Chrift's Inftitution, 
 which he is far enough from doing as yet. Let our Op- 
 ponents foberly cnnfider, whether thofe who Counte- 
 nance an Abufe of Chrifl's Ordinance, and continue in 
 it, both in refpe(5t of the Subjeds and Mode ; or thofe 
 who reje£t the Abufe, and fubmit to it, according to hia 
 Inftitution, be moft Blame- worthy ? "Mufl People bred 
 up in Error, always continue in it ? Why then was there 
 any Reformation ever attempted, fince the Tntrodudtion 
 of Error into the Church ? Chrifl: has undoubtedly 
 made good his Promifes to his People in all Ages, whe- 
 ther miny or few in Number, and whether more or lefs 
 vifible. •■' 
 
 ' In Page 53, Mr. i\ comes to his fourth Aflertion, 
 which is, that Infants are capable Subjects of Baptifm ; 
 tind in Page 54. he fays, '* 'Tis his Bufinefs here to Jhew 
 their Incapacity^ if he would difpute again/i me, but far 
 from that, he offers not one Argument againji what I maiti' 
 tain, yet pretends to be refuting me." Anf. I offered an 
 Argument againfl what he maintains, which fhcws his 
 Argument proves a great deal too much for him ; and fo 
 nothing at ^11 to his Purpofe, "jiz. ''^ If a Capacity t» 
 receive an Ordinance be fufficitnt te entitle Perfons to the 
 Reception of it, it would folloiv, that all the Male Infants 
 qf the Heathen Nations, had as good a Right to be circum^ 
 sifid^ as the Sad ^Abraham had ; for §nc was ms capable 
 
to he theSuhje^ .of Circumcifton as the other. If he fays they 
 had not, hecaufe there was no Command of God for it ; fo 
 fay we, there is none for baptizing any Infants." This Ar- 
 gument Mr /^ has not refuted. And further, heconfef- 
 fes, *• That one Infant is not naturally tnore capable of the 
 Things i fald to be) ftgnlfied by Baptlfm than another-:' Not 
 naturally; Queftion, How then ? The anfwer to this 
 Qlieftion in Mr. Fs Book, is a Blank. He afc, " What 
 tuouldl have more /"' Anf, Da, mces etto. 'Tis pretty well 
 Mr. F. is forc'd to confefs fo much ; But I would have 
 this more, a fpeedy Retradion of his Aflertion, '* That 
 be hath given up nothing he faid.'* Again, I would have 
 an ingenuous Acknowledgment, that no Argument can 
 he formed from the Capacity of fome Infants more than 
 others, to prove their Right to Baptifm. And further, I 
 would have Mr. F. confefs, that he is guilty of crimi- 
 nal Partiahty, in not baptizmg the Infants of Non-mem- 
 bers, feeing they are capable of every great Thing figni- 
 fied by Baptifm, as much as the Infants of Church mem- 
 bers ; fince his Argument equally proves the Right of 
 both to the Ordinance alike, efpccially when there is no 
 Scripture Warrant for doing of either. But he fays, I 
 miftock him ; for " He intended to obviate Objections from 
 their Incapacity, and not to prove their Title from their Ca^ 
 pacity." Yes, to befure, when he pjopofed this 4th Head 
 to fhew the Truth of his firfl general AfTertion, which 
 is, that Believers Infants have a Right to the Ordinance 
 of Baptifm: Now if this 4th Particular was not intend- 
 ed to fhew Infants Right to Baptifm, why was it pro- 
 pofed amongft the reft for that Erid ? And if he did not 
 intend^ by obviating Objedtions, to prove Infants Right 
 to Baptifm, it was entirely ufelefs for him to argue they 
 were capable of fpiritual BleiTmgs, in order to fhew they 
 ought to be baptized. What Soldier, ' us'd to the War, 
 is there, who cannot diftindly tell the firing of a routed 
 Enemy ? When Mr. F. thus fhifts and declines, it fiiews 
 us this Argument of his, with all his Stir about it, is now 
 fufEciently baffled. I likewife obferved, that Infants are 
 mcapable of profefling their Aflentto the Dodrinesof the 
 Gofjpel i incapable of Repentance, and faith, and of an- 
 
 fwering 
 
[ "3 ] ■ 
 
 fwcring a good Confcience, which are neceflary Qiialifi- 
 cations in all the Subjeds of Kaptifm, Heb. xi. 6. Mark 
 xvi. 1 6- I Pet. iii. 21. Yet he fays I have not offer- 
 ed one Argument againfl Infants Capacity ; who can 
 help his faying fo, if he has no better to fay ? (But he 
 (hould have looked in Cat. iii. 9. firftj and no other Re- 
 fuge to fly to, but faying, I beg the Queftion ? Begging 
 the Q^ieftiorj, in JV'Ir. F's Language, leems to imply, in 
 plain Engiifh, an Imperfection or Shortnefs in the Scrip- 
 ture Account of the Affair; as much as to fay, there 
 were Infants baptized on the Account of their Parents 
 Faith, and by their Parents were dedicated to God 
 tliercby, tho' the Scripture does not mention it. He may, 
 if he thinks proper, call my Adherence to Scripture^ 
 a begging the Queftion ; yet his doing fo, is far from 
 proving that Parents can dedicate their Children to God 
 bv Baptifm, with Acceptance ; or *' That Circum- 
 afton required Faith in the Subjiii, as much as Baptifm^" 
 when the Law of Circumcifion required Infants to be 
 circumcifed at eight Days old : But the Inftitution of 
 Baptifm requires none to be baptized before they arc firft 
 taught, Mark xvi. 16. I obferved alfo, the Sinfulnefj 
 there is in the PraiSlice of Infant Baptifm, which re- 
 mains unanfwer'd. 
 
 In Page 54. Mr. F. advances feveral Arguments, with 
 a Defign to fhew, that the Blood of Chrift is fignified 
 by Baptifm ; but his Arguments amount no higher than 
 the Conclufion I cited from Mr. Mede^ which is, *' T^hat 
 the Blood of Ckriji concurs in the Myjiery of Baptifm^ b} 
 Way of Efficacy and Merits but not as the Thing there 
 figured^ which the Scripture tells us not to be the Blood of 
 ChriJ}^ but the Spirit" 
 
 He pretends, " It is eafy to manifefl the Tnconclw 
 Jtvenefs of my Reafonings againji the Dialogue in this Place^ 
 but he promifes that will be fubfiantially done^ when he 
 comes to his laft Jffertion." But he does neither in this 
 Place, nor there, vindicate the Dialogue refpe(5ling the 
 grofs Expofition of Mat. xviii. 4, 5, 6. which the Au- 
 thor is guilty of, with a Defign to (hew that Infants are 
 ^Jievers in Chrift, and fit Subjects of Baptifro 5 t^ia 
 
 Mr, 
 
[ 124 ] 
 Mr. F. fhould have done, were it pofTible, before he 
 ^nt his 79th Page; or elfe it will ftill follow, the faid 
 Author IS ju% chargeable with horrid Impieties in a- 
 Jbuhng Scripture (o wretchedly, in order to impofe hij 
 i^rrors on the World, under the CoJour of Scripture 
 txpreflions. ^ 
 
 He endeavours to fhew, that Infants are capable, and 
 ought to be admitted to Baptifm, but not to the Supper, 
 and fays, the one- Sacrament is an initiating, the other 
 a confirming Seal of the Covenant. Reply ; Baptifm is 
 properly admmiftered to thofe who profefs their Faith in 
 
 't^a [vn.^"'^ *° ""Z"^ ""^^^'^ ^"^ 't^e Supper for their 
 Jiftabhfhment «n Faith ; the one is rightly adminiftered 
 .to profefljng D.fciples, the other to baptized Difcip'es- 
 .Says he, ** The Scripture does not fay Difdple ^ and z'lvt 
 them the Supperr Anf. Neither does the Scriprure (ay, 
 difciple all Nations, baptizing them, and withhold them 
 from the Lord's Supper. All thofe who were baptized, 
 received the Sacrament, A^s ii. 42. 7he Prejhyteriam 
 have no Precedent in Scripture for their Pradice of keeping 
 back any meet Subjeds of 'Baptifm, when baptized," from 
 the Lord's Table, whofe Lives are unftained with adual 
 bins. Their adminiftring the one Sacrament (in Pre^ 
 tence) to Subjeds unfit for the other, is Man's Device, not 
 the Lord's Appo/ntment. Says he, '' The firfl^ hfanis 
 ars naturally capable of, for they can be wajhed." So they 
 are as much naturally capable of the other, for they 
 can fwallow, or elfe how did Cyprian and Augujline give 
 ^hem the Sacrament of the Supper I «' In the fir Ji, fays 
 he, Perfons are pajfive Recipients, in the other Agents " 
 Anf. Perfons are aglive in the iirft, as in repenting, be- 
 Jieving, profefTing, anfwering a good Confcience, com- 
 ing to, be baptized, and going down into the Water, b'f. 
 as well as in the Supper, in examining, commemorating, 
 eatmg and drinking : Hence it ftill follows unavoidably, 
 that if Infants are capable, and ought to be admitted tci 
 Baptifm, they ought alfo to be admitted to the Sacra-- 
 ment of the Supper : Nor is there any more Scripture to 
 Ihew that " the Supper is refiriaed to thofe only who 
 tan examine themjehcs;* than that Baptifm is to thofg 
 
 who 
 
[ 125 ] 
 
 ^ho do aftually believe and repent ; for the Scripture 
 does not fay ONLY thofe who examine themfelves, arc 
 to communicate, and none elfe ; therefore according tor 
 Mr. * F's own Rule in the Cafe of Baptifm, there is as 
 much Room to admit Infants to the Lord's Table, as to' 
 Baptifm, fince the exclufivc Particle only is not found 
 in all thofe Texts, which fpeak of the Subje£ts of this 
 Sacrament of the Supper. But as there is no Command 
 jior example for the one, neither is there for the other. 
 Our Opponents indeed, are funk fo deep in the Notioa 
 and Cuftom of baptizing Infants, that they cannot tell 
 how to lay it afide, tho' it be every Way as unfcriptural 
 as to admit them to the Supper of the Lord. 
 
 As an Anfwer to my Obfervation, that all the Mem- 
 bers in the apoftolical Churches were taught before they 
 were admitted, he fays, " If Difciples are Church- 
 members^ and if Infants were accounted Difciples in the 
 Apoflles Days^ it will follow^ that they were, and Jlill 
 tught to be Church members \ but Infants were accounted 
 Difciples by the Apojiles (that is a grand Miflakej and 
 therefore ought to be admitted into Chriffs School; the Ali- 
 nor is proven from A6ts xv. lo. Why tempt ye God to pit 
 a Yoke on the Necks of the Difciples ? This Take was Cir- 
 cumcifon." Anf. Thofe who were accounted Difciples, 
 and fo called by the Apoftle, were fuch as were capable 
 of being taught by the judaizing Teachers, as is plain, 
 ASIs XV. I. They were fuch who might be fubverted with 
 falfe DoiSlrine, Verfe 24. They were fuch who were 
 capable of rejoicing for the Confolation, Verfe 31. which 
 Chara<Sters do not a^ree to Infants ; therefore Infants are 
 not intended by Difciples in the Text. In the Words of 
 an ingenious f Author, 1 fay, " It is a great DifJoonour 
 and Differ vice to Religion, that any who are Teachers of 
 it, and appointed to guide the People, foould endeavour to 
 fupport their Fancies and Opinions by a Fallacy. Nothing 
 I think can bemore difingenuoufly urged, or be a more palpa' 
 hie Affront t$ the common Senje of Mankind, than to affirm 
 Mathetees may be applied to Infants and Perfons not capa^ 
 Ue of being taught i for every Body conjiantly ufes the 
 
 Wsrdt 
 * Vind. Page 2, f Dr, Gale ;Let. 8. 
 
L 125 j 
 
 tP^ard^ and always under/lands it to mean one that is taught 
 0r learns. John ix. 27. Says the Man who was born blind, 
 wherefore would you hear it again P Will ye alfo be his 
 Difciples? i.e. IP ill ye oljo believe in him, and fuhmit 
 yourjelves to his Injlruaions^ and bemne his Followers ? 
 Again, Aas xviii. 23. He went over all the Country of 
 Galatia and Phrygia in order, Jlrengthening all the 
 Dijciples : Douhtlefs all the Difciples then were capable of 
 ieing confirmed in the Faith, they had all received; for it 
 IS plain, no other are acknowledged for Difciples, but fuch 
 as believed, for all the Difciples were fir engthened" Luke 
 Xiv. 27. IFhsfoever doth not hear his Crofs, and cofne after, 
 me, cannot be 7ny Difciple. Therefore on the Whole, In- 
 fants are not Chrift's Difciples j they are not capable of 
 fo much, as to be entered in the Church, in order to 
 Jearn ; when none but Proficients are to be entered into 
 the Church, and when all the Members in the apoflolic 
 Churches were taught before they were admitted, which 
 he has not refuted, by giving Inftances of the contrary, 
 therefore my Obfervation does fully reach the Point in 
 Hand.^ Lev. xxv. 41, 42. does not appear " Parallel 
 hereto." He fhould have explained in what Senfe the 
 Children there are called God's Servants. Let him {hew 
 that the Term [Servants of God] is always equipollent 
 to [a Difciple of ChriftJ before he tells \x^ " We may 
 call thofe Difciples, who are not taught," or capable of 
 being taught, as their Infants are. 
 
 Mr. F. in the Preface to his Charitable Plea, charged 
 us with arguing fomething they never faid, inftead of 
 anfwering their Arguments, and Infianccs, in the Cafe 
 o^f fcederal Holinefs. To difcover the Falfity of his 
 Charge, I fhewed him we do not ; for the Dialogue 
 afierts over and over, that Infants are Believers in Chrift, 
 and if fo, they are really holy, and fets them on a Par 
 with believing Women, without any Diftin^ion or Li- 
 mitation: Therefore I obferved, if Church members and 
 their Seed, are thus in Covenant, they {hall all ba faved. 
 Now Mr. F. fhould either have reconciled their Incon- 
 fiflencics, or elfe retraced his Charge againfl us in his 
 former Preface i but inllead of that, he endeavours to 
 
 hide 
 
[ 127 ] 
 
 hide their own Confufion and jarring AfTertlons, by ac- 
 cufing mc falfly, " That 1 regard not the Scope of thi 
 Argument in the Diahgue.'* Having foJongAccjuain- 
 tance with our Author's Condu6t, had I wrong'd the 
 Dialogue, 1 have no Rcafon to think, but he would 
 foon make Noife enough about it j my Judgment, Grace, 
 and Good Manners, would all have been called in Que- 
 ftion. I have now in Juftice a Right to demand he 
 fhould reconcile thofe Contradictions I mentioned, yfntt. 
 Pages 78, 79. or elfe publickly acknowledge, he has 
 charged us wrongfully. In anfwer to what he further 
 urges. Page 57. I fay the Infants of Unbelievers are as 
 capable of being fandified in the Womb, as the Infants 
 of Believers ; and one is as capable of the Habits of 
 Faith, they fpeak of, let it be what it will, as the other. 
 I am at no Lofs at all, to fay what Infants are Unbe- 
 lievers, as he fuggefts, when Mr. F. himfelf teaches, 
 that none are to be accounted the fpiritual Seed, but 
 thofe only in whofe Hearts the Word of God has taken 
 EfFe£t. Now unlefs out Opponents mean fome other 
 Word, befides the Gofpel, and fome other kind of 
 Faith, befides that which the Gofpel preached does pro- 
 duce ; I do not fcruple to fay, that all their Infants are 
 vifible Unbelievers, Children of Wrath by Nature, even 
 as others ; and none of them fit SubjeC^o of Baptifm, 
 But if they do mean any other, they fhould tell us what 
 kind of Faith it is ? And how Infants come by it ? And 
 by what Rule they know them Infants from others ? Mr. 
 F. difclaims *' Their baptizing Infants on the Account of 
 knowing their Faith, and ajferts, that I argue againji what 
 they do not fey, in/iead of anfujcring their Arguments.^* 
 Reply; Why then do our Opponents argue that Believers 
 Infants have a Right to Baptifm, on the Account of 
 their Faith ? As the * Author of the Dialogue exprefly 
 does. Says he, " If Infants have (tho but) the Princi- 
 ples and Habits of Faith, they have a Right to the Seal of 
 the Righteoufnefs of Faith." That Author pleads that 
 the Infants of believing Parents, are Believers in Chriff, 
 and. therefore have a " righteous Claim to Baptifm." So 
 
 then, 
 * Divine Right, Pages 33, 34. See alfo Pages 25, 26. 
 
f i2S ] 
 
 then, according to Mr. F. our Opponents do not baptize 
 Infants, as knowing they are Believers in Chrift, an<i 
 therefore have a Right to Baptifm ; but yet according to 
 ^ the Dialogue they know they are Believers in Chrift, and 
 have a Right to Baptifm, therefore they baptize them. 
 "When the Matter is thus Yea and Nay among them- 
 felves, hovif fliall we know what they fix on, as the 
 Foundation of their fcripturelefs Practice ? This Talk 
 of theirs, war, it rendered in Mr. F's Language, would 
 properly be called, " § Religious Garbage and Nonfenfe.'" 
 But Difficulties increafing, and coming hard upon Mr. 
 F. he feems willing to quit the Author of the Dialogue, 
 and to leave him to (hift for himfelf, according to the 
 Proverb, Evet^y Man fcr kiinfelf; and thu> fays° " But 
 en Suppofttion that the Author of the Dialogue meant as 
 Mr. M. fays., how does it follow that I am inconfijlent in. 
 my Di/iin£iion of a two-fold being in the Covenant ^ Muft I 
 needs be inconfijlent with fnyfelf becaufe 1 am fo with ano- 
 ther Man f" An{. I think I have already fufficiently {hewn 
 his Inconfircency, when he publickly undertook to charge 
 U3 with' arguing againft what they (Plurally, not on- 
 ly he Singularlyj never faid ; but now he cannot make 
 good his Charge, when the Dialogue pleads that Infants 
 are Believers in Chrift; if fo, they muft be really holy, 
 and favingly in the Covenant of Grace. 
 
 As to the Inconfiftency he would charge on me, Pages 
 57, 58. I muft needs fay, I do not underftand what he 
 would be at, nor fee nothing in what he fays to the 
 Purpofe. 
 
 , -^"J^^g^ 58- i^'^r. F. enters upon his 5th AfTertion, which 
 is. That Baptifm fucceeds in the Room of Circumcifion, 
 and cites Col. ii. 11, 12. with a Defign to prove it. The 
 Words arc, '* In whom aifo ye are circumcifed with the 
 Circumcifion made without Hands., in putting off the Bo- 
 dy of the Sins of the Fh/h^ by the Circumcifion of Chrifi^ 
 buried with him in Baptifm." I obferved, this Text does 
 not prove what it is brought for ; " Becaufe it is fnani- 
 fefi., iheApofile means by [Circumcifion ot Chrift] the 
 Renovation of the Soul, fpiritual Operation en the Hearty 
 
 iii 
 J Vind. Page So. 
 
/>? mrtifying the Body of Sin, and implanting in the Soul A 
 Principle of divine Life--faid therefore to be done without 
 Hands, in Oppofition to Circurhcifton in the Fle/h, done by 
 Hands :" And not as Mr. * F. aflerts, that Baptifm is 
 here called by the Apoftle, the Circumcifion of Chrift; 
 for if fo, then i. It would follov/, that Baptifm is ab- 
 folutely necefTary to Salvation ; for fo is the Circumcifion 
 here mentioned. 2. That Baptifm takes away Sins, or 
 at leafl, that there is fome Virtue in it co-operating with 
 the Grace of the Spirit, in putting off the Body of Sin : 
 Hence we fee, the Apoftle does not intend Baptifm by 
 the Circumcifion of Chrift. Why has not Mr. F. vin- 
 dicated his Affertion, and fhewn, that thefe Obfervations 
 are not natively deduced from it ? But as they are, what 
 greater Corruption, in the Cafe of Baptifm, has ever 
 been vented from Rome, than what is included in this 
 Affertion of his? 
 
 Says he, " Syntsephentes, a Participle of the firfl Aorifi 
 (rfthe fecond Aou^ pajfive) refers directly to the fame 
 Perfons, zuho are faid to be cir'cumcifed \ and fo the Words 
 will run thus. Being buried with Chriji in Baptifm, ye are 
 therein circumcifed with the Ciraoncifton of Chrijl.--Tbe 
 'Apoftle mentions Circumcifion without Hands, and the Cir- 
 cumcifion of Chrifl alfo. " Anf. What of that ? Is the 
 Circumcifion without Hands, and Baptifm, one and the 
 fame? If fo, then it ftill follows, that Baptifm takes 
 away Sins, and is abfolutely neccflary to Salvation, but 
 as thefe. Confequences are Abfurdities too great to be al-^.. 
 lowed, it is evident that Baptifm, and the Circum- 
 cifion without Hands, is not one and the fame Thing : 
 Nor does the Apoftle here call Baptifm the Circumcifion 
 of Chrift, as Mr. F. has injudicioufly affirmed. The 
 Conftrudlion of the Words, according to him, leads to 
 unfufferable Inconfifteneies, in afcribing that to Baptifm, 
 or affirming that to be done therein, which the Apoftle 
 docs not. The Circumcifion without Hands, which the 
 Colojftan Believers were Partakers of, preceded their Re- 
 ception of Baptifm, and was neither done therein, nor 
 any Part of it ; f Mr. F, himfelf does allow that a Pro- 
 
 I feiHo^ 
 
 ^ Char. Plea, Pa|^ 61. ■\ Ibid, Page 67. 
 
[ I30 j 
 
 I'eilion of Faith is neceflarily required from adult Per- 
 fons, brought up in SuperlHtioa and Heathenifm, as 
 thofe Coloffians were, before they be admitted to Baptifm : 
 Then if thofe Colojfians were Believers in Ghrifl:, and had 
 received Chrift, Col. ii. 6. and were, in him, Verfe ii, 
 and made a Profeflion thereof too, before, they were bap- 
 tized, it follows they were circumcifed with the Cir- 
 cumcifion without Hands beforfe they were baptized ; it 
 is therefore quite unintelligible to tell them, they were 
 therein (t. e. in B:>-ptifm) circumcifed with the Circum- 
 cifion of Chrift, which they had received, and made a 
 Profeflion of alfo, before they were baptized : Now fince 
 Mr. F% Connexion is broken, or rather hereby is fhewn 
 tiierc is no fuch Connexion at all, as he would infmuatCj. 
 it appears, the Apoftle does not affert the Coloffians were 
 in iiStCt circumcifed, becaufe baptized, as our Author 
 urges ; nor indeed is it evident from this Text, that the 
 Apoftle afTerts the Identity of Circumcifion and Eaptifm, 
 or that the latter fucceeds the former in the Manner ont 
 Opponents plead for, when the judaizing Teachers were 
 fufficiently refuted, without aflerting any fuch Thing, 
 as I have in my former Treatife unanfwerably fhewn.- 
 Mr. F. wil! have it, *' That the Sign is here put for the 
 Thing fignifu'd ;" I fee no Reafon to grant this ; but if fo,- 
 it wcuid not ferve his prefent Purpofe, becaufe the Sign 
 was not adminiftred to any, but to thofe who profe/Ved 
 thieir dying to Sin, and were capable of exercifing 
 (fijFaith, in rifing with Chrift to Newnefs of Life, when: 
 l)aptized, Verfe I2. which we all know Infants are in- 
 capable of ; and therefore what Agreement foever may 
 be fijppofed by our Opponents, to be between Circum- 
 cifion and Baptifm in their Nature, Ufe and End, 
 yet their Argument therefrom for the Adminiftration 
 of the latter to Infants, is quite inconclufive, when 
 the Apoftle mentions none other who were bap- 
 tized, but thofe who were renewed by Grace, and 
 believed in Chrift, by hearing the Gofpel, Col. ii. 
 21, 12. i. 23. And as Infants cannot believe in Chrift, 
 by hearing the Gofpel, there does not appear any War- 
 rant nor Example to baptize them, according to the 
 
 Order 
 
[ 13' 1 
 Order of God refpeding this Ncw-Tefiament Ordi- 
 nance. 
 
 I obferved, thofe legal Teachers v/ere as clofely at- 
 tached to other Alofaic Ceremonies, as th^y were (or 
 could bej to Circumcifion, and (according to our 
 Opponent's Talk) could not be refuted, unlefs the Apo- 
 ftle had (hewn there were fome Ordinances which an- 
 fwered to each of them, -and fucceeded them. Mr. F. 
 afks, " Have tue not Chrlji, and New Tcjlament Worjln^, 
 anjuoertng to the Types^ and Temple-Services, zvhich zvere 
 cnly the Patterns of heavenly Things f" Anf. That the 
 formerTypes pre- figured Chrifr, and were fulfilled in him, 
 is granted ; but if wc have Ordinances now anfwering 
 diftindly to each of the jezviJJy OfFerings, Sacrifices, Pu- 
 rifications, &c, and fuccced them in the fame Manner 
 as Baptifm is faid to anfwfr and fucceed Circumclfion, 
 and to be performed by Virtue of, or at leafl, in Con- 
 formity to^ the abrogated Laws, which required th-? 
 Obfervance of thofe yeihifn Ordinances, without anj 
 Command for them in Gofpel Times, v.'hich is the very- 
 Cafe of our Opponents in urging Jnfant-baptifm from 
 the Pradicc of Circumcifionj Mr. F. is flrongly obliged 
 to tell us what thofe Ordinances are, and likewife fliew 
 us that the yezvifh abrogated Laws are yet in Force, and 
 bind us to the Obfervance of any thing as a Part of 
 New Tcftament Worfliip, which is not inftituted in 
 New Teftament Times : But as this cannot be done, 
 however willing he is to countenance his received arul 
 darling Tenetof Infant Baptifm, he is at a Lofs to prefcribe 
 any other Refutation of thejudaizing Teachers, than 
 what I mentioned ; viz. To (hew them that all the yeiv^ 
 ijh Ordinances, Circumcifion not excepted, were whol- 
 ly abolifhed fince the Antitype is exhibited, and thereby- 
 leading them to Chrift, and to the Obfervance of New 
 Teftament Ordinances, which depend not on any abro- 
 gated Laws, but on new Commands and Inftitutions, 
 particularly Baptifm, which was to be adminiflred to 
 none other, but to thofe who profefTed their Faith in 
 Chrift, and to have put oft the Body of the Sins of th« 
 Flefli, as this Place under Cgnfiderarion tciiifies. 
 
 la I fur- 
 
[ 132 1 
 I further argued againft his Notion, from ASis xr* 
 and could his Opinion be found any where, that Bap- 
 tifm anfwers to Circumcifion, andfucceedsit in the Man- 
 lier he pleads for, this Place is the moft likely, where 
 PW and other Apoftles, withtheElders, Were conveen'd 
 in Council on the Occafion, purpofely to withftand and 
 refute the judaizing Teachers, who earneflly endeavour- 
 ed to introduce Circumcifion into the Chriftian Churches 
 among the Gentiles^ and fo vehemently urg'd the Necef- 
 iity ofit :- Had there been fuch a Thing then known, how 
 fairvvas the Opportunity to obferve. That Circumcifi- 
 on is indeed abolifhed ; but we have another Ordinance, 
 even Baptifm, which every Way ai>fwers to Circumci- 
 fion, and fucceeds it.— Nay, if the judaizing Teachers 
 could not be refuted without aflerting it, as our Oppo- 
 nents fuggeft, there appears the greater Neceflity they 
 Ihould embrace the Opportunity fo to do ; but of this 
 there is not a Word mentioned in tl>c Conclufions fent 
 to the Churches perplexed with thofe judaizing Teach- 
 ers. Infant Baptifm was not then known, and there- 
 fore thofe Inventions, contrived fince to countenance it, 
 were then unknown alfo. And happy would it be for 
 the Church, if this grufs Abufe of a Gofpel Ordinanc* 
 had been always unknown. Mr. F. is fo much at a Lofs 
 to anfwer my Arguments from this Place, that he fpends 
 much Labour in cavilling with my ExpreiTions ; the 
 common Path of a baffled Adverfary. He fays, I fpeak 
 as if I knew all they faid, and all they thought i that the 
 Point is clear to me, whether it be written or not, 
 wiih much more of fuch like : Then fubmits his 
 groundlefs Cavils to the Judgment of his Readers, and 
 fays, " How firmly hejiands to the Scriptures, let others 
 judge." To be fure very fi/mly, when h« has not given 
 his Readers the leaft Proof of my fwerVing from the 
 Scriptures I But he muft make a Sound to divert h\s 
 headers, left they ftiould obferve I had proven the Point 
 ixom that which is written, far beyond his Power to 
 refute. At length, he fays thus, *' // is not aferted in 
 Ads XV. therefore it is abfurd to fuppofe that it is a/ferted 
 *n Qq\, ii, A faiJiQiis Argument ! Hereby one may prove 
 
[ 133 3 
 
 eny Thing j e. g, Jujiijicatioa by Faith is not afferted in 
 Gen. i. I. therefore not in Rom. iv. See how con/iantly 
 they run into Abfurdities^ who Reafon againji the truth.'^ 
 Anf. Not fo faft j Juftification by Faith is not treated 
 of in Gen. i. as Circumcifion is purpofely and defign- 
 edly in AHs xv. That Eaptifm anfwers to Circumcifion, 
 and fucceeds it in the Manner they fay, is not afferted 
 in Col. ii. as Juftification is in Rom. iv. The Cafes arc 
 not parallel ; therefore without running into any Abfur- 
 <3ities, I may ftill argue for the Truth in my former 
 Words, from ASfs xv. " Can any Reafon be thought of, 
 tuhy the Apojiles and Elders made no Mention of any fuch 
 Things as our Opponents urge^ neither in their Debates in 
 this Council^ nor in their Letters fent to the Churches, but 
 only this, that they received no fuch DoSfrine from Chriji i 
 and therefore tranfmitted no fuch Cujiom to be obferved by 
 the Churches of Chriji P And how any Man can think 
 ctherwife, and not reflet great Imprudence and Unfaithful- * 
 nefs upon the ApojU.es (if the Cafe he as our Opponents fay) 
 1 cannot imagine.'^ Mr F. has not attempted to remove 
 this Difficulty out of his Way, the' his Gaufe much re- 
 quired it. 
 
 He pleafes himfelf with the Fancy of my being en- 
 gaged in the Difpute with the judaizing Teachers.— 
 Well, had I been in the Apoflles Gafe, I fhould have 
 argued jufl as they did, and if Mr. F. cannot make good 
 his Principles from the Apoflles Argument, neither could 
 he from mine, had I been in their Gafc. 
 
 Says he " Whatever Difference there is between Baptifm 
 end Circumcifion, they are allowed to agree in this, that 
 both are Ordinances of Initiation." Are they fo .? Then 
 ?iccording to Mr. /'s Opinion of the vifible Church's 
 being the fame in all Ages, it follows, that Time hath 
 been, the vifible Church had two initiating Ordinances 
 in Force at the fame time ; when fohn and Ghrifl bap- 
 tized, fohn iii. 22, 23. Circumcifion was in Force, 
 "John vii. 22 23. and an Ordinance of Initiation to 
 the Jewijh Ghurch, as much as ever it was ; and how 
 Baptifm was then aifo an initiating Ordinance into the 
 fewifh Church unto them, who were vifibly and 
 jiftually in the Jewip Church before, is left to Mr. F. tq 
 
 T »> iinfnin • 
 
[ ^34 ] 
 
 ttnfold : However this ferves further to fliew the Invalidi- 
 ty of our Opponents Plea, that Baptifm fucceeds Cir- 
 cumcifion in tlie Manner they plead for, when both wers 
 in Force at the fame time. o 
 
 ' _ But the Sum of the Whole, which Mr. F. feems to 
 aim at, is to introduce this Argument of his, namely^ 
 '-'Infants were circuincifed, Bapttfm comes in the Room of 
 Circumcifion ; there fere Infants are to be baptised.'" Thi$ 
 Confequence is flill to be rejeded, becaufe it is not con^ 
 firmed with " Thus faith the Lord." Nor is it a jufl 
 Confequence from his Word ; for as the Lord's Supper 
 does not come in the Room of the PalTover, as d e- 
 PENDING on the fame Inflitution ; fo neither does 
 Eaptifmcomeia the Room of Circumcifion as depend- 
 ing on the famelnftitutioH, but is founded on the ex- 
 prefs Command of God in the New Teflament, which 
 is inftitutive of it j and therefore to be adminiflred to nd 
 ether Subjeds, but according to the Order of the Infli- 
 tution : Tho' Mr. F. without any Authority from 
 Chrift, and without due Regard had to the different Dif- 
 penlations. Laws and Order of God refpeding each of 
 thefe Ordinances, of his own Head concludes° that W 
 fants are to be baptized. Says he, «' Baptifn depends on 
 ihe fame Inf'ittitvM^ and is to be adminiflred to the f ami 
 Bubjeds in kind., that Circumcifon was adminijired to.'* 
 Anf. Mr. F. tells us,' That *' Any one can foftively 
 iiffcrt a Thing ; but it is the Property of a manly ^ and fair 
 Difputant, to prove vjhat he fays.". ^Doubtlefs it is fo, 
 for he has not cited any Text to prove this AfTertion ; 
 neither can he, for it is indeed prooflefs ; nay, it is fuch 
 an Impofuion on common Senfe, and luch a bold con- 
 fronting of div:ne Truih, that Error itfelf might well 
 biufh to affirm it. . , 
 
 The Inflitution of Circumcifion W8 find in Gen. xvli. 
 which was in Force during the Continuance of the le- 
 gal Adminiflraticn, and was abolifhed with it. The In- 
 flitution of Baptifm in y<;/;/2 i. 33. Mat. xxviii. Now 
 keing the Cafe is thus, Mr. F. may know the Reafon 
 ^h^^ I take fo little Notice of his Argument from their 
 funpofed Agreement 'ii\ feme Things ; for it concludes 
 
 not 
 
[ 135 ] 
 
 not, as long as thefe two Ordinances depend on t5^q 
 diftinil Commands, and Diredions given who are the 
 proper Subjects of each. His arguing from an abrogate^ 
 Law, to prove that any are the Subjeas of Baptifm (which 
 docs' not depend in Whole, or in Part, on that Law) who 
 are not mentioned in the Inftitution of Baptifm, does 
 not carry in it the leaft Convidion, nor any Shew of 
 Reafon with it. Could he fhew us one Gofpel Precept 
 for, or Example of, fuchkind of Baptifm as he pleads 
 for, it were fomething he fliould make fuch a Stir about 
 it J but as he has not, can he imagine we will receive 
 the Doarine he brings, which God does no where re- 
 quire us to believe ? 
 
 I obferved from Mr. Hutchinfon^ that were the Cafe 
 as they urge, yet the Countermand to circumcife Infants, 
 is a confequential and virtual Countermand to baptize 
 them. Mr. F. fays, " I cofifefs he has other fort of Lo- 
 g'lck than /, who can fee this to be an Argument ad Ho- 
 minem, unhfs he could aljo prove^ that zfje owned Infants 
 Church -memberpnp to be aboli/hed with Circumcifion ; but 
 this we never did:* It is obfervable, he has not refuted 
 Mr. Hutchinjon's Argument ; then if their Infants be as 
 they plead, yet there is not fo much as a confequential 
 Command to baptize them : " For if Infant Baptifm 
 was commanded in the Command for Circumcifion of Infants y 
 then by Analogy {for Contrariorum, Contraria eft ratio^ 
 Jnfant Baptifm mufi needs be abrogated and remanded^ in 
 the Abrogation and Remanding of Circumcifion" Mr, 
 Hutchinfon further juftly obferves, that Infants Church- 
 memberflbip is repealed, becaufe the fame Law that gave 
 Being to it, is repealed. The Sum of the Whole is, our 
 Opponents fancy (without Scripture Evidence) that 
 their Infants are Church-members, and then with- 
 out any Command from the Law or Gofpel (as they 
 have yet fhewn) proceed to baptize them : Thus one 
 Error of theirs is produdive of many more. May the 
 Time be haftened, wherein they fhall be freed from the 
 Fetters of Tradition, to embrace the Gofpel Truthg 
 they now vehemently oppofe and rejedl. 
 
 Here I would a(k Mr. F. why he did not juftify the 
 
 Author ©f the Diilogue, according t9 bis Promife. Page 
 
 I 4 55' 
 
t i3» ] 
 
 55. from the Abfurdity I charged on his Argumpnt* 
 1 hat th6 fame Medium, whereby that Author would 
 prove the Baptifm of Infants, ferves to as good Purpofb 
 to prove the Communion of Infants ^Ifo. 
 
 I obferved, among other Particulars, that Infants are 
 no ways capable of Baptifm, as they were of Circum- 
 cihon^j that left a Sign in the FJefh, this does not. He 
 Jays, «' This Argument Socinus ufed long ago."— But ii 
 Jt is a good Argument, it may not be rejeaed becaufe 
 Aocwus ufed It : Had it been otherwife, probably Mr, F 
 vrould^have fomething better to objcd, than his Quefti- 
 tion, " Jre Infants more capable to be cut with a Knift. 
 than wajhedwith Water f" A Cut with a Knife, left a 
 b.gn in the Flefh, which is the Thing affirmed ; but 
 Water does not :- -Therefore, he that is wafhed in hi* 
 infancy knows nothing of it, but by Hear- fay, and that' 
 Js uncertam, and cannot ia Faith in the adorable Tri- 
 ^'^^ which is conftantly required in all the Subjefls of 
 this Ordinance, at their Reception of it : But in the 
 former it was not. ~ ' - 
 
 We have now followed him to the End of the Argu- 
 ments he propofed : Then he proceeds to make feveral 
 ^Attempts, but in vain, to anfwer ours for Believers 
 liaptifm, deduced from thofe Places of Scripture which 
 defignedly fpeakof the Ordinance, i. Says he, ''Our 
 Opponents themfehes mujiown that thofe Scriptures (name- 
 ly Matt. 111. 6. Matt, xxviii. 19. Mark xvi. 16. &c ) 
 they fo much urge, are addrefed only to grown Perfons, and 
 not to hfantsr I anfwered, this we do own, and there- 
 ^re obferved, that that Baptifm which does not require 
 laith and Repentance to precede it, is not a fcriptural 
 i^aptifm ; and fuch is theirs. I further enquired what 
 IS It that bhnds their Eyes, that they fhould think In'- 
 fant Baptifm to be right, when they themfelves can't 
 find any fuch kind of Baptifm in the whole Word of 
 God ? Again I obferved, That Mr. F. according to his 
 own Way of Reafoning, has no Authority from Chrifl' 
 to baptize Infants ; for in the Commiffion Teaching is 
 /et before Baptizing, and this is one of the Places he 
 pleads refers to grown Perfons, and not to Infants. Who 
 
 thejn 
 
[ ^Vl ] 
 
 ^ben can forbear pitying them, who endeavour to vinr 
 dicate fuch a Caufe, which pleads Scripture Authority in 
 |ts Favour, and yet no Precept nor Example can be 
 whence produced to juftify it : My Obfervations here 
 feem'd not at all pleafing to Mr. F, and fince he could 
 |iot refute them, he turns himfelf about, and fays, " Ihat 
 1 have urged his Repetition of this ObjeSiioriy as a ConceJJion 
 in our Favour J" Anf. Had he but that Meafure of Can- 
 dour ahd Judgment, which he is willing his Readers * 
 fhould believe he has, he would not once infinuate, 
 much lefs affirm this, fo contrary to Truth, in Vindica- 
 tion of his former Anfwers ; and then as invidiouflyas 
 groundlefly infmaate, that in this my prefent Anfwer, I 
 will prove he hath yielded the Caufe, from his repeating 
 my A/Tertions in his Vindication. Now the Reafon of 
 all this is, becaufe I urg'dhis answer to our Objection 
 (which he would have us own) as a Conceffion in our 
 Favour. Can any thing be more unfairly and unjuftly 
 reprefented, than he does the Cafe here ? His own 
 Words are quite apt on this Occafion ; *' It is a fad 
 EvidencBy that Humour fways one more than Confcience or 
 Judgment, when he grows peevif) becaufe the Reafoning is 
 unanfwerable." And further, in his own Words, fuitably 
 improved, '' IVe have Right to demand —that he would ei- 
 ther give up his Caufe, or folidly refute the Arguments offer- 
 id againji it.— But if he fiill intends to carry the Point by 
 Clamour, perfonal RefieSiions, and magijlerial JJfertions, 
 I then befeech Chrijlians, both Prefbyterians and others, by 
 oil that Love they profefs to God, and to his holy Word^ 
 that they reje£l fuch fcripturelefs, and therefore indefenfi^ 
 tie Principles, with Detejiation" Let them fearch for 
 Truth, and receive it in the Love thereof, as it is re- 
 vealed in the Gofpel. 
 
 I reply 'd to the fecond Branch of his Anfwer, that 
 thofe Scriptures {Mat. iii. 3-—) contained an Addrefs to 
 the Pharifees and Sadducees, who were then in Abraham^ 
 Covenant, and had a Right to have their Children cir- 
 cumcifed ; and obferved the ill Teridency of our Oppo- 
 nents Opinion : Mr. F. fays, all this is becaufe I do not 
 Knderftand the Ufe of }iis Diftin6ijon— of a two-fol4 
 
 kcin^ 
 
[ 138 ] 
 
 being in the Covenant. But can it be of any Ufe to 
 him, had I put in the Word Vifihle P and fay, thofe 
 grown wicked Perforis were vifibiy in the Covenant of 
 Grace, and yet at the fame Time vifibJy Unbelievers ; 
 for he fays they were not Chriliians^ and ranks them 
 with PaganSy which he every where fays, are out of the 
 Covenant of Grace: Ho\y little does he mend the Mat- 
 ter by this Obfervation f ' ' 
 
 In my Reply to the thircj Part of his Anfwer, I (hew- 
 ed what it is to gather a Gofpel vifible Church, and 
 who are Members of it, even thofe who are inftru£ted 
 by the Minjftry of the Word, and are baptized on Pro- 
 feffion of their Faith, ^c. in Proof hereof, I cited fe-* 
 vera! Scriptures, and gave divers Reafons why Infants 
 cannot be Members in the Gofpel Church : Mr. F. af- 
 ter his ufual Manner, inftead of refuting my Remarks, 
 charges me with begging the Queftion :" When I meet 
 with this Charge fo often, ' I look upon it only as a 
 mean Shift he makes ufe of, to evade the Force of my 
 Arguments, and a Sign they are unanfwerable ; How- 
 ever, fince I have fhewn the New-Teftament Church 
 was made up of profeffing Believers, and none elfe that 
 we can find, it becomes him, in Vindication of his 
 Pradice, to fliew that there were Infants baptized, and 
 admitted Members of the apoftolical Churches, and fo 
 oblige himfelf to anfwer my Remarks j or elfe let him 
 ceafe from making an empty Noife to evade the Force 
 of our Arguments ; for here, once for all, I declare my 
 felf not offended with keen argumentative Reafonings, 
 but with groundlefs Charges, mean Shifts, and clamo- 
 rous Outcries, wherewith his Performance does beyond 
 Meafure abound ; I expecSl fomething more than his 
 bare Aflertion, that the Jewl/h Church was every Way 
 parallel to the Defcription I have given of the Chrijiian 
 Church, before I {hail think it worth while to confute 
 fuch a felf evident Abfurdity, 
 
 In reply to the fourth Part of his Anfwer, which was, 
 ** That there is a I^fference between the fir ft Inftitution 
 tf an Ordinance^ and the continued Adminijiration of it 
 afttrvMrds'* He inftances in the Cafe of Circum- 
 
 cifion 
 
L ^39 1 
 
 cifion---! obfervcd, " That this is not a ■parallel Cafi, 
 'for the Circumcifton of Infants was exprefly commanded ai 
 the firjl InjJitution of that Ordinance^ and agreeable 
 thereto^ Abraham and all his HoiiJJiold were circurncifed 
 the f elf 'fame Day^ according to God's Order : But there 
 %va% no fuch Things either in the firjl Injirtution of Bap- 
 tifmy or in the continued Jdmiyiiji ration of it aftenvards.'* 
 He pretends, " He is not looking for an Injlitution of 
 Infant- Baptifm here " and tells us, " He has Jhewn 
 that already." But I am very free to fay, he has not 
 fhewn it in any Part of his Writings, which I have feen, 
 nor direded us to any Place of Scripture where it may 
 be found ; it is therefore an unwarrantable Impofition oii 
 his Readers, for him to affirm it j and an infufFerablc 
 Abufe of holy Scripture, to father his Opinion of Infant- 
 baptifm upon it, which it does no where own, nor in any 
 Place (hew a divine Inflitution for it. Says he, ** JVIH 
 it follow^ that this is a good Argument, viz. Parents mujf 
 firfl be initiated^ therefore their Children are excluded ?'* 
 Anf. We do not fay, that the Initiation of the Parents 
 is the Caufe of their Childrens Exclufion :• --But we 
 fay, Abraham's Children were circumcifed by Virtue of 
 (jod's Commandj and had there been no Command for 
 it, they would not have been circumcifed, tho' Abraham 
 tvas initiated, unlefs it could be fuppofed, that Abraham 
 paid fo little Regard to God's Commands, that he would 
 do what was right in his own Eyes, whether he was 
 commanded or not. And as there is no Command of 
 God, for baptizing Infants, they are not to be baptized, 
 tho' their Parents be, until they grow up, and are capa- 
 ble of profcifing their Faith alfo ; unlefs we fhould a<5t 
 without any divine Order, and plead in our own De- 
 fence, that we have as good Ground, without a Com- 
 mand, to baptize them, as Abraham^ when commanded, 
 had to circumcife them. But fince Circumcifton and 
 Baptifm do not depend on the fame Command, as al- 
 ready obferved, this Argument then, and not Mr. F's, 
 concludes univerfally, that in religious Worfhip, Man- 
 kind at all Times, and on all Occafions, are to obferve 
 and follow God's Order and Cotnniands, and not their 
 
[ 140 ] 
 own Appointments ; for nothing pleafes him, but what 
 he hath commaaded in his Woid. His groundlefs In- 
 finuation at the End of this Paragraph, I rank among 
 nis frequent Shifts to help on his Caufe. 
 
 He proceeds to his Argument, to which he fays thefe 
 foregoing Obfervations were preparatory j and it runs 
 thus, Page 64. " Now it is a plain Way of Reajonin^, 
 that which would be the mojl proper Addrefs, even tho' In- 
 fants were defigned to he included, cannot pojjibly prove 
 ihemto be excluded-, but to require Profejfton of Faith from 
 the Parents in order to Baptifm, was the moji proper, even 
 tho their Infants were defigned to be included, therefore;' 
 &c in order to (hew tl>e Invalidity of this Argument, 
 lobferved, it does with greater Force of Reafon and 
 Scripture turn in our Favour, fince it cannot be made 
 appear, that another Kind of Addrefs could have been 
 more properly ufed, than that which was ufed when In- 
 fants were defigned to be excluded from Baptifm, and 
 chiefly infifted on the CommifTion : Hence I required 
 him to fhew, that the Order of the CdmmifTion, where- 
 in Teaching is fet before Baptizing, is to be obferved only 
 Xi^ith regard to unchriftianiz'd Jews^nA Pagans? Which 
 he has not done. Pray, is there one Commiffion for 
 baptizing the adult Jews and Pagans, and another for 
 baptizing Infants? I urged him to fliew, what Ground 
 he has to lay afide the Order of the CommifTion, when 
 he is concerned with adminiflring Baptifm to the nu- 
 merous Offspring of Believers ? But I have received no- 
 thing like an Anfwer : I infifled, that the CommifTion 
 IS the flated unvariable Rule to Miniflers in the Execu- 
 tion of their Truft, throughout all Ages -, which he has 
 not refuted, and yet pretends his Argument is very forci- 
 ble and unanfwerable ; and charges me, after his ufual 
 Civility and Candour, with Nonfenfe and Contradidion, 
 Shifting and Sculking : But if I do fhift and fculk, it 
 jn"''^^?.""'^^'' ^^^ Covert of Truth, which feems to 
 dilturb him pretty much, becaufe he cannot readily get 
 at me ; by fhewing that the CommifTion requires fome 
 to be baptized, before they are firfl taughf, or capable 
 pi being taught: Now, unlefs he could do this, his 
 
 Areu- 
 
[ HI ] 
 
 Argument falls to Pieces with its own Weight. Hovr> 
 ever at length he comes to his ufual Way of Refutation, 
 and charges me with begging the Quedion j his Ex- 
 preflions are thefe, *' PFhat he fays en Mat. xxviii. ig. 
 wh;re Teaching is fet before Baptizing^ is only a begging 
 the ^ejiion in Debate: I could argue for Infant- baptifm 
 from the fame Text^ but he has not anfwered zvhat is offer ^ 
 edfrom ity in the Dialogue., which he pretends to refute** 
 To this I reply, when Mr. F. charges me here with 
 begging the Queftion, he is certainly obliged to make 
 appear that the Commiffion requires fome to be baptized 
 who are not iirft taught the Dodrines of the Gofpel, 
 ilor capable of being taught, which he has not yet done, 
 or elfe my Adherence to the Order of the Commiffion 
 refpecling all the Subjedls of Baptifm, cannot in Juftice 
 be called a begging the Queftion. He tells us indeed he 
 can argue for infant- baptifm from this Text : Very like 
 he can, for he does not feem fo much at a Lofs to raife 
 Arguments, as he is to find a good one ; all that I have 
 yet feen of them in favour of his Pradice, prove either 
 too much or too little, and fo nothing to his Purpofe : 
 But he ought to remember * he would have us own, that 
 Mat, xxviii. 19, 20. refers to grown Perfons, and not 
 to Infants ; it is therefore not very probable, he can ar- 
 gue from the Commiffion in favour of his Pradice, con- 
 fiftent with what he has urged before ; however when he 
 does, we (hall fee whether his Arguments will be an/ 
 better than the fenfelefs Affertions in the f Dialogue, 
 that the Word Matheteufate does not fignify to teach.— 
 " This Commijfton Jhould be underjfood, as requiring the 
 Minijlers of the Gofpel to make all Nations Difciples, by 
 baptizing thefn'* But how any One can be a Difciple of 
 Chrift, who is not capable of being inflruded by the 
 Doarines of Chrift 3 or, that Baptifm is the Mean 
 Ivhereby all Nations, whether unbelieving Jews or Pa- 
 gans, without previous Inftru£lions, are to be made the 
 Difciples of Chrift, neither the Author of the Dialogue, 
 nor Mr. F. hath as yet made appear. Indeed if the Cafe 
 
 * Charit. Plea, Page 64, &c; 
 t Divine Right, Pages 29, jo. 
 
, L 142 J 
 
 lic thus, there is no Need to teach or difciple any uy 
 the Miniftry of the Gofpel, before Baptifni at all > nay, 
 it were wrong to do it ; cur Opponents may go forth- 
 with, and baptize all the Pagans they can find : If they 
 lay there is, I afk, Why fo ? When that Author affirms, 
 the Word Mathetetifate , does not fignify to teach ; and 
 that the Commiffion requires all Nations to be difcipled 
 by Baptifm. But if the Canimiffion requires fome to 
 be taught previous to.Baptifm, as Mr. F. at Times 
 fcems to grant, why not ail ? Is there any fuch Diffe- 
 rence in the Words of the Commiffion ? Is it a mere 
 leaden Rule, and a moveable Dial, that may be bent and 
 turn'd which Way they pleafe ? Does the Commiffion 
 fay. Teach the Pleathens before they are baptized, but, 
 baptize Infants before they are taught? There is no fuch 
 Difference therein,' ,• But as it prefcribss teaching before 
 baptizing, or to difciple by teaching; the Argurnent 
 therefore corxludes fully, 5?,1I that the Commiffion re- 
 quires to be baptized/ it requires them to be firll taught, 
 Mark xvi. 15, 16. Seeing it is the ftated invariable Rule 
 given by Chrift to his MInifters, in the Execution of 
 their Office throughout all Ages 5 which Mr. F. has not 
 deny'd, and yet pretends, to be adminiflring Baptifni, 
 contrary to the Order of this flated unvariable Rule. 
 He is therefore obliged to (hew his divine Authority iot 
 laying afide the Order of this Cpmmiffion in the Cafe 
 of Infant- baptifm ; or eife produce another from Chrifl 
 for his Pradice : But if he does neither^' I Ihall fiill 
 affirm, the Commiffion is fitted for every Age of the 
 Church, to the End of Time, and the Order therein 
 defigned by our Lord to be obfcrved in Refjpeft' of Be- 
 lievers Offi;pring, as much as in gathering Churches froni! 
 amongftunchriitianiz'd Jews zw^Fagans; and further, un-- 
 lefs he does one of thefe, I fliall not fcruple always to calf 
 this aforefaid Argument of his, a mere Jingle of Words;, 
 nor fhall have any Reafon to alter my prefent Sentiment,' 
 that he has no Authority from God to baptize Believer* 
 Infants ; and for him to abufea Gofpel Ordinance, is a 
 Crime not to be winked at; efpecially when there- 
 by he ufech the facred Name of the glorious Trini- 
 ty, 
 
t 143 ] 
 
 ty, in a Way not appointed in the Word of God, which 
 can be nothing ftiort of taking his holy Name in vain. 
 
 In Page 65. he charges my Argument to be fallaci- 
 ous ; bt:t llnce he has already urged, that thofe Places 
 of Scripture which require a Profeffion of Repentance 
 and Faith, are addrefs'd to grown Perfons, and not to 
 Infai^s ; and feeing he has not given us any Inflances of 
 Perfons baptized without thefe Qualifications, or flievvn 
 from Scripture that any fhould ; he cannot juftly fay my 
 Argument is but the old Fallacy, a dl&o fecundum quid, 
 ad diJium fimpliciter ; nor cite Scripture with that 
 Defign. It is not faid in 2 Thef. iii. 10. he that cannot, 
 but if any ivould not wori^ neither JJ)ould he eat, which 
 is nothing to his Purpofe, Rom. x, 9. hath been conii* 
 dered already, and turned againft him. ' " 
 
 Mr. F. imagines, *' He can preach all the fame Doc- 
 trines the Apoftlei preached^ when gathering Churches^ per- 
 fectly confifimt with his Principle of Infant Baptijm ;" i. e. 
 
 * were he to preach among the Pagans But the 
 
 Queftion is, can he preach all the fame Dodrines the A- 
 portles did, perfedlly confiftent with his Principle of In- 
 fant Baptifm among the Offspring of Churches gather- 
 ed ? Can he fay to the Offspring of his Church-mem- 
 bers, Repent, and be baptized ? &c. If not, i defire to 
 know, had the Apoftles two Sorts of Do£lrine, and two 
 different Commii^ions, refpedting the Subjects of Bap- 
 Jifm ? One to fuit the gathering of Churches, and tba 
 other to fuit the Infant Offspring of Churches gathered : 
 The one for baptizing converted Gentiles on Profeffion 
 6f Faith, the other for baptizing Infants without any 
 J)revious Qualification ? For my Part, I know of no 
 ?uch Diverlity of Dodlrinesand CommilBons once men- 
 tioned in holy Scripture. 'Tis beyond Doubt, there is 
 t\o Confiftency between his Principle and the Do6lrine 
 of the Apoftles : Their Doilrine conftantly requires 
 Previous Qualifications in all the Subjefis of Baptifm. 
 His Principle requires many to be baptized without thofe 
 Qualifications. Hence it is very plain, that the apofto- 
 .hcal Baptifm, and the Pre/bytsrian Baptifm, do effentialiy 
 
 differ 
 
 * Charit. Plea, Page 69, 
 
[ 144 ] 
 
 fl.ffer. Now fince his Employ (as to the Adminiftrati- 
 en of the Ordinance) is chiefly among the Offspring of 
 ProfefTors, he is obhged to produce this unknown Com- 
 m./Tion for his Pradice j or no longer put us ofF with 
 this mean Shift of his, - 7hat were hi to preach among the 
 pagans, he does not fee how he could amid [peaking to them 
 in the Strain of the above quoted Scriptures j" as if the 
 fame Dodrine and Com miffion were calculated and fit- 
 ted only for the gathering ofChurches from among the 
 pagans ; but muft be inverted, and differently under- 
 Itood, to anfwer the Circumftanccs of Believers Offspring 
 r>u ' n '^/^'''^ently appears, the fame were defigned by 
 Chrift to fland invariably in Force in all Ages, and on 
 aJl Lonfiderations ; and thofe Principles which lead to a 
 ^radtice inconfiflent with the Order of his CommifTion 
 do certainly deviate from the Gofpel of Chrif!. Such 
 kind of Resfoning which Mr. F. ufes here, does not de- 
 ferve the leaft Remark by way of Refutation ; I fliould 
 therefore have pafTed it by with the fame Difregard as be- 
 fore, had he not triumphed in it as an unanfwerable 
 Argument. 
 
 ^ It is fcarcely worth while I fhould flay to deaf 
 " the Honour of my UnderJJanding," from the trifling A f- 
 perfion Mr. F. endeavours to cafl upon it in the next 
 Paragraph, " Ihat it cannot dijiinguijl) between an Objc£tioh 
 and a Medium, to prove an Argument :" What I called an 
 Objeaion, was in Imitation of Mr. F. who very like 
 can readily diftinguifh the one from the other. But had 
 It Anted him, he might find fomething in this fame Pa- 
 ragraph which more particularly called for his Attention 
 than what he noticed, which is as follows ; " // may bi 
 ebferyed, that it is not unfafe nor dijhonourable to imitate 
 Chrijl, the great Captain of our Salvation, viz. That one 
 come to years of Vnderflandingjhould be the SubjeSi of this 
 facred Ordinance, which accords very well with his Ex- 
 ample, and is petfeiJly agreeable to his revealed Mind and 
 ^^ili:' I can't make any thing of his infinuating it to 
 be a Maxim of mine, *' Throw a great deal of Dirt 
 endfo7ne of it will flick ," but that be is a doing by this! 
 the }fery Thing he would expgfe. 
 
 I biv? 
 
. f 145 1 
 
 . I have followed him again to the End, of the/e Argu- 
 ments, which he pretends to deduce from Scripture, in 
 Oppofition to ours, to favour his Practice, and think I 
 may venture \ery freely to fay, they do not conclude for 
 him : Nor has he in the whole Gourfe of this Debate, 
 produced any Inftitution of Infant-baptifm ; therefore it 
 is but juft whgre it was; a Principle not fhewn to be 
 founded on divine Authority, and, as fuch, not worthy 
 of any Regard. 
 
 He next proceeds to Antiquity, and profefles himfelf 
 to be very ignorant of the Reafon why I remark'd, that 
 \yhilrf our Opponents endeavour to (hun one Extream, 
 they fall into another : But it requires no profound Pe- 
 netration to obferve, that whilft, on the one Hand, they 
 would avoid building Matters of Faith on the Tefii- 
 mony of the Fathers, they run, on the other, to father 
 their Opinions on the Scripture, which it does not 
 own. . • ''y.- ,...• ' ,, . . _ . .,. 
 
 - Our Author fays, " His Vnhappinefs in dealing xmth 
 me^ isy that he cannot have all his Arguments every 
 ivhere." This 1 dilTent from, and think his Unhappi- 
 iiefs is, that he cannot have bis Arguments pertinent to 
 the Matter in difpute any .where. Says he. Page 66. 
 *f If the Church immediately after the ApojUes baptized 
 InfantSy I think.it amounts to Proofs that they learned it 
 from the. Apofiles. ,,A general Defeliion never came ia 
 piifs at once." . Anf. Suppofe the Church immediately 
 after the Apofcles had done fo, yet it would be but a 
 very flender Proof, that the Dodrine of Infant baptifm. 
 was learjned from theApoftles; efpecially confidering 
 what Mr. F. himfelf affirms. Find. Page ico, which ia 
 very argumentative, and full to the prefent Purpofe^ 
 viz. *' That there were many Abominations in the primi^ 
 tive Church, notwithjldinding their Opportunity to knozu 
 the ApclUes Do5irine and Praaice."* This Charader 
 which he gives of the primitive Church, befpeaks, that 
 in many Cafes, the Dodrine and Practice of the Apo- 
 itles were not enquired after, or if tney were known, 
 yet they were not received and pradifed : Now if this 
 Account b? true, it follows, the Pradice of the primi- 
 
 K tive 
 
L i4f> J 
 tive Church is not to be depended on In any Vartlciiht 
 as apoflolical, unlefs that Particular be taught in the 
 Scriptures, which Infant- baptifm we find is not; we are 
 therefore laid under a Neceflity of ranking Infant- bap- 
 tifm fon the Suppofition they held itj among other Abo- 
 minations of thofe early Times, according to our Au- 
 thor's own Way of Talking, nothwithftanding the Op- 
 portunity they had to know the Apoftles Do^rine and 
 fraftice of Believers Baptifm. But pafTing this Suppo- 
 fition, it is obfervable, from the ConcefTions of the Pa- 
 dobaptijis thtmfelves, that there are no Footfteps of In- 
 fant -baptifm to be found in the two firft Centuries after 
 Chrifl ; this Mr.. * Baxter himfelf, who was, in his Day, 
 t warm Defender of Infant -baptifm, it feems, could not 
 gainfay. , Inflead of many more Searches into Antiquity 
 that might be mentioned, I fhall cite the Words of Cur- 
 eellaus^ a French Proteftant Divine ; Says he, f " The 
 Baptifm of Infants was hot known in the World the tW9 
 firjl Ages after Chriji j in the third and fourth^ it wat 
 approved by a ftw\ at length in the fifth ^ and following 
 Jiges^ it began to obtain in divers Places \ and therefore 
 tue obferve this Rite indeed as an ancient Cujiom, hut not 
 as an apoflflical Tradition.^' And further, as this learned 
 Author quotes him, *' That the Cuflom of baptizing In- 
 fants did not " begin before the third Age after ChriJl^ and 
 that there appears not the lea ft Footjlef of it in the two 
 firfl Centuries." But Mr. F. makes ufe of a rare In,- 
 vcntion to obviate the Force of this Argument, which 
 is. That the Silence of the firft Centuries, is a Proof 
 that Tnfant-baptifm was not then fo much as queftioned, 
 but taken for granted. But how does he know it was 
 then in Being, when there is no Mention made of it in 
 Scripture, nor in the Hiftory of the Church of the 
 firft Centuries.^ This is a fingular Kind of Proof indeed! 
 By this fame Rule he may prove any fuperftitious Practice 
 in after Ages to be apoftolical ; for inftance. Infants 
 Communion ; for if it is not mentioned in the firft Cen- 
 turies, it follows, according to him, it was then in Be- 
 ing 
 
 * Anti. Page loo. 
 
 f Se^ Mr. Stennet's Anfwer to RulTen, Page Sy. 
 
■ [ 147 ] 
 ing, and not fo much as queftioned : Is this the Rcafoa 
 why he does fo often, in the Courfe of our Debate, 
 charge me with begging the Queftion ? He well knows 
 that I deny there were any Infants baptized in the Apo- 
 ftles Days, or for a confiderable Time afterwards : He 
 ought therefore, in favour of his Pradice^ to have fhewn 
 there were ; or elfe this kind of Talk of his will be 
 judged to be, as indeed it is, a begging the Queftion ; 
 and will belook'd on by judicious, impartial Readers, a 
 very plain Evidence, -that his Principles are indefenfible. 
 Says he, '■^ A general DefeSfion, never came to pafs at 
 ence.''* I do not know that I have any where faid, that 
 a Defe6t ion from the apoftolical Baptifm did generally 
 obtain at once ; but fuppofe it had, we know from Scrip- 
 ture, that a very general Defeilion from the Truth hath 
 happened in lefs than Two or Three Hundred Years » 
 witnefs the Cafe of Jlraelyfudg.n. lo-- 13. The fi- 
 ling Generation after '/o/?;?^^, and the Elders of Ifrael„ 
 iorfook the Lord, and ferved Baal and AflHaroth. This 
 is a fad Inftance of a very general and fudden Defection* 
 Yea, more,, we have another Inftance of a general De- 
 feftion in much (horter TimC;, and more furprizing than 
 the former, which came to pafs in the Congregation of 
 JfraeU within the Compafs of Forty Days ; where event 
 Aaron himfelf, that holy Man, was perfonally prefent, 
 and active therein alfo, Exod. xxiv. 18. xxxii. 2-— 5.— - 
 And what are, Forty Days, in Comparifon of Hundreds 
 <bf Years ? Now. if fo general n DefetSlion overfpread the 
 Church, of IfrasU who had the Promife of God to be 
 with them,' Gen, xlvi. 3, 4. is it impoflible or unlikely, 
 that in the Space of Two or Three Hundred Years, 
 Menfliould deviate from the original Inftitution of Bap- 
 tifm, or that the Innovation of Infant baptifm fhould 
 creep into the Church ? Not at all. Again, I might 
 inftance another Defe£lion which happened in the 
 Churches of Galatia, even in PauVs Time; that he 
 marvels they were fo foon removed from him, that cal- 
 led them into the Grace of Chrift, unto another Go- 
 fpel : Therefore the Promife of Chrift, that he will be 
 "W'ith his Peopk always, cannot be uoderftood, as in- 
 K 2 sending 
 
[ 143 ] 
 lending the Security of Profeffors from every Defe(SioTi ; 
 for iffo, then the Galatian Churches would not have fal- 
 len } much lefs does this Promife ferve our Opponents to 
 prove that Infant Baptifm is an Ordinance of Chrift ; 
 or elfe he muft be impeached by them of Unfaithfulnefs, 
 in not being as good as his Promife :. But dare any one 
 fay, that his Prefence is promifed to his Minilters or Peo- 
 ple, any further than they adt according to his Com- 
 mand j* Now fmce Infant Baptifm is not yet (hewn to be 
 commanded hy him, he fulfils his Promife without pro- 
 ving it to be right. Thd Manner of arguing from this 
 Promife, Mat. xxviii. 2o. which our Opponents make 
 ufeof, to prove Infant Baptifm, is the fame that f Papijis 
 ufe, in favour of their Church, to be the only true, in- 
 fallible, and apoftolical Church, 
 
 , ^ And as we have fo many Jnftances of fudden and ge- 
 neral Defections from the Truth, it appears there is no 
 Weight at all in Mr. jPs Argument : For in the Space 
 of Hundreds of Years, a very great Defedion from the 
 Apoftolical Pra<Slice, in adminiiiring Baptifm, might ob- 
 tain, unlefs Mr. F. will fhew the Church was vefted 
 with Infallibility. " Thi Faithful and fVife," (as he 
 words it) are not to be imitated in that, wherein it is 
 manifeft thev don't follow Chrift: King Joftah was far 
 from following Solomon, tho* ever fo wife, when he de- 
 filed the high Places that were before yerufaUm^ which 
 Solomon had built, 2 Kings xxrii. 13. Nor is the Con- 
 fcnt of a Number of liiem, a good prefumptive Proof, 
 that our Opponents underftand the Sciiptuies aright in 
 the Cafe before us, when it does not appear from facred 
 Truth that they muft be fo underftood. or that the a- 
 poftoiical Churches pra6)-ifed Infaiit Baptifm. 
 
 In Page 71. he thin ics, we " are jorely ftr aliened for 
 Argument^ when wefuppofe the whole Church to he ajleep 
 for Hundreds of Tears " What we fay, is plain enough, ac- 
 cordiiig to rhe Scripture, That Errors are generally intro- 
 duced mto tJje Church privily under a Cloak of feign- 
 ed Words : The Enemv takes the Advantage to fow 
 his Tares, while Men fleep, 2 Pet. ii. i, 2, 3. Mat. 
 
 xiii, 
 
 t Vt. WbUii Reply to Fifitrt Page 94, &c. 
 
C 149 1 
 
 xiii. 25. Will Mr. F. have it, That the primitive 
 Church embraced ''^ many /Abominations " by Day lightp 
 with their Eyes open ? 1 his would be a ftrange Turn ot 
 Thought indeed, to imagine they received Errors when 
 they knew them to be fo ! I judge our Way of account- 
 ing for the Introdudion of Errors, is the moft agree- 
 able to Truth ; tho' he is willing to contradift, where 
 there does not feem the leaft Room for it. And when 
 Errors are once brought in, it is not eafy to get thenu 
 out, tho' many in the Church fhouldbe ever fo mucha- 
 "wake ; for if nothing elfe can jbe pleaocd in their De- 
 fence, Antiquity, and the Cuftom of the Faithful and 
 Wife in preceding Ages, will at length ht brought in 
 their Favour. 
 
 Says he, Page 66- " In fame Cafes the Cujlom of the 
 Church will afford an Argument^ I Cor xi. 16." Will 
 it fo ? But there are two Queftions which do hence na- 
 turally arife, i. What Church ? And, 2. In what 
 Cafes? which call on Mr F. for Solution. If even the 
 Cuftom of the primitive Church (wherein, as he fays, 
 there were many Abominations) affords an Argument 
 to warrant the Reception of any Article or Pradlice in 
 Religion, which is not taught in Scripture; then, O 
 brave Papijis I they are certainly in the right, to cry 
 up the Cuftom of the Church, and urge the necefTary 
 Qbfervation of their unwritten Traditions; and it a.ull 
 be Self- willed nefs or Obftinacy in Mr. F. to withftand 
 them, if the Cafe be thus: If not, then the Cuftom. 
 of Infant Baptifm muft be rejeded alfo, on the fame 
 Ground whereon' other unfcriptu^al Cuftomsare rejedted. 
 
 He refers us to Epiji. ad Ro?n. and the 14th Homi- 
 ly on Luke, for Proof of his Aftertion, thzt Ireneus fays, 
 '* The Church learned from the Apodles te baptize Chil* 
 dren.'*' But this does notanfwer what was demanded ; the 
 Queftion yet remains, are thefe Pieces reputed genuine I 
 He has not (hewn they are ; nor removed thofe juft 
 Grounds which give Room to conclude, that Ireneus \% 
 abufed ; for had there been fuch PafTages, Mr. WaU 
 would not have neglefled them, " in his ColleSiion of. 
 A.Lhfuch Parages in the Writers of the four firji Cen- 
 K 3 turi^Ss 
 
[ 15^ ] 
 turies, as do make for Infant Baptlfm:* which would hav« 
 •been much more to his Purpofe than any Thing he ha? 
 c.ted from Ireneu^, But fince he has, if ther? be any 
 
 Wn?t .S ^"^'" \^V-^d, let Mr. iT. produce fuch 
 l:^ht±'''''l ! ^^ ""'. °^ ^ny .Writers that 
 
 im-.!^^ ft/r .• r I ' ■'^ • '•"'■c's tnat ever 
 
 make Mention of them or have ever cited any Paffa^e 
 froni them, but himfelf ; and not give us what is found 
 in Ongen, ^a Jater Writer, Com. on Rom. Ghap. 
 Fnl ?; ^' F u '7?- ?"^ ^" the 14th Homily on Luke, 
 ¥o\ 100. for Proof of ^his abovefaid AfTertion, inftead 
 or Ireneus,ij>\i'iy- -.i ■ - .•! ; ,• 
 
 That Citation out of* /ri«mr which ?Jr.>. fays is 
 plain to his Purpofe, appears nothing fo ; not only be- 
 came the Part oi the Chapter whence it is taken, h 
 judged t fpunous ; but becaufe it is only a Suppofition 
 that Baptum is meant by Regeneration in the PJace re- 
 Jerred to,^wh.chis far from being an Evidence that In- 
 fants were then, bapdzed.u But in order, to make this 
 S^uppofition pafs with better Face, he fays, '' The tri, 
 mttve Fathers by Regeneration ufually mean Baptlfmr 
 Dr. G^/.obferves on the hkeOccafion, ♦' 'Tis, I think, 
 one of the mojl groundlefs Ajfertiom lever met wi;h j for\ 
 on the contrary, ^ mihhg^^ is more common than to take this 
 fHrd (regenerate) -in a quite different Senfe, and I don't 
 believe It ts ever fa much as once ufed in the antieniejl Ttmes 
 JorBapfm, at leaji not till their Zeal for Infant Bap. 
 trr'^,''^ /;,,, a.at Abfrdity, which was not near 
 thu Time of St. Ireneus." ~ ., % »• . 
 
 Jtl^fTT '^ ^^'' Citations, he fays, " Bylraditi- 
 ontheAnUents meant the Word of God itfef -/fa the A- 
 tojtle calls It. 2 Thef ii tc " R..^ ..,\. j l 
 hv ir ? Tc .1. I. ^- ^"t what does he mean 
 
 by It ? Is there a Part ef the Word of God unwrit- 
 ten concerning any Article of Faith, or Point of O- 
 
 Sl "to 'r'r.'^"'^ '^ ^^""'^ '' ^^-^'^ ^-- the A. 
 poftcstothe Church to be obferved in after Ages? 
 
 Will he, ,n Favour of Infant Baptifm, gratify the pL/ls 
 
 [^e'ef; "rf ^'"^ ^"^'1'"^ ^'"'^ thisVext', as t^^f; 
 t^^ere is ? If not, to what Purpofe does he tell us how 
 
 * Lib. 2. Chap 39. a- D,. Ga/e.Ut. 12. ^ ^ 
 
[ '5' ] 
 
 the Antients called itj if they meant no other by Tra- 
 dition than the written Word, when the Point in Con- 
 troverfy cannot be found m the apoftoHcal Writings, nor 
 any where elfe in the written Word of God ? Muft h? 
 be told again, Jhat we pay little Regard to any Praaice 
 handed down ^under the fpecious Title of Tradition A- 
 poflolical, which is not mentioned or exprefTed in holy 
 Scripture ? And for this Reafon' W5 difregard Infant 
 Baptifm, whatever elfe may be pretended in its Favour. 
 
 He cites PafTages out of Cyprian and Jugujiine :— 
 But it muft be obfervcd, that it very mu^h leffens the 
 £fteem of their Teftimonies in Favour of Infant Bap- 
 tifm, when it is confidered, they were alfo for f Infants 
 Communion, and accordingly admitted Infants to the 
 Sacrament of the Supper. Nay, Jugujiine -drgned thzi 
 Infants could not have Salvation without it, abufing 
 John vi. 35. to that Purpofe. And according to Biftio^ 
 ■f Taylor, " Call' d the communicating of Infants^ an apo* 
 Jiolical Tradition." Pray what Credit is to be given to 
 the Teftimony of fuch Men, or what Dependance cari 
 we make on their Judgment, " WIjo held many fuch ri- 
 diculous Opinions, zvhichasMr.^ Dickinfon/^yx, would 
 no%v expofe a Man to tht Contempt and Scorn of the World^ 
 ifhejhould make a Prefejfmi of them f" If our Opponents 
 are for aguing from the Teftimony of the Fathers in the 
 one Cafe, why not in the other? Why don't they be- 
 lieve them to have been right in communicating Infants, 
 as well as in baptizing them ? Or can it be fuppofed, 
 they were not as well acquainted with Church Hiftory 
 in refpedof one Sacrament, as of the other ? Methinks 
 it might be a fufHcient Reafon to raife Sufpicion in our 
 Opponents themfelves, that the Fathers might be wrong 
 With refpedl of Infant Baptifm, when they can't be 
 dear'd of countenancing the Introdudlion of fuch aa 
 erroneous Praftice, refpeding the Sacrament of the Sup- 
 per. Further, why has not Mr. F. freed his Argument 
 from the Abfurdity I charged on it. That by the fame 
 K4 Rule, 
 
 *Monf. LaRoque's Hift. of theEuchariit,Pagcs X27, J2S<: 
 
 •f Lib of Prophefy, Page 119. 
 
 § Doftiine of Keffcn, Vind. Page 56; 
 
[ 152 Jl 
 
 Rule, jvhereby he would prove Infant Baptifm dl4 nqt 
 
 lln.r" ' ^P°«^^\^-y^' one migh?as well prove 
 Infants Communion to be a Relift of Chr.ft.anity too, 
 as old as the Apoftles ? - For [in his o^n Words) Vadt 
 begun ftnce.jtuh a grand Innovation and Schifm would cer. 
 tajnly l^ve been taken notice of, and the Htjlories of that 
 Jge wherein tt began, would have been full of it • We 
 
 ttif T' r^^^/J-'- ^^^^« it h-fpened would have 
 h.entn our chronological Tables-: We would have had th, 
 nectftons of Councils again/lit, and might have readVo^- 
 iumesofDijpute upon it." But we have fuffic.ent Ground 
 ^ udge, that Infants Baptifm, and their Communion, are 
 both wrong whe,. there are no Foot-fteps of either to 
 be found tnfacredH.ftory; therefore the/n.uft h ve b ! 
 
 ieem to have been born much about the -fame Tiaie 5 
 
 Iho one happens to be longer liv'd than the other. . 
 
 *.. r' ^;? ^^P ''' ", *^'^'^>* P'^'^'^P^' ^^thers could 
 not be mijlaken about the Prance of the Church for .n 
 l^undred and fifty Years before them, which will reach t. 
 the immediate Succeffors of the Jpo/iles." An{ What- 
 
 toThfp'ir r^l the Praaice'of the Church, is Ik le 
 to the Purpofe unlefs he could fhew they d.d .nvariably 
 follow the Praa,ce of the Church in the precedin<. A<>es • 
 for he himfelf allows, there were manv A Ur mi • 
 
 ♦fif. r^r.-nr,;..- /^u ' ^^ ^^^'^^ *^3ny Abommations in 
 r,;^/ I '^^r^' notwithftandine their Opportu- 
 J.ty to know the Apoftks, Dodrine and P.-adlice 
 Moreover, he quotes Or;:^.« with, a Defign. fo' prove 
 i We ; """ ^^- baptized 5 but I thm\ to no grm 
 
 the ^Latm Tranflations of Qrigen are very - corrupt ; 
 therefore no A r(T„m^r.^ o.„ k„ A , , •'1 . .. PI ' 
 
 adcl.s, TheJameOnoen, ,„ Comment, on Matt, xvi.i 
 oVThtn.I n '^' ^"Sels begin their Guardian/kip 
 iZn-^^ ^Z' "" '^''' ^'^'f'^ <"■ Baptifm?'' 
 
 infants m Age, by lutle Ones, but Men of humble Dif- 
 
[ 153 ] 
 
 pofition?, or fuch as believe in Chilft. The QiieftioA 
 ^ as Mr. f Wall renders itj is thus ; ** Then again, one 
 may enquire when it is^ that the Angels here fpoken of^ are 
 Jet over thofe little Ones^ foewed by our Saviour ? IVheihet 
 they take the Care and Management of them, from the Time 
 when they by the Wajhing of Regeneration, whereby they 
 were netu born^ doy as new born Babes, defire the fmcere 
 Milk of the Word, and are no longer fubjcii to any evil 
 Power ? Or from their Birth, according to the Fore know ^ 
 ledge of God, td'c." Can any one imagine from hence, 
 that Origen intended Infants, by little Ones ? Are 
 they, when a Week or a Month old, capable of defiring 
 the fincere Milk of the Word ? Is it jufi: then in Mr. 
 ■F. to force an Author to fpeak costrary to his Meaning ? 
 Should a Baptijl do fo, no Appellation would be too bad 
 for him j.-he would readily be called a miferable Pcrverter 
 of Authors, a Forger of Quotations, and what not ; 
 yet perhaps thofe, who are willing to (hew the leaft Fa- 
 vour to others, do yet expecEi the moft themfelvec. ■ I 
 bbferve Mr. i^. prefTeth in Tertullian alfo into his Service, 
 as holding Infant Baptifm ; and fays, he reafoned for 
 the Detay oi . Baptifm very weakly. But not fo weakl/ 
 as Mr. K , would infinuate, when he excepts againft 
 baptizing of Infants, becaufe they are not capable of In- 
 ftruftions previous to Baptifm, nor of knowing Chrifl, 
 and defiring Salvation. Says he, " Let them come when 
 they are grown up ; let them come when they underjland ; 
 when they are inJlruSied whither it is that they come ; let 
 them be made Chrijiians, when they can know Chri/lJ'* 
 Why may not Mr. i^. as well fay, that I deny not the 
 Lawfulnefsof Infant Baptifm, when I require previous 
 Qiialifications in the Subjedls of this Ordinance, as to 
 fay, that Tertullian A\A not ? Neither is it reafonable to 
 to fuppofe that Tertullian was for Infant Baptifm, when 
 he cxprefly argues, that Infants (hould be grown up, and 
 inftrud^ed, betore they are baptized. Dr. Gale did not 
 fay, that Infant Baptifm began at the Council of Car- 
 thage, as Mr. F. infinuates; nor does my Quotation from 
 the Doftor, give any Ground for this Remark, to pre- 
 judice 
 I Ilifl. of Inf. Bapt. Page 33, 
 
r 154 J 
 
 judice his Readers againft that learned Authpr. His 
 WorcJsare thefe, * -Thefirji Memlon we have of Infant 
 Bapujm, IS from thefe Cznh'^a;,n\^n Fathers, which makes 
 U very probable that it began firj} at Carthage ; it was 
 attempted tn Tertullur.'. Ttme, and he oppojed it Jirenu, 
 i>ufy. But notwithfianding, it took Footing there fiorth 
 ^fter andwasvery common in St. CyprianV Time', and 
 ^/. Auftin thought It an apofiolical Ir adit ion " 
 
 In Page 70. Mr. R feems difpleafed, that I fliould en- 
 
 praaned before Popery, and tells us, a very moderate 
 Judgment might difcern his Meaning. But I think a ve- 
 ry moderate Judgment may fee, that he was at a Lofs to 
 anfwer my Remark, which is, " If he means before ?o^^. 
 jy began to work, it is falfe, for the M^fery of Iniquity 
 began to work in Paul'. 7;;^., ^ Jhef/ii. 7. And nol 
 <an pretend to fhew any hjances of Infants baptized in 
 raui s lime. But if he means it was praSiifed before Pope- 
 ^y came to its Height, fo were many other Errors alfo ', 
 er elje howjhould Popery come to its Height n--4nd what 
 o great Step towards the advancing of Popery in tht 
 fVorld, wastt, to hold, that to fuff^er the hfani to die un^ 
 baptized was to endar.ger its Salvation.'^' ^Any'ond may 
 ice why he IS fo out of Humour j for fhould he fay, 
 infants Baptifm was pradifed before the Myftefy of Ini 
 quity began to work, he was obliged to (hew Inftances 
 of Infants baptized in PauPs Day, which he knew he 
 could not do : But if it was pradifed before Popery came 
 to Its Height, it would not fuit his Purpofe, nor free the 
 
 fw k7' \'T "^ '^"^^"^ ^"'^"g ^^he*- Corruptions 
 that helped Popery to its Height Therefore, without any 
 i>htvi; oi Reafon, when he could not turn himfelf to any 
 Advantage, he unjufiJy charges me, with " a Defire of 
 turning his IP or ds;" becaufe he could make nothing of 
 them to h.s Purpofe. Afrer all, there is Room to infer, 
 that I^ifant Baptifm is a Relid of Popery, and the chief 
 L.mb of that Man of Sin, that is retained among Pro- 
 teltants -, which loudly calls for a Reformation. 
 
 m. r Again, 
 
 * Letter ik. *' ^ 
 
 ! 
 
'[ 155 ] 
 
 Again, he feems not at all pleafed, that we derive ouf 
 Onginal from Scripture, and deny them the Beginning 
 iof their Pradice therefrom— But as long as he has not 
 -ihewn, that we deviate from the Do6trineand Practice 
 '■of the Apoftles in the Cafe before us ; we have juft 
 -Ground to claim it as our Right, to be efteemed the 
 proper SuccefTors of the Apoftles, who hold the fame 
 X)o(Slrine as they did, ' and pra6tife accordingly. 
 « He is welcome to prove the Prejbyterian Sedl began 
 before the 15th Century, if he thinks proper. 
 
 He concludes, that no Society in the Church deny'd 
 Infant Baptifm, until within thefe lift Thiee Hundred 
 "Years. But he did not think proper to anfwer what was 
 obferved in the Appendix, *' That we have an undoubted 
 Account ef Debate made about Infant Baptifm in the Tear 
 1025. by Gundulphus and his Followers in Italy, tffc, 
 •which was at leaft Thres Hundred Tears before the Infuv 
 region of Munfter." ; ■ 
 
 1 I might add, *^ The Tejlimony of Chaflanion, in his 
 Hi/lory of the Albigeois, as he is iranfated and cited^ by 
 the learned and worthy * Mr. Stennet." Says the Author, 
 -.— " The Truth is^ they (the Albegeois) didnot reje£i this 
 Sacrament^ or fay it was ufelefs ; but only counted it un~ 
 neceffary to Infant s, hecauje they are not of Age to believe^ 
 or capable of giving Evidence of their Faith. - That which 
 induced them (as I fuppofe) to entertain this Opinion, is 
 what our Lordfayst Thatheikd^X. believeth, and is baptized, 
 fhall be faved ; but he that believeth not, fhall be dam- 
 ned." Mr. f 5,'^««(?/ obfervcs,- * Whoever will take the 
 Fains to perufe the learned Dr. Allix, his Remarks on the 
 anticnt Church /j/Piedmont^ vjill find divers Paffages that 
 may confirm what has been faid, and make appear that In' 
 font J^aptifn was oppofcd by perhaps the pureji Churches 
 that were then in the IVorld^ fome Hundreds of Tears before 
 the Time Mr. R, (or Mr. Finley either) ajfignsfor thefirji 
 Rife of the A.i\2ih2igi\iis. § 
 
 Hence 
 
 * Anfwer to Rujen, Pages 81, 82. f lb. Page 84. 
 
 ^ Whoever has a mind to fee this Argument handled at 
 large, let him read Mr, Stennet's Anfwer to Rujfen ; Mr 
 Du'vye's Baptifm of adult Believers vindicated ; and Ur- 
 
I ^56 ] 
 
 • K^""^^^'5,^eryobrervablehow]ittIe Force there h 
 - Mr Fs Defiance, - To^w any Perfins^ UTZJd 
 
 damned by the Church." How fmall a Matter is it to be 
 
 trom fcnptural Bapt.fm crept into the Church : when 
 
 cul "r"h'^ '".' r''^'"' ^°^-^' wh.ch always re" 
 
 quire. F.,th and Repentance in Perfons, in order to 
 
 Bapt.fm, does, from the Beginning, reali; and aaJal v 
 
 . °PPf and exclude the concfarv Doarine,^which Teach! 
 
 es that Perfons may be baptized, who do neither epcnt 
 
 nor beheve, as m the Cafe of Infants. ^ ^ 
 
 Heimagmej, '\That I amunavoidally reduced to ac 
 
 knowledge either that Chriji had no vifihl Church at all 
 
 Lfp A ("" T' '^^"'^ "^^"^^f'^d Years, or elf ol 
 
 m de^ufe^ofT^^'^r'^^^'r ^^^^^^^^^ than he has 
 
 Tetalksof T n 'V'7 •''^"'■^'^ ^" ^° ^^'^ ' Choice as 
 fte talks of. t Dr. Goodwm .n the Place already referred 
 
 to, fpeak.ng of the Gofpel's being hid from Les and 
 9^''''''^% «bferves. - This Do^nne Tf thfhoZ^ 
 r« thegreateji Glory ^ and the Riches oftheSereuTt 
 tvas objcured for more than a Thou/and Tears a fom 
 the very Apojlles Ttme. a Myjlery cf InZiyhUnZ 
 
 JVorld'' ^^^'^'':'\^^l[^ £^^^^brtjtianifm overfpread the 
 fcur'd'for f^r ^^!^^"^-"^^of the Gofpel wereob- 
 Icur d for fo long a 7 ,me, who can doubt but the Or- 
 
 tTT""1."Y ^""^^'^ werecorupted alfo, during the 
 tyrannical Ufurpat.on of Antichriftianity, ;hen all he' 
 World wondered after the Beaft.^ And I think it is far 
 
 Exa^.nr^f^HT""""'" '" ^'' ^'' Caufe, to plead the 
 ±.xampleof thufe corrupt T.mes in favour of a Praaice 
 wh.chdefpa.rs of scripture Teft.mony to fupport ; or 
 ^ .mpofe on the Credulous, by urging the p'rom-fes* of 
 ehr.lt, to prove either he had no vifiblc Church on^ 4 
 
 Prat' "'^'' '^'' '^^^ ^'^"^^^^ -^-^^ Doarine and 1 
 true vmbirrrP K^"'"^ 1° ^'^ Inftitutions, was the only 
 true viiible Church, and her Praaice warrantable. But 
 
 t Ami. Page 6^. "* 
 
[ ^S1 ] 
 M that dark Time Chrift had his Witnefles, tho* few, and 
 clothed in Sackcloth, Rev. xi. 3. 1 fee no Reafon as 
 yet to wifh my Phrafes on this Head had been more mo- 
 deft, as Mr. F- infinuates ; but muft needs thmk, that the 
 Body of the Proteftant World, who plead for Infant Bap- 
 tifm, are ftrangely infatuated with it, when they profefs 
 to take the Scripture for their Guide in all Matters of 
 Faith and Obedience ; and yet embrace Infant Baptifm, 
 which is not once mentioned, nor fhewn to be intended 
 iny where therein. Now fuppofe we knew of none, in 
 the preceding Ages, who withftood the Corruption of 
 the Times in which they liv'd, which cannot be granted, 
 for I have given Inftanccs of the contrary already, and 
 more might be produced) it would not follow, that Chrift 
 did not make good his Promifes ; but had a Church oa 
 Earth, and was prefent with his People, tho' they were 
 ever fo obfcure, hid in Caves, i Kings xviii. 13. or fled 
 into the Wildernefs, Rev. xii. 14. and unobferved by 
 the World : And tho' we knew no more of them, nor 
 their Names, than Elijah did of the Seven Thoufand in 
 Jfrael, who had not bowed their Knee to Baal^ I Kings 
 xix. 14. Yet it no wife injures the Truth we profefs, 
 fmce it is undeniably revealed in holy Scripture ; any 
 more than Elijah's Unacquaintance with the Seven 
 Thoufand, proved Baal's Worftiippers to be right, or 
 elfe God's Promifes had failed to Ifrael. So that I may 
 Hill fay, that our reje<Sting Infant Baptifm, as a Corrup- 
 tion of the facred Ordinance of Jefus Chrift, does not 
 afford Mr F. thofe Abfurdities he would throw upon us ; 
 but only befpeaks, that we believe the^ Communities 
 of our Opponents to be far lefs pure, and unlike the a- 
 poftolick Churches, than our own ; which none can 
 juftly blame us for, until they rationally convince us of 
 the contrary, 
 
 Mr, F. m his Charitable Plea^ would have it, that the 
 Body of eminent Chriftians, Minifters, Reformers and 
 Martyrs, are on hib bide of the Queftion. But I obferv- 
 ed, that a Truth is not to be decided by Votes ; and {hew- 
 ed him, that we are before Hand with our Opponents in 
 the Cafe of Maxtyrs (if there is any 1 hing in that to the 
 
 prefent 
 
L 15S ] 
 
 refent Purpofej they can fhew none who fuffered 
 Death for holding Infant Baptifm, as we can for denvintr 
 Jt. Mr._ FsNoife about this (like other Things) comet 
 to nothing j and does as good as telJ us, he can give no 
 Inftances iq the Cafe ; but fays, « // h not Death, but 
 theCauje of Death, that makes a Martyr,'' which he 
 would have uiobferve. . Well, this we have obferved ; 
 and when he cannot ihcw any one who fufFered Death 
 for the Caufe of Infant Baptifm, after all his Vaunts a- 
 bout his couragious Martyrs, he has not one Martyr on 
 his Side of the Queftion in Difpute •, whatever they 
 profefTed who were martyr'd, yet this was no Caufe of 
 their Martyrdom.—Hence By the Way it • appears, 
 whatever elfe may be laid to the Charge of the Anahap- 
 tijis, the PadobaptiJIs cannot charge them with ufing 
 the forcible Arguments of Fire and Sword to convince 
 them, as their Oppofers, on the other Hand, have done 
 with them. 
 
 Mr. F. is yet very unwilling to give up the Charge,' 
 That the Anabaptifts wert the wotjl Dregs of the Re- 
 farmation, the greatejl Reproach of it, and Impediment to 
 Its Progrefs ; and that not only in fome, but every Place 
 where they got Footing:' Reply. One might think I 
 had cited fufficient Evidence to (hew the Falfity of this 
 Charge before : For what if fome called by that Name 
 were guilty of grofs Enormities, whum I don't pretend 
 to vindicate ; yet it is unjufl to condemn the Innocent 
 with the Guilty : The whole Body ought not to be 
 charged with the Faults of fomc. I obferved out of a 
 faithful Hiftorian cited by Mr. Rees, Five Hundred 
 and Seventy odd Perfons (all Anahaptijls) who were 
 put to Death merely on the Account of Religion, ex- 
 clufive of, and in Contradiftinflion to, any who fuffer- 
 ed as chargeable with Treafon, Rebelhon, Sedition, &c. 
 Alfo the barbarous and inhuman Treatment Falix Mans 
 met with from Zuinglius, a profefs'd Proteftant Minifter, 
 for denying Infant Baptifm ; and the cruel Edids pub- 
 Jilhed againfl them. Likewife I obferved the Conflan- 
 cy of Mind, Traces of a good Spirit, divine Tranf- 
 ports, and foJid AfTurances, which attended their Suffer- 
 
 ing9. 
 
I ^59 i 
 
 ings. Neverthelefs, with Might and Main, in the Face 
 of fuch inconteftible Evidence, Mr. F. condemns all 
 the foreign Jnabaptijis in the Lump ; being, it feems, 
 as unwiHing todo Jurtice to the Memory of the inno- 
 cent Dead, as their Perfecutors were cruel in putting 
 them to Death ; and cites PafTages out of Melchior Ada- 
 mus, BuUinger and Calvin^ with a View to make good 
 his AfTertion : But it muft be obferved, the heavy Charges 
 brought againft them, come originally from the Pens 
 of their profefled Adverfaries : And if Mr. Finley\ Te- 
 ftimony be true, f " Ihat the greatejl Reformers^ the 
 moft learned and holy Divines, were Ji ill the principal Hands 
 ihat fuppre [fed them" it fmks the Credit of their Te- 
 ftimony againft the Anahabaptijls very much ; for if 
 thofc Reformers and holy Divines were no better prin- 
 cipled than to fupprefs thofe who differed from them in 
 Judgment, with the cruel Inftruments of Death, on the 
 Account of Religion, it is very rational to fuppofc, they 
 would aggravate the real, or imaginary Crimes, alledg- 
 ed againft the Sufferers, to that Degree, which might 
 give fome plaufible Colour to their unlawful Proceedings. 
 How little Dependance is to be made on incenfed Ad- 
 verfaries in relating Matters of Fa6l, Mr. F. himfdf 
 is a ftanding and fufEcient Inftance, who charges me 
 with perfwading the Ftsdohapttjls (in my Sermons at 
 Cape-May) to be dipt on Pain of Damnation ; which is 
 entirely falfe ; yet this Charge of his, may be tranfmit- 
 ted to future Ages, and received by them as an undoubt- 
 ed Truth, efpecialiy coming attefted by the great Name 
 of a good Man, and a Gofpel Minifter too ; and yet at 
 the fame time void of Truth, as very probable many of 
 the Charges handed down to us, by great Names, from 
 former Ages, be. (The Authority is equal J And who 
 knows, but in the next Reply from my Opponent, this 
 my neceflary andjuft Vindication, will be charged back 
 on me, *' tVith Lying and Foaming againji my Antago- 
 fiijls, ivith Blafphemies and Reproaches " with the like 
 Truth, as I am at prefent charged by Mr. F. as the 
 foreign Anahaptijh were bv thcii;' Adverfaries, 
 
 The 
 f Vind. Page 74, 
 
[ 1^0 ] 
 
 The Expreffions of Mr. * Cotton Mather are pertine it 
 here ; « All the World knows (fay i he) that the mofi emi- 
 nent Reformers writing againji the Anabaptifts, have not 
 been able to forbear making their Treafifes like what Je-'-m' 
 fays ^/'TertullianV polemical Ireatifes, Quot Verba, t6t 
 Fulmtna ;" /. e. every Word a Thunder-bolt : With 
 which, the Quotatims Mr. F. brings agree very well j 
 there is fuch an Appearance of Heat and Prejudice in 
 them, as plainly befpeaks no Good-will intended to the 
 Anabaptifls ; and juilly renders them very fufpicious of. 
 having aegravated Things, far beyond what they m 
 Keahty were ; that it is no Wonder Ruffen fhould fay of 
 one o^ thefe Authors Mr. F. cites, even Bullinger (^to 
 his Commendation as he thought) that he wrote bitter- 
 ly againft the Anabapti(h. But to take off the Edge of^ 
 Mr. F^ Citations, and to fet the Cafe in a truer Lif^ht 
 than he reprefents it, 1 fhall tranfcr/be a Paffage from 
 f Mr. Brandt, as follows ; fays he," Thus inthe apprehend-, 
 tng and condemning the People of this Sc£i, there was little 
 Notice ^ taken, whether thofe whom they put to Death were ill 
 any wife guilty of the above mentioned Riots and Mutinies .' 
 But the Severity of the Govermnent -was extended againji alt, 
 tfloem, without making any Dijiinaion hardly between the 
 mofi Simple and Innocent, and the mojl Criminal 7hus the 
 Jr.iJiory cfthe kn^b-A^ui\ Martyrs relates, that they beheaded 
 at Amiic'.lam, one Peter, a Sexton of Sardam, as guilty 
 of the late hfur region, tho' he being a Teacher among a 
 better Sort of iXuaba^uHi, had ufedhis utmofi Endeavours 
 to hinder it." 
 
 Moreover, I think it is no Credit, in the leaft, to the 
 Reformers, if they were guilty of perfecuting thofe who 
 differed from them, and were flill the principal Hands 
 ihat fupprdied the Anabaptijis, as Mr. F. teftifies, which 
 wasnoiefs than by Death, feeing we have not the leaft' 
 Hint in Scripture, that Chrift v. ill have his holy ReJigi- 
 on propagated by Blood (hed and Death : Nay, his Pre- 
 cepts teach us quite the reverfe, who rebuked his Difci> 
 
 pies 
 
 • See Mr. Crofbf% Hift. of Englifh Bapt Vol. I. Page 112. 
 
 t tjee Mr. /?f.'/s Infant Baptifm no Inllitution of Chrift, - 
 Page 204. * 
 
[ i6i ] 
 
 pies fo fharply, for the very Motion that "Wzy. f Luli 
 ix. 54, 55. " li is not the ff^i/l of God (faith Poole oh 
 . she Place) that we fiou Id approve of any con- upt Worfhipy 
 ayvl join with thofe that ufe it ; hut neither is it his Will 
 ihat we Jhould hy Fire and Sword go about tofupprefs Ity and 
 bring Men off from it." 'Tis a difmal Brand fet on the 
 Whore of Bcbylon^ that fhe hath (hed the Blood of Saints. 
 *Tis lamentable, Mr, F. fliould once imagine, thaC 
 mentioning the fhedding of Blood on a religious Account 
 (witnefs Zwinglius, pronouncing Sentence againft Fceiix 
 Mans) would tend to add any Luftre to the Charaders 
 of the wife Reformers ; which is juftly accounted the 
 eternal Shame and Reproach of the Papal Church and 
 her Sons : And a Pity that he (hould give the World any 
 Reafon to fufpedt that he who juftifies that in another, 
 would be guilty of it himfelf, if Opportunity offered. 
 Again, on the other Hand, he feems equally - mifla- 
 hen in his Inference, when he concludes, that it fullies 
 theGhara£ler and Credit of the Sufferers, becaufethey 
 ^ere principally fupprefled by the Hands of holy Divines. 
 They might be innocent, and their Gaufe good, for ai! 
 that. Vv^ill Mr. F. think it is far from being credi- 
 L table 
 
 f Excellently M. Tennentthus; " Retnmber the jujl Re- 
 puke vjhich the meek and lo<vuig Jefus ga've to his Difciples 
 James ««i/ John, for their fiery furious Zeal againft the Sama- 
 rhans, for treating their Maftir ill : Te knozv not, faith Chrift, 
 fwhat manner of Spirit ye are of ; as if he had pzid, yen are not 
 fenfible ivhat Wickednsfs is in your Diffofition and Temper ^ 
 hjiv much Pridet Peevipnefs, Pajjjon, Prejudice, and, ferfonal 
 Revenge y is covered under, and mixed =with your real hcneft Zeal 
 for your Ma ft. er'' s Honour I The Son of Man is not come to de- 
 fray Mens Lives, but to fave them : My Religion is to be pro- 
 pagated by Leve and Condefcenflon, by Gentlenefs and Sv^eetnefs^ 
 and all the amiable Methods cf Endearment-, not by Force and 
 Bilternejsi, by Fire, Fury, and Blood; I came to flay all 
 Enmities of every Kind and Form, not to animate and encreafe 
 them under an^ Pretext 'Lvhatfocver.'''' Iren, Ecclef. Page 85, 
 
 Let Mr. F. confider this, and fee if he can juiiify the Re- 
 ftJrmers in fuppreffing the Jnabaptifls, according ^0 his own 
 Tcilimor.y, in the Manner they did. 
 
[ l62 ] 
 
 fable to Vt:taht becaufe holy David was the principal 
 Hand that fupp relied him ? But, 
 
 If therewas aNumber of the foreigny^nabapti/Is^thafwerc 
 a peaceable, gcodj andharmlefs People, free from Luxury 
 and Debauchery, vho fuffered Death for their rehgious 
 Principles, and not for Treafon, Rebellion, or Sedition, 
 as Gerrard Brandt and the Authors cited by f Mr. 
 Stennet do teftify : What intolerable Supercilioufnefs 
 jrxuft it then be in Mr F. to pour out his Contempt with 
 fuch an Air of Difdain upon Mr. Rees hisjuftCommen- 
 datian of their Charafters, who fuffered Death for the 
 fake of Religion ? Is it not becaufe the Account does not 
 ferve his prefent Purpofe of defaming all the foreign A' 
 nabaptijis in the Lump ; and confequently, all others^ 
 who are called by that Name ? He is therefore very 
 unwilling to hear any Good fpoken of any of them ; 
 but rather inclined the World fliould, without queftion, 
 believe, they were all guilty of whatever their Adverfa- 
 ries are, or were ple^fed to lay to their Charge. Yet 
 his Argument here is no better, than that of the Pa- 
 gans of Old ; 'ui%. becaufe the Gnojiicks affumed the 
 Name of Chrifiians, the Infidels imputed unto the 
 whole Chriflian Church thofe horrible impieties the 
 Gnojiicks were guilty of. 
 
 " He thinks I would do beji not to mention my Anabap- 
 tifl Martyrs^ nor engage in their Caufe any further ." Why 
 fo ? when they were good Men, and fuffered for Chrifl's 
 Sake, as for any thing he has fliewn to the contrary. 
 And I muft needs tell him, I think he would do bell not 
 to mention his great Reformers and holy Divines, nor 
 engage in their Caufe any further, if he has nothing bet- 
 ter to fpeak in their Commendation, than that they were 
 the principal Hands that fupprefled Chrifiians, by Fury, 
 Eloodfl^ied and Death ; which Proceedings cannot be 
 reconciled with the Laws of Chrift, or with the Nature 
 of true Chriftiaraty. One would be willing to find the 
 renowned RefcJrmers to have been Men of a different 
 Chara^er, from what Mr. F. here reprefents them,, 
 
 But leaving thofe foreign Lands, let us follow Mr.- Fu ■ 
 
 over 
 
 t Anf. to Tiujen^ Chap. 1 1 , 
 
[ 1^3 ] 
 over to E^glandy where he labours to rake together what 
 Filth he could find, to caft on the fcandaious Rout (as 
 he calls his Opponents) and fixes on the Proceedings of 
 one " Mr. Copipe and Company;" but left this Inlfance 
 ftiould notanfwcr his Defign, he carefully conceals from 
 his Readers, that this Coppe fell away from the Bapti/is 
 into the Errors and vile Practices of the Ranters^ and 
 how the Baptifts were grieved for his Sins, proceeded 
 againft him according to Gofpel Order and Difciplin/e, 
 and took Occafion therefrom, ferioufiy to warn others of 
 Danger, &c. With what Injuftice then does Mr. 
 F. infert this Story, doubtlefs to Prejudice his Readers 
 againft a Caufe, which by Arguments he cannot refute? 
 Are the Englijh Baptifts chargeable with tiie Faults of 
 Apoftates, whufe Principles and Praitices they 'teftify a- 
 gainft, and fuitably deal with Delinquents ? Or can they 
 be charged with the Ways of the Ranters, or with the; 
 Vices of any that turned to them ? ^Does Mr. F. think 
 that the Sins of Backfliders are to be charged on the 
 Truth they once profefled to embrace, as the Caufe of 
 them ? If fo, he will be put to it to clear the Dodrines 
 of the Gofpel from being produdive of vicious Pradi- 
 ces J as in the QziQoi Hymen eus and Phtletus^ with ma- 
 ny others. Is it a new Thing for ProfefTurs to depart 
 from the Truth ? Or would he hereby prove, that the 
 Promifes of Chrift, and the Secrets of the Lord, do not 
 belong to, nor can be found with the Englijh Baptiji;^ 
 becaufe he can mention one or more, who turned from 
 them to a Courfe of Sin ? Or does this Inftance prove 
 his Principles about Infant Baptifm to be right, and ours 
 wrong ? Whatever he defigns hereby, he might well 
 know, were I difpofed to carry en a Commerce'^of this 
 Kind, I could eaiily ballance Accounts with him, and go 
 no further than his ov/n Party neither : How readiljr 
 might I bring Mr. 7. Crofs, a Prejlyterian MhuCter %t 
 Bafkim-idge^ in the Jerfeys^ for an Inftance ; f who, not 
 many Years ago, was efteemed a very eminent andfuc- 
 cefsful Minifter among them : But afterwards was found 
 
 L 2 guilty 
 
 f Mr. WhUefir'^-^ ^'.-. .; Vol II. Page 139^ 
 
[ ,^4 ] 
 
 guilty t)f f abominable Lewdnefs, and aftonifhlng per- 
 verfe Doings, after all his vaunting Boafts of Sandtity, 
 hishafdCenfuresof others, and the high Encomiutps 
 given him by Men of Renown, and accordingly was 
 dgfervedly filenced. Now would Mr. F. think it a juft 
 Confequence, (bould I hence infer, that he, and all his 
 /llTociates, are wrong, becaufe of the abominable Pradices 
 of their Brother ? Would they take it well to be called 
 a fcandalous Rout, becaufe one'of their Number turned 
 out to be a fcandalous Inftance of Immorality ? Or that 
 the Secrets of the Lord are not therefore with them ? 
 I believe not: And why (hould Mr. F. imagine that In- 
 itances of this Nature militate againft us, any more 
 than againft them ? If mentioning of this will difpleafe 
 Jiim, who can be blame but himfelf ? Who gave the 
 Occafion ? Who began to « blend CharaSiers with the 
 Controverfy;' but himfelf, when he led us away to Ger- 
 many to hear our Rife and Charaaer ? He may therefore' 
 thank himlelf for any Return of this Kind, and may 
 know 1 fliould not have cited this Paffage, were it not 
 to fhew the Unjuftnefs of his Inferences. For my Part, 
 I think God fufK;rs fuch lamentable Inftances to happen, 
 for the humbling of fume, and probably for the harden- 
 ing of others : But it is quite inconclufive, to make u(b 
 Of thofe Inftances as Mediums, in order to prove any 
 Number of Chrifiians to be wrong, whofe .profeflfed 
 Principles difallowall immoral Praftices. 
 
 Is it any Difficulty to difcover Mr. Fs Defign in tra- 
 telJing over Ger?nany and England, to heap up Filth on 
 us ? Would he not by fo doing prejudice his Readers a- 
 gamfi our Principles, and perfwade them to believe that 
 we are indeed, what he reprefentsVus to be, fprung up 
 but-Yefferday from a bafe Extra^ion, when his Argu- 
 ments fail him to overthrow our Claim to a noble Ori- 
 ginal and to Principles contained in the Word of God ? 
 
 Direaiy upan this, he profeflesa Deal of Rei^ard for 
 t's, and thinks 'tis a full Proof of my Bitternefs, to re- 
 
 quire 
 
 T Examination of Mr. Tennent's Remarks, Page lo, by 
 J-'me of the Members of the Synod at Philadelphia, per 
 Order. 
 
[ '% ] 
 
 quire greater Evidences of it, than has yet apprarM h} 
 his Writings : Ke would have us, it feems, to be of J. 
 tnaja's Difpofition and Condu^, who believed all the 
 Prufeflions of Regard and Efteem, exprefTed to him by 
 Joab^ to be fincere, without any further Evidence, or 
 taking any Heed to the bloody Inihument of Death in 
 his Hand, 2 Sam. xx. 9. 10. Mr, F. furely could not 
 rcafonably expe^ any other Reply on the Occafion, but 
 fomething of that Krnd, efpecially when he was about tq 
 wound our Charaders to Death, if poffible : But when 
 his ProfeiTion of Regard comes well attefted with cor- 
 refponding Evidences, he may introduce his Compliments 
 with Accept ince ; 'til then, we are willing to keep our 
 proper Diltance from KilTcs, which may be deceitful 
 now, as well as formerly. 
 
 He thinks «' / oddly ouinm myfelf,'' in faying, it h 
 but Three or Four Years ago, there was a mighty Noife 
 of Peoples being carnal, if they contended about thefe 
 outward Things 3' which was occafioned by his faying. 
 That Infant Baptifm was worthy to be contended for. 
 Where is the Contradiaion ? when by this Phrafe Iplain- 
 ly referred to the* amicable Times he fpake oi^ wnere- 
 in this Artifice, as is well known, was much in Ufe a- 
 inong them ; defigned it feems to lull People afleep m 
 their received Opinion of Infant Bapjtifm : f A Contro^ , 
 vcrfy^ introduced about Baptifm, this facred Ordinance 
 of Chrift, is -very grievous to them, for it tends tn turn 
 People awajfrom them ; tho' not from the Truth. 
 
 What follows, is what he pretends to deduce from 
 our Principles: But fince his Arguments are fulHciently 
 ihewn to be inconclufive, there is no Need to write the 
 fame Things over again in this Place ; his Ar^iJnient 
 from the Covenant of Grace, being difpenfed by Old Te- 
 ftament Ordinances, is already fhewn to be infignificant, 
 and little to his Purpofe, when that Adminiftracion is a- 
 bolifhed, and he has not {hewn that Infants of Believers, 
 ^^s fuch, were ever taken with their Parents into the Co- 
 venant of Grace : Our Caufe furely is not given up as 
 
 L 3 y?tj 
 
 * Preface to Charit. Plea, Page 3 , 
 t Preface to Find, Page c. 
 
[ i66 ] 
 
 yet, how willing foever he may be to take Poffeffion of 
 it. 
 
 I have already jfhewn to whom the Promifes belong : 
 He hath given us no Inftances to prove his Charge, which 
 he groundlefly repeats, that we repeal a great Part of 
 God's Word which he hath not repealedj and yet fays, he 
 can agree with us in Eflenti^ls : Now, with a View to 
 help himfelf out of this Inconfiftency, he recurs for 
 Relief to an old Popijh Calumny, « That Luther reje^- 
 ^^/^^ Epiftle of James.'* But is it not a great eflential 
 Part of Religion, to beheve and retain the Scripture 
 intire ? And can he agree with us in Efientials, whom 
 he accufes of diminifliing therefrom, without contra- 
 il iding himfelf ? Here he reprefents the Scripture fo full 
 and fufficient, that if a great Psrt of it be diminiflied 
 or rejeded, the Eflentials of Religion are to be found 
 in the other Scriptures : Yet on another Occafion he 
 would have the whole Scripture fo infufficient, that few 
 7 ruths could be proved thereby, without the Help of 
 Confequences : His Defign, it feems, is not fo much to 
 give us a juft Account of the Scripture, as to fupport 
 his darling Oppinion. 
 
 He tries to extricate himfelf out of an Abfurdity I 
 charged on his Pra6tice of Infant Baptifm, by faying, 
 " I baptize fame vifible improper Subjeils of Baptifm." 
 Grantmg that fome grown Perfons when baptized are 
 Hypocrites ; yet when their Hypocrify at the Time is 
 covered over with a Mafk of Religion from the Eyes of 
 ^11 Mortals, they are not vifible improper Subjects, the' 
 they be fo invifibly, or in their Hearts. Here Mr. ^; 
 fiiot quite befide the Mark: How any one grown Perfon 
 can be a whitcd Sepulchre, and at the fame time a Sepul- 
 chre without any White ; a deceitful Hypocrite, and yet 
 fo well known, that none are deceived in him, is a My- 
 f^cry of Contradiaicns ; and unlefs this could be recon- 
 ciled, *tis nothing to his Purpofe, whofe conftant Prac- 
 tice (in f'retencej is to baptize vifible improper Subjcif^S' 
 of Baptifm. And till he can fliew, that to be vilibly 
 under ^in, is lefs than to be vihbly in aStateof Damnati- 
 on i to be vifibly Enemies to God, is far fbort of vifiblv 
 
 belon^ini 
 
[ i<57 3 
 
 belonging to the Devil : What do we fay hnt what 
 the Scripture fays, that zve are by Nature Children of 
 Wratby U'c. Further, 
 
 Agreeable to the reft of his Condu£l, he fays, " /pro- 
 ceed in a Parcel of random Strokes to reproach his JJncha- 
 ritablenefs to the Infants of Nan fnembers, andfalfly Jay^ he 
 afferts the Impoffibility of their Salvation" Page 76. Anf, 
 Yet he fays in the following Lines, and elfewhere, that 
 they are out of the Covenant of Grace--- that there is no 
 Promife to theni,---that he muft fufpend his Belief of 
 their Salvation, --Nor has he any Ground to believe thev 
 are faved, for God has told him nothing of it— And 
 that it is already proved from many Scriptures, Out of the 
 Church is no Salvation. Is it then any Reproach to his 
 Charity, or any falfe Charge, to affert that his own 
 Words affirm the impoffibility of Salvation to the Infants 
 of Non- members, dying in their Infancy ? Not at ail. 
 If the Cafe be thus, I have yet more to fay, than calling 
 this a new Edition of the old Story j that is, that he 
 holds Church- memberfhip abfolutely and eflentially ne- 
 ceflary to Salvation, contrary to Scripture and f Prote- 
 ftani Doftrine ; for if fo, v/hat then became of Mel- 
 chizedecy Shem^ Lot, Job, and others, when it cannot 
 be (hewn, that they ever were Members in the Jeivi/J) 
 Church.: Nay I have Room again to turn the J Key- 
 on him, " They could neither bejujlified nor condemned 
 in this Life" he. 
 
 Notwithftanding what" has been already obferv*d, he 
 fays our Principles derogate from Chrift when he was an 
 Infant. Reply. Not to remark on all exceptionable 
 Expreffions, obferve whatever we fay of the Promifes 
 to Infants, of Circumcifion, and the Jewijl) Church, 
 our Principles exprefly teach, that all the Promises of 
 the Covenant were made to Chrift : *Tis therefore 
 ftrange our Principles Ihould exprefs this, and the con- 
 \ L 4 trary 
 
 f Says the Affembly of Divines, <' Tho' the Pofterit/ 
 of Abraham were God's vifible Church, there were feme 
 without it, who were not without the Knowledge and Wor- 
 . Ihip of the true God/' Annot. Gen. xiv. 18. 
 X Anti. Page i8. ' 
 
[ 1^8 3 
 
 ferarytOQ Buthe muft fayfomething to blacken us, 
 tiio ever fo Icnfelefs in itfelf, • 
 
 ^ As for his accufing us of wrefting Scriptures Iri 
 Defence of our Principles, this appears to have no 
 I-oundation to ftand en, unlefs it be in his Judgment, 
 when yet he cannot make it appear by Argument ; 
 therefore worthy of no Regard. Indeed by all that has 
 yet appeared, he is deeply guilty of the Crime, whereof 
 he aecufetn us, when there is not one Place of Scripture 
 that teacheth his Dodrine of Infant Baptifm. 
 
 The 78th and following Pages, are cramm'd up with 
 the fruits c^f his Indignation, which in Page 79 th he 
 calls juft Verily, had his Writing in the foregoing 
 Sheets afforded as evident Proofs of his Principles, a1 
 thefe Pages do, of his Indignation, or angry Refent- 
 jnents, no Body would have any Room to queftion the 
 1 ruth and Reality of the one, more than of the other. 
 Had he fliewn my Pofitions, Tenets and GIo/Tes, as they are 
 m my Book, to have been Anti-fcriptural and abfurd, 
 he might with better Appearance have warned his Read- 
 ers of their Danger, ?,nd profefTed his WiHingnefs to 
 die, rather than fubfcribe them : But fince it is quite 
 totherwife, I fee no Reafon to retradi my Phrafes (which 
 he calls modeft) nor am inclined to confirm any Gofpel 
 Iruth by fwearingto it, as he groundlelly infinuates ; 
 tho 1 am for the Liberty to affirra it modeftlv, and 
 would have it received, when it is proven clearly/ Had 
 he freed himfelf from the Gharge of making light of 
 Godspofitive Commands, and cleared the Dialogue of 
 holding Abraham to be a publick Head in the Covenant 
 of Grace, how much better could he fay, that I pervert- 
 ed his Arguments, and bore falfe Witnefs againft my 
 Ne^hbour. Had he difcovered that my Inlmuations. 
 Rt^eclion. and Epithets, in the Places, and on the Oc- 
 cahcns 1 ufcd them, were not juft and proper, he might 
 reject them as mvidiouj and indecent. Had he in the 
 UJurle of this Debate made appear, tiwtl had been guilty 
 ofaconftantLvafionofhis Arguments, he mi^ht well 
 enomre how fuch a Praaice can be reconciled with Ho- 
 ^Etty. Had his Spirit been unbeclouded in this Contro- 
 
 vcifj'i 
 
C 1^9 ] 
 
 verfy, he might have more clearly difcerned the conftant 
 Gloom which covers his Performance. Had he duly 
 r.oticed my Book, he would have no juft Ground to fajr 
 that all is Certainty with me without Evidence, that I 
 am confident without Argument, and convinced v/ith- 
 out Demonftration ; or, that I de4l much in Superla- 
 tives, when there is fcarcely an Inftance to be found, 
 where I have made ufe of the fuperlative Degree in my 
 Aflertions. Had his Mind been fuitably impre/Ted with 
 a Senfe of Religion, he would have guarded againft 
 Pailion, which fo plentifully appears through his Per- 
 formance, particularly in thefe Pages. And had his 
 abundant Hurry permitted him to review his Vindicati^ 
 on impartially, he might readily have (ttn a much near- 
 er Refem^Iance of the Popijh Difputants, than my Jn- 
 iifadorantifm : Therein he might have fcen the fuifici- 
 ency of the Scripture difparaged : A Principle of Religi- 
 on aflerted, and pleaded for, which is not taught in ho- 
 ly Scripture : Antiqyiity, even Apoftolical, PopiJ/j-hke, 
 urg'd ill Favour of that, which hath not apofl:olical 
 Teftimony to fupport it : The Promifes of Chrift in- 
 fifted on for its Defence, in the fame Manner as Popijb 
 Difputants do in Behalf of their Church and Principles: 
 The Baptijh reprefented to be a new Upftart Seft, juft 
 as the r.api/is deal with the Proteftants, notwitftand- 
 ing our Principles are undeniably proven to be Scriptu- 
 ral, he. &c. 
 
 But fince he failed in each of the abovefaid Particu- 
 lars, thefe Pages juft ferve to (hev/ his Wiilingncfs to 
 carry the Caufe by Clamour, which he was not able to 
 do by Arguments. 
 
 In Page 79. he propofes a Query, " If he is con* 
 vinced, how is it that he dares mi P Does not this fay, that 
 he is convinced, and yet not convinced, at the fame time?'* 
 Anf. No : It lays no fuch Thing. I told him the Rea- 
 fon before; " y/ Prefbyterian, ivho is convinced by Scrip- 
 ture that his Infant jpr inkling is wrong, hut dares not for' 
 fake it, hecaufe of the Firebrands and Death caji in his 
 Way." Had he refuted the Reafon given, which is 
 grounded on the Places referred to, inftead of propofing 
 
 this 
 
[ lyo ] 
 
 this groundlefs Query, he would have a£led much more 
 Difputant-like. Is it any Difficulty to account why 
 he dares not ? That is, becaufe he 13 deterr'd * by the 
 frightful Difcouragements, that fuch as the Author of 
 the Dialogue, and others do caft in iiis Way, from pro- 
 ceeding according to Light received ; when he is told, 
 t that it were better for him that a Millftone were hang- 
 ed about his Neck, and that he were drowned in the 
 Depth of the Sea, than he fhould deny Infants Right to 
 Baptifm, or rejea his Infant- baptifm. Thefe, and fuch 
 like thundering Threats, they know, take great Im~ 
 preflion on a tender Confcience, who at the fame time 
 cannot find any Inftitution of Infant- baptifm, nor can 
 they fhew him any, and yet he dares not forfake'ir, be- 
 caufe of thefe Obftruaions he meets with from them. 
 
 On the whole, the Reader may obferve, that Mr. F^ 
 Charitable Plea, is fully refuted, and his Objcaions in 
 his /^indication fufficiently enervated : The Gofpel 
 Truth, which teaches profeiEng Believers to be the only 
 proper Subjeds of Baptifm, ftill fhines in its divine 
 Beauty, far beyond the unfuccefsful Attempts made to 
 obfcure it : Therefore let all the Lovers of Truth walk 
 in the Light thereof. 
 
 ^ Divine Right, Pages 6, 7. f Ibid. Page 28. 
 
 IN 
 
[ 17' ] 
 
 *^ *4» 't* ti* *^ tji ti« »-i* ij* -f* ^s' . - >i '12* it^ »$» tjT 
 
 IN Page 8 1. Mr. F. proceeds to the Vindication of 
 his fecond general AfTertion, " That Bapiifm is 
 rightly admini/ired by fprinkling or pouring of PVater on 
 the Perfon baptized." Which he endeavours to prove, 
 I, *' By Jhewirtg that there is nothing in the Word of 
 God contraditiory , to it j or that the Anabapti^s ArgU' 
 ments againjl it, do not overthrow it." 
 
 Before he comes to his Arguments, he makes his Re- 
 marks on what I faid, and feems offended with me, 
 and charges me with Evafion, becaufe I have not allcrt- 
 ^d as much as he would have me afl'ert: Well, would 
 it not have difturbed him as much, if not more, had I 
 faid, *' Cbri/i has no vifble Church on Earth but our-- 
 felves ? Doubtiefs it would. But if I can pleafc him, I 
 fhall now make free to tell him, that I look on th^ 
 Prejhyterian Church not to be fram'd and regulated ac- 
 cording to the Order of the Gofpel, becaufe it does not 
 adminifter Baptifm according to Chrift's Inftitution, 
 when Infants are fprinkled therein. Let him draw as 
 many Confequences from this, as he thinks proper, the 
 Cafe will be the fatpe, without he could fhew a divine 
 Command for Iwant fpfinkling. 
 
 I argued, that fmall Communities have had the Truth 
 on their Side before now, when the Crouds embrac'd 
 Error. This Mr. F. has not refuted, but argues, as tho* 
 I had made it a general Rule, without any Exceptions; 
 when all my Caufe required, was to fhew it is no Evi- 
 dence that we are in the Wrong, tho' we were a very 
 fmall Community, but rather for us, efpecially when 
 the Declarations of God's Will, and Scripture Exam- 
 ples, appear on our Side ; therefore he can get no Argu- 
 ment from it againft us, tho' he would bear the Read- 
 er in Hand, as if a great Number was an evident Proof 
 for him, and againfl us j and an infeparable Mark that 
 
 Pado- 
 
[ 172 ] 
 
 Padohapujis are right, and we In the Wron?. If the 
 Multitude be a Note of the true Church, or of theTruth 
 then the Pap'tjis bid very fair to be in the Right, and 
 ^e hke to carry away this Mark from iMr. F. himfelf ^ 
 
 I ho It may be obferv'd, that he does not do us, nor the 
 Iruth Juftice, when he fays, *' // appears to ihi Qe^ 
 ncralify, that the Anabaptifts are in theJVtongr For 
 the Generality of Writers, confefs Dipping to have been 
 the ancient Mode of Baptizing, and of them a Num- 
 Der of the Prejbyterians themfelves; witnefs, the Mem- 
 bly of Divines, on Rom. ^^\. ^. «« The Apojlle feems to 
 
 II *V ' "'''"''* Manner of Baptifm, which was, to 
 dtp the Parties baptized," &c. By the Way, I wouJd 
 tain know, by what Authority that ancient Manner i$ 
 changed into Sprinkling? He afks, '^ m^o can more ve- 
 hemently reproach and feoff the Protiflant Churches than 
 the Anabaptifts have done, and JiiU do ?'' Anf What 
 becaufe they all along teftify that Infant-fprinkling is un' 
 icrjptural? Does he call this vehement Repioachin^ and 
 hcoffing? If fo, he muft e'en put up with it; iZx we 
 mult fay fo, or betray the Truth : But what is that tg 
 the Reproaches, Barbarities, and Death, the Baptifls 
 have endured from others, in the Caufe of God and 
 iiis I ruth ? 
 
 In anfwer to his Suggeftion, that we unchurch all the 
 Proteftant World, I obferved, " // it be the Truth 
 which we hold, and if it is by praSiiftng ii^e unchurch all 
 the Frotejlant World, no Matter how foonJt is unchurched 
 
 o'^^f'' II " "'^ P'-ff"^^' ^^ -^^^""^^ <^o it—unlefs the 
 Protejiant World unchurch itfelf by embracing our Pr in- 
 ciples He anfwers, " Whatever Principle unchurches 
 the . roieffant World, cannot be true according to the Pro- 
 nnfe of God." Reply : Well, if a Number of the Pro- 
 teftant World are excluded from the Church, it is the 
 Principle of Infant-fprinkling, and not we, that ex-. 
 dudes them : For if there is Exclufion at all in the 
 Matter, that is the Caufe of it in Faft j we can do it 
 only doafinally, according to Mr. Fs own Way of 
 argumg: How dreadfully evil then muft that Principle 
 9t iDfant-fprijikling be, that it fhould tend to exclude 
 
 Peopl(j 
 
[ '73 ] 
 
 People from the Prefence of God on Earth I Surely that 
 Principle canaot be true, which, in FaiS, has fuch ill 
 Nature and Tendency ! 
 
 I (hall now take a View of what he has to fay in Op- 
 pofition to the Arguments made ufe of, from the Ety- 
 mology of the Word Baptizo^ Scripture Examples, and 
 Scriptare Allufions, in Vindication of Immerfion, to be 
 the only feripturai Mode of Baptifm. 
 
 I have * already (he 'A'n, from Leigh's Crltica Sacra^ 
 that the native and proper Signification of the Word 
 Baptizo^ is to dip into Water, or to plunge under Wa- 
 ter, John iii. 22, 23. Mat. iii. 16. J£fs viii. 38. 
 which is confirmed by the concurring Teftimony of a 
 .great Number of Padobaptijis themfelves: This Mr. F. 
 has not difprov'd, nor given us any convincing Reafons 
 why we muft not underftand the Word in the feveral 
 Places of Scripture, which fpeak of the Ordinance, ac- 
 cording to the allowed native and proper Signification of 
 it. In Charitable Plea^ Pages 81, 82. he does not de- 
 ny the Word fignifies Dipping, tbo' not only, and al- 
 ways fo ; and tells us, thzt Schrevelius tranflates Baptizo, 
 Lavo (to wafh) as well as Tingo^ which fignifies to dip ; 
 and intimates, that there are Inftances of Authors who 
 render Baptixo^ Immergo^ Ini'ingo^ Submergo, Obruo^ to 
 overwhelm, dip, or plunge ; or elle he would not fup- 
 pofe we could produce them : But in his Vindication^ 
 Page 87. he feems to deny it, and pretends he has re- 
 futed, that Bapti%o fignifies to dip: One while, left he 
 Ihould be under a NeceiTity of afi'erting Baptifm to be a 
 Nullity, if not performed by Pouring or Sprinkling, he 
 won't deny the Word fignifies Dipping; but then again, 
 left his general Afl'ertion fhould be overthrown, he 
 would have us believe, he has already refuted, that Baptizo 
 fignifies to dip or plunge, it feems he has ftudied more 
 how to oppofc us, than to be confiftent with himfelf. 
 
 Mr. F. thinks, I go too faft, to fay, that we are on 
 a Par with him in this Point, on the very firft Onfet, 
 becaufe he allows Baptifm is not a Nullity, if perform'd 
 by Dippiilg J but what is that to the Cafe in Hand ? For 
 
 if 
 * Jnti^ Page 1 1 6. 
 
[ ^74 3 
 if Baptlzo fignifies XVafhing, and if that may be done 
 by Dipping, our Mode is certainly right, according to 
 his own Way of Reafoning : We have as much Gro'und 
 to fay, that Baptifm is rightly adininiftred by Dipping, as 
 he hath to the contrary j uniefs he will fay, that WaOi- 
 ing cannot be done by Dipping : Hence then, he cart 
 get no certain and infallible Argument from the Mean- 
 ing of the Word, in favour of his Opinion and Pradice j 
 confequently the very Foundation of his Afiertion for 
 Principle) is as effedtually raz'd hereby on the one Hand, 
 as he imagines ours to be on the other. But, 
 
 I obferved, ** IVhen we come to the Pujh, Mr. F. 
 fails in the Undertakings for he has not cited us one In- 
 Jiance from Lexico-graphers, xbhere the Word is render'd^ 
 or fignifies to pour or fprinkle— ^«/ labours to fupply his vuide 
 Defect— by a frc'd Confequence^ He replies. Page 83. 
 If Baptize fignify to wajh.—and if WafJAng can be 
 performed by pomi7}g on of Water ^ then Baptizing can be 
 perform' d by Pouring or Sprinkling. There is no ima- 
 ginable Way to prove this'Confequence for/d^ but by tr»v- 
 ing that Pouring is no Mode of Wajhing.** And in Page 
 85. " Is it not plain., fays he, that Lavo, Abluo, com- 
 prehendPeriiindo, Afpergo ; as the General comprehends 
 every particular Species, or Sort ? Anfc The Queftion is 
 not which Way, or how many Ways Wafhing may be 
 performed; but what is the proper Meaning of the 
 Word Baptizof Whether it means every different Sort 
 or Kind of Wafliing ? Which f Lexicograpl:ers unani- 
 moufly render by Mergo, Immergo. to plunge or dip into; 
 whereby is intended, a particular Mod* or Sort of Wafh- 
 ing, viz. ^bv Dipping. For Mr. F. therefore to infer, that 
 the fame Word which primarily and properly fignifies one 
 particular Mode or Sort of Waflimg, does alfo. fignify a- 
 nother.particular different Mode of Wafliing, is fo plainly 
 a forc'd Confequcnce, as can be mentioned, and the At- 
 tempt very unreafon^ble. Words certainly have pro- 
 per determinate Notions annexed to them. Suppofe the 
 Word had been rendered by Perfundo, ^fpergo., Lavo., 
 would Mr. F. judge it a naiive Confequence, or proper 
 
 Reafon- 
 , \ Anti. Pa?e 117. 
 
[ '75 ] 
 
 Reafoning for us to favi therefore it fignifies Dipping, 
 becaufe Wafhing can be done by Dipping ? I believe 
 not. His Argument, which he was fo willing to fubr 
 mit to Trial, is caft ; and it may juftly be objefled a- 
 gainft, *' IVithout guarding againjl Commtn Senfe, or 
 proving our Caufe to be defperate^* as he infinuates. 
 
 In anfwer to Dr. Gale, who challenges any Man, to' 
 fhew a fingle Inftance, wherein the Word Baptize ^ fig- 
 mfies to pour or fprinkle, or any thing lefs than Dipping, 
 except in fome ecclefiaftical Writers of the latter cor- 
 rupt Times ; Mr. F. undertakes to cite fome Inftances, 
 but yet fails to anfwer the Dod:or's Dernand : His firft 
 is out of Plutarch^ in Vita Thefei, who recites a Verfe, 
 that Sybilla gave out over the City of Athensy *' AJkosy 
 haptizee dunai de toi ou themis tjli : Which Mr. F. renr 
 ders. Baptize or tuajl) him as a Bottle, but do not over- 
 whelm him." But more llgnificantly thus. Baptize, or 
 plunge it {viz. th? City of Athens, in Wars and Per- 
 plexities) as a Bottle, but it is not lawful to fink, or de- 
 itroy it ; agreeaWe to the Anfwer brought to Thefeus, at 
 the Beginning or the Fate of this City, from the Oracle 
 of Apollo. * The Words of Cafaubon, in his Note on 
 Mat. iii. 6. arc very exprefe and pertinent here ; " For 
 the Manner of baptizing ffays he) was to plunge or dip 
 them into the Water, as even tht Word Baptizein itfelf 
 plainly enough /hews ; which as it does not jignify Dunein, 
 to Jink down and peri/h^ neither certainly does it Jignify Epi- 
 polazein, tofivim or float atop ; thefe three Words^ Epipo- 
 lazein, Baptizein, Dunein, being very different." Hence 
 then Baptizo^ to dip or plunge, may very properly be 
 diftinguiflicd from f Duno, to go under, fink down — 
 without any Neceflity to conclude, or acknowledge Mr. 
 F's Inference to be juft, *' That to baptize, is not to 
 plunge." 
 
 Hit 
 
 * Cited by Dr. Gale, Let. 4. 
 
 f cPu:«. Jjfy, vcl J^i/'//;, Subeo, ingredior, occido, induo. 
 Schrevel. Lex. 
 
 Beza, on Mat. iii. 13. obferves, " Significat autem to hap- 
 iizein tingere, ^uum para to baptein dicatur, et quum tingtndtx. 
 
 mergantur. 
 
t 175 ] 
 
 His next Inftance out of Plutarch ; " Of a Romaii 
 General, who wrote an Infcription before he died^ Bapti- 
 zas, having baptized his Hand with Blood, viz. which 
 fprung from his IVcund. Hence his Hand could only he 
 baptized by Effufion, the Blood gujhing out upon it." Re- 
 ply ; The Hilbrian does not i\\v the Blood guflied out 
 upon his Hand, but, Kai eis to aima teen cheira baptifaSy 
 — haying dipp'd his Hand in Blood, he wrote this In- 
 fcription.— Another Inftance Mr. F. brings out of Ho- 
 mer., ** 'Ebapteto d'amati limnee porphur^eon^ i. e. The 
 Lake zuas flained or fprinkUd with purple Blood. ' Bui 
 to fay, the Lake was plung'd or dipp'd in Blood, Jhocks all 
 eommon Senfe : Nor can there be any Allufton here to dip- 
 ping Things in Dye ; for what Parity is there bettveen fuch 
 Dipping, and Blood running into a Lake ? Now if Bap- 
 too, the Primitive, is ufed to fignify lifs than Plunging^ 
 much more the Derivative^ Baptizo." Dr. GW^ uhich 
 Mr. F pretends to be refuting, has largely anfwered the 
 Ubjeaion here; I {hall cite a PaiTage from his learned 
 Letters. Says he, * " ^4}e Phrafe, wt^muji confider, is 
 borrowed from the Dyers, who colour Thirgs by dipping 
 them in their Dye ; and to this the Poet plainly alludes, not 
 that the Lake was adually dipfd in Blood, but fo deeply 
 Jiatn'd, that to heighten our Idea, he exprejfes it, with the 
 ujual Liberty of Poets, by a Word, which fignifles more 
 than what is flri£ily true, which is the Nature of all 
 Hyperboles. Thus the literal Senfe is, the Lake was dip- 
 
 ped 
 • 
 fnerganttir, madefacere et mergere ; et a njerho dunai differt ' 
 quod profundum fetere et fubmergere, dedarat, ut ex lllo I'e- 
 tens oraculi -verftculo conjiet ; afkos baptixie, dunai de tot m 
 themis eftt, tn quo, h^c duo cpponuntuf-r Which is thus ren- 
 dered by a learned Author ; the Word Baptize fignifies to 
 tinge or dye, fince it comes from Bapto, and feeing Things 
 that are to be dyed, are dipped, it fignifies to maiie wet. and 
 plunge, and differs from^the Word Dunai, which firrufies to 
 go unto the Bottom, and fink, as is plain from th.t Ve-fe of 
 the old Oracle, Let the Bottle be dipped, but it is not i awful" 
 to fink It; in which thefe two V/ords are opro'cd t..>-,,M! 
 another. '■^ 
 
 * Letter 3. * 
 
[ '77 ] 
 
 pi^d in Bloody but the Figure only meanst it was colouv'd 
 Ms highly as ar.y Thing that is dipped in Blood." At 
 ]eni£th he obferves, '' That the Senfe of B:'.pto, eve^ 
 tn this Place y is to dip, and nothing elfe.'" 
 
 His laJl Inftance is out of Ecclefiafiicus xxxiv. 2g; 
 Baptizomeiiosi l^c. And fays, ** The Baptifm here refer- 
 red t9^ is defer ibed at large in Num. xix. which was en- 
 tirely by Sprinkling." Dr. Gale has alfo examined thi« 
 InfLnce, and Ihewn the Invalidity of it. Among other 
 Remarks upon it, hath the following Words, which are 
 a pertinent Reply to Mr. F. who argues, " That it was 
 not the Perfon who was unclean by touching the Deady who 
 was thus to wafh and bathe, hut the clean Perfon, who 
 fprinkled the JVater on him \ who by that very Sprinkling 
 of the other, had contrasted Uncleannefs." Savs the Doc- 
 tor, *' Some indeed are plea fed to fancy, the Words zvhicb 
 command Bathings are not fpoken of th? unclean Perfon^ 
 who had touched the Dead, iut of the Prieji officiatir.g i 
 and they fortify this Surmize by , the yh and %th Verfcs 
 preceding, wher0he Priefi is exprefly commanded to wap> 
 his Clothes, and bathe himfelf in Water : But it does not 
 follow^ becaufe this Place relates to the Priefi, that the c- 
 ther (viz. Verfe ig.) does fo too; nay, rather it is abfurd 
 it fhould, for, it interrupts and confounds the Senfe of 
 the Place : Beftdes in the very next Verfe but ene^ viz, 
 21. Uis ordered, .that he who fpr inkles the Water of Sepa-_ 
 ration, f})all wafh his Clothes^ l^c. plainly intimating, that 
 was not the Defign of the Words almoji immediately forego ' 
 Ing. BefideSy ii cannot be t eafonably imagined, that the 
 priefi, by barely purifying the Unclean, fhould need fo much 
 greater a Wafhing and Purification than the Unclean him,' 
 felf." And in another Place, the DoiSlor remarks,^ 
 V T!:e d filed Perfon was to be fprinkled with the holy 
 iVater on the third, and on the Jeventh Day, only as pre- 
 paratory to the great Purification, ivbich was to be by Wafo- 
 ing tbr Body and Clothes on the feventh Day, with which 
 the Unchanmfi ended." And alter much more Reafoning 
 I uon it, too long to be here tranfcribed, he infers, " 'Tis 
 'isry plain, Syracides, by Baptizomenos, in that Place^ 
 means batlfd^ dipfd^ and waflid j for you fee the Law re- 
 M quired 
 
[ '78 1 
 
 quired no hfs, and no left was praSiifed ly the ]tws^ in 
 Cafe offuch Pollution by the Dead." On the W hole that 
 Mr. F. has prcductd, v.hatever he niay have in Storey 
 it does not appear ftrange Dr. Gale never found Baptizo to 
 iignifv lefs than Dipping. 
 
 What Mr. /: cites cut of Leigh's Ciitica Sacra, and- 
 he from Dr. Featly againft tlic Jnabapti/ls, That Bapti- 
 to is taken for Wafhing, where there is no Dipping : 
 On this Occafion I already obferved, f " That as it^ is 
 TiOt true in itfdf, fo neither does it agree vAth what is ac- 
 hmvledged itJ the Critica Sacra, juji before" even by Dr. 
 Featly himfelf ; which is, '* Ihoi Baprizo is derived from 
 Bapto, Tingo, to dip or plunge into the Watery and fgni- 
 fieth primarily fuch a kind of IVaflAng as is ufed in Bucks,' 
 where Linntn is flung d and dipt." New what fignifies 
 it for Mr. F. co repeat ihe fame Thing over and oter, 
 lincc he has not removed the Inconhiiencv I chaiged oa 
 his AfTertion, unlefs he thinks his fiequent Repetition, 
 will at Length pafs into an ui.doubicd Aurhority ? He 
 may know, that we pav no more Regard ro Dr. Featly's 
 bold Aflcj tions, in his Warmth agaiiift the Bapti/ls, than 
 we do to h Assayings, unfuppoited by Authority. I think 
 EfquireX^^:^ gives it as his o-wn Judgment, *^7hat 
 ihe native and proper Signification of Baptizo, // to dip 
 into Water ^ or to plunge under Water" To the fame 
 Purpofe j)e cites Cafaubon, Buchanus, BuU>7ger, and Zart- 
 £hius. Now unlef* Mr. F.h^.d refuted thii aljowed na- 
 tive and proper Signification of the Word, there is no 
 Room for him to impofe a Tafk on me which is done 
 already : But ir highly concerns him to fiiew the Word 
 fignifies to pour or fprinkJe, or elfe his Fradf ice will al- 
 ways appear un war rar, table. Ihe Obfervarions of the 
 the Reverend Mr. Gill, and Mr. Rees, appear to be 
 juft, viz. that Baptizo fj;ininc£ to w^fh onlv by Con- 
 fequencei (but fo iikewife it does to wet, colour, dye, 
 diown-- ) becaufe there cannot be dipping in fair Wa- 
 ter without wafhing ; which the Jnibnces produced b^ 
 Mr. F.irr.m Homer ^ Plutarch^ Sec. do not oveithiow. 
 Says be. Page 85. " Otig may dip his Foot in Mud, and 
 
 ya 
 t Aati. P.-^ge 11 6c 
 
y:t net he ovirtuhelmtd either Foot or B^Jy." Bat if the 
 Foot be dipt m Mud, it is certainly diptsc which is the 
 Thing A4r. Refs aflerted, that Baptize iigmBe<i to dip in- 
 to any Matter absolutely, without regarding Water, or 
 ary other Liquid. I fee nothing of Argument in what 
 Mr. F. fays about Mr. Rees his Obfcrvations on Dr, 
 Owen's pofthumous Works, uniefs what he caJls pka- 
 fanr Wittictfms (hould be thought of fomc Forces 
 %vhich may perhap» divert bis Readers whilft the Paint 
 which needed handling is pafled by, that is, to fliew tha€ 
 Baptizt iignifiesto wafli fimply, without having reg:ard tot 
 Dipping. But inftead hereof, his Charader muft be re- 
 pn-ached by a groundiefs infinuation, in the following 
 Wyrdb, " ^uery. Does Mr. Recs, in theje odd Ohfava- 
 , i^pns^ [peak like an boneji Man, who vnderjiandt the Greek 
 Tongue?'' 
 
 here I would afk Mr. F. why he did not Vindicate fais 
 Quotation from the Affcmbly of Divines, whofe Autho- 
 rity he made fuch a Stir about in his former Piece fas 
 that they were Men of Learning, and under foleraa 
 Obligation to declare fsnccrcly their Judgments^ al being 
 in h«s Favour { Is it becaufe their ConceiTions in their 
 Annotations invalidate what they fay in their Cace- 
 chiims ? 
 
 Says be. Page 86, *' tfecondly proved our Senfe of ibi 
 t'Vord to f)e jufij from the life of it in the New Te/lament j 
 herg I alkdged M&rk. vii. 4, When they come from ths 
 Market, except they wajh they eat not ; in tht Greeks 
 txcen thty be haptixfA j now can we imagine the Jewis 
 plunged their zvhole Body in Water ^ every time they cam6 
 from Market^ and every time they eat? No, for Verfe Ja 
 tciXi m they only wajhed their Hands. To this Mr. M. op- 
 pjjes Btza himfelf., Mr. Leigh, and Mr. Q,\\\, Mr, 
 f.eighpy,?i-&-j the different Criticifms of Authors. The 
 ■hers I look en to be mijlaken.^^ Anf. I grant, this is ast 
 
 y and {bort Way of Refutation, if it willdojbufe 
 
 ^■•re we can allow thofe gr.^at Men to have been mi- 
 
 •n, Mr. F. should have (hewn they were fo ; Bezx 
 
 "liger ftiou'd h3%'e been refuted j he fliould have 
 
 - efcat imjiie*fion of the whole Body w2s not ifi 
 
 M2 f!-f.:w«;t 
 
[ i8o J 
 
 frequent Ufe among the Jnus ; arid that Nipfontal m 
 Verfe 3, and Ba'ptlfontai in Vcrfe 4, are of ihe fame 
 Import, andCignify one, and ihe fame A a, or kind of 
 Wafhing : But fince he has done neither of thefe i'arti- 
 culars, and feeing the Phrale is changed as he ackn.w- 
 Udgts, it gives Ground to our Argument, that the for- 
 mer IS particularly to be underftnod of the waftiing of 
 Hands, but the latter *' Ximplieth the waJJ/ing (or im- 
 merfing) of their whole Body." Befides, to underlbnd 
 n thus, better cxprefTcs the outward affcded San^ity of 
 the more fuperftitious Part of the People, as Mr Gill 
 had obferved : This Mr F. fhould have refuted befo.e 
 he fo uncivilly charged Mr. Gill with rontradiding the 
 Scripture. If the Evangelift does not fpeak of the more 
 fuperftitious Part in this Place, I would a(k, who d.es 
 he fpeak of? Who were fo tenacious of the Traditions 
 of the Elders, if not the more Superftitiuus ? 'Tis plain 
 enough from Scripture, that there was a Part or Scft 
 among the Jeivs more fuperftitious than others : The 
 Pharifees were a Sed i>f precife, vain-glorious Separatilis, 
 that defpifed others, Luke xviii. full of Self conceit of 
 their own Holinefs, and lo(ked upon the ccmmon Peo- 
 ple, or thofe who did not join with them, to be accurfed, 
 John !x. who when they came from Market, or from 
 any Court of Judicature, immerfed themfdves all over 
 in Water. § Mr. Gill proves from the Je-Mijh Writers, 
 that if the Pnarifees touched but the Garments of the 
 common People, they were defiled all one as if they 
 had touched a prcfluvious Perfon, and needed Immcifi- 
 on, and were Oblged to it. Hence, Luke xi. ^8. may 
 properly b^..unds^ritood, to intend this total Abiution, 
 or Immerfion of the whole Body ; for Chrift had been 
 in a Croud of People that Dav, V ^r'iz 29. And accord- 
 ing to the Pharifees N-.tion needed Imme.fion : T^i^xf:^ 
 fore there is nothinir appears as yet from rhefe Words 
 to favour Mr. F\ Opmion ; for tr-e Jetvs v. ere 
 not faid to be baptized, .Afien their Hands only 
 were waflicd, or waf.i:ng of Hands is not heie called 
 
 X Leigh. § Expof. Mark vii. 4. 
 
( i8i ) 
 
 baptizing them. His Conclufion then is truly and jufi- 
 ly rejVded, as having no Foundation in the Text. 
 
 As to what he urges from the Inftance of Chrifl's 
 Wa(hing his Difciples Feet, John xiti. it is not worth 
 a:u' Notice: He may as well argue, that the myftical 
 U^atcr of Baptifm (as he calls it) is abfolutely necefla- 
 ry t.) Salvation, becaufe that myftical Wafhing (fa 
 called) WIS (o, *' If I xvafh thee not, thou hafl no Part 
 in me'' If he thinks this i^ulLgc affords him a Rule of 
 Diredlmn huw Baptifm ought to be adniiniflred, he 
 Ihouid wafh the Feet, and nnt thg Face, of thofc he pre- 
 tends to baprjze j and (hould alfo have Lme total Ablu- 
 tion to precede his Sprinkling, in order to have fom« 
 Colour tor his Pradice anfwerabje to the Text, 
 
 He that is %ijajhedy ncedeih noty fave only to ivafh his 
 Feet ;" which is expreiiive of wfsat I faid, without any 
 Glofs on It at all : B.iides Chrirt was not here about 
 to inltitute tJie Oidinanceof Baptifm, or to inform his 
 Difciples in what Manner it ought to be adminiilred. 
 Nothing but extream Scarcity of Argument could pof- 
 fiblv force Mr. F. to urge this Place in Favour of his 
 Pr^dice, which hath iro Manner of Relation to the 
 Pomt in Hand ; nor has he fliewn us »ny divine Rule, 
 which direds turn to fprinkle the Face, more than any 
 othc;r Part ; bat ,onIy his own Fancy leads him to this 
 Device, to p^ur W^ter on the Face, " Becaufe his 
 the principal Part of Man's Body.- Nut that Chr;fl or- 
 dcred h m to dufo, or that he has any Example of ths 
 Admin. ftration of Bapiifm in this Manner, in the 
 Word of God ; but of this enough, unlefs it had been 
 to the Matter in Hand. 
 
 Inanfvver to his fuller Argument from Mark vii. 4. 
 I obferved, *' JVlmt may be the prefent Cujiom of wajliing 
 Tables {or Beds) is nothing to the Purpofe ; he ought to 
 havefbewn how the Jews wajhid them^ before his Argu- 
 ment will be of any Force in this Centroverfy." He thinks 
 there is no Difficulty in this at all, unkf* it be fuppofcd 
 the Jews were fume diftra£Ved fort of Perfons j and 
 imagines I might '* as xvell require him is prove, that 
 ihf Jews walked en thdr Feet, and did ntt creep on all 
 
 M 3 Feur:\ 
 
( IS2 ) 
 ^^«r."— And fays, «* Mr. KttsJhouIJ have Jhewn that 
 the TradtUom (cfiht Elders) required Plmrghg," Well 
 then, if it can he fliewn, that thofe Traditions did re- 
 quire the Immcrfion or Dipping of Tables or Beds it 
 wtUfufHcientiy er^ervate Mr. Fs Argument, and fulJy 
 ftievv theEvar^gdift u(^d the Word Baptijmos in its pro- 
 per s)rd native Senfe, which we contend for : And to 
 this Purpofe, take an Inftance or two out of in^ny 
 ivhich Mr. Gill has cited in his learned Expofitioft on 
 the Place ; after he hath fhcwn the Traditions ot the Eld- 
 ers required the Immerrion of Cups, Pots and brazen 
 VeiTeis, obferves, from the Jevjiih VV, itings, " That 
 fviry yejfel of Wood that is divided into two Parts is clean, 
 (xcepttng a double Table, &c. i. e. a 7 able which covji/i/d 
 cf various Parts, and were folded together -when it ivas\e- 
 Tncvtd i and thefe were wafied by covering them in Water, 
 £r,d very nice they ivere in wajlnng them, that' the Water 
 Tnight reach evtry Part, and that they might be covered all 
 ever J that there might be nothing which might fepar ate be- 
 tween them, and the Water, and hinder its coming t9 
 them*' Again, v. hen he has mentioned the divers Ways 
 whereby Beds were defiled, obferves, " Ihe Jcwilh 
 Canons run thus, a Bed that is wholly defiled, if he dips it 
 Fart by Pari, it is purer Again, - If he dtps the Bed 
 tn it (the Pool of Water) although its Feet are plunged in- 
 /J the UHck Clay [at the Bottom of the Pool) it is clean " 
 Further, '^ APilloiv, or a Bolfier of Skin, when a Man 
 :-fis tip the Ends, ^ or Mouths of them out cf the Wa- 
 Ur,^ the Water which is within them will be drawn, what 
 pall he dor Hemufi dip them, and lift them i,p by theit 
 Fringes,"- In f]?ort, it is a Rule with the Jews, that ivhere- 
 foevcr tn^ the Law waflAng of the Fujh or if Clothes is mtn- 
 Honed, -tt means nothing elfe than the dipping of the Whole 
 in Water;-- far if any Manwafhhimfdfallover, except 
 ne Top cfhis little Finger, he is Jlill in his Uncleannefs. 
 bo toat the Evangelifi ufes the Words Rjpdzo and Bapia'- 
 mo%mofi propel ly, without dcpartirg from their primary 
 and literal Senfe ; nor could he have ufed Words more ap- 
 pcftte and fit. Hence it appears, with what little Shew 
 e/Reafin, and what a vaf» Furptft this Paffage is fo often 
 
 (ippeaUd ■ 
 
( iS3 ) 
 
 ^ippeahd t»^ to hjfen the Senfe of the TVord Baptizo ; as If 
 it did not f.gnify to dip^ but a jort of Wafinngjhort of Dip^ 
 ping i tho" what that (Vajhing is, is not eafy to Jay^ ftnce 
 Veffih and Clothes are in csmtmn zvajhed i>y putti-g them 
 itiro fVater, ortd covering them with it. This Paffage 
 therefore is of no Service to thoje who plead for fprinklingy 
 cr pc.-ing l^'^uin- in Baptifttty in Oppofiiion to hnmerfion ; 
 nor of any Dijfervice^ but of real Uje to thoje who prac- 
 life bn tiler fi'fi^ and muji confirm them in it" On the 
 Wh.iit:, t'.t Reader m^iy fee, Mr. F. had no jufc Ground 
 to fav, that I might as v/ell require him to prove the 
 yews vaiked on their Feet, as how they wa/hed 
 th: ir Tables or Beds ; nor to fugg'.^fl, that iVIr. Reeszmi 
 I a(e iiithoncft and unfaithful to the C^aufe of Truth : 
 I would knowofh^m, what were the Traditions of the 
 Elders originally, but the ab'ifing of fomc Precept, or 
 «not.')er, before he fays, " He has (ut the Sinews of 
 cf our laborious Shift J* 
 
 In Page 89. he proceeds to Heb. ix. 10. and fays, 
 ** The ApolVie here refers to all the ceremonial Purifi- 
 cations without Limitation ; and tells uSy in Verfe igth, he 
 calls forne of thefe Baptijtm Sor inklings." But Mr F. well 
 r knew that f deny'd his aboveiaid Aflertion : It therefore 
 ■ highlv became him to (hew, that all the ceremcnial Puri- 
 fications were included in this Term, Divers Wafftngs j 
 before he talks, *■■ That we are fadly at a Lnfs for Jrgu^ 
 ments ; and that tve bring Kothinjr but lamentable StuJ^ 
 in Oppofition to his." The Sprinkling mentioned iti 
 Veife iQfh, feems much rather to be included in the A- 
 poftlc's Phrafe, *' Carnal Ordinances" than the forego- 
 ing, " Divers IVnJhings.''* *' Carnal Ordinances (fays 
 the A-ffemhly of Divines or Jujifications of the Flejhy bt- 
 caufe they didfon^lify only to the purifying of the Hejh, Perfe 
 13." -f Cradu'i notes, " Dikaioomata, Jujiificatieni i 
 hecanfe they reprefentcd the Way of obtaining Jufiification.'* 
 And for this Lnd the Apoftle mcniions the Sprinkling 
 ©f Blood in the following Verfes ; as being typical of 
 the Blood of Chrili, whereby a Sinner is juftified and 
 clcanfid from the Guilt or Sin. Now if the Qz^Q be 
 
 M 4 thus, 
 
 I Apefi. Hift. Page 480, 
 
( i84 ) 
 thus, as nothing appears to the contrary ; Sprinkling in 
 t3'J- "''^ comprehended under the Expreffion, Di~ 
 vers JVaMp ; nor does there appear anv Room for 
 thcConclufion he would hence infer, «' That fome of 
 ihefeBapufrm are Sprinkling,:- This may alfo ferve to 
 leilen h,s Aniazement, by {hewing that the J-ift-ficationi 
 or R.ghteoufneiTes, in the fcveral Scriptures he has cited, 
 are referable to carnal Ordinances, and none of them 
 intended by Divers IVaftAngs; and fo there appears not 
 the Jeaft Contradidion t© Scripture, in faying the cere- 
 mon.al Wafhingsthe ApoHle had in Viev., ftJod not in 
 ^P'Vj ''"2'' ^'t'^er generally or particularly ; efpecially 
 
 the VVord Ranttfe made ufe of j M'hich does not fignify 
 to wafh, tho he fecms willing to force it, contrary to 
 Its Meaning, to do fo, when he without any Evidence 
 lays, the Apollle calls icme of thefe Baptifms Sprink- 
 Jings, which yet the Apoftle does not, tho' indeed he, by 
 
 u r ' ^''''"^'^ ^^'" "'^^^ ^^'"^ ^Pea^ ^^- ' Further, en 
 the ame miftaken Suppofition of the Apoflle's referring 
 to all the cereir.onial Purifications without Limitation? 
 1)= goes on to fay. That wecxprefly contradia the Apo- 
 IJe, and Scnptuie, when we fay, the f Apoftle calls 
 
 1^ K 1^'^."^""'^^^^^"''°"^ (which were always perform- 
 ed by bathmg or d.pping in Water) divers, or different 
 beca^fe of the different Perfons or l^hings. theifubjeas 
 thereof. "^ et it io gbfervable, at the fame time he would 
 make his Glofs pafs for Truth, the ApoPJe does not fav, 
 as he would have it, that thofe Wafhings were divers, 
 as to tne Mode of their Adminiftrations j. as fom« by dip- 
 P^nglome by pouring, and ethers by putting on with 
 thei-jngcri nor indeed is it reafonable to fuppofe the 
 
 .. t ^r''7'' ^^0"^ a'i allow to be a Man of Learning, notesf 
 "'^rias Lotiones nominal, quia lotio alia erat Sacerdotufn, 
 iixod. xxix. 4. alia Lefitarum, Num. viii. 7. alia Ifraeli- 
 tarumpcji irr.puritaUm aliquam contradam. Lev. xv. 8, 16. 
 i /7'A^^i'; ^5- ^'xii- 6. Num. xix. 19." That is, 
 *e (the Apcitie) fpeaks of divers Wafnings, becaufc there was 
 one W afhing of the PrieHs, another of the Levites, and ano- 
 <r\ the lOaelites, after foms Defilement contraded. To 
 fhs fame Purpofe EJlius alfo gpmmei^ts on the Place, 
 
( 185 ) 
 Apoftle intended all the ceremonial Purifications herebf, 
 v.'hen he immediately fubjoins, " And carnal Ordi' 
 nances ;" under which, fo great a Part of tlie ceremoni- 
 al Worfliip is included. Hence it does not appear, there 
 is any Thing in this Place which favours hii Sprinkling, 
 or gives any Umbrage to his Pradice ; or any Ground 
 for his noify Exclamations againft us. 
 
 In Page 90. Mr, F. again lays, the Word Baptize d^ni' 
 fiestofprinkle, not to dip, inMaft. iii. ir. M^rk i S.Lfh 
 iii. 16. He fhall baptize you with the Holy Ghoft^ and with 
 Fire. In f Charitable Plea^ he undertook to tell us, 
 ** What it is to be baptized with the Holy Gho/i, and how 
 ^erforfned :'* And fays, *' The Scripura every where ex' 
 '^refs this^ by pouring forth hi^ Injltunces.'^ I dtiired him 
 to try how the Verfion would run, to fay, he (hall pour 
 you with (or in) the Holy Ghoft ; whether this would 
 not be as (hocking to him, as that which he rejedls ? 
 But this he has paiTcd over in Silence. Any one may fee, 
 that the Expreffions whereby the Spirit's Influences are 
 fet forth, are very infufHcient to fix and determine the 
 Senfe o.f the Word Baptize^ becaufe we read of fendmg 
 the Spirit, and giving the Spirit, as I already rbferved. 
 I noticed, ** The Places, wherein the IFord Baprizo // 
 tifed in a proper and literal Senfe^ conjlantly make for us: — 
 But in thefe Texts {and fame others) it is manifedh ufed 
 in a figurative Senfe ; and therefore to infer from the me- 
 taphorical Ufe of the Jf'ord, a Meaning different from its 
 allowed native and proper Signification^ is unreafonable, 
 and a falfelVay of arguing.'^ Now what Ground he has 
 to Imagine he oppofes me on this Head, I cannot devife ; 
 for if any one, it is he himfelf (and not I) who infinu- 
 ates a Metaphor to be without a Refcmblance : I hinted 
 nothing that Way, when I faid, that the native Signifi- 
 cation of the Word is to dip, plunge, or overwhelm ; 
 and therefore argued to this Purpofe, that the metaphorical 
 Ufe of Baptize inthcfe Texts before us (after I had fhewn 
 from Asis ii. 2. that the Difciples were furrounded, 
 overwhelmed, and covered with the Holy Ghofl on the 
 pay oiPentecoft) carries in it a beautiful (Refemblancc^ 
 
( i86 ) 
 
 Of) Allufion to the Admiiilftrarion of BaptiYm by Ini- 
 inerfion only, and no orher Wav. Byt according to 
 hitii:) there isno Refcaiblance atajl in the Cafe, unlefs he 
 had fhewn that Baptize iiat)veiy Signifies to pour or 
 fprinkle, or that Baptifm was fo adminiilred in the pri« 
 fnitive Times, which he has not done ; and yet would 
 fain perfwade his Readers to believe, without the leaft 
 Ground for it, that I anj guilty of all that I-norance, 
 and Contradictions he is pltafcd to charge me with. I 
 Wjfhhe would look more to the univcrfally acknowledg- 
 ed t Laws of Difputation, he is fo very willing other* 
 fhould follow, or e!fe not pretend to difpute at all. 
 
 Further, he thinks it overthrows my Argument, that 
 this extraordinary Donation, is exprefled by Pouring in 
 yfJisii. 17, 18, 33. Anf. Not at all ; for therein the 
 Apoflle recites the Prophefy long before, or fpeaks in 
 Relation to it, wherein the VVord pour is exprefled : But 
 when the Prophecy was near accomphCbing, as in thefc 
 Texts under Coniideration, it is not ftrange another 
 Word fhould be ufed, as being more expreinve of the 
 Glory and Gicatnefs of that Difpenfatiim ; beiides the 
 Accomplifbment of it to the Difc'iples, JjJs ii. 2. wjiere 
 ivehave an Account in what Manner they were bapti- 
 zed, with the Holy Qhoff, fufficiently refutes Mr. Fs 
 FUa, that Baptifm is rightly performed by Pouring : I 
 may therefore again obferve. to baptize in the Holy Ghoft, 
 does not fecm fo very ftrange and difagreeable, for the 
 Difciples were aa if they had been dipped or plunged all 
 over therein. .He fay^, ** Tbefe Exprejfiom Jhock hinty 
 however gratrful ihey are to Plungers.^' But why is he 
 jiot fhockcd likewife with other Scripture Exprcffions, 
 of being in theSpirjt, i^^z;. i. jo. Living and Walkmg 
 in the Spirit, Cal, v. 25 ? But it ktms Expreffions, 
 much of the fame Import, hav;; not been very unpleaf/ng 
 to fome Sprinklers J for Inftance Cafauhon,'^^ % AUha* 
 {Joys he) I do not d'lfapprove of the Wcrd B.iptizare being 
 retained here, that the Amithefis inay befulh yet I am of 
 Opimon., that R.tgard is had in this Place to its proper S'tg-* 
 nijicaticn^ for Baptizsin is to immerfcy fo as to tinge or 
 
 dip, 
 + Preface to his Find. Page 7. % Antient M«df, Page *2„ 
 
[ iS7 ] 
 
 dip, and In this Sen ft ihe ApoJlUi are truly f aid to he haf- 
 tizedi for ihe Houfe in winch this was done, was filhd with 
 the Holy Ghojl, fo that the Apa files feemed to bt plungtd in-- 
 to it, as into a Fijh-pool.'* Now it may be yiiWy obferv- 
 ed, our Author has not made appear from theie Texts, 
 that Baptizo fignifies to Sprinkle. 
 
 The iiext PJace of Scripture, which he cites as full 
 to his Purpofe, is i Cor. x. 1, *' The Ihztihcs were all 
 iaptized iwtoMofcfy in the Cloud., and in the Sea : And 
 fays, we are told hozv this Baptijm %vas performed in Pfalm 
 Ixviii. 7, 8, 9. Now (fays he) if Baptizing here fgnifies 
 Plunging, we miiji underjfand, that the Ifraelifes were lift- 
 id up^ and doufed down into the Cloud, and the Sea, which 
 is dire£ilj contrary to Scripture. The Rain was poured 
 iipon them from the Cloud, and thereby they were baptized.'* 
 Anf, If we underftand Baptizing to fignify Plunging, 
 I cannot fee the ftrong Neceffity to conclude that the If- 
 raelites were lifted up, and doufed down into the Cloud 
 and Sea ; for we may readily apprehend the Apoftlc 
 (peaks thus, with Rtgtjrd to the very great Rtfemblance 
 between that Pafiage of theirs through the Sea, and 
 Baptifm, when performed hy Immeriion, without fup- 
 pofing them to be doufed into the VVaters of the Sea. 
 But why are thefe Phrafes, *' Li/ting up, and douftng 
 down into the Cloud and Sea, made ufe of> but with Al- 
 iufion to Kaptifm when adminiitied by Immerfion, 
 thereby to render it contemptible, and the Subjedt (i 
 Plverfion to his Readers ? When as for any Thmg Mr. 
 F. has fliewn, it was by Immcriion Chrift himfelf was 
 baptized ; and however free he may make with us, it fure- 
 ly does not become him, as a profeflcd Minilier of Chrift, 
 to banter his facred inftjtution with his comical Phrafes, 
 in Alluiion to that Mode, which he cannot difprove to 
 be the only fcriptural and proper One. But I think 
 this Place in the 68th Pfalm is fo far from fliewing hovf 
 the Baptifm of the Ifraeliies was performed, that it has 
 no Relation at all to it ; for there is no Mention of -^ 
 r^/r/'s Journeying through the Red Sea in the whole Paf- 
 iage ; but of their Matching through the Wildernefs.— 
 B&iides, to imagine there was a pkntiful Rain poured 
 
 down 
 
down on the Camp of Jfrad in the Time when they 
 went thro' the Sdo, does not agree with what the cJivine 
 Hiftorian tells us, in Exvd. X'v. 29. But the Children 
 of\Uzt\xoalkedu^on dy Land in the viidft cf the Sea^ 
 and the IVaters were a IFall unto the^i on t.^eir right Hand 
 pndcn their Left. Mr. F. will hardly fay, that he- wa.'kj 
 on dry Land m a Day of plentiful Rain. Anv one may 
 fee how much he is at a Lofs, to prove that Bapt\%o fig- 
 nifies to fprinkle, when he refers to this Hace with 
 that Defign, which fpeaks nothing about it ; nor cari 
 he, altera!.!, fl:dw from Scripture, that one Drop of Rain 
 from the Cloud, was poyred on the Armies of Ifrael, or 
 the lead Spray of the Sea fprjnkled them, all the While 
 they were paffing thro' it. Surely we are in no D^^nger 
 of lofing our Argument, by fuch trill, ng, infigmficant 
 Keafonings, as thtfe. I fhall fubjoin the Judgment of 
 fome learned Divines, and pafs on. ^i he Continu- 
 cr.s of Pcclti Annotations on the Place, having men- 
 tioned divers Opinions, obferve, " Others mcjl trohably 
 think, that the Apojiie ufrth this Term, in Regard of the 
 great Analogy betwixt Baptifm (as it was then ufcd) the 
 Perfons going doW7} into the Waters, and being dipped in 
 them ; and the Ifraehte.? going down into the Sea, the 
 great Receptacle of Waters, though the Waters at that 
 lime were gathefTd on Heaps, on either Side of them j yit 
 thgyfeemed buried in the Waters, as Perfons in that Age 
 were, when they were baptized:' Here it is very obfer- 
 vable, that thcfe learned Divines ^o freely acknowledge 
 Dipping in Water, and Burying therein, to have been 
 the primitive Praaice of Baptizing; which is a great 
 Deal from them who praaifed Sprinkling, Thev after- 
 wards fay, «' There is a great Probability that the Cloud did 
 fiower down Rain." But that which is brought to fupport 
 ir, out oiPfalm ixviii. is already {}iewn to b'e infufficicnt. 
 Hence, the Reader may fee this Place, which A4r. F, 
 imagines is full to hisPurpofe, is not at all fo. On the 
 Whole it may be obferved, our Author fails to produce 
 cne Indance, where the V/ord Baptizo prrp;rly fignifies, 
 oris rendered to pour or fp? inkle : Therefore there 
 needs no long Remarks on the following Part of his 
 Vindication j particularly ths Examples of Baptifm 
 
 i 
 
[ i89 ] 
 
 tiwhich he comes next to confiderj recorded in holy 
 Sciipture, are veiy fui! and plain in our Favour. Thero 
 we iind, that Chrift was baptized (dipt) of John in Jor- 
 dan, Mark. i. 9. 10. 7'hat Multitudes were baptized 
 ( :.pt) in the Rivtr of Jordan, confefling their ims, 
 Mark i. 5. See alfo John i. 23. Ails viii. 38. 
 To die Example:, we bring from Scripture in favour of 
 I nmerlion, he oppofcs the Meaning of the Word Bap- 
 tizo ; tho' many Padobaptijis allow it natively fignifies 
 to dipor plunge ; yet he would have me confider, " Ideal 
 with one, who grants no fuch Thing." Well, I krsow I 
 have to deal with fuch an One, and therefore I bring 
 the ConcefTions of Padobaptijis againfl him j who can- 
 rot be fufpeded of Partiality in the Cafe, for no doubt 
 they were as tenacious of Sprinkling as he j and (I fup- 
 pole he will not deny) were by far his Superiors in Learn- 
 ing, and Judgment ; fo that in refuting us, he muft 
 refute his learned Brethren. But he^ fays, " He is not 
 ivillhig jurare in verba Magijlri" Very like j but cart 
 he imagine we'll pin our Belief on his Slee/e, when he 
 has given us no Proof that thofe great Men were mifta- 
 Jcen, only his Supp. fition they were fo ; and, " Thai their 
 Mijlake proceeded from their confounding Bjpto w///j Bap- 
 tizo ; ana not obferving how conjlantly the Holy Gboji has 
 dijiinguij])ed them in the New Tejiament:' Here the learn- 
 cd World may fee the Original of their Grey-headed 
 Miftake ! But can Mr. F. pofTibly imagine there is any 
 Weight at all in thefe Obfervations ? Or that he has 
 made any new Difcoveries in the Cafe ? Further, the 
 Holy Ghofl may make ufe of what Words hepleafes with- 
 out dettroying the Senfeof any. The conflantUie of the 
 Word Baptizo, wherever the Adminiftation of the Or- 
 dinance is mentioned in Scripture, makes for us ; which 
 (hews it was adminiftred alwavs in the fame Manner,- 
 Does Mr. F. not fee, that his Talk here m-kes much 
 more a.^ainft himfelf, than againft uj ? For Inftance, 
 ^.Raptizo <3«r/ Rantizo *ztvr^ Terms fymnimous, they 
 Would both have been njed indifferently to exprefs the Or- 
 dinance of Baptifm. But contrariwifc, Baptizo /; always 
 ujcdxvhen Menxion is made of f aid Ordinance, andV^znxx^ 
 10 not fa much at once. Hence it follows ^ if Ran tizo' 
 
 nativelj 
 
f '90 ] 
 
 natively Jignifies to Sprtnkle, Baptizo daes nat ftgntfy 
 the fame ; far I hope Mr. F. w'lU not venture to affirm^ 
 that the Holy Spirit JiudiouJJy and conjlnntly keeps up a 
 i>i/lin£iion without a Difference ; and if not., then to 
 baptize is not tt fprinkU^ in StriSfnefs of Speech.'' The 
 fame may be faid of Pouring. Mr. F. may fee this Ar- 
 gument of his. Page 91, as it now ftands, is of no Ad- 
 vantage to his Caufe. 
 
 He thinks the Examples of John'i Baptizing in Jar- 
 dan ^nd /Enon are no Evidence that he dipt the People ; 
 unlefs we had fliewn, that none could baptize where 
 there is much Water, any other Way than by Plunging. 
 Anf. If Baptizo natively fignifies to d;p or plunge, as I 
 have ihewn, there needs no further Evidence, that John 
 dipt thofe whom he dipt in Jordan. 
 
 Another of Mr. Ps Reafons f if it may be called foj* 
 againft what we urge, is <* The Multitudes John baptized^ 
 required a large ^antity^ tho* he had ufed but a litle to each 
 Perfc:i." Reply ; not fo large, as it fliould need to be 
 called much Water: Everyone knoAS a very fmall 
 Quantity of Water would go a great Ways, by Drops 
 fprinkled from his Fingers-ends, or at the mufl, what 
 he could take up in his Hand. Another of Mr. Fs De- 
 vices, whereby he would fain pe^fv^'ade the World to 
 believe, why John baptized where there was much Wa- 
 ter, is, " that the People ajid their Horfes might drink:* 
 When our Author is fo carefully employed in his Ima- 
 gination to accommodate Man and Beai!t with Drink, 
 how is it he forgets to make fome Provifjon for them to 
 eat too ? and (b inform the World, that John had need 
 to make Choice of fuch Places, where theie wa* good 
 Store of Viduals and Provender for Men and HoSes : 
 'Tis a pitiful Caufe, that forces our Opponents, who 
 ire otherwife Men of Learning and judgment, to 
 make fuch trifling Conjeaures. John was not fent to 
 water Peoples Horfes and Camels ; nor do we find 
 any Ground in Scripture to "think he made Choice of 
 much Water with the Deftgn to accommodate Man and 
 Beaft with Drink ; bis Concern was to admfnifrer Bap- 
 tifm, and therefore chofe PLices where there was much 
 Water, as being convenient for that Purpof-. I i>ial! 
 
 liV 
 
[ «9i J 
 
 hf before him again, what he has not refuted, which 
 is as follows : '* It is worthy to be obfervedj that the Holy 
 Ghdji gives us the Ilea f on why John baptized in ffLnon^ 
 viz. becauje there -was much Water there ; novj it is plain 
 that the lUodc of Bap'ixing by Itnmerjion is the only Mode 
 which requires much iTatery in the Adminijtration of this 
 Ordinance i all other pretended Modes by Pouring and Sprink- 
 ling require but very little j a Bafon full carried into a 
 Meeting houfe^ or elfewhen, would go a great If ays. If 
 it bt fuppojed that Relation is herein had to fome thing elfe, 
 and not to juch a Mode of Baptifm^ which requires much 
 f Pater tn the Adminijiratlon of //, the Rcajon here giveit 
 by the Holy Ghojl would not at all be expreffive or illufira- 
 tive, why John baptized where there was much IVater^ 
 any more than elfnuhere." Further, Mr. F. cannot 
 puH-e there was one Horfe there, where yo/^-i baptifed, 
 only by aSuppofitlon of his, he would fain elude the 
 Senfe of the Words by his ridiculous G)ofs on the Text ; 
 and as trifling is his Remark on my Anfwer to h.m when 
 he afks, *^^ Would a Eajon full go a great Ways to fupply 
 many thoufand People and Horfes with Drink" when he 
 knew 1 fpalce about the Adminiftration of Baptifm, if it 
 were done by Sprinkling, and not about Watering of 
 Horfes ? Surely fuch ShuiHmgand Evafion, is no Credit 
 to his Cdufe. 
 
 Another Imagtriaticn of Mr. F\ why John bap- 
 tized where there was much VVa^:^^, becaufe it wouH 
 be ofFenrive to the Jews, to uft Uie fame Water twice ; 
 1 think one muft have a very piercing Eye, to fee any- 
 thing in this to his Purpofej for every one knows if the 
 Ofdinance was perform'd by Pouring or Sprinkling, 16 
 was not poffibie to ufe the wqie Water twice, for tiiac 
 xvhich was poured or fprmklea, ccu!d not be gathered 
 up again ; and if they thought John's Hdnd polimed it, 
 by taking it up, it would do it the firft Time, as well 
 as the fccond. Hence jt M\ follows, a fmail (^iantity 
 of Water would be fuiScient to fprinkle many Thou- 
 fand Pefjple. 
 
 But Mr. Ps grand Objeaion agatnfl Inimcrfion h^ 
 *' Conjidering how immodefi it would have been for Malet 
 and Fimales to Jlrip before Juch Crouds ; tuhgre had the^ 
 iigitrt* 
 
[ 192 ] 
 
 Retirements, in which to drefs or undrejs? And in Page 
 94. he is (() perplex'd about this Matter, that he cannot 
 divine, how Males and Females could itrip before a 
 Multitude, and yet prcferve the Rules of Decency and[ 
 Modcftv. Anf. Seeing this affords fo much Uneafinefs 
 to his labouring Mind, he may be pleas'd to confider, 
 there were in the VVildernefs of Judea, fix Cities, 
 with their Villages, in the Days of Jo/hua, Chap xv. 
 61. which {hews us the Place was habitable, and if fo, 
 it might be inhabited in the Days of John too, which 
 Suppofition is not unlikely to be true, for Jchn 
 preached in the Wjldernefs of Judta^ Mat. iii. I. Luke 
 iii. 3. /. e. to the Inhabitants there, it feems before o- 
 thers came to hear him from diftant Parts, Mat. iii. 5. 
 Mark i. 4, 5. 1 hope Mr. F. won't fay, that John 
 preach'd in the Wildernefs to Trees, and wild Beafts, 
 as he infmuates, he made Choice of Places to adminifter 
 Baptifm in, where Water was plentyi to accommodate 
 tame Jleafts, /. e. Horfes. Now if the VVildernefs of 
 Judea had been inhabited with Cities and Villages for- 
 merly, and probably was fo in John's Time, where he 
 iirft entred on his publick Miniury ; who knows but 
 this Confideration may, in fome Meafure, relieve Mr, F. 
 from his perpleKing Difficulty, how the People might 
 ^refs or undrefs, and yet prcferve the Rules of Decen- 
 cy and Mcdefty: But if it does not, the Mode of Im- 
 nierfion is not difprov'd, becaufe the Objection itfelf is 
 but -a mere Cavjj, and hath no more Weight in it to 
 overthrow the Truth of Scripture, thaii if fome other 
 Caviller fhould objed againft ibe Truth of the Hiftory 
 of Sa?npfons catching 1 hree Hundred Foxes, becaufe he 
 could not divine., how it might Idc done. 
 
 Deut. viii, 7. without any Glofs on it, exprefly 
 fliews, there was no fiich Scaicity of V\''ater in the Land 
 of Canaan, a's our Opponents vainly fuggeft. VViat 
 Scriptures I fet together by the Ears, as he miinuates, I 
 know not, nor has he fhewn them j tho' he, to preju- 
 dice his Readers againft the Truth, unjufiiy fays, it is 
 my ^Vay : Surely it is not to leave Sciipiures in Con- 
 
 tiadi<3;iort 
 
[ I9S ] 
 tradi(?tIon, when I cite exprefs Scripture to contradi5fc 
 his Glofles. 
 
 I have given * Inftances that the Phrafe Hudata Polla^ 
 fignifies much Water, or abundance of Water, which 
 Mr. F. has not been able to refute, and inflead of pro- 
 ducing Inflances, that many Springs, Rivulets, or fe- 
 veral fmall Streams, are hereby intended, he falls a 
 tranflating of the Words Palia, and Hudata^ and tells 
 us they Hgnify many Waters : Who of us ever queftion- 
 cd that ? But we fay, they do not fignify little Streams 
 or Rivulets, which he fhould have fhewn, had he made 
 good his Aflertion, or refuted us. He does not deny 
 that rquch Water is meant by this Phrafe elfewhere in 
 Scripture ; there is therefore no need to doubt but it fig- 
 nifies much Water, mjohnm. 23. as well as elfewhere, 
 fufficient for Johjz to immerfe the People in, who cam© 
 to him to be baptized. The Teftimony of Travellers 
 Cwhich he fpeaks of, but has not yet produced any in 
 his Favour) is no Proof againfl exprefs Scripture Tefti- 
 mony. 
 
 We argue from the Examples of ChrifPs Baptifm, 
 and the £unuch's, Mat. iii. 16. J^s viii. 38, 39. that 
 Baptifm was, and ought to be, adminiftred by Immer- 
 fton. Mr. F. imagines the Strength of our Argument 
 depends on the Prepofitions ?«/o, and out of: " They 
 went into, and put of the Water, therefore they were 
 plung' d under it." I defired him to produce the Baptiji 
 Author, that argues after the Manner he talks, which he 
 has not done, but thinks I argue fo : Suppofe i did, yet my 
 Antipado7-antifm, which he had not feen, when he wrote 
 hii Charitable Plea, could not afford him Ground for his 
 Surmife : But had he done Juftice to my Words, when 
 he pretended to put them in Form, his Defign to make 
 good hisabovefaid Aflertion would be entirely fruftrated. 
 Now if it be fo as he fays, " That I will not venture mf 
 Caufe on this Argiimenl" How is it, " that the whole 
 Force of my Argument depends on the Prepofitions into, 
 and out of, to prove the7n to have been dipt ? He feems wil- 
 ling to rcprefcnt me as inconfiftent with myfelf, as his 
 N Writing 
 
 * Anti. Page 129. 
 
. , t 194 ] 
 
 tVriting is : One While this muft be the wliole Force,' 
 and vet not mv w hole Force ! Says he, '* Ihe Matter^ 
 is thus^ thefe hoajied Clrcumjiances will do nothing of them- 
 felves, but prove they were in the IVater." Pray who 
 ever required them to do any more? Is not this enough 
 to prove, that Philip and the Eunuch went down both 
 into the Water, the one in order to adminifter the Or- 
 dinance by Dipping (as the Word natively ftgnifies) and 
 the other to fubmit to it ; and when the Ordinance was 
 thus adminiftred, they came up out of the Water ; So 
 that inftead of having nothing left us, as he fuppofes, 
 we have the apoftolical Example in its full Luftre lefd 
 lis, to warrant our P/a6}iceof Imtncrfion, as ^r any 
 thing he has faid agatnft it. 
 
 I afk'd, for whit Reafon did the Holy Ghoft pen the 
 Account io particular, if not for our Learning and \m\f 
 tation ? Which M.i. F. has nut thought proper to an- 
 fwer. 
 
 JBecaufe I /aid he miv go into the Water, and come 
 out of it an Hundied Times, without being plung'd un- 
 der it—-*' He leatns, that going into the TVater^ does not 
 Jlgnify to go under in general-, but only whin a Perfon is 
 to be baptized. And thus it is a full and accomplijl^ed beg- 
 ging of the ^uejtion in Debate." But where have i taught 
 him, or given him the leaft Occafion, to fay it fignlfies 
 going under it with their whole Bodies, either in gene-/ 
 ral or particdlur ? I know not. What I fay, ia plain 
 enough, that when Philip and the Eunuch were both in 
 the Water, as thefe Ciicumftances prove that he im- 
 liierfed the Eunuch in that- Water, according to the na-« 
 tive Senfe of the Word Baptize., which I don't leave 
 behind, as he fuggtfts, but carry along with me, in the 
 Courfe of this Debate. He indeed muft fay fomething 
 againft thefe Scripture Examples of Immerilon, in Fa- 
 vour of his Sprinkling, if it is but his ufual charging 
 ttie with beggm? the Qiieftion, 
 
 He fays, *' ]\/Jy Reply (to his Remark on Pfalm cvii. 
 23J is calculated for a Storm, and wJll be of r,o Service 
 to wy Caufe in a Calm.'' But he flluuld have obferved, 
 tiie PafTage itfelf is calculated for a Storm i therefore the 
 
 iSea 
 
Sea niuft be free from Storms, muft ceafe from Its work- 
 ino-, and be at reft, before this Inftance will fuit hifi 
 Caufe. 
 
 , " 1/ the Pbrafes (fays he, Page 96) xvili not prove 
 that Phihp ivas plungd^ neither -will they prove that the 
 Eanuch xvas" But the Phrafes pfrove what we urge^ 
 that both PhlUp and the Eunuch were in the Water, and 
 the Text aflures us, that jP/?/7/]^ baptized him there. Dr: 
 Ridgl/s is an odd Notion, for when one is raifed upon 
 his Feet, he hath the perfcdt U^c of his Underftanding 
 to go up out of the Water, as Mr. Recs has pertinent: 
 \y obferved. . , 
 
 . Mr. F, brings in Jerom and Eufehius^ with a Dcfign 
 to prove it " was ohly a Spring of IVater^ where the Eu- 
 nuch was baptized^ and the diminutive Expreffion^ a cer- 
 tain Water ^ feems to intimate fo much." And he adds, 
 ** This Mr. M. has thought fit to pafs ever.'* Anf, It is 
 true, I did fo; bccaufe I look'd on it fo infignificant, 
 as, not worthy of any Remark, as I have done, and do 
 up.on fomc other Obfervations in his Writings- --But 
 now he lays it before me again, therefore it muft be 
 9onfidered, for v/ho knows but this is one Particular, 
 included in tliat Charge, * that I ncglecfted the ftrongeft 
 of his Arguments, and was forced to pafs over them in 
 Silence. Certain Water then, it feems, fignifies little 
 Water, or fomie fmall Quantity of Water, for he calls 
 it a diminutive Expreflion: By this Way of interpret- 
 ing Scripture, we muft fay a certain City, Luke v. 12. 
 was {oiv.Q very fmall City: A certain Pharifee, Luke xi, 
 37. was fom.e little Body, that fcarcely deferved to be 
 called a Man: A certain Sedition, Luke xxiii. 19. was 
 but fome fmall Difcord or Variance, when yet the Text 
 and Context -fliew the contrary. Who would not fee 
 fuch Gloftes as thefe to be ridiculous, as Mr. Finley\ 
 Glofs on the Place under Confideration is? I dcfire to 
 know bv what Rule he calls a certain Water, a dimi- 
 nutive Expreffion? Mr. Gill obferves Uom BorcharduSy 
 *' That it zvas a River, in which Philip baptized the Eu- 
 nuch of ^leen Candace, not far from Sicelech." 
 
 N 2 Anothei: 
 
 * Find. Page 79, 
 
I i§6 ] 
 
 Another of his Arguments, that Immerfioh was no* 
 tbe iVlode of Baptifm, is, that the Apoftles had not Con- 
 venience every where to plunge their Converts ; this he 
 accounts a felf-evident Aflertion. Reply ; But we do 
 not find they were at any Lofs about Convcniencies for 
 this Puipofe, nor has Mr. F. (hewn us they were: — 
 Only he is pleafed to entertain us with his Suppohtions, 
 as if he thought we paid the fame Regard to them, zi 
 he does himfelf. As to the reft of his Exceptions aL^ainft 
 the Mode of Immerfiun, fuch as, that the Publican* 
 and Harlots were fcant of Raiment, and the hke, I 
 mufl needs fay, they are fuch, that, to (peak after his 
 Mariner, I may venture the Reader to remark on 
 them. 
 
 *' Bui if our Tranjlation (fays hfe, Page 97) provei 
 them to have bten in the IVater^ the Greek FropoJitionI 
 ivili not prove even that much." No ; Why then has 
 Mr. F. not refuted me, in defending Matt, iii, 16. a- 
 gainft his bold Charge, of its being a corrupt Tranfla- 
 tion ? I gave him * feveral Inftances, where the Prepo- 
 fition JpOy does ftridlly and properly fignify out of^ 
 which he has not been able to deny, and obferved, it 
 fignifies fo in Matt. iii. i6. becaufe Chriff was not bap- 
 tized on the Banks of the River, but in Jordan^ Mark 
 i. 9, then all know he muft come up out of the Waters 
 of Jordan. What is now become of Mr. /^'s toweringf 
 Confidence, that our Tranflation is corrupt in this Par- 
 ticular--- his appealing to the Learned on the Occafion, 
 and what' not? Why, it is fufficiently baffled, and the 
 high Swell of empty Say- foes, is fallen almoft to Low- 
 Water Mark j for inftead of Jiri£ily and properly.^ wc 
 hear him now faying, " That , Apo commonly fignifies 
 from." Which may, perhaps, admit of further A- 
 jnendment ; for I have notic'd, in the Gofpel of Luke 
 only, by curH^ry Obfervation, § Seventeen Places where 
 Apo is tranflated out of., which plainly (hews how ill-read^ 
 and poorly vers'd Mr. F, was in the Affair, when he 
 
 undertook 
 
 * Anti. Vage 133. f Charitable Plea, Page 96. 
 
 % Luke IV. 35, 41. Chap. V. 2, 36. Chap. vi. 17. 
 Oiap. viii. 46, &c. 
 
r 197 1 
 
 undertook to write his Charitable Plea, that he did nqi 
 remember one Piace in all the Bihle (o rendered, (ave 
 MaM. iii. i6. However I think, I have clearly made 
 appear, that the Noife of our Opponents about this Pre- 
 pofition is groundlefs and empty. 
 
 Our Author feems quite difturbcd, that I fhould 
 prove Eh and Ek, fignify into, and out of, from his 
 own Obfervation, and aflcs, '* Is this Mr. M ?" I an- 
 fwer. Yes: It is the fame; and I would know of him, 
 Vv^as what he obferved from our Tranflation, Charitable 
 Plea, Page 93. *' contrary to the Tenour of his Reafon- 
 ing r' If fo, let him blame himfelf for being incon- 
 fiilent; and not me, for advancing what be obferved in 
 one Place to Icffen the Force of his AlTerticn in another.' 
 But he may be convinced, that I am not at fach a 
 Lofs for Argument to prove that faid Prepofitions figni- 
 fy into and out of, in the controverted Place, as he 
 imagines ; for in J^s viii. 36. we read, Js ?h\\>p and 
 the Eunuch went on their JVay, they came Epi ti hudor, 
 unto a certain IVater, and m Veiie 38. they both went 
 down, Eis to hudor, into the IVater, which muft necefla- 
 rily mean fomething mj.e than their coming to it; 
 which further confirms what we plead for, over and 
 above the Confirmation it received from Mr. Fs Ob. 
 feryations. ' Hence nothing appears to the contrary, but 
 Chrift and the Eunuch were in the Water, when the 
 one was baptized by John in Jordan, and the other by 
 Philip in a 'certain Water. But of this enough ; pro- 
 ceed we to Scripture Allufions, which Mr. F. calls 
 pur third Topick, or Head of Difcourfe. 
 * I obferved from i?(?w. vi. 3, 4, 5- and C;?/. ii. 12. 
 That Baptifm reprcfents the Death, Burial and Refurrec- 
 tion of Jefus Chrift, and our dying to Sin, and riling 
 to walk in Ne.'.nefs of Life ; and cited the ConcefTions 
 of feveral PaMapiiJls in our Favour, that the Apoftle 
 alludes to the Mode of Immerfion in thefe Phrafes, being 
 buried with him by Baptifm, &c. He labours to leffcn 
 the Foice of what I quoted from the Affembly's Notes 
 on Rom. vi. Says he, " Thefe IVords, In the Likenefs of 
 his Death, are not yet explained in this Note.** But had 
 N 3 h» 
 
[ 198 ] 
 
 Jie cited their Note wholly xvhich I f quoted, inftcad of 
 laying,^ " What folktvs in the Quotation is to thefan\e 
 Purpofe^" he would have no Room for his Cavil : Be- 
 fides what I cited from the AfTjmbly, m^nti. Page 138, 
 was not to explain, " InthelikcmfsofhisDeath," but 
 this Phrafe, «' Buried with him in Baptifm"; whs r eon 
 they aiHrm, theantient Manner of Bapi.Tm, was to dip 
 the Parties bapcized, and that the Apoltle in this Phrafe 
 feems to allude to it ; hereby to fhew, how much their 
 Telhmony was in our Favour, and againft our Op- 
 ponent. . .. , . 
 
 » But how Difingenunus is it in Mr. F to leave out that 
 very Part of the A/Tembly's Note, which was pertinent 
 to the Matter for which 1 cited it, Jnti. Page 143, even 
 to refute his Sneers, when he afks---*' Afi^l we be fixed 
 en a Crofs when baptized, that Jo there may be a natural 
 Refemblance r^ The Aflembly fay,—" And we alfo, 
 •when we are baptized, are buried as it were in fVnter for a 
 Time, but after, are raijed up to Ncvmefs of Life :" Here- 
 by they aptly explain the Phrafe, " Planted together in 
 the Likenefs of his Death -;[ of which Baptifm is a live- 
 Jy Reprelentation, when performed by Jmmerfion, or being 
 buned in Water, as they exprefs ^t ; wherein the Be- 
 Jicver ads Faith on a crucified Chrifl, partakes of the 
 Benefits of his Death, and profeifeth to di;: to Sin, and 
 to rife with Chriftto Newncfs of Life. ' 
 
 My next Citation is from Poc!eOi\ Rom. vi. 4. Mr. 
 F. nettled to be at this Place "a good VVhile ago, and 
 could not forbear aHcing in Page 79, " IVculdhe have me 
 to believe, that hisjudg/nent and CcnJ'cience led him to give 
 us a fa If e Quotation from Pooled Annotations r"^ And 
 here, jn ^Piige 99,'he hys, '' ' I miferably pervert Mr. 
 Poole'j Notes, by quoting only an Opinion which is re- 
 jected ;--- and ajks^ what will not Mr. M dare for his 
 Caufe, when he can venture to forge a flotation ; can tell 
 us, the Continucrs of Poole'j Notes affert the very Thing 
 they contradia f" I anfwer, here are dreadful Charges 
 indeed \ How blark muftmy Charadter appear to thofe, 
 who take all for granted to be true vvliich he fays, with- 
 
 out 
 f Jntl, Page 1/3. 
 
[ 199 3 
 
 «ut further Enquiry ! Yea, how willing does Mr. R 
 fcem to be I fhould be accounted daring enough to at- 
 tenipt any Thing, tho' ever fo defperate, in Defence of 
 piy Caufc. But is he fure, I am guihy of all this ? I 
 think it is now high Time that Innocence fnould appear in 
 its proper Coloms ; I do hereby therefore pubhckly deny 
 the Whole of Mr. Fs Charge on this Head ; and pofi- 
 tively aifirm, if I can believe mine own Eyes, or fhall 
 be believed in what I fay, That the Paflage in Poole's 
 Jnnotationsy in thatEdition which I made ufe of, is as I 
 quoted it, and not as Mr. F. alledges ; there are no fuch 
 ExprefTions [fame thuik---hut othei s think iv'uh greater 
 Reafou] in the Notes on the Text.' How then Mr. F, 
 came to charge me fo wrongfully, I cannot readily de- 
 vife : I would fain force m} f^lf to believe, he is better 
 principled than to do it wilfully and defignedly ; but 
 how he came to be miftaken I cannot imigine, unlefs it 
 be he made ufe of fome other Edition of Poole's Annotati- 
 ons^ and that (hould differ from the one ! have, which 
 v/as printed at London 1688. wherein tlie Words are 
 as I cited them : And if any fcruple it, let them con- 
 fult that Edition, and fatisfy diemfelves, that I have not 
 perverted Mr. Poole's Words, which are pertinent to our 
 Purpufe. But which Way foever Mr. F. came to be 
 miftaken, I do hereby call upon him the next Time he 
 writes, to acquit. me publickly of thefe unjult Charges, 
 and acknowledge that by fome Means or other, he has 
 wronged me beforct he World : And this he will alfo do, 
 if he'll follow the golden Precept, of doing unto others, 
 as he vC'ould be done bv. 
 
 Says Mr. F. " His next! ejiimony is from Dr. Tower- 
 fon, who only offers the fame Anabaptijiical Arguments^ 
 which J have been, and am refuting." Anf. Very well ; 
 this is what I cited the Dodor for, to (hew that his Te- 
 flimony is in our Favour: Thisfhews the Anabaptiili- 
 cal Arguments are very found and good, when great 
 Men, and 1-arned Divines, of a contrary Praftice infift 
 on them, and allow that Immcrfion is the on.y legiti- 
 mate Rite of Baptifm j becaufe the only one that can 
 anfwer the Ends of its Iriftitution, and thofe Things 
 N ^ which 
 
[ 200 ] 
 
 ^hich were to be fignified by it, which cannot be repre- 
 fehted by Pouring or Sprinkhng, or at leaft, but vetV 
 miperfeaiy— as Dr. Tower/on obferves : Which Modd 
 of Immerfion Mr. F. is far enough as yet from refuting- 
 tho IvviII grant, he oppoferh it ftrenuouflv. ' •• : 
 
 In Page loo. He undertakes to oppofe 'Dr. lVhitby\ 
 laying that Immerfion was religioufly obferved by all 
 i^hn(tians for Thirteen Centuries:: But it can't b^ 
 thought the Dr. had not read what Mr. F. ureesagainft 
 him, when he wrote his Commentary on the New Te- 
 Itament ; and muft have looked on what Mr~ F, calls 
 indubitable Tejiimor.y, quite infignificant, or ' el'fe he 
 ^ould not have intimated, that Chriftiaas in general 
 
 !l o'^''""'^'^" ^^^ ^'^ ^°"g a Time ; nor wiflied that 
 this Cuftom might be again of general Ufe, and Afper* 
 Jion only permitted as of Old, m Cafe Of the C//Wa. 
 or in prefent Danger of Death, The Inftance Mr K 
 cues from ^-^//^^i^'j, of a young Man feemingly bap- 
 tized with Tears,' which he thinks to be a very evident 
 Proof, that-Baptifm in the earlv Age of the Church 
 Vjas performed by Sprinkling J I confcfs, is to me a very- 
 plain Evidence of his want of Proof in th- Cafe li 
 he relates the PafTage exadly, how natural is it to un." 
 derftand, by this iixpreffion ^baptized wici/Tears)--- 
 the Condition the young Man was in, even as we ufu- 
 alJy fay, in a Flood of Tears. ' • ' 
 
 His next indubiiable Tejiimony is from Cyprian's Let> 
 tcr to Magnus. 'But thvs Infhnce carries its full Flefu- 
 tation in its own Bofom : Forif Puuring or Sprinkling 
 had been the received, ccmmon,' and proper Mode of 
 admimftr.ng Baptifm in Cyprians Day j it cannot rea-- 
 fonably be fuppofed, that f Magnus would have quefti- 
 oned the Lawtulnefs of it, or fcrupled, *' Whether they 
 are to be accounted right Chrijiians who had not been 
 waJJoed with the faluttferous Water, but only have had it 
 '•'■ ■■ '■ ' •• • . poured 
 
 t ^t'^Mi etiamf rater charijme qiadmihi de illis -videatur, 
 
 qui tn tnjirmitate et languore gratiam Dei confequuntur, an ha^ 
 
 bendtfuni legitimi Chriftiani eo quod aqua falutari non hti fint-, 
 
 >//tf//*//.?i:yp. Epill. adMag. ■ ^ , 
 
[ 201 ] 
 
 poured upon them ?" And Cyprian's Anfwer to A:fyg- 
 Kus, alfo very clearly (Lews, that Sprinkling was not iH« 
 Mode, whereby Baptifm was commonly adminiftred, 
 or clfe he would never have anfwered in the Manner he 
 did, that his § Modelty would not allow him to pre- 
 poflcfs the Minds of others with his Sentiments j and 
 fay, *' Let every one rather think and judge as he pleafcSy 
 and a£i accordingly" Are thefe like the Words of one, 
 that believed Ferfufion to be the only warrantable and 
 ■ proper Mode of Baptifm, commanded by Chrift, prac- 
 tifed by his Apoftles, and known to be received in the 
 Church ? Certainly very far from it. Nay, Cyprian 
 docs not undertake to (hew Sprinkling or Perfufion to be 
 the proper Mode of adminiftring Baptifm, but excufeth 
 it, by the Plea, ^''* of urgent Necejftty, and God granting 
 his Indulgence." Which very ExprelTions carry m them 
 an Evidence, that Perfufion was not then accounted the 
 inftituted Mode of Baptifm ; for if it were, what Need 
 of thefe Excufes? And when he endeavours to make the 
 Afperfion of CUnicks [i. e. Bed- ridden Perfons) pafs for 
 Baptifm, he does not in the leaft pretend that this Mode 
 Was pradifed by the Apoftles ; but mentions the Sprink- 
 ling of Water on fome Occafions under the ceremonial 
 Law, a-nd that metaphorical Sprinkling fpoken of by the 
 Prophet, £'z^i/V/ xxxvi. ' 
 
 And it may be further obferved, that in the Qiieftion 
 propofed by Magnus^ and alfo towards the f Ciofe of 
 this Letter, Pouring of Water is fct in Oppofition to, 
 or diftingiiifhed from, Wafliing: So that it feems in 
 Cyprian's I ime, it was thought a Perfon could not be 
 faid to be washed in the baptifmal Water, unlcfs he were 
 immerfed in it. On the v/holej it appears, how little 
 
 to 
 
 4 ^a in parte nemini 'verecundia et modejiia nojlra praju- 
 dicat, qua minus, unufquifque quod 'vAuerit, fentiat, et quod 
 fen/erity faciat. Ibid. 
 
 * In facramentis falutarihus necejjitate cogente, et Deo in- 
 didgentiam fuam largictite totum oedentibus confer unt divinx. 
 compendia. Ibid. 
 
 t -- — Utrumni loti fint^ an perfuf. Ibid. 
 
( 202 ) 
 
 to the Purpofe, our Opponents cite Cyprian^ as an in- 
 dubitable Teftimony in their Favour, which makes fp 
 much againft them. 
 
 In Pag:e 98. Mr. F. " utterly denies ^ and that with 
 the Conjent of all the learned Men he ever read^ tha^ 
 there is always a Refcmblance between the Signs and the 
 ^hing fignified.'* What learned Authors he reads, I can- 
 not iay ; he has not favour'd us with the Judgment of 
 any on the Point. But not to go far about, 1 think he 
 bimfelf comes pretty nigh to allow v,'hat I faid, when 
 he * tells us, " The Water ufed in Baptifm reprefents the 
 Blood of Chriji, whereby the Guilt of Sin is removed — 
 4ind aljo the gracious Influences of the Holy Ghefiy ivhere-f 
 by the Soul is fan^ifed." What DifFercnce is there be- 
 tween the Senfe of the Word, reprefent, as he ufes it, 
 and the Word repmble, in the Senfe I ufed it ? h not 
 the fame Thing intended by one, and the other I 
 Wherein does the Water ufed in Baptifm reprefent the 
 Blood of Chrift, and the Grace of the Spirit, according 
 to him, if not in this ; that as there is a purifying Pro- 
 perty and Virtu-r in Water, to cleanfe away Filth, fo 
 the Blood of Chrift, and the Grace of the Spirit, are 
 efficacious to cleanfe the Soul from the Guilt and Pollu- 
 tion of Sin, and therefore reprefented by the Water 
 ufed in Baptifm? If Mr. F. intends otherwife by thefe 
 faid Expreflions, let him explain himfejf. Truly f he 
 ieems to be io much for a Refcmblance between the Sign 
 and the Thing fignified, that he makes an Argument of 
 it in Favour of his Mode of Baptifm, to be moft 
 fuitable and ilgnificant, and afc us, *' Cannot Sprinkling 
 reprefent Sprinkling f And cannot pouring Water fignipy 
 the pouring out of the Spirit's Irfluences /"' Hence con- 
 cludes, " His Mode is moji fgnificant, and mofi agree' 
 able to the Nature and InJlruSlivenefs of the 0)dinance.''\ 
 But here he feems willing to keep all the Refcmblance to 
 himfelr, by utterly denying me any Share therein to 
 favour my Argument ; and cannot endure to hear 
 us arguing that our Mode of Baptifm, by Immerfion, 
 beft reprefents the Things defigned thereby : Witnefs, 
 
 his 
 
 * Charit able Plea, Page 58. \ Ibid. Pages 107, loi. 
 
I 2P3 1 
 
 his fnecring Taunt, on the Occafion ; * " Chrljt died. 
 hanging on the Crofs^ muj} we therefore be fixed to a Crofs 
 tohen baptized^" Sec. whicli does not very well becom^ 
 aCientleman, who affixes an V. D. M. to his Name. 
 
 But it feems harder at Times, to find whereabouts 
 Mr. F. is, than to give him Battle : I cannot but ac- 
 knowledge I am again at a Lofs, to know the Ground 
 of his (Dbfervation, at the Clofe of this Paragraph ; 
 " // is (fays he) hard to difpute with one who knows not 
 the Meaning of IVords in common Uft " when he 
 has not given his Reader the leaft Evidence of my being 
 fuch, unlcfs his doubled Repetition of my Words be in- 
 tended for this Purpofe, without the leaft Difcovery 
 which Word it was, 1 knew not the Meaning of.- — 
 Bur I look on him, as vindicating a baffled Caufe, and 
 can therefore more patiently bear with his groundlef? 
 Infinuations. 
 
 * In the Courfe of this Debate, Mr. F. has often (and 
 I think quite unjuftly) charged me with begging the 
 ^uejiion ;' fomctimes, it is a barefacd beggings foroe- 
 times Jhamefui begging., other times, a full and accom- 
 plijhed begging : But in Page loi. 1 am charged with 
 poor begging the ^le/Jim^ becaufe I endeavoured to refcue 
 the Mode of Immerfion from his cruel Attempt to hnfc 
 it down on a Level with the O'yniiick Games. Now he 
 thinks,' " It is ea'Jy to retort" and afks, *' Was Jmnur- 
 fion ordained of God V Anf. Moft certainly, or elfc 
 ffohn would not have baptized {i. e. dippedj the Multi- 
 tudes in the River of Jordan^ Mark i. 5. Savs he, 
 ♦' Did Chriji authorife it?'' Yes, both by his Word, 
 and Example ; when he himfelf was baptized in Jordan 
 (or as it may be rendered, dipped into Jordan) Mark i. 9. 
 and afterwards commanded his Difciples to baptize [i. <f. 
 dip) Believers, Matt, xxviii, 19. He afks, " Does the 
 Apofile fayy that himjelf and other Chrifiians were 
 plunged?" Anf. The Apoftle lays, that he, and other 
 Chriftians were buried with Chrift, in, or by Baptifm, 
 Rom. vi. 4. Col. ii. 12. Mr. F. himfelf is obliged to 
 •wn that Water Baptifm is intended in CoL ii, 12. be- 
 
 caufa 
 
 • Find. Page 93. 
 
C 204 ) 
 
 eaufe he brings it to prove that Baptifm Aiccecds Gr- 
 Gumcihon. ' But how \.hQ Colojftans could be buried in 
 VVater Bciptifm, without being dipt, or plunged in the 
 Water, when baptized, does not jet appear. Again, 
 he afks, " Was Plunging deftgned to reprefent a Death 
 to SinP &c. Ani: Bapti<m, in the Reception where- 
 of the Roman znA Coloffian Believers were buried, is dc- 
 iign'd to reprefent a Death to Sin, &c. becaufe the Apo- 
 iVle argues from it to that ?nx^ok, Rom. vi. Indeed, I 
 Jcnow of no other Mode of Baptifm, that will afford 
 fuch an Argument for the Mo; tification of bin, and 
 Obiigation to live in Newnefs ot Life, as Immerfion 
 does: I am well perfuaded Pouring or Sprinkling does 
 not, for it has not been as j^et made appear, that it ever 
 -was ordained of G.>d to be ufed in adminifiring this 
 holy Ordinance : Nay, even Mr. F, himfelt, does not 
 pretend to fay it was, when he * afTcrtd that a peculiar 
 Mode is not eilential to the Ordinance, and charges us 
 with Fondnefs, for imagining the contrary. " 
 
 In Charitable Plea^ Page 10 ?. he affirmed, '* That 
 the PraSlice of Dipping is as much without ProoJ\ as 
 fixing to a Crofs in Baptijrn" He now puns on my 
 Remarks on hii AfTtrtion, thus, *' J hn baptized in 
 Jordan, therefore the Apajile in Rom. vi. alludes to Plung- 
 ing. Our Bibles are very fignifcant to usy therefore Rom, 
 vi. alludes to Plunging. H^^uzo ftgrjfies to plUnge^ there- 
 fore Plunging is alluded io in Rom. vi. famous Arguments 
 thefe ! and unanfwerable to he fare I ' Reply; Can Mr. 
 F. imagine he has made gpod his abovefaid Aflcrtion in 
 Charitable Plea, by all this? Has he produced any Gir- 
 cumftances of Baptifm, recorded in Scripture, which 
 afford, even if it were no more than a prefumptive 
 Proof, that People were faftened to a Crofs when bap- 
 tized, as I have given, that they w^ere dipped ? No, he 
 knows of none : Huw then can t*he " one Pra£iice be 
 without Proof as jnuch as the other.,'" as he in a warm 
 Fit of Oppofition, ijijudicioufly alSrmed ; certainly it 
 is not : Thefe Mediums I made ufe of, ferve to iljev<r 
 the Falfenefs of his abovefaid AlTertion. Now when 
 
 hi 
 * Charitable Pica, Page i o5. 
 
t 205 ] 
 
 he could no ways vindicate it, he thinks proper t6 api- 
 plv thcfc; Mediums 10 that, which they weie not defign* 
 ed ror ; that whilft he endeavours to render my Reafon- 
 ings ridiculous, he might at the fame time diveit hi» 
 Readers from obferving that he cannot, in any wife 
 make good his daring Aflertion. This is the Author 
 that has i> much to fay about Evafions and Perverfions I 
 As for any thmg that has as yet appeared to the con- 
 trary, the Apoftle has a Regard to the Mode of Bap- 
 tifm, when he fays of himfelf and others, that they 
 were buried therein j tho' Mr. F. can neither own it, 
 nor refute it. 
 
 If the Cafe be, as he aflerts, I queried, ** How cami 
 fuch a great Body of eminent Divines to be fo miftaken in this 
 A^atter ? Reafon tells us, that there muji be not only a 
 mere Probability, but fame very great Certainty in the 
 Cafe, before thofe uiho pra£lifed Sprinkling, would cenfefs 
 that Dipping was the ancient Mode of Baptizing, contra- 
 ry to their own Pra^ice" He anfwers, ** / will tell 
 him, when he tells me, how they came to be mijlaken [in 
 his fudgment) about his Principle." But he need not 
 to have made this Excufe, for I had told him ; by* 
 obferving to him '* the Prevalency of Education or Cu- 
 Jlom." But it cannot be fuppofcd this ftiould be the 
 Reafon of their Conceffions in our Favour, contrary to 
 their own Pra6lice. The fufpending Condition being 
 removed, his Anfwcr is expe<Sted, according to his 
 Fromife. 
 
 Our Author informed us. Charitable Plea, Page io2. 
 how he could account for thefe figurative Expreffions u- 
 fed by the Apoftle, without fuppofing any Allufion to 
 the Mode of Baptifm. And now {Find. Page 102.) he 
 feems to declare himfelf difappointed in his Expeftation, 
 that *' Injlead of refuting his Argument, I go on with 
 trine own Story." I add, very juftly too, when it is 
 moft agreeable to Truth, and ferves to fliew his Me- 
 thod of accounting for the Apoftle's Expreffions, to be 
 not right. If he would have us believe tHe Apoftle al- 
 ludes to the Death, Burial and Refurreclion of Chrift, 
 
 in 
 • Juti. Page 94; 
 
C 206 ) 
 
 in thefe Phrafes, without any Reference to Baptifitri^ 
 ■why dees he own that Water-Bsptifm is intended in 
 thefe Places at all ? As he does, by infifling on Coi. ii. 
 12. elfewhcre to this Purpofe ; confequently the paral- 
 lel Text, Rom. vi. 4. intend Water Baptifm alfo. 
 Then if the Ordinance of Baptifm be here meant, it 
 will follow, that the Nature, Ufe and End of it, ai'c 
 here cxprefled ; it is a Burial, manifeftly referring to the 
 Adminiftration of it, in particular to the Roman and 
 Colcjfian Believers, whom the Apoftle puts in Mind, 
 were buried therein, which cannot be done but by Im- 
 merfion. , 'Tis a Burial with Chrift, reprefenting hit 
 Death and Burial ; and a . Token of our Death to Sin, 
 reprefenting his Refurre(5^ion from the Dead, and our 
 rifing to walk in Newncfs of Life, which is much more 
 agreeable to thefe Texts, than the Way whereby Mr. 
 i^ would account for thefe Phrafes : According to him, 
 the Senfe muft run thus, We are buried with Chrift re- 
 prefentatively in the Grave, and rifen reprefcntatively 
 therefrom 3 which GlofTes are inconfiftent with the ex^ 
 prefs Words sf the Apoftle, that we are buried with 
 him, in or by Baptifm : It feems, by all that be can 
 contrive, he cannot evade the Force of thefe Words 
 of the Apoftle, which hold forth a baptifmal Burial and 
 baptifmal Rifing,. which Cannot be done witham^ im- 
 merfing or covering the Body in Water., But he thinks 
 our Glofs makes the Apoftle's Argument weak and tri- 
 fling. Anf. Why fo? When the Apoftle urges Chri' 
 -ftians to be holy, from the very Confideration of their 
 baptifmal Burial and Rifing, whereby is fo clearly re- 
 prefented the Burial and Rcfurreilion of Chrift, and 
 which affords fuch flrong and powerful Motives to ad- 
 vance in Conformity to him; that as a Perfon when 
 dead and buried, has finifhcd his former Courfe of liv- 
 ing, fo they, who were dead to Sin (at leaft by ProfefH- 
 6n) and in Token thereof, buried with Chrift by Bap- 
 tifm into Death, fhould now live a new Life, upon 
 which they had entred, fignifled by their rifing out of 
 the baptifmal Water ; therefore it is moft abfurd and 
 Anreafonable they (hould live any longer in Sin.— The 
 
 Argu- 
 
[ 207 ] 
 
 Argument is ftrong and convincing, and leads them tft 
 make a proper Ufe of their B-tptifin at an Excitement 
 to a becoming Progrefs in HoliMef;, for whicfi End the 
 Apoftle tells them, they were buried with Chr'tjl by Bap- 
 ttfm^ &c. Now for Mr. F. to call it weak an.d trifling, 
 docs not make it foj'nor does his faying, " The Apo/ile 
 argues not from the Mode of Baptifm, but from Baptifm 
 itfelf" overthrow our Argument ; when the Apoitle 
 argues from Baptifm, wherein the Chriflians were bu- 
 ried, which cann#t be faid of any other Mode, but Im- 
 merfion, in which the Party baptized is put in the Wa- 
 ter, covered with it, and raifed out again, which may 
 be aptly exprefled by burying ; and by all that yet ap- 
 pears, this is the only Mode which can lay any Claim 
 to a divine Original in Defence of it, which Mr. i^. hi- 
 therto, we find, has not been able to refute. 
 
 In Page 103. we come to Mr. Fs fecond Aflertion, 
 ** That the Scriptures afford clearer Grounds to us in fa- 
 vour of our Modiy than to our Opponents againji it.'* And, 
 fays he, *' i. // feems to be prophefyd of in Ifai. lii. 15. 
 he /hall fprinkle many Nations" I oblerve, the Chief 
 Mr. F. has to fay on this Head, is a Rehearfal of whac 
 lie writ before r I argued, this Place has no Relation to 
 the Mode of Baptifm, which he has^ not refuted, by 
 fhewing that the Mode of Baptifm n intended in this 
 Place. I intimafed, the Text does not carry in it any 
 Evidence, that Sprinkling is the proper Mode of Bap- 
 tifm, and that none will think fo, unlefs they be fully 
 prepofTefs'd with theOpmion, and are willing to believe 
 any thing, if they think it favours their received Opi- 
 nion, tho' ever fo groundlefs. Our Author furely muft 
 be very fond of his Sentiments, when he would croud 
 them on his Readers, unfupported by Evidence, as cer- 
 tainly this Text afFords him none, in the Cafe he cites 
 ir for. He charges me with Railing and unmannerly 
 Language: What is the Reafon ? Why, becaufe I en- 
 deavoured to deteft his Folly, in abufing Scripture to 
 mifguide the common People, and fays, "" / bring in 
 Mr. Gill; without Argument," But it is not fo ; far 
 Mr. Gill argued, that iuch Proofs as thefe, fetch'd out 
 
 ^<» 
 
•f the Old Te lament, are not demonftrative of the 
 true Mode of baptizing under the New ; which Mr. F* 
 has not refuted. Sa)S he, " This Prcphefy feems evident^ 
 ly to have had its Accomplipment in the Apcjlles Execution 
 tf their Commijfton, Alatt. xxvWx. Anf. Before he in- 
 sinuates it was by Sprinkling, he (hould do two Things, 
 
 1. Prove that the Mode of Baptifm is intended in the 
 faid Prophefy, otherwife the Prophefy may have had its 
 Accomphfhment then, and fincej but not in the leaft Part 
 by Sprinkling the Nations with Wat&r, in Baptifm, as 
 he would perfwade the Credulous to oelieve. And, 2. 
 fhew that the Apoftles adminiftred Baptifm by Sprink- 
 ling ; or elfe it will be only to take for granted, what 
 (hould be proven. At length he fays, " Now while 
 Baptifm is adminijlred by Sprinklrng^ among fo man) 
 Chrijiian Nations^ he need not ajk where this Prophefy ii 
 
 fulfilled." No, to be fu re the Matter is cut of Doubt! 
 But have the Chriftian Nations God's Word to warrant 
 their Mode ? This Mr. F. has not yet fhew.n. I may 
 therefore as well, if not better, reply, when the Sub- 
 jedl and Mode of Baptifm are changed from the firll 
 Inftitution, among fo many Chriftian Nations, he need 
 not afk, where the Prophefy of the Purpofe to change * 
 Divine Laws, is fulfilled ? We fee his firft Teftimony 
 whereby he wouTd prove his Aflertfon is altogether bc- 
 fides the Matter. Let us now look to his fecond, which 
 he calls Examples, namely, the Three Thoufand, yf^i 
 ii. 41. Cornelius and his Company, J£is x. 47. Paul^ 
 ASis ix. 18, 19. The Goaler and his Houfe, A£is xvi. 
 33. For two Reafons, I need not dwell long on his Ex- 
 amples, I. Becaufe he argues only from Circumftanccs. 
 
 2. His free Conceflion, ** // is true^ we are not exprejly 
 told, that thefe Per Jons were baptized by Pouring or Sprink- 
 ling." As to. his firft Inftance of the Three Thoufand, the 
 chief Objedion infifted on, in his former Piece, againft 
 their being immerfed, was the fuppofed Fewnefs of Ad- 
 miniftrators : But I obferved, for any thing that ap- 
 pears, the Seventy Difciples were together with the Apo- 
 ftles i fo that Cavil feems removed : Now the Queftion 
 
 . * '*' 
 
 * Daniel vii. 25, 
 
C 2b() ) 
 
 il. Where ha^ they all Convenie.ncj'es to plunge ? Wei?, 
 if this be anfwered, who can teli what the next will be t 
 It fufficiently rcfolves this imaginary Difficulty, thai 
 there was at (or in) 'Jerufalem, a Pool (a * Wafliing or 
 Swimming Place) by the Sheep Market, John v. 2. be- 
 (rdes other Waters and plentiful f Conveniencies for 
 Bathing.' • 
 
 ' He makes Dependance on th^ Words of Peter, 
 ** PFho can forbid lVater?"—~to afford hini a good Ar- 
 gument, *' That JVater was to be brought,'" &c. But I 
 think the Intent of the Words is, who can forbid 
 thefe Perfons the Ordinance of Baptifm, or deny the 
 Adminiftration of it to them? Here is no Intimation, 
 that VVater was to be brought, and feme body was about 
 to forbid it, according to his own Way of Reafoning : 
 1 may as well argue, who can forbid the Ufe of his Ri- 
 ver, or Bath', or any other Goftveniencies he might < 
 have for baptizing ? 
 
 Mr. F. obferved, " That all Circumjlances concur 
 to Jheiv, that Paul ivas not plunged.^' I fhewed him the 
 contrary, for he arofe and was baptized. He fays-, *' / 
 lay the Strefs on his rifmg, to prove that he itas plunged.''* 
 Which is very falfe; I laid the Strefs on his riling, to 
 refute his Affertion, that all Gircumftarices concurred 
 in his Favour. Why has he not fhewn, the Neceflity 
 of Paul's rifing or moving from the Place where he was, 
 if Sprinkling would have done ? I laid the Strefs of my 
 Argument on Paul's own Words, who puts himfelf in 
 with others, who are butiedzvith Chrijl by Baptifm, Rom, 
 vi. 4. v/hich Mr. F. has thought prfper to overlook. 
 Xb which I m'ay add the Words of Ananias, J£fs xxii, 
 16. Arijcy and be baptized, and wa/h aiuay thy Sins. 
 Now if the Word Baptize, be rendered, Pour or Sprin- 
 kle, how ddd, and indeed fenlelefs, would the Verfion 
 h'i—'Arife, and be poured or fprinkled, and zva/lo away 
 thy 5i«i.---But quite fmoorh and fignlficant, to fay^ 
 Arife, and be d\p[>(:(\, avd zva/h away thy Sins. 
 
 In refpe^Il of the Jaylor and his Houftiold, he fays, 
 
 ' The Cafe may be rightly apprehended thuSy he firji 
 
 O brought 
 
 * Pool in John v. 2. 
 
 t See Mr, Qill\ Expof on Aiis ii. 41. 
 
t 2IO ] 
 
 brought them out of the inner Prifon, er Dungeon, into a 
 more comfortable Room, where he and his Family being 
 gathered, were baptized. Afterwards he brought them into 
 his own Houfe, his Dining room, and fet Meat before them^ 
 Verfe 34." Anf. 1 judge this Reprefentation of the Cafe 
 does not near fo well agree with the Hiftory, as what I 
 have obferved. It feems much, more natural to under- 
 fland, the Jaylor brought Paul and Silas out of Prifon, 
 and took them with him into his H^ufe, when it is faid^ 
 They f pake unto him the Word of the Lord, and to all 
 that were in his Houfey Adts xvi. 30, 32. than to ima- 
 gine he only brought them out of the Dungeon to fome 
 better Apartment in the Prifon j--- and that his Fami- 
 ly were gathered together ii^ the Prifon : If fo, thert 
 the Senfe mufl: be, they fpake the Word to him, and 
 to all of his Family, that were gathered with him in the 
 Prifon ; which is an obvious Departure from the Letter 
 of the Hiftory. Further, when the Jaylor and his Houf- 
 hold were inftruded, 'tis reafonable to underftand they 
 went out either to the River not far off, A£fs xvi. 13. or 
 to feme other Receptacle of Water, and were baptized 
 by Paul, or Silas, for afterwards it is exprefly faid. 
 He brought them into his Houfe, Verfe ^4. But we have 
 done with Mr F\ Proofs, which he brings from Circum- 
 ftances, to make good his Aflertion. Now if thefe Cir- 
 fcumftances be compared with thofe I brought for Im- 
 nierfion, viz. going down into the Water, being in it, 
 and coming up out of it, b^c. which attended the Admi- 
 hiftration of the Ordinance ; I judge it will appear to 
 all, we Xiave by far the beft Proof, from Circumilances ; 
 cfpecially confidering there is nothing in what Mr, F» 
 offers, that turns outagainft us. I (hould indeed be quite 
 at a Lofs to imagine how Mr. i^. could fay, " That the 
 Scriptures afford clearer Grounds to him in favour of his 
 Jldode, than to us againft him ; and thai he outdoes us in 
 Scripture Examples :" were it nut he now tells me, f 
 He can find SatisfaSiion, where one of my Principles 
 iannot" 1 am very apt to think it is fo ; or elfe 
 certamly he would be very uncafy about his Mode, when 
 
 he 
 -f Find. Page 52. 
 
t 211 ] 
 
 lie has neither Command, nor Example, nor fo much at 
 a good Circumftance, to favour it : Nay, indeed thefe 
 very Examples he has cited, in his own Judgment, fcem 
 To infufRcient to determine the Ccntroverfy, that he 
 himfelf is not certain the Perfons referred to, were fpr ink- 
 led ; only, *' // is much more probable they were fpr inkled^ 
 than dipped*' But I muft needs fay, I fee not the leaft 
 Ground for this Conclufion, as already obferved. He 
 feems pretty much difturbed on this Occafion, and aflcs^ 
 Page 105, " Did I fay ^ that if thefe Circumjlances make 
 It not certain^ I can prove it by no other Argument ?" — 
 Does he think lam overcome^ if I do not draw certain Con- 
 cluftons from probable Premifes ? Or are his Argument t 
 ionvincing, hecaufe he is abfolutely confident of their Truth ? 
 '-'Did he not flinch from his Confidence in thefe Injiances, 
 when he was oblig'd direiily to confront my Arguments ?** 
 Reply J what his other Arguments may do, does not as 
 yet appear : 'Tis fufficient in this Place to obferve, that 
 the Scripture Examples of Baptifm do not make good 
 his AfTertion, nor afford him a certain Ground for his 
 Pradice j then it follows, he cinnot urge the Obfer- 
 yance of Sprinkling on others, as afcripturalTruth, for he 
 is not certain that any Inftance of Baptifm in Scripture 
 will bear him out in it. So far mcthinks he cannot but 
 acknowledge he is overcome in this Controvtrfy. My 
 Arguments are fo far convincing, that I am not fufpici- 
 ous of their Truth myfelf ; and therefore cart more con- 
 fiftently propofe them to others, than if I were uncer- 
 tain of their Truth, and yet urge them as a Certainty 
 on others. Neither can I be juflly charged with " Stri- 
 ving to carry the Point by tlamour" when I ftedfaftly con- 
 front his Arguments with folid Reafonings, from the 
 allowed Senfe of the Word Baptizo, the Scripture Ex- 
 amples of Baptifm, and concurring Circumftances j all 
 which harmonize in favour of Immerfion, tho* eve- 
 ry now and then he calls them baffled Arguments j here- 
 by he manifefls his WilJingnefs they fhould be thought 
 fo, whilft his Ability it feems is infufficient to (hew them 
 to be fo. 
 
 O 2 In 
 
 C 
 
[ 212 ] 
 
 In Page 103, Mr. F. gives us his Judgment of the 
 Mode ot Haptifm, and the Reafon of his vindicating 
 SprinkHng. Says he, 1/ the Scripture /peaks le/s exprejly 
 ef this Pointy it is to teach us, that a peculiar Mode is 
 hot effential to the Ordinance.''* 1 hen it natively follows, 
 according to Mr. i^'s Principles, that Pourirfg or Sprink- 
 ling is not appointed of God, elfe it would be effenti- 
 al to the Ordinance : Then to what little Purpofe is it, 
 for him to contend for a mere human Invention, ac- 
 cording to his own Affertion. Could he fay but fo 
 much (whether he was able to prove it or not) that he 
 believed it was of divine Inftitution, and the only Mode 
 of adminiftring Baptifm appointed of God ; his zea- 
 lous P'indication of it would carry a much better Face 
 with it, than now it does. Could I once be perfvvaded 
 there was no peculiar Mode effejitial to Baptifm, I 
 would immediately lay down my Pen, and let every one 
 do that which feemeth him beft in his own Eyes in the 
 Cafe, without the leafl Controvcrfy about it. I would 
 no more objc£t againft Mr. F's Sprinkling, than I would 
 againft what fafljion'd Coat lie wore j with the provifo 
 he would allow me the like Liberty, to do as I ftiould 
 think heft : But as I firmly believe otherwife, I muft 
 yet fpeak in Vindication of what I believe to be a divine 
 Truth ; and therefore fiiy, That Water cannot be ufed 
 in Baptifm, without fotne Mode of Adminiftration, 
 then it follows there muft be feme Mode effential to the 
 Ordir ance. Further, I cannot think there are two or 
 more difTerenf, contrary Modes of adminiftring one 
 and the fame Ordinance ; this would beabfurd in itfelf ; 
 befides it would be repugnant (^ the very Intent of the 
 whole Adminiftration of the Gofpel, which is to bring 
 all God's People together in Unity : 'Tis therefore 
 quite unreafonab'e to f ppofe that any Part of the Gof- 
 pel Adminiftration fliould have a Tendency to fruftratc 
 the Defign of the Whole, by dividing his People in this 
 Cafe, inflead of uniting them. And as far am J from 
 thinking that God inftituted an Ordinance, and left 
 it wholl;/ at our Di^'pofdi to chufe in what Manner it 
 faould be performed, as one 91: th'e other might happen 
 
 to 
 
[ 213 
 to think beft. This is a Thought altogether unworthy 
 of God, and his Service j and is indeed attended with 
 vaft Abfurdities, fome of which I mentioned before, • 
 which Mr. F. has not thought proper to remove out of 
 his Way, tho' his Caufe extremely needed hefhould, had 
 it been pofTible ; I fl:iall therefore lay them before him 
 again: For if fo, then i. It would follow, thit God 
 inftituted Baptifmto be adminillred, without informing 
 u& in what Manner he would have it adminiftred. 
 
 2. It would follow that Mens changeable Fancies 
 and different Notions, muft be the Rule of Dire<Sti- 
 bn, in the Adminiftration of this Part of Divine VVor- 
 (hip. 
 
 3. This would natively tend to open a Door to end- 
 lefs Difcords arid Gonfufions among God's People. 
 
 4. Having no divine Rule, or Standard to go to, as 
 their Controveifies would be unavoidable, io their Dif- 
 ferences would be remedilefs. 
 
 • 5. God is not ihn Author of Confujion, hut of Peace, as 
 in a/l the Churches af the Saints, 1 Cor. xiv. 33. But 
 this Principle natively tends to make him the Author of 
 Confufion in all the Churches, in that he has command- 
 ed an Ordinance to be adminiftred, but appointed not 
 the Mode how it fhoald be adminiftred, if this Doc- 
 trine of Mr. Finlefs be right : But as this Principle car- 
 ries in its Bofom fuch monftrous Abfurdities, it undeni- 
 ably follows, on the Whole, that fome peculiar Mode is « 
 efTential to Baptifm 5 and by all that hath asyet appeared, 
 that Mode is Immerfion, or burying the Party bapti- 
 zed in Water. Again, Mr. F. gives us the Reafonsof 
 his Pradlice, that " If a peculiar Mode is not effentlaU 
 then is Sprinkling as good as any ether." Reply : His 
 imbibing this abfurd Principle, we fee is the very Ground 
 of perfifting in the Praftice of Afperfion : But I judge 
 it will appear, I have fhewn fome peculiar Mode is ef- 
 fential to Baptifm, and muft continue in my prefent 
 Way of thinking, till I fee theabovefaid Remarks fair- 
 ly anfwered. Therefore Sprinkling is not as good as any 
 other, nor at all to be praftifed, unlefs h^ can make it 
 appear to be the only Mode inftituted by Chrift. Fui> 
 
 O 3 ther-r 
 
 . . .. V..£t-"'' 
 
[ 214 ] 
 
 ther, be tells us the Reafons why he vindicates it, vi%. 
 it fhfkfM^' Anabaptifts oppofe it ; andbecaufc he judges 
 tj the beJifFay Page losr Reply: Not becaufe he 
 
 Z °"k','° ^^ ^ ^^'' ^^ '"«'^"^^'l Worftiip ; for he 
 tioes not believe any peculiar Mode efTential to the Ordi- 
 
 ,,c"vf : r^^^'r. ^"fonabiyexpeaany thing elfe from 
 ^'aI xxP^^."" ^" ^^^t which is introduced into 
 Ood s Worfh.p, that by his own Way of talking, is not 
 God s Appointment f Well, according to his Principles, 
 i^nn^/^K ^uH'^S^^^bert Way, and I judge Immer- 
 
 iZ ? t"" u'^' ""^ '' '^' Difference : Now can 
 itbefupposd by any thinking Being, that the all-wife 
 and fore-knowing God hath not provided a certain Rule. 
 Whereby our refpeftive Judgments fhould be try'd, in 
 fw l 'u '^"'°''^ ^^^ Difference? Well affmed lam 
 Wat he has ; and our Difference does not arife, becaufe 
 
 InTf 11 "°^^ ^^^'^ ^"^^' ^"' ^^^^^^^^ " 's not obferved 
 and followed j nor is it likely it will be, as long as Mr. 
 /'.entertains this Opinion, " That a peculiar Mode is 
 ^°t eJerit:aI.'\..His Judgment muft be theRuleof his 
 practice J and he will always prefer his received Way 
 (which he himfelf cannot find fealed with a divine Im- 
 pre^) before the Lord's Way, which at prefent he fees 
 nojjeauty in. 4 r 
 
 He would fain excufe his bafe Infinuations, that Im- 
 roerlion is immodeft, indecent, and tends to Murder and 
 Adultery, by telling us '« Be did mt call it (i.e. which 
 i^ay Baptrfrn ts adminijred) fo very indifferent."— "Bnt. 
 1 tnink fhJl, according to his Principles, ,t is an ind.ffe- 
 rent 1 hing, which Way the Ordinance is adminiftred. 
 It there IS no Mode appointed of God : Therefore he 
 Has no Caufe to caft his Refleaions on us. Now, fhould 
 we leave the Mode of Immerfion, and embrace his 
 ^prinkiing, we fhould according to him in this Place, 
 JJUt exchange one human Invention for another j and 
 would he or we be the better for that ? He informs us, 
 
 ibe mo (i favourable Judgment he has ever formed of 
 iiaptijrn by Immerfton, is, that it is not a Nullity,'* and 
 that the Anabaptiji^ are baptized Perfons. Favourable 
 Judgment ! and y^hy fo? Becaufe he can't help himfelf: . 
 
 His 
 
t 215 ] 
 
 His own Principles force him to acknowledge Immerfi- 
 on to be Baptifm ; we are not therefore in the leaft obli- 
 ged to him for this Kindnefs, as he calls it. Indeed it 
 would be a ftrange Thing, if the Anabapiijis (hould not 
 be baptized Perfons ; when the Name he gives us fug- 
 gefts, that we are twice baptized. But he fays, '* He 
 is convh:ced we err in the Made:' This is a furprizing 
 Thing ! Pray, by what Rule is he convinced of that, 
 when no peculiar Mode is eflential to the Ordinance? 
 How can we err in the Mode, if there is no Mode in- 
 ilituted ? What we judge to be the beft, is fo to us, 
 as what he judges beft is to him, if the Cafe be as he fays. 
 Would he have his Judgment to be a certain Rule or 
 Standard, to try and determine the Cafes of others by? 
 And if their Praftices differ from his Judgment, he is 
 convinced they err. But let him firft (hew from Scrip- 
 ture, that Chrift ordained Sprinkling to be the only 
 Mode of 3aptifm, before he talks, that he is convinced 
 we err about it ; or charges us with unwarrantable 
 Additions in the Mode ; or with intermixing Error with 
 Truth, and fuch like rumbling StufF. Nay, accord m§ 
 to his Principle, there cannot poffihly beany Certainty 
 which is the right Way of adminiftring the Ordinance ; 
 therefore he has not the leaft Ground to charge my Ob- 
 fcrvation with invidious Falfliood, when I fay he infmu- 
 ates the Cafe to be doubtful : Can any Body fee, there 
 is a Certainty in the Cafe, when Mr. F. himfelf affirms, 
 there is no peculiar Mode eflential to Baptifm ? No 
 furely. He fuggefted f a proper Subjed is cfTential to 
 Baptifm, whereon I afked, why (hould it be urged that 
 7^ proper Subjedl is eflential to Baptifm, but a proper, pe- 
 culiar Mode, not eflential ? He anfwers, " It is a 
 fufficient Reply, that a proper Subje£i is not ejfential to the 
 Mode : For the SubjeSi is one Thing, and the Mode ano- 
 ther." How Mr. F. thinks this to be a fufficient Reply, 
 which is no Reply at all, I can't imagine. Did I afk 
 whether a proper Subjed is eflential to the Mode ? No, I 
 aflc'd, Why is not a proper peculiar Modeeflential to Bap- 
 tifm, as well as a proper Subjcdl I The Ttuth is, this 
 O 4 Reply 
 
 f Charit. Plta, Page 107 
 
£ 2i5 '•} 
 
 ?.epiy of his does no more anfwer the QiieiliDfi, than 
 if he had wrote by * Chance. The Queihon is yet ai- 
 togethcr unanfwered. 
 
 _ In Pase io6, he comes to his third AfTertion, uhich 
 Js, ' Tlat our Mode arfwers the Ends of'Baptifm, and, 
 t^mojl fuitable and fignificant. On this Head, he wcnild 
 iam make his Readers beiieve, that " lamjenfihle he has 
 proven this Jjferuon --for I turn my Back on his Argu- 
 7nenis-.-can7iotfiand before them --and beg the 9ite/iion." 
 ^ut wherhcr the Cafe be thus, muit be conlldeied : He 
 fays, " Ifijatever is mojl fuitable^ w? are fur e is order- 
 ed of God." { fuppole this is one f of his Confidera- 
 Jions, whereby he would prove the aforeiaid Inflances of 
 iiaptifm, were bv Pouring or SprinlcHng. His Argu- 
 ment may be gathered thus ; That Mode which is mwft 
 iuitabJe, he is fure is ordered of "God ; Pouring or 
 ^prmkhng IS moft fuitable,, therefore he is fure it is or. 
 rfered of God.. But is he fure that God hath ordered 
 and § appointed this Mode, and yet affirms there is no 
 peculiar Mode efTentiai to Baptifm ? Hath God appoint^ 
 ed It, and yet it is not effenrial ?; VVhijt then fignifies 
 God's Appointments ? By .the fame Rule, he may fay, 
 God hath appointed who are the proper Subj'as of Bap- 
 tifm, and yet a proper Subjed is. not efential. to it.' 
 VVater is appointed to be uied, and yet it is not elTential 
 to the Ordinance to ufe it.. If divine Aopointments arc 
 rot eilential to.an Ordinance^ I would ^willingly know 
 ^vhat IS? How fliall we take him here? h\ Sprinkling is 
 appointed of God, to be the Mode of Baptifm, then 
 fome peculiar Mode is efTentiai to the Ordinance, and 
 none are baptized,, but thofe who are. fprinkled ; for 
 any Tradi.tion put- in the Room of God's Appointments 
 IS a making h^s Word of none EfFc^, and'layinP afidc 
 his Commandment, Mark vii. 8, 13. then the Batti/is 
 are unbaptized Perfons,. and he is ob'heed to free himfelf 
 from the confequent Abfurdities. . Bu"t if, on the other 
 Hand, no peculiar Mode is efTentiai to the Ordinance, thei^" 
 God has not ordered and appointed Pouri.og or Sprink- 
 
 * ^/W. Page 2S. f Ibid, Page 105. 
 
 5 Charitable ?ha, Page 109. 
 
[ 2.7 ] 
 ling ; and fo he cannot be fure this Mode is right. Buf 
 leavin<r Mr. F. in a Labyrinth of Confufion, warmly 
 engaged in oppofing himfelf, let us proceed to whaf 
 follows ; ** Baptifm, (fays he) fignifies the Dedtcation of 
 the baptized P erf on to Gad ; and does not a little Water 
 mfiver this End, as well as an Ocean of it? -It fignt- 
 fies the Soul's Jujiification h; Chrlji's. Blood, and Sanflt- 
 fication by his Spirit : Jnd are hot theje Benefits Jtgnified 
 by pouring a little Water on the Perfon F-.-J^nd cannot 
 Sprinkling reprefent Sprinkling?" &c. Anf. You fee 
 Mr. F. is for arguing from the Refemblance betwixt the 
 Sign, and the Thing (fuppofed to be) fignified, tho' clfe- 
 where he utterly denies there is a Refemblance between 
 them. 1 think I have already {hewn Immerfion to be 
 the fcriptural Mode of Baptifm, therefore none can de- 
 dicate themfelves therein by any other Mode ; unlefs it 
 had been fhewn, that another Mode was appointed of 
 God, which Mr. F. is far enough from doing, when he 
 brings no Texts with this Defign, but one from the 
 Old Teftament, which has no Relation to the Cafe, 
 and argues from Circumftances, which he himfelf ac- 
 knowledges are not exprefs in his Favour. 'Tis not be- 
 caufc we think the true Properties of Water are not ' 
 to be found in a Drop, or Handful, as well as in a Ri- 
 ver or Ocean, that we objcdt againft Sprinkling ; but 
 becaufe we do not find this Mode appointed of God ; 
 and therefore to ufe it under the Pretence that it will 
 do, or it may ferve to anfwer the Ends of Baptifm, is 
 fully refuted, by the Inftance of Uzza, i Chron. xv. 13. 
 which (liews the dreadful Confequences of a Departure 
 from, or Non-obfervance of, the due Order, and pro- 
 per Mode, God will have us regard and keep, in our 
 Obedience to his Commandments. I judge enough was 
 faid, not only to (atisfy my Admirers (\i there be any 
 fuch) but his alfo, that his Pradice of Sprinkling is not 
 to be countenanced, unlefs he had' (hewn them, that it 
 is the only Mode appointed of God, whereby he would 
 have Baptifm adminiftred ; which Mr. F. could not 
 do without contradiaing himfelf, as before obferved : 
 For him therefore to argue, that Sprinkling anfwers the 
 
 Ends 
 
( 2l8 ) ] 
 
 Ends of Baptifm; is juft as forcible, as if they of old 
 Ihould have argued in their Favour, when they carried 
 the Ark on a Cart, that it anfwered the End as well 
 s»s to bring It on the Shoulders of the Priefts and Lc- 
 
 vites. 
 
 His next Plea m Favour of the Mode, «' ^e Judges 
 heft. and agamft Ifnmerfion, is, that his SprinkJins 
 can be pramfed without Danger of Health, in any 
 Tme of the Tear," &c. and fuggefts that Immerfion is 
 dangerous, immodeft and indecent. I urged him to pro- 
 duce Inftances of Perfons, whofe Healths had been in- 
 jured by it Heanfwers, '* There may have been Hun- 
 dreds who have contraaed deadly Diforders by it, tho' I 
 *now them not: Tea, many have been hurt thereby, who did 
 not look upon that as the Caufe.** Reply j It is very re- 
 inarkable here, how willing Mr, F. is, the Mode of 
 Immerfion fhould be evil thought of: He judges it is 
 fturttui, but he cannot give one Inftance of any One's 
 being hurt thereby j this I was perfwaded of before 
 and am now confirmed in my former Perfwafion • Yet 
 he infinuates, there may have been Hundreds hurt there- 
 by, tho' he does not know them. Let us try the 
 Strength of his Reafoning here, applied to other Cafes - 
 1 here may have been Hundreds, by following Hufban- 
 dry and Handicrafts, who have contraded deadly Dif- 
 orders, therefore, according to his Way of talking, 
 Hufbandry and Handicrafts mufl be laid afide ; where 
 then will Mr. F. get his Bread and his Clothes ? Again, 
 there may have been Hundreds of Miniflers, who by 
 their Studymg or Preaching, have contraded deadly 
 Wprd?rs, tho' they did not look upon that as the Caufe, 
 what follows ? Is Studying and Preaching not of God's Ap- 
 pomtment^ Further, there may have been Hundreds of 
 Hearers, by being thoroughly wet in coming to, or going 
 from Divine Service, or fitting in the Pl^ce of Worftiip 
 an Hour or two in cold Winter Weather, who have 
 contraaed deadly Diforders, tho' they did not look up- 
 on that as the Caufe: What then? Does Mr. F. dif- 
 fwade People from Divine Service in wet or cold Wea- 
 ther, and IS he for Publick Worfhip, only when it is 
 
 fair 
 
[ 2^9 ] 
 fair and warm ? I might add Inftances in abundance, to 
 expofe his fenfelefsj inconclufive Talk in thefe Infinua- 
 tions. But will he fay thefe aforefaid Exercifes have no 
 fuch Tendency : I anfwer, as much as Immerfion hath j 
 and if his Iniinuation does not (hew thefe Exercifes not 
 to be appointed of God, neither does it prove, that 
 Immerfion is not appointed of him. 
 
 Whatever Tendency bathing in cold Water may have 
 to hurt Perfons in the Bloody Flux, the Adminiftratiou 
 of Baptifm by Immerfion has no fuch Tendency, when 
 of the many Thoufands that have been immerfed, and 
 fome of them aged, fome weak and feeble, yet out Op- 
 ponents are not able to produce an Inftance of one, that 
 hath been hurt thereby, tho' they are fo very willing to 
 do it, were it Roflible. Methinks there is therefore 
 JTufficient Evidence, that their Inftnuations are ground- 
 lefs : Had there been as many Inftances of baching in 
 cold Water, when in the bloody Flux, without any 
 Difadvantage, as there are of Perfons immers'd without 
 any Hurt, that could not be fuppofed injurious, any more 
 than this. God hath been pleafed at all Times to guard 
 the Adminiftration of his own Ordinance, that thofe 
 who have waited for an Occafion of Reproach, have 
 been always difappointed, and have nothing to obje<a, 
 only the vain Imaginations of their own Brain, and invi- 
 dious Inftnuations of their prejudiced Minds". BlefTed be 
 his Name, that he honours his own Truths before the 
 Faces of Oppofers. Says he, " What he quotes— from 
 Sir John Floyer, about' the Benefit and Healthfulnefs of 
 cold Baths, is nothing to the Purpofe." But it is quite to 
 the Purpofe, for if cold Bathing is ufeful to the Sick in 
 various Difeafes ; Immerfion is not hurtful to thofe who 
 are able to walk abroad, and come to be baptized, John 
 iii. 23. 
 
 He tells us, " 'Tis fuch a Blunder to fay that the Jf- 
 femhly of Divines fir ft introduc'd Sprinkling in 1643, 
 as Ignorance itfelf can hardly excufe, being direSlly a- 
 gainft the Credit of all Hijiory, as we have feen already'* 
 But Mr. F. has cited us no Hiflory to (hew the contra- 
 ry, but what Sprinkling was introduced in England by 
 
 the 
 
1 
 
 [ 220 ] 
 fhe AjfemUy of Divines ^ fn 1643, by a Vote of 25 i- 
 gainft 24, and cftablifhed by an- Ordinance of Parlia-^ 
 jnent in 1644, tho' he is very unwilling his Readers 
 ftiould think his Praaice of Sprinkling obtained in 
 general but of late in the Englijh Nation, left they 
 ^ould fufpea its being, as indeed it is, an human In- 
 vention, and a grand Innovation. ' j 
 
 Mr. Wall * obferves, that *' England, which is one of 
 the coldeji (Climates) was one of the lateft that admitted 
 this Alteration of the ordinary Way." i. e. Sprinkling in 
 Jlead of Dipping. It will be time enough for us to ac- 
 knowledge Ignorance and Blunder, when he fliews us 
 from approved Hiftory, that Sprinkling was eftabli{he4 
 by Authority, in England, earlier than the Date aflign- 
 ed for it by Sir John Floyer. Our Author's Pretences 
 to Hiftory have been examined already, and the Cafe 
 turned againft him ; it will not prove Perfufion to have 
 been the Praaice of the Church in Cyprian's Day, be- 
 caufe he endeavoured to make it pafs for Baptifm, in 
 the Cafe of languifhing. Bed-ridden Perfons. 
 _ We are now come (Page 108) to Mr. P^ laft AfTer- 
 tion, which is, «' That the Mode which our Opponenti 
 contend for, is loaded with Inconveniencies, and charge* 
 able with Abfurdities." I muft dcfire my chafte Readers 
 not to be offended, when Neceflity obliges me on this 
 Head, inVindication of an Ordinance of Chrift, to trouble 
 them with a Recital of fome of Mr. Fs Balderdafti, in or- 
 der to refute it, which otherwifelfhould not have burden- 
 ed them with ; but fhould have left it wrapp'd up in the 
 Sheets of Shame, with its invidious Author. 
 
 I obferv'd, that the Ordinance of Baptifm is perform- 
 ed v/ith all Modefty and Decency becoming the So- 
 lemnity, and urged him to prove the contrary ; but in- 
 flead of Proofs, he entertains us with his Sentiments, 
 I miijl alter my Judgment (fays he) of Female Mode- 
 Jly^ if it is modeji for a Maid or Matron to allow her- 
 filf to be handled by a Man, either naked, or in a tran- 
 Jfarent Garment, before a mixed Affembly of both Sexes- - 
 And I appeal to every impartial Perfon^ whether 'it is 
 
 not. 
 * Hill. /»/. Bap. Page 467. 
 
[ 221 ] 
 
 \kfit more defiling to aSi itnmodejily, than to /peak with 
 ijbhorrence of immodeji ASiions ?" To this Heap of Stuff, 
 I reply, if Mr. F. knows of any Perfon or Sett of Peo- 
 ple, who are guilty of what be here fuggefts, let him 
 name them, and inform the World who, and where 
 they be, that they may be defervedly treated accord mg 
 to their Demerit ; but if he means to make the Appli- 
 cation to the Baptijis, I deny them to be guilty of the 
 Crimes here fuggefted, when celebrating the Ordinance 
 of Baptifm ; and challenge him to produce an Inftance 
 of a Maid or Matron handled naked, or in tranfparent 
 Garments, amongft us, at the Adminiftration of faid 
 Ordinance, or of any immodeft Ad committed on the 
 Occafion ; which I am fully perfuaded he cannot do, 
 betaufe his Manner of Writing fhews his Willingnefs to 
 have done it already, if it could be done. Now when 
 i/h. F. defignedly labours to ftander and reproach a 
 Number of Chriftians by his mean Infinuations on the 
 Account of a Mode, which for any thing he has made 
 appear to the contrary, is the very Mode that Chrift 
 fubmitted to, and appointed : He would do well to con- 
 fidcr whether this bis Conduct merits any Honour to his 
 Performance now, or will yield him a pleafing Reflec- 
 tion, when he fobcrly thinks of giving up his Account 
 to him that is ready to judge the Quick and the Dead. 
 
 Further, he holds, that '' the Water of Baptifm ought 
 to be dire£lly apply d to the Body, and not firjl to the 
 Clothes i" and adds his Reafon, *' Baptifm, fays he, 
 fignifies our being purged and cleanfed ; and is it the bejl 
 Way of cleanfing a folid Body, jirjl to cover, and then 
 apply Water to it? Anf. I think his Opinion and Rea- 
 fon may well go together, as for any Weight there is 
 in either, in the prefent Cafe : The Defign of Bapttfm 
 is not to wafli and cleanfe the Body of the Party bap- 
 tized ; if it is, our Opponents are quite out of the Way 
 in not ufing more Water, than a few Drops, or an 
 Handful, on the Occafion j none furely can think 
 Sprinkling the l^ft Way of cleanfing a folid Body. But 
 if it fignifies the Purging of the Soul, that can be fig- 
 'riiiicantly done by immcrfing the. Body, tho' cloth'd, 
 
 unlcu 
 
t 222 ] 
 
 unlefs Mr. P. is fo much for a Refemblarice hetweti 
 the Sign, and the Thing fignified, that it muft not on 
 ly regard the material Part, but muft alfo reach to ever 
 minute Circumftance, fo that there may be a full Re 
 femblance between them, tho' elfewhere his Humou 
 leads him to deny the whole utterly. Now, I mui 
 needs tell him again (tho' it may be fomewha 
 grating to his Mind, to fee fo little Regard paid to thu 
 Product of his fertile Invention) that we do not in the 
 leaft feel the Force of his fuppofed Inconveniency or Ab- 
 furdity pinching us. 
 
 ^ In Page 109, Mr. P. alks, " Hoiu does he Hoiv that 
 Philip dipp'd the Eunuch wholly ?" Anf. By the Scripture, 
 ^vhich tells me, that Philip and the Eunnch went down 
 both into the Water, and that he baptized him there ; 
 and if he baptized him, I know he dipp'd him wholly, 
 becaufe nothing lefs than a total Immerfion can be a 
 baptifmal Burial, which was the Way the Ordinance 
 was anciently adminiftrcd, and no other, as we read 
 of : This Inftance therefore fufficiently turns afide the 
 fuppofed Tendency of his Argument to ftiew the con- 
 trary j and ferves to quell his Noife about a Race of 
 Giants to be Minifters, and what not ? 
 
 His third. Inconvenience is to this Purpofe, that if 
 Baptifm is deny'd to a fick Perfon, who makes a fatis- 
 faaory Profeffion, God is difobey'd ; if he be plung'd, 
 he will be killed. On this Head, I infifled to know, 
 why one Sacrament is more neceflary to fick Perfons, 
 than the other.? This Mr. F. has not anfwered, and left 
 me to conclude that there is no more Neceffity of ad- 
 miniftring Baptifm to a fick Perfon, who defires it, than 
 the Lord's Supper. Our Author fays, he hath proven 
 that Baptifm ought not to be delay'd— There is a Pre- 
 cept and Example for the one, and neither for the 
 other. He may know, that I am not for the Delay of 
 Baptifm to a proper- Subjed, when with Conveniency it 
 may be enjoyed : But what I plead is, that deferring of 
 Baptifm in thofe Circumftances (he metitions) is neither , 
 Difobedience to God, nor injurious to the fick Perfon ; 
 this is what he has not refuted j for he has not cited op.e 
 
 Precept j 
 
L 223 ] 
 
 Precept nor Example, that Baptifm is to be adminiftred 
 to fick Perfons on their Beds, any more than to Babes 
 in the Cradle : He can bring Proofs for what I allow^ 
 but what I denyi he is at a Lofs to prove : Hence 
 I ftill fay in my former Words, if one Sacrament may 
 be deferred till convenient Time, fo may the other. 
 The Service of God is a reafonable Service, and he that 
 commanded Immerfion, hath not (hewn that he requires 
 Perfons fick a-bed in the Pleurify, Flux, or Small Pox, 
 to be baptized -, much lefs hath he any where in his 
 Word fliewn us, there is any Liberty for ua to alter his 
 Appointment, under the Pretence of fome fuppofed ur- 
 gent Neceffity of adminiftring the Ordinance to the 
 Weak and Infirm, on their Beds. What can it be but 
 a Spirit of Delufion, which * hurries Perfons on irra- 
 tionally, and pleads the Neceffity of obeying a Gofpel 
 Precept, when Perfons thro* Infirmity are incapable of 
 fubmitting to it confiftent with Scripture or Reafon ; 
 or elfe charges the Precept itfelf with Inconveniency, 
 as our Author in the Cafe before us? He feems much 
 difturbed that Popery fhould here be infinuated : The Pa-- 
 pijis we know, hold Baptifm abfolutely neceflary to Salva- 
 tion; and he queries, " ff^hat if the ftck Per/on recovers not? 
 Here is no Provijion made for him. He may die without 
 the Ordinance" Reply j What if he does, will his be- 
 ing unbaptiz'd hinder his Salvation ? Let him fpeak 
 out, and not mince the Matter : Does he not look up- 
 on all §T*>Ton members to be Aliens from the Covenant 
 of Grace, and fufpends his Belief of their Salvation ? 
 He would do well to clear himfelf in this Cafe, before! 
 he charges me with Rancour, Outrage, Impatience and 
 Tergiverfation j when his own Words give Ground of 
 Sufpicion, that his Judgment is not clear in the Point* 
 Now fince there is no Command nor Example to ad-» 
 minifter the Ordinance to Perfons in thofe aforefaid 
 Circumftances j nor any Neceffity requiring one Sacra- 
 ment to be adminiftred to the Sick, more than the o- 
 ther i it evidently appears, there is nothing in Mr. F's 
 
 Stir 
 
 * See Mr. Finlefs Satun Jiritfd^ Page 10. 
 
 i Vind, Page -j^i. 
 
[ 274 J 
 
 ^tlr on this Mead, that ftiews Immerfion not to be 
 the only fcriptural Mode of Baptifm. 
 
 All that he fays to my Reply to his 4th Cha/ge of 
 Abfurdities is, ** Mr. M's Anjvjer to this, is only a Re- 
 petition of his pofitive AffertionSy which have been alreu' 
 dy refuted" But as he is far from refuting my AfTer- 
 tions, as we have fecn, they flaod in Force againft his 
 Charge of Abfurdities. . - 
 
 ■ His laft Head of Inconveniencing and Abfurdities, is, 
 ** It feems to me, fays he, no fmall Abfurdity, to exclude 
 and unchrijlian oil the other Prote/iant Churches on Ac- 
 count' of this Mode." ---AnA now fays, " Mr^ M. an- 
 fwers this with a Parcel of Eva/ions, and fame Readers 
 will, perhaps, call fome of them filly Ones." Reply ; 
 Are not filly Evafions as good Return, as a hlly Charge of 
 Abfurdities can look for, or deferve ? As that Weunchri- 
 ftian all the Proteftant Churches, &c. when weprofefled- 
 \y require Signs of Chriftianity in all the Subjects of Bap« 
 tifm, which fhews, we look on Perfons to be Chriftians, 
 before they are baptized- --Indeed if all the Chriflianity 
 of the other Proteftant Churches, confifts in Infant- 
 Sprinkling, no Wonder he charges us at this Rate. 
 But if Infant Sprinkling be no Part of the Chriftian 
 Religion, as I think I have fuiliciently fhewn, how is 
 it poifible wc (hould unchriftian the Proieflant Churches, 
 when we are for removing only that away which is no 
 Part of Chnftianity ? It is not therefore very^, likely 
 he can eveh by Confequence itfelf, prove that I fhould 
 have faid, there are no Chriftians in other Denomina- 
 tions. 
 
 He confcfTes, that we do Hot exclude other Churches 
 by pleading for, and ufing this Mode of Immetfion ; 
 why then is he (o difturbed ? If the Scripture proves 
 his Mode of Sprinkling to be valid, he is fafe : 
 But if not, it is a Nullity in itfelf; not becaufe I fay 
 {o, but becaufe it wants Scripture Authority: When 
 he was about it, why did not he fhew it was fcriptural, 
 if fuch a Thing could be done I Or is he confcious to 
 himfelf, of its being a Nullity, and therefore unwil- 
 ling to hear it mentioned, left others (hou'd fufpe«5l ft 
 
 toor 
 
[ 225 ] 
 ioo? Will he have us follow the Cuftom of other 
 Churches implicitly, without any Evidence that it is 
 warranted by divine Authority ? Let him firft prove the 
 Cuftom.of Sprinkling fcriptural, before he charges us 
 with Schifm, Uncharitablencfs and Biggotry, in order 
 to make it pafs for Baptifm in the World, the more 
 Current and unfufpe<Sled. He runs a Parallel between 
 the Prejbyterians and Anabaptijis^ and obferves, ** Ihe 
 Prefbyterians do not count all Adm'inijlrations null 
 and void ^ that are different from their own Mode, if the 
 Subjiance is retained." Anf. No Thanks to them for 
 that, when they have imbibed fuch an abfurd Principle, 
 '* That a peculiar Mode is not effentialto the Ordinance," 
 if they be all of Mr. Fs Mind ; and that " f It is 
 enough, that it be done with Water to a proper Subje£f, in 
 the Name of the Trinity, by a lawful MinifierJ* Then if 
 Water is ufed at all, in the aforefaid Manner, tho' it 
 ihould be apply*d by Sprinkling on the Hands, Back, or 
 Feet, according tp them the Subftance is retained ; they 
 have therefore no jufl Room to objedl againft Immerfion. 
 Here is their great Charity they boaft fo much of ; and 
 whence does it fpring, but from this Principle, that 
 there is no inflituted Mode of Baptifm ? Says he, '* The 
 FTeibytcnzns e/ieem pveral Societies with whom they can- 
 not hold Communion in Ordinances, to be never thelejs 
 Churches of Chriji : Ihe Anabaptifts do not!' Anf. If 
 ih^ Prejbyterians do not unchriftian thofe with whom they 
 cannot hold Qommunionj becaufe they look upon themi 
 to be in grievous Errors j no more do we unchrifliati 
 thofe, with whom we cannot hold Communion, be- 
 caufe we look on their Pradices erroneous. 
 
 He charged us with " impofmg Terms of CommuntoH^ 
 not of Chriji' s making;*-'-v/h\ch I deny'd ; and infiff 
 on him again to prove his Charge. To admit none in- 
 to our Conimunion, but thofe who are regularly bap- 
 tized according to the Order of the Gofpel, is not mak- 
 ing new Terms of Communion. This he (hould haVe 
 refuted, was it poflible to do. He fays. That " / only 
 play on ihe IVord im^oic— That I denounce Terrors to thofe^ 
 p who 
 
 t Chatits PUa, Page 107. 
 
( 226 ) 
 who comply not with my Notions. - .That as far as my Powir 
 reaches, 1 do oinder others from CommunUn in their refpec- 
 tive Socielus." But he fhouJd firft have anfwered mv 
 Queftion, which is, *' Have we attempted any Thing in 
 any Way, but what the Scripture direSls and allows, viz 
 lo convince them that differ from us, hy fcriptural Argu^ 
 ments f Now fincehe has not anfwered it, by {hew- 
 ing we have aded contrary to Scripture Diredion, it 
 gives Ground to conclude we have not j and is urging 
 of fcriptural Arguments any Impofition on others ? Does 
 this make the Apoftle's * Words Nonfenfe ? Is this a 
 denouncing of Terrors ? Is this an hindering of others 
 trom Communion in their refpeaive Societies ? What 
 Wd he be at ? L he for the Community of Goods ? 
 Does he want the Key of his own Door and ours too ? 
 Have not we the undoubted Command of our Doors, 
 to fhut them againft thofe we judge not proper to ad- 
 jnit 5 and can this be an OfFence to any, unlefs they be 
 fome impudent Intruders, whofe finifter Ends are here- 
 by fru'ftrated ? And as we are for keeping the Key of 
 our own Door, fo we plead it is the f undoubted Pri- 
 yiledge of others, to have the full Command of theirs ; 
 tho' he invidioufly infinuates the contrary. Mr. P. fur- 
 ther fays, " You have far exceeded what the. generality of 
 /. f yl*'J^''''^'Pk' ^kht, who allow that other Societies, 
 iho differing in Circumjlantials, are a Part ofChrifl's 
 vifible Church:' Anf. We are not here fpeakin^ what 
 one thinks of another 3 but of the Terms of Com- 
 iftiunion, and the Right of each in Admiffion of Mem- 
 bers to their refpedive Societies j and wherein have we 
 exceeded the Bounds of what ispradical in other Socie- 
 ties on this Account does notyej appear: He has not 
 fhewn that we make any new Ferms of Communion ; 
 now to infift, that thofe who have a mind to be admitted 
 to our Church, muft come up to the Terms which Chrifl 
 hath already made, is cur proper and bounden Duty ; 
 and if any quarrel with thofe Terms, Jet them ftay out 
 of Doors, or keep in iheirown Houfes peaceably, and 
 not berate us with the opprobious Names of Schif- 
 
 ^■^'S-^ #v Mc maticks, 
 
 ^ 1.,^ ' Viz. A€i XV. 10. f Anti. Page 159. 
 
[ 227 ]. 
 inaticks, Bigots, and what not, without any juft Caufe, 
 as Mr. F. does ; Yea, when he has not been able to 
 Ihew, that we deviate from the Order and Appoint- 
 ments of the King of Zion, either in Refpe<Sl of the 
 Mode, or Subjeft of B ptifm. 
 
 I obferved, hf.w unfit a Perfon Mr. F. is to charge us 
 with Schifm, when 1t#, and his Aflbciates, hold the 
 famef ConfefTion of Faith, Catechifms and Diredlory, as 
 the Synod does, and yet maintain feparate Communion 
 from their Brethren of the fame Faith and Pra6lice ; I 
 defired to know what that is but Schifm ? Mr. F. in- 
 ftead of clearmg up the Point, exprefles a deal of Dii- 
 pleafure on the Occafmn ; it is like he thought he might 
 call us bv any Name, tho' ever fo unjuft, but when 
 the Cafe becomes his own, it feems the Property is al- 
 tered. He fanties in fome of his Dreams, my Defign 
 herein wa?, *' To tell how many Sorts of Prejbyterians there 
 i^re-- and to infmuate that the new Synod is the worjl Sort 
 of Prcfb/lerians, and he hlmjelf the worji of the new Syr 
 nod." ' L('t that be as it will, my mahiteft Defign was to 
 obtain a Difcbarge from himfelf, who had accufed us of 
 Schifm, or eifc oblige him to expofe his Partiality 
 in the AfFtir, when he would not allow us the fame Li- 
 berty he takes himfelf: For if he, and his Brethren, 
 have fufficient Grounds, in their Apprehehfion, tojuftify 
 themfelves in their prefent Situation, without being 
 chargeable with Schifm ; what is the Matter he \\\\\ not 
 allow us the like Liberty without the Charge of Schifm, 
 when we j idi^e we have as juft Grounds to maintain fe- 
 parate Communion, as he judges they have. " Mr. F. 
 h fo raifed pn the Occafion, that he puts me on the Proof 
 of faid Charge, or elfe be juflly efteem'd a Slanderer ; 
 but there is no need of Proof, for he has not deny'd the 
 Matter of Fad : Befides, 'tis fo well nkown, that all the 
 Country knows it ; and Meeting-houfe hard by Meet- 
 ing-houfe, is a ftanding Evidence of Schifm among 
 them, unlefs they have been taken down very late. But 
 then he requires me *' to prove that he and his Jffociates 
 P 2 are 
 
 f Mr. B/air''s Akimad'vcrftons on Mr. Craighead'% Re- 
 ceding, &c. Page 13. 
 
[ 228 ] 
 
 are the Maker i of it." I have nothing to do with that ; 
 Jet him look to the § Synod's Writings : My Bufinefs is 
 to follow him up on this Point. He fecms to infmuate 
 the Synod was in Fault j that he, and his Aflbciates had 
 juft Reafons to withdraw from it ; therefore he is not 
 guilty of Schifm, tho' he and they maintain feparate 
 Communion from it, when, a{ the fame time, both 
 they and the Synod are of the fame Faith and Praftice. 
 Weil, we look on other Churches to be in Fault in 
 theGafe before us, in not ading uprightly according to 
 Chrift's Inftitution, in refpcd both of the Mode and 
 Subjefls of Baptifm ; therefore whilft they cannot fee as 
 Ive do, nor we as they, we maintain feparate Communi- 
 on from them. And if We are chargeable with Schifm 
 in fo doin|, fo is Mr. F. and if he is not, neither 
 are we : And if he, and his Affociatesarc not the Ma- 
 kers of Schifm in their Cafe, neither are we, in ours. 
 Hence it flill follows, that it was intolerable Partiality 
 and Injuftice in him, to call us Schifmaticks. 
 
 He fays,^^' I am deeply in the Darky refpeSfing the Na- 
 ture of Schifm." Let that be as it will, it is very pleafant to 
 hear him define it in the following Words, " Ihert 
 may be feparate Communion without Schi/m, and Schifm 
 among thofe who meet together." I fuppofe he intends the 
 Benefit of this Obfervatio/i chiefly for himfelf and Aflb- 
 ciates : But the Benefits of it are fo diffufive, that we 
 can take up our Share of them too ; for if when be and 
 the Synod are difunitcd, he can, notwichftanding, main- 
 tain feparate Communion from it without Schifm ; by 
 the fame Rule when we, and other Churches, don't fee 
 alike, we can hold our Communion feparate from them 
 without Schifm alfo. 
 
 Says our Author, " He mufi be told that it is a more 
 aggravated Crime to exclude and unchrifiian all the Prote- 
 ftant Worldy than to deny communicating with a particular 
 Church." ^y his ufing the comparative Degree, it 
 feems he looks on denying to communicate with a par- 
 ticular Church to be an aggravated Crime : Then let 
 
 him 
 
 § Examination and Refutation of Mr. Gilbert Ttnvent'% 
 Remark!, Page 48. Alfo the ^erijis, fart 3, 
 
;[ 229 1 
 
 him not perfift in his feparate Communion any longer : 
 But if he cannot unite with a particular Church till the 
 Obftrudlions are removed; neither can we throw up 
 facred Truths, for the Sake of Communion with thofc 
 who differ from us, tho' we fhould always bear his un- 
 juft Reproaches on the Account, as we now do» 
 
 Says our Author, *■ / have now at length got to the 
 End of Mr. M'j Performance^ and I prefume he will 
 CWM I have not negleSfed his principal Argument s.'* Well, 
 I keep Pace with him, and am got within Sight of his 
 Finis too ; and can freely own, that Mr. F. hath made 
 Noife enough about my Arguments: But muft needs 
 tell him, whatever he prefumes, they remain yet in full 
 Force, as to any Thing he hath (hewn to the contrary: 
 My Confidence is ilill further ftrengthened, that there 
 is no Inftitut^on of Infant Sprinkling to be found in 
 holy Scripture, when Mr. F. has gone twice profefledly 
 in Search of it, but cannot find it j and tho' he has 
 dug * deep after it, he brings nothing up, but the Rub- 
 bifh of human Confequence, which he falfly calls the 
 Word of God, yet would fain make the World believe 
 it is good Ore : But when it comes to be weighed in the 
 Ballance of the Sanctuary, it is found lighter than a An- 
 gle Grain of Truth. Thus we are left to conclude the 
 Doctrine of Infant Sprinkling is nothing elfe but a mere 
 human Invention, crept into the Church, without the 
 leafl Print of a divine Seal to be found upon it. It is 
 therefore juftly to be rejected as an horrid Abufe of 
 Chrifl's facred Inftitution. 
 
 He informs his Readers, from what he .faw in the 
 Gazette^ that he expefts a. Reply ; but does not think 
 proper to tell them, that fhortly after the Publication of 
 my former Treatife, he advertifed his Purpofe of an 
 Anfwer, before he wrote it, inflead of publifhing an 
 Anfwer, which gave Occafion of a publick Remark on 
 his faid publifh'd Purpofe. He fuggefts, my Honour 
 (not the Love of Truth, or Honour of Chrift) will be 
 the Motive of writing an Anfwer, and when done, it 
 will be nothing to the Purpofe. This indeed is an 
 
 artful 
 
 * Preface to Vind. Page 3. 
 
r 230 1 
 
 ertftjl Way te prepoffefs the Credulous betimes, that our 
 Arguments iarc nothing to the Purpofe, when in the 
 mean Time he cannot refute them ; witnefs my former 
 Treatlfe. He obferves alfo, the Number of Pages and 
 Aflertions my Book contains ; and that I was more 
 than a Year about it : But this Miftake I impute to 
 fome Mif-infoAnation he got fomewhere : He feems 
 very unhappy in being fo impofed on by ill Informers. 
 At length, he hopes to be excufed for not anfwering me 
 every time I deny'd his Principle, and afferted mine, 
 becaufe it would have been an infupportable Toil. No 
 doubt, any judicious Reader would have readily excufed 
 him, had he refuted me but once, where I aflerted my 
 Principle, and deny'd his. But as the Cafe now ftands, 
 the Reader need to have a vaft Stock of Charity and 
 Candour, to excufe all his Clamour aijd Defamation, 
 ufed inftead of fober Refutation and folid Argument. 
 
 Mr. F. comes to the Clofe, and wifhes for the Time, 
 ** lf7}en Truth may he fpolen without Oppofttion.'* I can 
 freely join with him in the fame Defife ; but do not ex- 
 ped that wifli'd-for Time will ever come, as long as 
 Infant Sprinkling is embraced and maintained, which 
 is diredly oppofite to the Scripture Doctrine of Belie- 
 vers Baptifm ; and as long as the Bible is in being, (o 
 long will there be an Oppofition made to his darling 
 Opinion and Praflice j till that, as well as all other Er- 
 rors, fhall be purged away by Him, whofe Fan is in his 
 Hand^ and who will one Day throughly purge his Floor. 
 In the mean Time, we fhall endeavour to vindicate the 
 Faith once delivered to thp Saints : Come War, come 
 Peace, I fhall for the prefent take my Leave of him 
 in the. Words of holy Job-, Teach me ^ and 1 will hold 
 7ny Tongue^ and make me to underjiand, wherein 1 have 
 erred: How forcible are right Words, but what doth your 
 arguing reprove ? 
 
 ?i J S. 
 
-1 
 
 % 
 
 .*>»■ 
 

 ¥ . .- 
 
 # ■ 
 
 *'.<. ■ ." ■^': 
 
 T^ 
 
 ^s 
 
 
 
 d iii 
 
 
 tu. 
 
 
 ii^^.•1 
 
 
 . t 
 
 u^"^.'