INFANT-BAPTISM; OR, Infant-Sprinkling; (As the Anabaptists Ironically term it,) Asserted and maintained by the Scriptures, and Authorities of the Primitive Fathers.  
Together with a REPLY to a pretended ANSWER.  
To which is added, A SERMON PREACHED On Occasion of the Author's baptising an Adult Person. With some Enlargements.  
By J. R. Rector of Lezant in Cornwall.  
LONDON, Printed, and are to be Sold by J. Taylor, at the Ship in St. Paul's Churchyard; Philip Bishop at Exon, and Benjamin Smithurst at Lanceston in Cornwall, 1700.   

To the Worshipful Sir Joseph Tredenham, Kt.  
'TIS not unknown, how you have vouchsafed to espouse my Cause in many difficulties I have struggled with. Which is very much my Glory, that so eminently worthy and accomplished a Person, and so great a Votary of the Church of England as Yourself, hath not only judged favourably, but on many occasions actually interested yourself on my behalf. It therefore behoves me to lay hold on any opportunity to demonstrate a grateful Mind, tho' it be accompanied with a new Address for further Favour, as this at present is, to countenance a small Polemical Discourse; for I cannot but call to mind, having so well experienced its truth in you, that known Aphorism, which a Reverend Prelate lays down in the close of his Parable of the Pilgrim: Those will be our best Friends, not to whom we have done good, but who have done good to us; which speaks the abounding goodness of a Benefactor. Upon this ground I take the confidence of making this Dedication. 'Twould be tedious to recount to you the various Motives that have induced me thus to engage in this Controversy, when so many Tracts have been already set forth of this Nature; it may suffice to clear me from all aspersions, that I can justly say from the Observation of others, as well as my own, that 'tis, like the Quakers, a growing Sect with whom I contend; and that they have lately, in my Parish of Up-Ottery, built them a Synagogue of such a Structure, as if they meant it should outvie the Parochial Church there. These things, I humbly conceive render it necessary, and make it my more peculiar Province, to endeavour with others to stop the growth of the Faction, that so my own Flock may not be worried and miss-led; but that I may be assisting to them in my necessary absence, as well as when I am present amongst them; and by any means reduce some, and prevent others from going astray from the holy Communion of our Church, whose Peace and Prosperity all its true Members, especially the Clergy, aught to Consult and Promote. Sir, my Prayers and Endeavours are intent upon these Things, and as far as I continue steadfast in such labours, I am secure of your good Opinion,  
Your most Obliged and most devoted humble Servant, James Rossington.   

INFANT BAPTISM; OR, Infant Sprinkling, etc.  
INfant Baptism, or, 
Cornwal's Vindication of the Royal Commission of King Jesus. Dedicated to the House of Commons, about the Year 1645 and A. R. in his Vanity of Childish Baptism.  as the Anabaptists sometimes call it, Infant Sprinkling, is no Popish Tradition, much less is it, as they pretend, brought into the Church by Innocent the Third, yea so far is it from being any corrupt Innovation crept into the Church, that it agrees with the mind of God in the holy Scriptures; and consequently we need not question its agreeableness to the practice of the Church of Christ even in the first Ages of Christianity; tho' it should be supposed we have no express Records of matter of Fact, which yet we have, and the same authentic and undeniable. Neither is our way of administering Baptism, by pouring on of Water novel, or to be disliked.  
To demonstrate the agreeableness of this Doctrine to the revealed Will of God, I shall take my rise from the Covenant God made with Abraham 
* Gen. 12.3.17.8. , being by the Apostle's computation 
† Gal. 3.17.  430 years before the giving of the Law. And to this he elsewhere refers 
‖ Gal. 3.8. , where he signifies that the Gospel was before preached to him, that is to say in the words of the Promise, as containing in them a Breviary thereof, being an Evangelical and not a legal Promise, viz. That all Nations of the World, and not only the Jews, should be justified by Faith, and consequently the Gentiles now; and that without legal Mosaical performances; for after this manner, and in these express words, did the Promise run: In thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, and again, I will establish my Covenant to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee 
* Gen. 17.8, 9 . And when God had thus enacted and established his Covenant with that holy Patriarch and his Seed; he immediately thereupon, as you'll find 
† ver. 10. , commanded them to keep that his Covenant, 
Vid. Dr. Burthog's Argument for Infant Baptism, Printed Anno 84. and Whiston's Infant Baptism plainly proved, Printed Anno 78.  not only in the substance, but in the sign and token of it, as 'tis immediately in one continued Speech exegetically added, this is my Covenant, or token of my Covenant, so that the sense and meaning of the Phrase in either Verse, is clearly the meaning of both, and Circumcision is specified to be the Covenant at that time to be kept, tho' not the only Covenant to be kept.  
The Obligation imposed upon Abraham and his Seed was, as you may note in the first Place, to keep the sign or token of the Covenant, or the Covenant in the sign of it; and then to observe Circumcision as that sign or token. The former is of perpetual Obligation; the latter is more positive and secondary. Tho' then there be an alteration in the second Injunction; it will not therefore follow, there must be in the first; or that the Covenant ought not to be observed in the sign of it; if for certain reasons Circumcision be no longer, but something else be that sign. So in the fourth Commandment, Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it Holy, that is the first thing which is principally Commanded; but the other the seventh Day, that is the last Day of the Week, is the Sabbath, that is but secondary, so that the Obligation to the first, and that which is primary in the Command doth not cease, because there is an alteration in the second, and that not the seventh, but the first is now the Sabbath of the Lord.  
For a further explanation of this Truth, you may observe, that the Command in the 9th verse requires the keeping of the Covenant in general, but don't determine what the token of the Covenant should be, but obligeth to whatsoever token God should institute; 'tis not said, Thou shalt be circumcised, or be baptised, but thou shalt keep my Covenant; that is, as afore, the token of the Covenant; consequently when Circumcision was appointed, it obliged to that; but Circumcision being laid aside, and another sign instituted, which is Baptism, it now obligeth to this; since the Command in general is not revoked, but only the sign is altered. Wherefore the Command at first not determining the sign what it should be, but only enjoining the keeping of it, whatsoever it should be, and being applicable to Baptism, as well as to Circumcision, and extending and reaching to all Abraham's Seed, to believing Gentiles as well as to the Jews, 'tis all one, as if God had said: Thou shalt Circumcise under the first Testament, and Baptise under the second. These being Tokens of the Covenant successively to be kept the one after the other.  
And this Covenant being renewed to the Children of Israel in the Land of Moab, (besides the Covenant which Moses made with them in Horeb 
* Deut. 29.1. ) the command runs in these Terms: That they should all, even their little ones, enter into this Covenant, that is explicitly by some Rite or other; not that the little ones could then personally and expressly indent with God, or that a personal or express Stipulation was a Condition prerequisite to their Initiation; but only an implicit, or vicarious, or an imputative sort of Stipulation by Sureties or Witnesses, as the old Testament word is 
† Isa. 8.2. vid. Jun. and Trem. on the place. ; which at Years of understanding they were bound to own by the restipulation of a good Conscience, or by an open Profession of the Jewish Religion.  
The manner then of entering into Covenant with God, or keeping the Covenant in the sign or token of it, was by receiving of Circumcision. Accordingly in the 17th of Gen. aforesaid, Abraham and the rest were circumcised in the Capacities they were in, Abraham at 99 Years old, and Ishmael at 13, and the Children, as they were commanded. Neither did this Law concern only such as belonged unto Abraham for the present, and his Posterity, but also Proselytes that in future times were to be received or adopted into his Family; even to the time of John the Baptist and Christ, who were both circumcised the 8th Day, that is during the first Administration, so long, says God, it shall be for a sign between me and you, 
‖ Gen. 17.11.  viz. Those that belong to thee, with thyself for the present, and those that shall descend from thee according to the Flesh, or be adjoined unto thee; he adds not and thy Seed after thee; which hints that Circumcision was no longer to be the sign, but till the Seed should come. Whereas speaking of the Covenant without limiting it particularly to Circumeision, he says, Thou shalt keep my Covenant, thou and thy seed after thee, in their generations; and again, This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee. Nevertheless the Seed Christ mystical, the believing Gentiles in after Ages, are as absolutely enjoined to keep the Covenant in the sign of it, as the others. Thou shalt keep my Covenant 
* Ibid. v. 9 ; Q. d. thou and all that thou ownest, and thy Seed and all that they own, shall by way of Stipulation be dedicated unto me; and that in token of being so, both you shall observe the Covenant, by wearing the Initiating sign thereof yourself in your own Person; and by putit on all yours as far as they are capable of receiving it, which shall be virtually and interpretatively the putting it on all thy Seed, 
† The whole Nation of the Jews are called the Circumcision, the Women being reckoned to be circumcised in the Men, and were permitted to partake of the Passover of which no uncircumcised Person could eat, Exod. 12.47, 48.  all such as have the benefit or advantage of the Covenant shall keep it in like manner, causing their Children and such as they adopt to wear the like Badge and Cognizance, the initiating Sign and Seal. And as it cannot be supposed, but that the believing Gentiles do retain a propriety and right for their Children, and that under the Gospel they are as much theirs, and in the same right, as the natural and adopted Children (together with the Servants and Slaves) of Abraham were his; so neither is it to be denied, but that as Circumcision was the initiating Rite and Sign before the coming of Christ; so Baptism is after it: And that now to dedicate and give up a Person unto God visibly and solemnly, is by that Sign or Rite to enter him into the Church; and that the command of keeping the Covenant in the sign of it, or of ent'ring into Covenant, according to the Rite that ought to accompany it, is still necessary, and lays an Obligation upon all to whom the Covenant extends.  
Now how far the Covenant reacheth, the Apostle declares at large, Act. 2.39. where he infers the same Conclusion, and on the like Premises, as I have done, viz. The Right of such Persons, and consequently their Child's right to Baptism; and the Obligation that is incumbent on Parents to have it administered; because the Promise of the Covenant extends to posterity, without limiting it to those who were immediately and personally called, as the Anabaptists would have it, but it belongs to them, and in them to their Children; without any Condition or Qualification on their part, save only their being Children of such Parents. Nor can we interpret the Apostle, by reason of that last Clause in the verse, even as many as the Lord our God shall call, to have meant or intended any personal Call required, as to Children in order to Baptism; unless we make him in effect guilty of very gross Tautologies: for should that be necessarily implied, with respect to the several particulars aforegoing, it would make the Apostle speak to this Purpose; The Promise is to you that is, to as many of you as God hath called, and to your Children, even to as many of them as God hath called; and to all afar off which God shall call, even as many as the Lord our God shall call; the imposing such a sense, I say, on the Apostle's words, would render him very vain and Tautological; much less is there an inward Call absolutely necessary for every particular Person, in order to his susception of Baptism, or indeed for any, but only an outward Call of the Parents sufficeth; not only in reference to themselves, but to those Minors likewise who are under their Power; for 'tis not necessarily requisite, that the party to be baptised, must be supposed to have an absolute Right to the Rem foederis, to what is promised in the Covenant, but only to the conditional Grant or Covenant, as that speaks a mutual Engagement each to other. There being no such thing as a right in foro Ecclesiae, contradistinct to the right in foro dei; no one having a right to Sacraments in the judgement of Charity, who hath none in the sight of God. If it be otherwise, how shall we have the Church's judgement, concerning the Individuals that are to be admitted unto Baptism, or the Lord's Supper? I hope they will not send us to Rome for it; and there is not any general Council in being to decide the particular Cases, or any Court where the whole do send in their Votes. And the like may be said of a National Church; if it be meant of a Congregational Church, or rather particular Congregation, than this must be of the whole Body too, or the judgement of the Ruler or Rulers; if the whole Body, we know there are many in most Congregations, that never troubled their Heads about it; and scarce know their own Minds, what they would or should judge in such matters; and few of those that use this distinction, did ever take their judgement in it; if it be meant of the Pastors and Rulers, than it seems the Pope is not very much out of the way, to count himself, at least with his Cardinals, to be the Church; if a single Presbyter or Deacon with the ruling Elders may be the Church. Surely they come nearer to him, than they are ware of, who account the judgement of a particular Congregation, or Pastor, the judgement of the Church; and plead that a Man hath a right to the Sacrament, if that Congregation or Minister judge so; tho' he hath none in the sight of God. But here is the Mischief of it, by this reckoning a Man may have a right in the judgement of the Church, and yet have no right in the judgement of the Church; for he may have a right in the judgement of one Minister or Congregation, and yet another may at the same time judge, that he hath no right at all. But which shall be the Church of the two? Why certainly the one hath as good right to claim the Title, as the other; except one of them rob the Pope, and claim the Chair, and condemn all other Churches and their judgement, to set up their own. The Eastern Churches were so wary to prevent all Thoughts that one's right to the Sacrament should in any wise depend on the Minister, that they say not baptizo, but baptizetur N. in nomine Patris, etc. Thus the Apostles baptising is said to be Christ's Baptism. 'Tis true, the Minister in saying I Baptise thee, speaks right; but still he baptizeth as a Minister, and cannot call that his Baptism; but if the Minister's Act be all that such Professors have right to, than he might say they have no other but my Baptism, and that the party hath right to his Baptism, and not Christ's. Wherefore the better to understand any one's fundamental Right in this Point, we must distinguish between the Grant or Promise, and the mutual Engagement which is in Covenants, and so must allow that the natural Seed of Abraham, by virtue of God's gracious Promise, were in some sense to be reputed a spiritual Seed likewise; tho' not so strictly, as to create to them an absolute right to the benefits of the Covenant, the blessing of Abraham; yet enough to give them the Prerogative of being in Covenant, and the Privileges of being under such an Administration; whereof the Apostle reckons eight which belonged to the Jews 
* Rom. 9.4, 5. ; And who will say, that Christians have fewer and of less Consequence? Don't we find those very Persons whom the Baptist (upbraiding them for coming so far short of Abraham's Faith and Works) calls a Generation of Vipers, admitted by him to Baptism, and enstated in the aforesaid privileges? 
† Luk. 3.7. and v. 16.   
From these premises, it apparently follows, that not only believers, but professors of Christianity and their Children are proper Subjects of Baptism; yea such also as are born of professed Infidels, when they become Converts, and belong to such as are Members of the visible Church, for so runs the primitive Grant; and to these doth the Covenant extend, Gen. 17. And if professing Jews, and such Servants and Slaves as are mentioned, v. 13. have a right to enter into the Covenant, and to be circumcised; it follows, à fortiori, that the Children of professing Christians, and such as they have a propriety in, have a true right to the like privilege, and are now to be baptised, otherwise the Gospel doth not, nor must Christians show so much favour to the Children of the Jews, as the Covenant under the Law did, and as the Jews were to show to the Children of the Gentiles, while they were strangers in the general to the Common Wealth of Israel. And if when they were in the Scripture account strangers to the Covenant, yet such Children of theirs might enjoy it, how much more now since the Partition-wall is taken down, and the enmity is done away?  
Nor is this true only in the Theory, and according to the Commandment, as it may be thus fairly construed; but the Practice of the Church, Age after Age, speaks this to be the intent of the Law, & Lex currit cum praxi. So that for Men to exclude them now, as if they were greater Aliens and Forreingers than they were at that time; to shut them out from the Covenant and Seal more than when they were under the Law, and to make a greater Partition-wall between Gentiles and Gentiles, than there was then between Jews and Gentiles, (as those must do that debar them of their Right to Baptism) this must needs be contrary to the Gospel; and doth in effect make void the Cross of Christ for tho' upon the coming in of the Gospel the sign be changed, and Circumcision, which was at first the sign and token of that Covenant, be taken away; it doth not follow, that the Obligation to observe and keep the Covenant in any other Sign and Token doth cease with it, for the reason and equity of the Command doth hold in Baptism, as well as in Circumcision, & Ratio legis & nexus conscientiae are reciprocal, and do mutually suppose one the other. And this is the Topic that St. Paul useth, 
* 1 Cor. 9.8.  arguing for the maintenance of the Evangelical Ministry, from the Analogy of Faith, and reasonableness of the thing.  
We are therefore to distinguish between the Obligation to keep the Covenant in the Sign and Token of it, which is of perpetual Obligation and Existence, as the Covenant itself is; and to keep it in the particular sign and token of Circumcision, which being secondary and changeable, for certain Reasons was to be no longer, but something else became that Sign and Token.  
For the further explanation of this, 'tis to be noted that Circumcision was not abolished in the Gospel, as 'twas of the Fathers, but as it was of Moses; (a distinction that Christ himself makes 
† Joh. 7.22 ) not as it had relation to the Covenant of Promise, and the Sign of it, as if in that respect, it was a weak and carnal Thing; for so it was a Bond to Evangelical Obedience 
‖ Gen. 17.1. that is be upright and sincere, so the Margin, Rom. 2.25. Gal. 5.3. ; but as it was adopted by the legal Mediator, and made a sign of that Administration and Covenant in which he had to do. Wherefore if the Law ceased, Circumcision could not continue; seeing whosoever was circumcised became a Debtor to keep the whole Law; and so it would infer, as if Christ were not come in the Flesh.  
Nor can the abrogation or cessation of Circumcision be understood to be any diminution to the Promises; forasmuch as it was applied to the Legal Covenant out of a gracious Consideration, (as Doctor Burthog well observes) not in the derogation of the Promises, or of any Privileges or Duties arising from thence; but in confirmation of them; God taking the token of the Covenant of Promise, and putting it upon the Legal Covenant, shows he had the Covenant of Promise still in remembrance; for doing so he could never look on, or so much as think on the Law, but he must also remember the Promise, the sign and memorial of the Promise being thus annexed and put to the Law. So that here is an express command for baptising Infants or little ones; tho' not in the very term Baptism, yet under this general Notion, as 'tis now the oaken of the Covenant, for God's Covenant with Abraham still continues, 'tis an everlasting Covenant, 
* Gen. 17.7.  in which blessedness was promised in and through Christ the promised Seed; and by virtue, whereof the blessing of Abraham, or the Promise made to that Patriarch, in like manner came on the Gentiles, as the Apostle asserts, Gal. 3.14. therefore 'tis said, the Gospel was preached to Abraham 
† Ib. v. 8. ; and as it was long before the Law, and not disannulled by the coming of the Law; so 'twas to endure till the Seed should come, to whom the Promise was made; and consequently to the end of the World; because Christ came to establish the Covenant made to the Fathers 
‖ Rom. 15.8. .  
Now if the Covenant be the same, the Promises of it must needs be continued in the same Tenure in which they were at first made, and run in the same latitude and extent, taking in Children with their Parents; unless God himself had made any alteration or restriction, or passed any Act of Exclusion. But 'tis remarkable, the Apostle doth not say the Promise was, but is 
* Act. 2.39. : And the Grace of the Gospel is now more ample than before under the Law; being then in its ordinary Dispensation appropriated to the Jews; they were God's Favourites to whom his Grace in Christ was manifested; but now it reacheth to the Gentiles also, having appeared to all Men, to all sorts and ages. Surely therefore Infants being in Covenant then are not to be excluded now, which if they be, let it be showed how and when they were ejected? How this Magna Charta came to be forfeited? How they, who were once Members of the mystical Body, came to be cut off? The Common Wealth indeed of Israel is at an End, and the Sceptre is departed from Judah, but the Olive-tree the Church continues, tho' under a different Administration; the Partition-wall is broken down, but the very Church is not destroyed. And for this see and consult Rom. 11. where the Apostle compares the Jews to an Olive-tree, and the rejecting of them for a season, to the lopping off its natural Branches, as Branches which bore no Fruit; and the calling of the Gentiles he resembles to the grafting upon that old Stock; which growing again afresh makes up one entire Olive-tree, whose Root and Branches are nourished by the same Sap; which Similitude plainly intimates, that Jews and Christians make up but one Universal Church, of which our Lord Jesus is the Head; and that Faith in him is the Sap, which gives Life and Nourishment to it; the consequence whereof is this, that the same Spiritual Privileges, which belonged to the Children of the Jews, do belong to the Children of Christians; and that if the former were to be initiated into the Church by Circumcision, so are the latter by Baptism; for being of the same Church, and within the same Covenant, they should receive alike the Seal thereof, which tho' now changed from Circumcision to Baptism, yet the Church and Covenant is the same still; and therefore Church-membership is as extensive, and comprehends Infants under the Gospel, as it did once under the Law; and unless a Law can be showed, which confines Infants Church-membership to the Jewish-State, and excludes them the Christian; there is no reason why we should be frightened from our laudable Practice of initiating Infants into the Christian Church.  
What saith our Saviour, Joh. 3.5. If one be not Born again of Water and the holy Ghost, he cannot inherit the Kingdom of God: Where we see not only the unregenerate are excluded Heaven, but as the Text is interpreted 
* Nisi enim renatus fuerit ex aquâ & spiritu Sancto non potest introire in regnum dei utique nullum excipit non Infantem non aliquâ praeventum necessitate. D. Abros. de Abrah. Patriarch. l. 2. c. 11. vid. etiam de voc. Gent. l. 2. c. 8. & D. Aug. l. 10. de Gen. ad literam, c. 14. We hold, says Bishop Andrews, the same necessity of Baptism, that the Fathers did hold, which is Viâ ordinariâ, yet non alligando gratiam dei ad media, no more than the Schoolmen do. Bishop Andrew 's Answer to Peron, p. 12.  by some, even the unbaptized, with respect to the ordinary means of Salvation, and so far forth as the omission of an instituted Rite, or positive Duty may be said to do so; now forasmuch as we cannot be too sure, but that this may be the true sense of the Place, and the mind of our blessed Saviour; and seeing he speaks it indefinitely, we cannot know for certain but he had reference to unbaptized Infants, as well as others; therefore unless God had plainly declared his Mind against the baptising of such, and expressly excluded them from that Ordinance; how can we choose, out of mere compassion and zeal for their Salvation, but administer it to them? Though then there be some so prepossessed with prejudice, that they cannot so earnestly believe with our Church, the interest Children have in Baptism, yet since their not so believing cannot alter the Infant's Case, neither can they be so sure, but, as it hath been said, they may be comprehended in that of St. John, according to the aforesaid Interpretation; therefore upon that other principle expressed by our Church, in the same Paragraph 
* Vid. Office for public Baptism, in the exposition upon the Gospel. , they should look upon it as a charitable Work to bring such to Baptism.  
But to return to the Argument, and to illustrate it, and render it more convincing; suppose there were an Act of Parliament, wherein certain civil Privileges are granted to all English Subjects, and their Children, without any limitation of time for their continuance, and afterwards there comes a New Act of Parliament, wherein more and greater Privileges are granted to all English Subjects, without mentioning the former, or their Children; those former Privileges are held by all Lawyers to belong still to all English Subjects, and their Children, because all such Acts, and the beneficial Clauses thereof, are still in Force, till they are repealed by the same Authority and Power that made them; neither will it suffice to say, that the Privilege here granted is in a Testamentary way, and the making a New Testament is a virtual repealing any former Will or Testament, so that supposing this was a Legacy bequeathed to the Jewish Church by Christ's Testament, yet forasmuch as 'tis not granted by Christ's last Will and Testament, which we call the Gospel, or the New Testament, the Privilege ceaseth of itself. But this Comparison is faulty, and will not hold: For the Old Testament, or (as it is by way of distinction, with reference to that Ministration sometimes called) the Law and the Gospel, tho' they differ in Circumstantials, yet are not two Wills of Christ, but for substance one and the same Will and Testament, even the same Covenant of Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; or if you will, the Gospel in respect of the Law, is like a Schedule or Codicil to a Will, the adding some further Legacies not already given, and no Legacies that were bequeathed in the foregoing Will can be cut off, except they be particularly recalled in the Codicil; in like manner Infants Church-membership must remain in force under the Gospel, except it be the Will of Christ it should cease, and he had declared as much in the Codicil of the New Testament; but no such thing appearing there, proves it still in force.  
'Tis not denied but that the Collective Body of the Jews were broken off from the Church through unbelief 
* Rom. 11.20. , that is by reason of their positive infidelity; whereby they did directly and openly disown and reject the true Messiah; yet all of them were not, there were many thousands, or as the word is, Myriad of the Jews, that believed; as the Scripture witnesseth 
† Act. 21.20. : Neither were the rest broken off, but the believing Gentiles were inoculated in amongst them 
‖ Grotius on Rom. 1.17. , till they professedly rejected Christ, and were become open Enemies to his Gospel; now it would be unreasonable to infer, that all the Infants were broken off, for the infidelity of some of the Parents. The elect Jews, which obtained Mercy, kept their Station, and so must needs be conceived to retain their Privileges for themselves and theirs; otherwise they would become losers, to what they were before the exhibition of Christ, in respect of their Infant Seed; for they who were before within and wore the Badge of the Covenant, should afterwards be without, and deprived of that Dignity, and 'tis the general received opinion and even of some Anabaptists, 
* This is granted by Harrison, in his Paedo Baptism oppugned, as he is cited by Geree in his Vindiciae Vindiciarum, pag. 20.  that what Privileges the Nation of the Jews had before their Rejection, the same shall they recover with an advantage at their Restoration, 
† Hos. 2.23. Rom. 11.25, 26.  and to say the Geniles shall not have the same Covenant-Priviledges with them, is to make a difference, and so set up a Partition-wall, when as the Apostle asserts 
‖ Gal. 3.28.  both Jew and Grecian, Male and Female are all one in Christ 
* Act. 8.12. which shows the Apostle's Practice in the Case. And the reason on which it was grounded, you have, Gal. 3.28. forequoted. .  
Summarily and briefly excluding Children out of the Covenant, and debarring them of the Sign, put a sacrilegious restraint thereon, and excludes them from the ordinary way of Salvation; for if they have no visible interest in the Covenant, in regard of God's visible dispensation, than they have no visible interest in Christ, they are no way related to him, who is the Mediator of the Covenant; we conclude therefore, that the aforesaid Law of keeping the Covenant, and of entering into the Covenant, is as much in force as ever; and we are still bound to observe the Covenant and the token of it, that is after the manner of its Administration, for the time being; if the Sign be changed, the Case is not altered, our Obligation continues the same: Now Baptism is the initiating Ordinance, as afore, when Circumcision was the Token.  
Not but that there is a difference in the Administration, viz. That whereas the Females are as susceptive of the Rite of Baptism as the Males, therefore 'tis equally and as distinctly to be administered unto them 
* See our warrant for this, Gal. 4.9, 10. . Neither hath God taken any order in that Case of Infants, to tie us to administer it, precisely on the 8th Day; no more than he hath done in the Case of the adult or actual Believers; whether immediately upon their believing, or the next Day, or the Day after; but the Gospel indulging a discretionary Latitude, in both Cases it may be done sooner or later, provided we do not out of a profane or careless humour procrastinate it; as St. Cyprian argues in his Epistle to Fidus 
† 
Epist. 58 the query was about baptising Infants before the 8th Day, Fidus did not deny Infant Baptism, but only denied the baptising of them till then, to which the Father returns this Answer, that both himself and the Council with him, which consisted of 66 Bishops, unanimously determined, that a Child might be baptised as soon as he was Born, whereupon St. Austin speaks to this effect that St. Cypr. did not make any new Decree, but observing the faith and practice of the Church, judged with his own fellow Bishops, that as soon as one was Born, he might be lawfully baptised.  
Ut parvuli si infirmari contingat eodem die quo nati sunt bpatizentur. Concil. Gerund. Can. 4. yea in danger of Death, in ipsa hora, says Greg. l. 12. Epist. 10. apud Magdeb. Cent. 6. c. 6. Col. 367. and Ina King of the West Saxons made a Law that Infants should be baptised within thirty Days after their Birth, under the penalty of thirty shillings, a great sum in those Days, Leg. Inae, c. 2. apud Spelm. Concil. Ang. Tom. 1. p. 183. Quicunque parvulos recentes ab uteris Matrum baptizandos negat Anath. sit Concil. Milevit. Can. 2. apud Magdeb. Cent. 5. c. 9 col. 835. & Caranz. fol. 123 being the 11 Conc. in the African Code, confirmed by the 4th and 6th general Council.  , there being no necessity why we should delay their Baptism, but rather that we should hasten it all we can; so long as I may add, we become not alike Superstitious with the Church of Rome, who in danger of Death, do it e'er the child is fully Born into the World 
‖ Si timeatur de morte Infantis antequam nascatur & caput ejusd. appareat extra uterum infundat aquam quae adfuerit super caput nascentis, dicens, Ego te bapt. Synod. Colon sub Rudolpho Imper. apud Magd. Cent. 13. . And consequently with so much precipitancy, as speaks their laying too much stress (as their manner is) upon the Opus operatum, and as if God ties himself to means as well as us.  
Agreeable hereto, Christ's Commission is as full for baptising Infants, as any others; for if they be the natural or adopted Children of Believers, or such as are proselyted; they are Abraham's Seed; and so are interested in the Covenant, and belong to Christ, which in Christ's own Dialect is the same thing with being his Disciples 
* Compare Matt. 10.42. with Mark 9.41. . Yea they are called so by the Holy Ghost 
† Act. 15.10. with v. 1. . And the Commission runs to Baptise all Disciples 
‖ Matt. 28.19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . Go Disciple all Nations, baptising them— if then Infants be or are made Disciples, together with their Parents or Proparents; so as the Promise of Abraham reacheth to them, they are to be baptised; for there is nothing to interpose between discipling and baptising. Yea such is the near conjunction of the Commands, that they seem to be coincident. q. d. Whosoever are my Disciples or Relatives, Partners of the Covenant, or are in the Church's Power to stipulate for their Religious Education; let them be consigned thereunto by this Sacrament of Baptism; let this be the Rite of their Admission; let this be the Badge and Cognizance of their Discipleship; and who are we, that dare, in contradiction to this express order of our Saviour, hinder any such out of our own Imaginations from entering in at this ordinary Gate or Door of Grace, who do not exclude themselves?  
Ananias finding Saul in the state of a Disciple baptised him 
* Act. 9.18.  tho' neither, he nor any Minister else had made him so. Infants are Disciples, not so much of Man's as of God's making, vouchsafing graciously in their believing Parents, to accept them also into his Covenant 
† Rom. 11.16. 1 Cor. 7.14. , and so into the State of Disciples.  
The Apostle also plainly declares, that interest in the Promise is alone by itself, a sufficient ground for the application of Baptism, in that he exhorts those awakened Jews to be baptised upon this Ground, or for this reason, that the Promise did belong to them 
‖ Act. 2.38, 39 . 'Tis true, he exhorts them to Repentance, to which Faith must be conjoined, as necessary to their interest in the Promise, but 'twas their interest in the Promise, on which he Grounds his Exhortation to them to be baptised. Hence however Persons come to have an interest in the Promise, whether it be by descent, or adoption, or by their own personal Faith and Repentance, 'tis all one to our present purpose. And this is agreeable to the first Command to keep the Covenant, that is the token of the Covenant; the Command is grounded upon interest in the Promise, Gen. 17.9. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, (that is, upon this Ground) because the Promise is unto thee, and having the Promise, thou shalt wear the Sign and Seal thereof; for it follows, à majori ad minus, that the Children being in Covenant should not want the Sign and Seal that ensures the Benefits and Privileges of the same. Who then can forbid Water? 'Tis the Apostle's Argument 
* Act. 10.47.  to those that have received the Grace of God, the Promise, by Virtue whereof they are in Covenant with God as well as we.  
Now what have the Anabaptists to Object against what is here alleged for the putting on Infants the present Sign or Token of the Covenant? Why nothing in effect, but what they are beholden to the Papists for, viz. That Circumcision was the Token only of a Carnal Legal Covenant, and that such was the Covenant which God made with Abraham and his Seed; and renewed by Moses to the Children of Israel; and that its being a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith was peculiar only to that Patriarch, and that there is no such thing now as foederal holiness, or any Right or Privilege accrueing by virtue of any Promise or Covenant from Birth, or by being of such a Lineage, or Descent, but that the Children of Believers in their Infant Estate, are in no better Condition than those of Heathens.  
'Tis strange that they, who in show are so much against Popery, should broach so much of it, speaking the Language of Rome, against the Protestant Doctrine, maintained in the Church of England. Is this to come out of Babylon, thus to side with the Papists, and Bellarmine 
* De Sacr. effectu. l. 2. c. 13. & alibi.  in particular? Mr. Blake 
† Answer to Tombs, p. 61. Printed Anno 46.  declares, that their Arguments against foederal Holiness are borrowed from them; and that he hath not met with any, either in Mr. Tombs or Blackwood, which may not be found in Stapleton, Cornelius a Lapide, the Rhemists, or some of that Party; and that the Jesuits were the first Opposers of it.  
'Tis likewise a great and much agitated Controversy, between the Papists and those of the Reformed Religion concerning the Identity and Efficacy of John's Baptism compared with Christ; the Papists thundering anathemas against them, who shall affirm the Baptism of John to have the same virtue and power with that of Christ: Those of the Reformed, on the other side are generally of Opinion, that John's Ministry was the same that was afterwards delegated to the Apostles. And his Baptism the same, which was afterwards ministered by them. This the Anabaptists deny, to take occasion therefrom to Ground their dipping again, or Rebaptisation; and to this purpose draw most of their best Shafts out of the Popish Quiver, and form most of their choicest Weapons on their Anvil; yea in the whole conflict they have been necessitated to borrow help from these Philistine Artists. But let them, if they can, produce any thing in the whole Bible, to overthrow what is here laid down; otherwise what I have retorted on them must be acknowledged to be very just.  
Neither is there any doubt, but that the Practice of Christ's Church hath been answerable to the Doctrine here represented.  
They say there is not any express Instance of any Infant baptised in the whole History of the Gospel; but is there any instance of any Infant of a Christian believer left unbaptised? Are there not strong Presumptions that upon coming over of any to the Faith, their Children together with themselves, were received and baptised; 'tis said only of Lydia that she believed, but of her and her Household that they were baptised 
* Act. 1●. 15. ; yea our Saviour himself, upon Zaccheus' receiving of him, says, to Day is Salvation come to thy House, forasmuch as thou also art the Son of Abraham 
† Luk. 19.9. . So St. Peter told Cornelius words, by which he and his House should be saved 
‖ Act. 11.14. . Thus it was promised to the Gaoler, that on his Faith not only himself should be saved but his House, and upon his Profession he was baptised, and all that were his, or all that belonged to him 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 16.31, 33. ; therefore not only the major Part of his Family, according to the false and corrupt Gloss of the Anabaptists, but simply and absolutely all that lived under his Roof.  
Moreover how reasonable is it to believe that there were Children in those Families, as part of the Household, for the word House or Household in Scripture, signifies Children eminently, being the principal Materials, Ben a Son, and Bathe a Daughter, do both come from the Root 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Filius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Filia à radice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 edificavit Metaphor. de liberorum procreatione, Deut. 25.9. Buxt. So Gen. 16.2. Margin, be built by her; Sept. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Banah which signify to build, and figuratively to procreate Children, and so to build an House or Family. Thus God promising to give Children unto David, is pleased to express him-himself in this Phrase, I will build thee an House, because Children under God do build up the House, and keep up the name of their Father's Family, and so to build an House or Family, being the ordinary Instruments as to perpetuate and continue, and hold up the House in Natural and Civil, so in Religious and Ecclesiastical Respects likewise; accordingly the Apostle directing a Bishop to rule his House well, presently names Children 
* 1 Tim. 3.4.  as the most considerable part of his Charge and Care. Wherefore, as it often falls out, when some parts of the Family are expressly instanced in, and the nomination of Children omitted, they are nevertheless intended and included, as Gen. 14.16.  
Neither do we read of any laid aside or excluded from Baptism upon the account of their Nonage, yea 'tis highly probable that those Children, yea sucklings, as the original Word imports, which were brought to Christ with a desire in them that brought them, that he should lay his hands on them, had been already baptised; now 'tis said expressly that he laid his Hands on them 
† Luk. 18.15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in a former Translation Babes. , but we river read in the N. T. of the laying on of Hands on any unbaptized Persons, unless perhaps it were in order to the working some miraculous Cure 
‖ Mark 10.16. ; In all other Cases, imposition of Hands was practised on baptised Persons 
* See Mark 8.23.16.18. Luke 4.40.13.13. Act. 9.17.28.8.  only, and the reason given by Christ to his Disciples, why they should countenance and further rather than restrain their Access to him sufficiently evinceth, that they were brought upon a spiritual Account rather than for any bodily Cure.  
And as a further Argument to show, that the practice was Apostolical, I may add hereto the Testimonies and Suffrages of the Ancient Fathers 
a Vid. Cassander de bapt.. of the Eastern and Western Churches. , both of the Greek and Latin Church. Origen affirms in express Terms, that the Church from the Apostles days, received a Tradition to Baptise Children 
b In his Comment on the Epist. to the Rom. c. 6. l. 5. , and that Baptism is to be given unto Infants, according to the Tradition of the Church 
c In his 8 Homil. on Levit. ; who yet was contemporary (according to Osiander and Funesius account) with Tertullian, neither could Tertullian himself be so sottish, as to oppose an imaginary abusive practice of having Sureties, or Hyginus Bishop of Rome before him, to order as he did about the Guardianship of Infants, in appointing such who should promise for their religious Education in that Faith whereinto they were batized 
d See Platina in the life of Hyginus the 8th Pope from St. Peter according to Caran. , if the baptising of them was not a thing in use before, and so an Apostolical ordination derived down to them, and from them transmitted to the Church, where the practice of it hath been uninteruptedly continued ever since. Why should Tertullian, I say, affright Persons from being Susceptors to Infants in their Baptism, by the Hazard they ran in their children's liableness to Death and to Distempers, if no such thing were in his time? It had been dangerous to start such a novelism if never before practised. St. Austin writ a Tract of Infant Baptism 
e De Bapt. parvulorum. , and says the Church always had it, always held it 
f Semper. habuit, semper tenet, in his 5 Serm. de verb. Apost. . Justin Martyr, who lived as they calculate in St. John's Days, in his unquestionable Works gives several hints for Infant Baptism 
g As in his Dialogue with Triphon, part 2. prop. 3. . Irenaeus speaks of Infants being Born again, that is by the Laver of Regeneration, viz. Baptism as Dr. Hammond understands it 
h Irenaeus l. 2. c. 29. Dr. Ham. resolution, Sect. 4. pag. 212. . Nazianz. is for it not only in danger of Death, but simply and absolutely, expressing himself to this purpose, Hast thou a Child, let it be baptised from an Infant, let it be early consecrated to the Spirit 
i Orat. 3. and 40. in S. Lavacr. . St. Basil gives Testimony to it, answering the Question, whether Infants may be baptised, in the Affirmative; for so, says he, we are by the Circumcision of Children instructed, there being a parity of reason as for the circumcising of Children 
k l. 3. contra Eunomium. 58. . Vossius makes the Testimony of St. Cyprian, in his Epistle 
l Epist.  to Fidus, (which for its authenticalness is quoted by Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerom, Austin, and others 
m Vid. Naz. Orat. 3. in S. Lavacr. Chrysost. Homil. ad Neoph. Ambr. in Luc. Hieron. l. 3. Dialog. contr. Pelag. Aust. in his 28 Epist. to St. Jerom, in his 14 Serm. de verb. Apost. in his Book, de peccat. merit. & remiss. and in his 3 Book, c. 5. ) beyond all exception, and Grotius says it makes the matter plain that there was then no doubt of Infant Baptism; accordingly the Magdeb. bring in Origen, Cypr. and other Fathers to avouch the Practice, to have been even in the time of the Apostles 
n Cent. 3. c. 4. pag. 57 . Now what says St. Austin, touching such immemorial usages, as the Catholic Church holds, and ever hath held, and have not come into use by the Institution of any Council, that they are such as are rightly believed, to have been delivered down to us, by no less than Apostolical Authority 
o In Donat. l. 4. c. 23. calling it an Eccles. Custom or as he explains himself, an Apostol. Tradition, se de Genesi ad literam, l. 10. c. 23. and his 3 Epist. to Volusiam. , and lest there should be any wresting of his words, viz. Traditum ab Apostolis, or Apostolical Tradition, he peremptorily affirms, (speaking of the Church's Authority in this Case of Paedobaptism) that it was without all question delivered by the Lord and his Apostles 
p l. 1. De peccat. merit. & remiss. c. 16. Proculdubio per Dominum & Apostolos traditum. .  
The word Tradition, the Fathers understood not in the Popish Sense, for that which hath been delivered in Doctrine from Age to Age, above what is written, to supply the supposed defect of the Scripture, but for the very written word itself, by which they delivered the truth, and for their examples and report thereof, tending to the explication of their Doctrine, and not to the adding any new Doctrine.  
Calvin affirms the baptising of Infants to be a holy Institution observed in Christ's Church 
q Instit. 4. c. 16. Sect. 6. . All the Reformed Churches, use it, as you may see by the Harmony of their Confessions 
r Th. à Jesu de Convers. omnium Gentium, l. 7. pag. 506. . The Greek Church, (who yearly excommunicate the Pope,) Baptise their Infants 
s Pagit of Heresies, pag. 17. ; so the Cophti or native Christians of Egypt who have no Communion with the Roman Church. And the practice being so general and Primitive; Erasmus wondered what evil Devil entered them, who denied the Baptism of Children used in the Catholic Church above 1400 Years, and he might the rather for that it hath been the general Consent, and almost universal Practice, not only of all Christendom, but of all the World; Jews, Gentiles, Mahometans, Christians of all Sects; Protestants, Papists, Greeks, Armenians, Muscovites, Mengrelians, Indians of St. Thomas, Abyssines, etc. as a modern Author observes, to use some solemn initiating Ceremony to admit their Children, not yet adult, into the Society and Communion of their Religion.  
These Authorities, (with others cited in the Margin 
* Constit. Clementis, there 'tis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptise your Infants, l. 6. c. 19 Concil. Melevit. can. 2. apud Magdeb. Cent. 5. cap. 9 col. 835. & Caranz. fol. 123. Ambros. l. de Ahrah. Patriarch. Hier. contra Pelag. lib. 3. Ut Christus Infantes ad se venire jussit, ita nec Apostoli eos excluserunt à Baptismo & quidem dum baptismus Circumcisioni aequiparat. Paulus Col. 2. aperte indicat etiam Infantes per baptismum Ecclesiae dei esse inferendos, etc. Magdeb. Cent. l. 2. c. 4. Magdeb. Cent. 2. 'tis said, nec usquam legitur Infantes hoc seculo à Baptismo remotos esse. We don't read they were then excluded Baptism, c. 4. p. 48. de Baptismo; nor as 'tis said, until the 6th Cent. when 'twas excepted against by one Adrianus. That Terull. himself was for Infant Baptism appears, in that in his Book De anima cap. 39 He presseth it when the Child is in danger of Death, and gives his reason, lib. de Bapt. cap. 12. praescribitur nemini sine Baptismo competere salutem. Council of Trullo, Can. 48. requires that all the Grecian little ones, without delay should be baptised. One of the 8 Cannons in the Council of Carthage concluding against Pelagius decreed, that whosoever denied Baptism for the remission of sins to a new Born Infant, should be anathematised, see Craggs Arraigment and Conviction of Anabaptism against Tombs, pag. 85. Photius, a learned Greek, produceth an Imperial Constitution, wherein it was decreed that all baptised Samarit. and Grecians should be punished, who brought not their Children to holy Baptism, apud Craggs, ibid. ) I lay down as I might have done many more, not to tie the Baptism of Children to the Testimony of Men; but as a Martyr for the Protestant Religion did, to show how men's Testimonies do agree with God's Word 
w In a Letter that Mr. Philpot writ, whilst he was in Prison. , and that Antiquity is on our side, and that the Anabaptists have nothing but false and new Imaginations, who feign the Baptism of Children to be the Pope's Commandment, or any late Invention or Innovation.  
Nor is our manner of administering this sacred Rite, by sprinkling or pouring on of Water novel, as I said, or unjustifiable; for the word to Baptise usually signifies as much, which as Dr. Featly 
x Dipper dipped, pag. 33. See Wells also in his Answer to Danvers, pag. 242. Printed, Anno 74. and Walker's Discourse of dipping and sprinkling, wherein is shown the lawfulness of other ways of Baptization besides that of total Immersion. Printed Anno, 78.  says Hesychius, Stephanus, Scapula and Budaeus, those great Masters of the Greek Tongue, makes good by many Instances and Allegations out of Classic Writers.  
And in this sense is it used in Scripture. So the Fathers were baptised in the Clould, not dipped therein, for they were under the Cloud 
* 1 Cor. 10.2. , but were wet or sprinkled therewith. So Nabuchadnezzar, was wet or sprinkled, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Septuag. hath it, baptised with the Dew of Heaven. Hence we read of divers washings or Baptisms, as the word is. And what were those but sprinklings? Sometimes Blood was sprinkled 
† Hebr. 9.10. ; sometimes Water was poured forth; No Person was dipped or plunged in Blood; yet those sprinklings were called Baptisms. So Mark 7.4. except they wash, the Original is, except they be baptised; and the manner of their washings before Meat, was not by dipping but by pouring on of Water 
‖ 2 Kings 3.11. : We read also of washing or baptising Tables 
* Mark 7.4. in the Margin, beds. vid Lightfoot, vol. 2. p. 345.  and other things many times a Day, which if done by dipping would make the labour of the Jews intolerable, besides many other inconveniences. And 'tis but reasonable that the outward Baptism should have allusion to and an Analogy with the inward. We are said to be baptised with the Holy Ghost, but not dipped into the Holy Ghost or his Graces; but to be sprinkled therewith, as with clean 
† Ezek. 36.25.  Water (in our Baptism) and to have the Holy Spirit poured on us 
* Isaiah 44.3. . And it had been more properly translated, baptised in Water, if it had been done only by dipping, rather than baptised with Water.  
Again, if we take a Survey of the several Instances and Examples of Persons baptised in Scripture, we shall find that 'twas probably done by sprinkling, or pouring on of Water, rather than by dipping. St. Paul was baptised by Ananias when Sick and Weak, having fasted three Days and was not strengthened till he received Meat, which was after he was baptised 
† Act. 9.18, 19 , and according to all Circumstances, it was done in his Lodgings. So when the Gaoler and those that belonged unto him were baptised, it was at a time and place, that there could be no accommodation for Water and other Conveniences for plunging and dipping, as the manner of some is; for 'tis not likely that the Apostle should carry the Gaoler, and all his in the dead of the Night to a River or Pond to Baptise them. 'Tis said, Philip and the Eunuch went down into the Water, or to 
‖ Act. 8.38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the Water, but 'tis not said after what manner he was baptised, and a Man may go down into the Water, and come up out of it too, and not be covered all over with it; if he wet but his Feet or Ankles, or wade but Knee deep, he goes down into the Water, and so may come up out of it, and our Lord and the Eunuch might do no more, and then have their Faces washed or sprinkled only in Baptism; and if St. Bernard may be believed, this way was Christ baptised, and as for the Eunuch, if we'll believe St. Jerome 
* Serm. de St. Joh. B. p. 1303.  and Sir Geo. Sandys 
* De locis Hebr. in voce Beths'. p. 500 Trau. l. 3. p. 142. vid Fuller's Miscel. l. 2. c. 8. p. 220. Fons ad radices Montis ebulliens ab eadem in quâ gignitur sorbetur humo & Apostolorum Acta referunt Eunuchum Candacis Reginae in hoc Baptizatum fuisse. vid. Zanch. de cultu dei externo, l. 1. col. 494. Linwood, l. 3. de bapt. and other learned Men. , he could not be dipped, because the Fountain in which he was baptised, (which retains the name of the Aethiopian Fountain to this Day) is immediately drunk up by the Earth out of which it Springs, and so not likely to be deep enough to dip the Aethiopian Treasurer in it. Moreover who can say, that he stripped himself, or that he was dipped in his wearing clothes, much less that he had any conveniency for shifting for such a purpose; for the meeting we find was very accidental, and the Eunuch presently, as soon as the solemnity was over, went on his way, nor do we read that he made any stay, but went immediately down from his Chariot to the Water.  
Estius on Act. 2.41. judgeth it most rational to conceive, that the Apostles did Baptise by washing or Sprinkling, for says he, 'tis altogether incredible, that they dipped 3000 in one Day, and 5000 at another time, and 'tis most likely that the 3000 were baptised in the same Place where they heard St. Peter's Sermon which converted them; where 'tis not likely that such quantities of Water, as Bonavent. notes 
‖ In l. 4. sent. didst 3. Artic. 3. q. 2.  could be found to serve for the decent dipping of so many. Whereas to suppose, that after St. Peter had ended his Sermon, those thousands took a Progress out of the City in order to the celebration of that Ordinance; as if dipping and plunging the whole Body under Water, were so essential to Baptism, that it could not be rightly performed without it, don't so well agree with Christ's Commission. For comparing Matt. 28.19. with Mark 16.15. the instruction or order that is given, is to this purpose; that preaching the Gospel to all Nations, they should Disciple and Baptise them; not that they should Preach in this or that Place, and then take them forth, that they may descend to some River to Baptise them; for to have the Ordinance of Baptism administered apart from the meeting Place of the Assembly, for all other Duties, would look somewhat like the Popish Pilgrimage, or at least like their going a Processioning, especially in some Countries and Places, where there is not a River in many Miles compass.  
I may further add, the consideration of the danger of plunging and dipping over Head and Ears. Our Saviour, who prefers Mercy before Sacrifice, will have the administration of the Ordinace, in such a way as is most consistent with his People's lives; even of those of the weakest Constitution; which must in some Countries, especially at some Seasons of the Year, be in extreme danger by dipping.  
And there is no dispensation in Scripture, for procastinating Baptism; yea in some short process of time, we find the Church expressly against some men's taking liberty of putting off their Baptism, and giving public Testimony of her dislike; insomuch that the Clinics, if any of them recovered, were adjudged unworthy to be admitted into any Office of the Ministry, not only by the Council of Neocesaria 
* Can. 12. Caranz. giving this for a Reason, non enim fides illius voluntaria sed ex necessitate est. , but by earlier Rules of more ancient Observation; which were urged by Cornelius 
† Apud Euseb. l. 6. c. 33. prope finem.  against Novatus, and as Surius remarketh 
* Tom. 1. pag. 223. declaring Novatus 's Ordination to be contra Canon's. , the Ordination of such Persons to the Priesthood was prohibited by those Ancients, not for that they thought them not sufficiently baptised, but because they judged it unfit, that ever they should be Priests, who deferred so long before they would declare themselves to be Christians. The truth is, notwithstanding this Procastination of Baptism in Novatus, and tho' too he had upon his recovery, neglected to have the Confirmation of the Bishop (according to the custom of the Church) which Cornelius 
† In his Letter to Fabian, apud Euseb. Harm. E. l. 6. c. 43. vid. Niceph. l. 6. c. 3. Chemnit. Exam. par. 1. p. 84.  accounts as another just exception against him, yet Fabian finding some relaxation allowable by Law upon some weighty Reasons, did by his Mediation and importunity prevail to have him ordained, giving assurance that he would ordain no more such; which could in no wise be granted him, if Novatus' Baptism had been Null, and the manner of its Administration unlawful, which as Cornelius writes was by sprinkling. An unanswerable proof and instance, of administering Baptism, by way of sprinkling so early in the Church, as in the time of Novatus, of whom the story is, and who no doubt was not the first Man that was so baptised, seeing 'twas pleaded in Bar to admission into Orders, as being against Law.  
Mr. Cradock a great Independent, in his Treatise of Gospel liberty, says, that the practice of dipping is to be restrained by the chief Magistrate, for the preservation of the lives of his Subjects. And in the Senate of Zurick in Switzerland there was an Act made, that if an Anabaptist dipped any of their People, he was to be punished with drowning. St. Cyprian doth not only allow of pouring on of Water or sprinkling in Baptism, but pleads for it in certain Cases, and acquaints us, that 'twas usual in those Days to Baptise sick Persons in their Beds, and proves that such Persons were rightly baptised, tho' only sprinkled from Ezek. 36.25. and says, that sprinkling, holds forth the Mystery as well as dipping 
* See his Discourse on Purpose, when the question concerning it was put to him by one Magnus. Epist.. 76. ad Magnum. . Upon this custom of the Clinics, the learned Vossius makes this remark, that those that were thus baptised were not plunged or dipped under Water, but only sprinkled.  
But 'tis urged from John 3.23. that John was baptising in Aenon near Salim, because there was much Water, a Reason given by the Holy Ghost himself, why he chose that Place for the Country to come in, and be baptised, because they might go many Miles in those hot Countries, and not meet with a drop of Water, and it was a great Privilege to those Places that banked on Jordan, that they had much Water, but 'tis no Argument to prove that John plunged all that he baptised, or dipped them over Head and Ears. Beside the Original is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Waters, viz. Streams or Rivulets; and History informs us, that they were so shallow as not to reach above the Ankles and so unapt for dipping as their way is 
† Non interest quanto quisque abluatur, quomodo in Eucharistiâ non quantum quisque comedat. Chamier. l. 5. de bapt. c. 1. p. 1404. . The Eunuch, as has it hath been well observed, doth not say here is a River, here is a Pool, here is Water enough for me to be dipped into; the quantity of the Water is not insisted on; which fairly intimates to us, that where there is Water, be it much or little, nothing hinders but one may be baptised therewith. I had need now to crave Pardon, for being so very Prolix on this Head, but I hope St. Austin's 
* Ad Hilar. Epist. 89.  Apology in the like Case, may pass for mine: Tanto magis pro Infantibus loqui debemus, quanto minus, pro se loqui possunt.  

THE REPLY To a pretended ANSWER To the foregoing Discourse.  
IT will not be unnecessary to premise, that this foregoing Discourse in opposition to the Anabaptists, contained at first only eleven Pages in close writing, a Copy of which was transcribed and communicated to a particular Friend; who shortly after upon their confident Boasting, that they would get it answered, did by my Permission, deliver it into their Hands, from whom after almost a Years time, and through frequent importunities; I received an Answer in Manuscript, such as it is, consisting of 27 Pages. I think it needful also to premise, that I have somewhat enlarged my Discourse, but not so as to cause the least difference in my ensuing Reply, nor shall I make the least advantage upon any Improvement or Addition I have made, nor is there in truth any occasion for it. For I do solemnly, and with all sincerity protest, that I don't find I had need to have had any word, Syllable, or Letter added, left out, or altered in my Papers, by reason of any thing in the pretended Answer.  
My Argument in short is this: That as Circumcision was the initiating Sign and Token of the Covenant to the Jews: So is Baptism to the Christians, and that the Command to keep the Covenant in the Sign of it, whatever the Sign be, was and is always Obligatory; and that the practice from Age to Age answers it.  
In the Prosecution whereof I obviated many Objections, now made use of by the Answerer (which takes up above half of the aforesaid 11 Pages) whereto there is no manner of Reply, save only somewhat about the Sabbath or Lord's Day, but not to the purpose, as will afterwards appear; and at that rate too, that he dares not condemn the Sabbatarians. This with the Preface takes up 3 Pages of the Answer. Nevertheless that he may seem to say somewhat he turns Opponent.  
First, He endeavours to prove, that the Covenant, whereof Circumcision was the sign, was not the Covenant of Grace, as having relation only to temporal Promises, taking a Branch for the whole; and reckoning that God made two distinct Covenants with Abraham. And this takes up 2 Pages more.  
Secondly, He labours to prove that Circumcision can give no ground for Infant Baptism, nor bear a suitable Parallel with it; using Arguments which have been answered over and over, and in a great Part obviated by me, tho' he takes no notice of it. This reacheth to his 10th Page.  
Then he takes notice of my citing Act. 2.39. running out into a large Ramble, which will not bear any Test; and as introductory thereto, he gins thus: You say the Promise in the 39 v. is spoken to those in the 36. v. even the House of Israel, who had crucified the Lord Jesus Christ, and their Children; of which I had not said a word. And adds, that by Children he doth not understand them as they are in a state of Infancy. But how doth he illustrate it? Why very profoundly and unanswearably with five or six Arguments, which to give them their full force, amounts to this: That there were none such then present, as he takes for granted; neither could any of them be Children to whom St. Peter Preached, and said, Repent and be baptised every one of you. For were this true, would it follow as he would sillily infer; that St. Peter neither did nor could speak of or concerning Children to them? May it not then be as well argued, that the Promise did not belong to those afar off, that should hereafter be called? Unless we understand thereby such of them as were then present, and had been St. Peter's Auditors? Which would be a contradiction in terminis. Now this, with some gross impertinence and senseless Stuff which immediately follows, comes home to the 14th Page of the Reply. So that there is above half of mine, and within a few Lines half of his past over, and hitherto it cannot be pretended there is any kind of Answer.  
As to what follows, he says himself, Pag. 15. that what is written in my 8, 9, 10, 11 Pages, (and I don't remember there were any more in the Transcript-Copy they had) concerning the Covenant and Infants right to Baptism, he supposeth to be answered in what he had written aforegoing. He means, he had framed Arguments, which was not his Province. Moreover in these Pages he omits several Things, which must needs be reckoned very material, whereto he answers nothing. I'll instance in some particulars.  
First, That in Christ's Dialect, to belong to him, and to be his Disciple: Is all one.  
Secondly, That Infants are called Disciples by the Holy Ghost.  
Thirdly, That they are made so by God himself, vouchsafing graciously in their believing Parents to accept them also into his Covenant, and so into the state of Disciples.  
Fourthly, That the Apostle shows that interest in the Promise, is alone of itself a sufficient ground for the application of Baptism.  
Fifthly, That the Suffrages and Authorities of the Primitive Fathers are on our side, which he overlooks as insignificant, tho' they are only produced to show what was their judgement in the Case, and the practice in their time.  
Sixthly, That sprinkling or pouring on of Water, doth as well express the Mystery as dipping, and better alludes to the inward Baptism of the Spirit.  
And that 'tis very improbable that the 3000 baptised in one Day, and in all likelihood where they heard St. Peter's Sermon, were dipped.  
Again he neither denies, nor vindicates their concurrence with the Papists, tho' I had represented it in so many Instances; and whereas I said expressly, that the Fathers in avouching Infant-Baptism to be an Apostolical Tradition, did not understand the word Tradition in the Popish sense, to supply the supposed defect of the Scripture. Yet he positively affirms it is to be believed to do so, and so he runs on for above 2 Pages, proving the Perfection of the Scripture, that is fight with his own Shadow, for who denied it?  
Once more I said, we don't read in the New Testament of laying on of Hands on any unbaptized Person, except in order to a bodily Cure. But the Answerer, passeth by the exception, and then doubtless he confuted his Adversary, speaking so home to the matter. What hath been hitherto observed, chief refers to the Method and Composure of the Answer, and discovers in it so much of weakness and insufficiency, that no judicious Person can well allow it that denomination. But taking liberty further to display its imbecility, I shall offer somewhat by way of Reply, to the matter and contents of the pretended Answer, that (if possible) I may provoke him or some one for him to make a rejoinder, that the point in Controversy may be thoroughly sifted, and the truth cleared, or left to the World to judge how unable that Party is to maintain their way, or make any tolerable defence.  
He saith, Page the first, that he cannot understand that the weight of the Arguments for Infant-sprinkling, but rather thinks that the want of weight in them, is the Cause an Answer hath been so long neglected. It seems he is unfit to answer Arguments tho' they want weight, and others perhaps may think it was very meet and fit he should have let them alone, rather than prejudice his Cause by an unfit Answer, and should not have put himself upon this Trial of his Skill, unless he could have managed it better. But first an Answer as he saith is expected, that is something must be done towards the giving an Answer, for the amusing the expecting People, who otherwise ('tis likely) would have been more apt to have mistrusted the weakness of their Cause. Secondly, 'Tis presumed that after the perusal of my Discourse, by some of the more learned and wiser Heads, 'twas thought more eligible to leave it to one that is unfit for it, to give an Answer; that the defect thereof may not reflect on any of the Grandees, or rather 'tis suspected that some Chief undertook it, but under the mask of one unfit, that the lameness of the Answer, (of which the Preface seems conscious) may by those that peruse it, be imputed to the Author; and the strength thereof, which their own Party will suppose, may be ascribed to the presumed goodness of the Cause they have espoused, however tho' he be unfit he will make an Essay. Yea he will (which is more) give an Answer to such things as he thinks may have any thing in them that calls for an Answer.  
Now he who will discharge the Office of a Respondent, ought fairly to repeat his Adversaries Words, and then to apply his Answer, either by denying or distinguishing, or both; but how this hath been observed by the Answerer, you will see in the first Paragraph.  
The first thing, saith he, that I take notice of is in Page 1. where you endeavour to prove that Infant-Baptism came in the room of Circumcision, although no positive Prescript for it, bringing the change of the Sabbath-Day from the seventh to the first, without prescript.  
Reply, These are so far from being my words, that they contain not the sense of them. For (1.) neither I, nor I think any Body else ever endeavoured to prove, either that Baptism came in the room of Circumcision, without a positive prescript, or that Infant-Baptism came in the room of Circumcision, but that Baptism did, which none can justly deny. St. Paul, Coloss. 2.12. affirms as much, viz. That Baptism in the New Testament succeeded Circumcision, the initiating Sacrament of the Old Testament, and that as plainly, as in 1 Cor. 5.7, 8. he hath affirmed the Lord's Supper to come in the room of the Passover; for the Apostle having told his Colossians, that they had the Circumcision made without Hands, the Circumcision of the Heart; he further signifies by way of implication, that they had as good as the outward Circumcision too, by being baptised, or he could have no occasion to add, [being buried with him in Baptism] and his Argument had been nothing at all, a mere non sequitur, unless he gives them to understand thereby, that Baptism succeeded and came in place of Circumcision. To evidence this to be the genuine sense and intention of the Apostle; know that he was here dissuading the believing Christians from the Rudiments of the World and Jewish Ceremonies, particularly from Circumcision, upon this very ground, that they were complete in Christ; but lest the Jewish Teachers should suggest, that the receiving the inward Grace of Circumcision, doth not make them so complete as the Jews were, because they had also an outward visible sign. As Abraham, for instance, had the inward Grace, and yet he received the outward Sign; and consequently, tho' Christians be made partakers of this great Benefit by Christ, yet they may stand in need of an outward Seal, to assure them of their partaking herein; he would have them know that neither is this Privilege wanting to Christians, who have as excellent and express a Sacrament of it; and that Christ hath not left his People under the New Testament destitute of such an outward Sign and Seal; for however Circumcision be taken away, yet there is another Sacrament substituted and appointed, a more excellent and lively one than ever Circumcision was, a Sacrament resembling it, and answering to it [buried with him in Baptism; wherein, etc.] that is sacramentally signifying and sealing up both our mortification and our vivification. But if they had espoused Antipedo-Baptism, they might have urged their dissatisfaction, and have again Replied, that tho' they needed not to be circumcised themselves, seeing Baptism is so happily come in the room of it, yet they would still Circumcise their Children, because according to their Doctrine, Baptism is not to be applied to them.  
In the second Place, the Words have no positive Prescript for it, and without a Prescript, do show either that he did not understand my Argument, (tho' easy to be understood) or else that he wilfully altered and perverted my sense, that he might serve some other Design, than the finding out the Truth, His own Conscience must tell him, he hath fathered on me what I said not. This Addition of his, without Prescript, insinuates as if I had there argued, that the want of a Precept for the change from Circumcision to Baptism, is no more a reason to deny Baptism to Infants, than the want of a Precept for the change from the seventh Day to the first, is a reason for the rejecting of the Lord's Day. That the Answerer did thus intent to represent me, seems plain; because after he had showed Reasons for the first Day, he concludes, so we have a plain Precedent, tho' not positive Prescript for the first Day, but you want not only Precept but Precedent for Infant Baptism. [Page 3.] Now the obvious meaning of my Discourse there, is, that the general Command of keeping God's Covenant in its Sign, as also the general Command of observing the Day of the Sabbath, one Day in seven is obligatory to Christians, as well as it was to Abraham and his Seed. The consideration what is the particular Sign, or whether it be altered from what was first specified; or whether with or without a Prescript, being not there any part of the Argument; its main strength depending on the general and primary Part of the Precepts; the substance therefore of what I said is, that the general and primary Command to Abraham, (thou and thy seed shall keep my Covenant in the sign of it) is of perpetual Obligation; as in the fourth Commandment, the general and primary Command for sanctifying the Sabbath, or keeping Holy one Day in seven, obligeth now as well as then; and that if Christians be discharged from observing Circumcision as the Sign, and the last of seven, which was appointed to be the Sabbath at first, (which are secondary positive Commands,) yet they are bound to observe a seventh Day, and to keep God's Covenant in its Sign, (these things being of Primary obligation.) And now what is said to all this? Why truly as to the general Command to Abraham above mentioned, he passeth it over at least for the present, and says nothing about it, but as to the Sabbath, doth he deny that the general Command of keeping one Day in seven Holy continues obligatory? Not at all; which he should have done, if he would have opposed the force of my Argument. What doth he then do? Why he gravely says, (1.) He knows no positive Command for the change of the seventh Day to the first. (2.) He knows one Day of seven was commanded. (3.) He gives some account what we have to say for the change of the seventh Day to the first. Lastly, That he dares not blame the Sabbatarians. By all this he confirms my Argument; and that too more than it required. And yet he hath so managed the matter, blind-folding his ignorant followers, that those who heard only his Papers when they were read apart in their Congregation, doubtless thought that he answered what may be reasonably thought to call for an Answer.  
He proceeds, (Page 3.) to observe concerning the Covenant, which he saith, I have written several Pages about, supposing that as Abraham's natural Seed were in Covenant, and had right to Circumcision, so the Seed of Believers are in Covenant, and aught to be baptised.  
Reply, The word Natural is not in the Text; neither was it put in by me: 'Tis rather their way to add to the Word, the better to gloss over their Error. Provided nevertheless, it be not understood qua tale, as natural, I do admit it, and own the whole; it being that which I have fully demonstrated. But so it is to be accounted for my Conclusion, rather than for my Hypothesis. However it be, he makes two exceptions against it; tho' it be very illogical to nibble as it were at the Conclusion, whilst he tacitly grants the premises. But it must be considered, that he hath ingeniously acknowledged how unmeet and unfit he is to be a Respondent; and he doth but go on to prove it.  
The first Exception that he makes is: That the Covenant in the 17 of Gen. is not a Covenant of Grace: This indeed would overthrow the very foundation of my Discourse, could it be proved, and duly applied. Neiof which, tho' he Acts here the Part of an Opponent, is done by the pretended Answerer; whereof he is so Conscious, that he dares not depend upon it, fearing he should be driven to his Shifts, should we put the matter in Controversy to this issue. And therefore that he may have a Loophole to escape, he saith (Page 8.) neither indeed were it that Covenant, meaning the Covenant of Grace, would it as to that help you: And he is not without a pretended Reason, to help himself in it; because forsooth Grace doth not go, says he, in Generation from Parent to Child. Wisely argued! 'tis as much as to say, speaking to the Point, God is not a God to Abraham and his Seed too, his Promise in that respect went beyond his Performance. Grace cannot go by Covenant from Parent to Child. And who are those that found descent of Grace in natural Generation, or say that Believers Children are in this gracious state, because they are believers Children, that is by virtue of natural Generation. We only say, 'tis by virtue of the Covenant, the Promise that is made to the faithful and their Seed; whereupon are grounded such gracious Privileges and Prerogatives descending from Parent to Child. So that the Root being Holy, the Branches are so too 
* Rom. 11.16. , yea if but one of the Parents be a Believer 
† 1 Cor. 7.14. , the Children are in a Holy Separate-State; not common and unclean with the rest of the World; but in such a State at least, as putteth them into a more advantageous and fairer Prospect of Heaven, and greater probability of obtaining saving Grace, than if they had been out of the Covenant, that Holy State, so as the Promise did not reach them. Hence Christ speaking of the Jews Collectively, calls them the Children of the Kingdom 
‖ Matt. 8.12. , the Apostle the Children of the Covenant 
* Act. 3.25. , the Margin referring it to that of Gen. 12.3. which himself saith, (Page 5.) respects the Covenant of Grace.  
But to Reply to his Exception, as he goes on to demonstrate it here, as his manner is, he Acts the Opponent rather than the Respondent, and therefore thinks himself not concerned to meddle with the Arguments produced by me, tho' he pretended otherwise in his Preface, and seemed to Promise to give Answer to such things as call for an Answer, but since 'tis not his mind, I am content to answer his Allegations; and moreover do purpose to take occasion from thence, further to demonstrate the Identity of the Abrahamical and Evangelical Covenant, that the Covenant, Gen. 17. is a Covenant of Grace; the more firmly to establish the Scripture Foundation touching God's Covenant with Abraham, on which, as himself says truly, (Page 3.) I found the stress of my Discourse.  
He says, (Page 4.) that he looks upon this Covenant, in the 17th of Gen. not to be the Covenant of Grace, but a Covenant God made with Abraham, respecting some temporal Blessings that God was pleased to bestow upon him, and his natural Seed, and the same with, Deut. 29.1. and onward to the 9th but adds, that he understands the Covenant in Gen. 12.3. and 18.18. to have a respect to the Covenant of Grace. Now suppose the Land of Canaan be the main matter Promised to Abraham in the said Covenant, it may not follow, that 'tis only a temporal Blessing; because under temporal Promises, Spiritual Blessings were veiled and consigned, by a temporal Possession of the promised Land, an eternal Inheritance in the heavenly Canaan, was assured to them. Besides you take a part for the whole, that which is but an Adjunct, or an appendix, for an entire Covenant; as if God made two distinct Covenants with Abraham, when as there is not the least hint for it in the whole Bible, which speaks only of one Covenant made with that Holy Patriarch, even that which Circumcision did consign, which was a Spiritual Covenant under a Veil, but now 'tis one and the same without a Veil, as Doctor Taylor, who is so often quoted by them, expresseth it 
* Discourse of Baptism. p. 37. , and so could not respect only, as the Answerer saith, God's blessing him with a numerous Issue, and them with the Land of Canaan; there being in that no sensible Blessing to Abraham, seeing neither he nor his Posterity enjoyed the Promise as a mere earthly Blessing for near 500 Years after, doubtless therefore this must be made good to him, as before premised, or there was a Blessing for him, which was concealed under the leaves of a temporal Promise. Besides there were others than Abraham's Seed, and Ishmael who were to be circumcised 
† Gen. 17.11, 12. , to whom the Land of Canaan did not belong.  
The Mysteriousness of this Transaction, we are further instructed in by St. Paul, Heb. 11.13. They all died in the faith, having not received the Promises, as he observes, viz. of a Temporal Possession in Canaan. They saw the Promises, that is the Spiritual Part, afar off: they embraced them, and looked through the Cloud and temporal Veil, and desired a better Country, that is an heavenly; or the same in an heavenly State. This was the Object of their desires, and the secret of their Promise: And therefore Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith, which he had before 
* Rom. 4.11. , and so must relate principally to an Effect and Blessing greater than the generality of the Jews apprehended, or was expressed in the surface of the Temporal Promise. Wherefore when God promised pardon and forgiuness of Sins, he promised to remember this Covenant 
† Levit. 26.42. , what stay could it be to Moses' Faith, when God appeared to him in the Bush, in saying I am the God of thy Fathers of Abraham, &c. 
‖ Exod. 3.6. , if it only concerned temporals. Agnoscatur, says Chamier 
* Lib. 5. de bapt. ; let it be granted that the Promise of the Land of Canaan, together with the Multiplication of Abraham's Posterity is annexed to this Covenant, yet says he, this is not the Covenant but an appendage to it, as to Godliness the promises of this Life are annexed, Earthly things were indeed under that dispensation promised more fully and distinctly; suitable to the Jewish Pedagogical Estate, to allure them to the service of God; and heavenly things more generally and sparingly: On the contrary, spiritual Blessings are more fully and clearly, and earthly Things more generally and sparingly held forth, and promised to us under the Gospel Administration: And the Land of Canaan was more particularly insisted on in the first Dispensation; being designed for the Type of Heaven, and an explanation of the Primary grand Promise to be their God: Denoting, that he would as certainly bring them to the Celestial Canaan, and to the spiritual and glorious Rest there; as to that temporal and corporeal Rest from their servitude and captivity in Egypt. Hence it was that Jacob gave such a solemn Charge to Joseph, and Joseph to his Brethren, the one to Bury his dead Body in Canaan, the other for the Transportation of his Bones thither, which they would never have done for an earthly Inheritance, but to nourish in the Hearts of their Posterity Faith and Desire of rest in Heaven, in the Communion of Saints, whereof Canaan's rest was a Type, into which, not Moses the Lawgiver, but Joshua or Jesus the Type of Christ was to bring them. So that the whole Tenor of the Ahrahamical Covenant, speaks it a Covenant of Grace; and the Apostle giving us the substance of it in the Gospel, doth it in these Words 
* Heb. 8.10. , I will be to them a God, and they shall be my People.  
But such is this Man's Confidence, that he prays me to take notice, whether there be any thing else in the 17th of Gen. but temporal Blessings. But what saith he to v. 4. as the Apostle applies it, Rom. 4.27. whereto 'tis referred in the Margin? Or to v. 7. denoting the quality of the Covenant, that 'tis not temporary but everlasting, respecting spiritual good Things? Or to the following Words: To be a God to thee and thy seed after thee? Bellarmine indeed says, that God when he enjoined Circumcision to Abraham, did Promise only earthly Things, i. e. the Propagation of his Posterity and the Land of Palestine, as this Answerer doth; and again, I will be a God to thee and thy seed, holds forth, says Bellarmine, only a Promise of a peculiar protection. But Amesius well observes, in his Answer to him, that our Saviour gathered from thence a Resurrection to Bliss; or his Argument against the Sadducees 
† Matt. 22.32.  had not been Conclusive.  
In short this Covenant is so much the Covenant of Grace, that it contains in it the great Mystery of Man's Redemption, as is plain from the Comment of Zachary upon it 
* Luke 1.71. , the belief whereof was the justification of Abraham 
† Gen. 15.5, 6. Rom. 4.3. , wherefore 'tis expressly said, that when God enacted this Covenant with Abraham, he preached the Gospel unto him 
‖ Gal. 3.8. , that is, he made a Covenant with him, concerning Christ and Salvation by him; and he saith further, that it was preached to the Jews as it is to us 
* Heb. 4.2. .  
Thus we see, what that Covenant with Abraham was, that 'tis substantially the same that we are now under, or by what means else did any of the Jews before Christ came, obtain Grace or Glory? It was before Christ's coming into the Flesh clothed with many Shadows of now abolished Ceremonies, Types and Sacrifices, in its Administration, having upon Mount Sinai the Covenant of works adjoined to it, or the first Covenant; so termed, for that in the substance thereof it represented the first Covenant. So that by Reason of these adjuncts, 'tis sometimes distinguished from its very self, as it was administered by Christ after his Incarnation. But if not the same, how are the Gentiles said to be grafted in amongst them 
† Rom. 11.17. , as Grotius hath it, or according to Beza and Piscator, pro ipsis instead of them, or in their Place; or how doth the same Olive-Tree continue still? It remains then, that there are not two Covenants of Grace, differing in substance, but one and the same under various Administrations.  
Camero 
* Thes. 7.  makes three Covenants, one of Nature, one of Grace, and one subservient to that of Grace. But ubi unum propter aliud, ibi unum tantum: But lest I be thought too general in my Procedure, I shall further demonstrate that God's Covenant with Abraham, consists of those very substantial Parts which are assigned to the Evangelical, as 'tis in this 17th of Gen. and elsewhere more fully expressed by Moses, interpreted by the Prophets, and applied by the Apostles.  
In Gen. 17.1. he tells Abraham what a God he will be unto him, viz. A God all-sufficient. Which Promise you have Gen. 15.1. divided into two Parts; and in other Places among the Prophets, into these Three; first, All-sufficient to pardon the Penitent; secondly, To give his Holy Spirit; thirdly, To give eternal Life. In each of these respects, was God looked upon as all-sufficient in the Old Testament. In Isaiah 55.7. God says, I will forgive and multiply my pardons. Hence the Jews are exhorted to repent 
† Act. 2.39. Ezek. 36.25. , for that the Promise of the Pardon of Sins by the Blood of Christ belongs to them, and he promiseth further to put his Spirit within them; and to cause them to walk in his Statutes 
‖ Ezek. 36 27. , and as 'tis in Deut. 
* 30.6.  to Circumcise the Heart. So Zachary, speaking of God's Covenant, and his Oath to Abraham 
† Luke 1.71, 74. , makes mention of this twofold Mercy, which accrues to us by virtue thereof, viz. First, Deliverance from the Power of our Enemies, Sin and Satan. Secondly, Grace and Strength to serve him, that he would grant, or as the Word is rendered 
‖ Rev. 11.3.  give Power, to wit his Grace and Holy Spirit, for the amending of our Lives. See also Psal. 103.3. and Esa. 44.3. And that these Places refer to God's Covenant with Abraham, is yet more evident from Gal. 3.16. where the Promise of the Spirit is called the blessing of Abraham. And tho' the Promise of eternal Life is not any where in the Old Testament plainly expressed, yet it was concealed under the leaves of a temporal Promise, wherein all the Prophets do unanimously declare, there was an excellency of Blessing, far exceeding what Believers outwardly enjoyed in their Peace, Prosperity, Kingdom and Temple-Worship, which could be no other than the spiritual and eternal Deliverance of their Persons from Sin and its curse, with the enjoyment of the Favour of God here, and eternal Life in the World to come, as 'tis observed by St. Paul in the eleventh Chapter to the Hebrews. In like manner the Condition on Abraham's Part, is the same that is required of us Christians, i. e. to observe the Evangelical Precepts; to believe and obey that Gospel which was preached to him; as much as to say Faith and Obedience. Not that Righteousness which is of the Law, exact legal Obedience, but that which is of Faith, that which is truly Evangelical; as is evident by comparing Deut. 3.11. with Rom. 10.6. and of the same nature with that of a Christian. How otherwise could Abraham be the Father of them that believe, and his Faith the pattern of Faith to others, and we be admonished to walk in the steps of his Faith, and to do his works?  
Neither do the Prescript Rules, given to the one or the other, make any alteration therein, so long as they are all of the same Nature and Kind. Now that they are so, appears from the forequoted Places; where 'tis said, that the Commandment is not hid, in the Hebrew and Septuagint not too heavy; but as Christ's Yoke and Burden light and easy. Neither is it in Heaven or beyond the Seas, it will cost no great Pains to come to the knowing and practising of it, very agreeable and consentaneous to every one's Nature, very nigh and in the Heart, very easy to Learn and Practise; and what this is, is punctually set down 
* Rom. 10.9. , to be confessing of Christ, and a Cordial belief of his Resurrection, shown forth in the Practice of those Rules that he hath left us, and God had before Prescribed.  
And for that Commandment which Christ calls New, 'twas from the beginning, but being buried as it were in a Law of Ceremonies, it seemed wholly laid aside and neglected, insomuch that few attained to so right a meaning of the Commandment, as that Scribe 
† Matt. 12. , who our Saviour saith, was not far from the Kingdom of Heaven.  
But suppose the Divine Precepts are found to vary in number and perspicuity, or the like, in respect of Abraham and us, yet that puts no distinction betwixt his Faith and Obedience and ours; for so the Faith and Obedience of one Christian would not be the same with that of another, when in different Circumstances. We conclude therefore, that Abraham's Faith and so his Obedience is of the same Nature with ours. Accordingly runs the Precept, Gen. 17.1. Walk before me and be thou perfect, that is upright or sincere as the Margin shows; which implies that tho' he should be subject to infirmities, yet so long as he hath a single upright Heart, there is no more required than such an Evangelical Obedience, the Righteousness of Faith. Hence the Apostle discoursing of justification by Faith 
* Gal. 3. v. 5. , instanceth in Abraham, and argues that we are justified on the same Terms with him; and that neither Jews nor Christians are otherwise justified than he was, who was justified or accounted Righteous, not only for that particular Act of Faith by which he believed that he should have a Son which should be his immediate Heir 
† Gen. 15.6. , but that habit, that Grace of Faith, (that is chief and primarily) whereby he was able to believe that Promise with the same Faith he believed the Promise of the Messiah, that a certain Seed should be given to him, In whom all the Nations of the Earth shall be blessed. And 'tis the same Faith to believe that God would send such a Messiah before the Law, as that he hath exhibited and sent him since; and consequently what is now required of us, as the Condition of the Covenant on our part is the same, and no more in effect than what was required by God of Abraham, as the Condition on his Part. Forasmuch then as hath been shown, that God's Covenant with Abraham hath the same mercies on God's Part made over to Man; and the same Conditions, on Man's Part required of God with those of the New Covenant, the Abrahamical Covenant cannot be denied to be the Covenant of Grace, and so my Foundation stands sure and unshaken, and beyond all doubt will so remain, notwithstanding the utmost efforts of such Assailants.  
His other exception toucheth Circumcision: Which, he says, to repeat his very words, can give no grounds for Infant Baptism, nor bear suitable Parallel with it. And thereupon he gives several Instances wherein they differ. But what would he infer hence? That the one succeeds not the other. And so there can be no Argumentum à pari. That therefore Infants should be baptised; because such were circumcised. I answer, the Lord's Supper succeeded the Passover; and yet they differ in many Punctilios and Circumstances: It sufficeth to make the Parallel suitable, that Baptism is a Sacrament of initiation into the Covenant of Grace, and the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith under the Gospel, as Circumcision was before under the Law, 
Gen. 17.11. Act. 7.8. Rom. 4.11. compared with 1 Cor. 12.13. 1 Pet. 3.21.  and doth as properly and effectually confirm and establish the Covenant betwixt God and us now, as Circumcision did then; Baptism being the only ordinary way of adding to the Church in the time of the Gospel, on which score 'twas instituted. And 'tis as requisite that we should in some such manner seal to the Covenant now as Abraham before, we being as much unable to give an answerable assurance to Almighty God for ourselves and Children, as ever Abraham was for himself and Posterity; or if you will, may it not be thought as highly necessary that we should be by some Rite matriculated members of the Christian, as they were solemnly initiated into the Jewish Church? Now what other way is prescribed to us of Matriculation, than Baptism; the only most proper Rite for this purpose, as it hath been in all Ages accounted; insomuch that all the several Baptisms that were before Christ, were all meant for initiating forms. So the Jews had a Custom long before the coming of Christ, to make proselytes or converts to their Religion, not only by Circumcision but by baptising, or washing them with Water. The same was the meaning of John's Baptism to make Men Disciples under his Administration. And the same was the meaning of Christ's Baptism, to initiate Men into the Christian Religion, and make them Disciples of Christ. Hence baptising and making Disciples, means the same thing, John 4.1. John made and baptised more Disciples, that is baptised them Disciples, which was the form of making them such. All the instances of Baptism in the New Testament were used as initiating Forms; and to no other Purpose, being therefore never repeated; no more than men were twice circumcised or admitted into the Church before Christ. Nor do we find since the coming in of the Gospel, any other Rite or Ceremony of initiation permitted, much less enjoined. Sure I am, there was at first no framing of distinct Covenants for each Congregation, according to the fancy and humour of the respective Teacher, a mode which some of our late upstart Sects have boldly introduced without any Divine Authority, or Foundation in the Word of God. And as there is no mention in the Gospel of any Covenant, but one, of Grace, so neither of any other Sign or Token thereof, or any other form of entering into the said Covenant, than Baptism; but as Circumcision was heretofore, so Baptism is now the initiating Rite.  
But to Reply to his Instances, whereby he would prove the Parallel not suitable: His first Instance or Reason is, because the natural Seed of Abraham, without any token of a work of Grace on them, aught to be circumcised; but the natural Seed of Believers, without some token of a work of Grace upon them, ought not to be baptised. For which he citys Matt. 3.6. to v. 10. That some had a sense of their Sins, and were brought to a confession is plain, v. 6. But what token was there of a work of Grace on them, whom the Baptist calls there a Generation of Vipers? And yet of them he says, 
Matt. 3.7. v. 11. Mark. 1.5. Luke 7.30.  I indeed Baptise you. And St. Mark says, they were all baptised of him; he refused none of them. So that they were only the Pharisees and Lawyers, that were not baptised of him, who exempted themselves. Or what token of a work of Grace appeared on those that were baptised of Lydia's Household; besides what was observed on herself? 
Act. 16.15. Domûs autem nomine ipsam intelligimus familiam; imprimis vero Liberos & nepotes, says Marl. on the Place. See Mons. le Clerc's, Supplement to Dr. Hammond on the Place.  And yet not she only was baptised, but her Household upon her Conversion. And if others of the House were thereupon baptised, much rather her Infant-childrens, if she had any such. This is certain, she had a Household, a Family, and they were baptised as well as herself. To allege that some had such a work of God wrought upon their Souls, before they were baptised, proves nothing; for so doubtless had some Jews, and Abraham in particular, before they were circumcised. That interrogative, Mat. 3.7. having there the force of a Negation, implies that they had no manner of Conviction, nor could any have taught them, that they should merely by St. John's Baptism avoid the destruction that hung over their Heads, and therefore he bids them to repent. He must prove, if he can, that none else ought to be baptised; for as yet we have only his bare Ipse dixit, his own say so, he may pass for a Magisterial Dictator to his own ignorant Party, who can follow him with an implicit Faith; but his Authority will not sway with any others of sober sense.  
(2.) He says the natural Seed of Abraham were commanded to be circumcised, but the Children of Believers are not where, in the word of God, commanded to be baptised. This is that we call a begging of the question. Is not Baptism as expressly commanded now, as Circumcision was then? But Infant Baptism he will say is not. Neither need there to be a new or distinct Command for it: Because their right to be within the Church or Covenant, together with their Parents, is not a new Institution; but as old as Adam, for aught I know, says Dr. Wallis 
* Defence of Infant Baptism, pag. 14. Printed Anno 97. ; but the solemn Rite of admission into this Church, (to which the Children of Believers have a right to be admitted) is a new Institution. Then by Circumcision appointed to Abraham: And Now by Baptism upon a new Institution, appointed by Christ, as the same Author expresseth it.  
Another Reason that he gives (which is the only one more that I need consider here) is, because there is a sore Punishment threatened on the Manchild that is not circumcised 
† Gen. 17.14. , but no Punishment threatened in the whole Word of God, on an Infant for not being baptised. Answer, This Argument, were it of any force, doth militate against the Lord's Day succeeding the Sabbath 
* Exod. 31.14. , which nevertheless he himself hath granted, and in some measure made good. Moreover the Punishment threatened, doth not affect Infants wanting Circumcision, but Persons neglecting or contemning that Ordinance. The words in the Original import no more, Praeputiatus Mas, the uncircumcised Male, (so Junius conceives the word to be there taken, with reference only to the Sex, not to the Age) shall be cut off, not in his Infancy, but afterwards when he comes to Years of Discretion; if then he approves his Fathers or Guardians neglect, and neglect Circumcision himself. Which Junius makes good by two Arguments. First, From the Original which may be rendered as well, and rather actively than passively, according to the different Radix it may be derived from, thus, who shall not circumcise his foreskin. Secondly, From the Reason that God himself there gives; for he hath broken my Covenant. Which is not incident unto Children, and therefore the threatened Punishment was very unlikely to be inflicted on them, who could not commit the Offence: We read that Moses was in danger of being slain by the Angel, for neglecting to circumcise his Son 
† Exod. 4.24. , but nothing is said of the excision of his Son, but that afterwards he was circumcised though the eighth Day was passed.  
I have already observed in the beginning of this Reply, how absurdly he has gone about to prove, that by Children, in Act. 2.39. are not meant Children as they are in a state of Infancy, making no difference between the Persons the Apostle spoke to, and those he spoke of, but implying that all those whom the Apostle asserted to have an interest in the Promise, must necessarily be only the very same Persons he was discoursing to, and therefore the Children, as the Answerer explains himself, must be such as should be able to embrace the precept to repent. A Conclusion that can in no wise follow from his premises, and 'tis impossible it should from any other, since it would argue the Apostle himself to be guilty of vain tautology and impertinence, if no more were meant of their Children than of all the World. Besides there was no occasion for naming Children at all, but the sense had been as full without it. But this Answerer, not contenting himself with such absurd Arguing, as I have already noted, begets here a superfetation of absurdities, and further to show his excellent faculty of quidlibet ex quolibet, closeth as it were every Paragraph of this long Ramble, of almost three Pages with this fancied Inference: So from this, Infants ought not to be baptised, repeating it no less than six times, without hardly varying one Word; not weighing how 'tis reduced, or brought in Head and Shoulders, so long as it may serve any way to amuse that poor ignorant misguided Sect. There is a parcel more of the like impertinent Stuff, for almost a Page and half immediately following; which seeing it don't so nearly touch the main matter in controversy, that I may not be too tedious, I will pass over in silence, though he has deserved other Returns for his groundless Censures and Upbraid, which he is forced to make use of for want of Reason.  
In the next Words, Page 14. he brings me in saying, so that excluding Children from the Covenant, and debarring them of the Sign, puts a sacrilegious restraint thereon, and excludes them from the ordinary way of Salvation. Whereto he returns this Answer, You put more stress upon it, than it will bear; but what doth he mean by that? Doth he deny the Proposition? That it doth not put a sacrilegious restraint upon the Covenant? No such thing. Or doth he deny the Consequence that it excludes them from the ordinary way of Salvation? Not at all. What then! Doth he instance in any ordinary means, whereof they are capable? Not so neither. He mentions that of Rom. 10.14, 15. but himself hath observed, Page 11. that that goes beyond their capacity to make use of. And 'tis yet he says to prove that Baptism is an Ordinance of Christ for Infants. What then? Why he even makes the matter of no consequence at all, whether there be allowed them any ordinary means or no; tho' at the same time they allow them to have original Sin. There is then, according to him, no ordinary way left for the Salvation of Children. For as he intimates, in the beginning of this Page, a believers Child hath no Privilege more than the unbelievers to any Ordinance of Christ: But how contrary is this Doctrine to that of our Saviour Mark 10.14? Where he says, of such is the Kingdom of God; which signifies their having an interest in Heaven hereafter, and consequently must imply their capacity of being of the visible Church here. And it must be primarily meant of Children, and not such only as are humble and innocent like them; otherwise the sense cannot be coherent: For what is the innocency and humility of such to Children, that they should be suffered more than Lambs, or the like humble and innocent Creatures to be brought to Christ, to be received into his Arms? Who might better have been propounded, as patterns of more perfect Innocency, having no original Gild; unless Christ had meant to be thus understood, Bring little Children to me, for to them, and such as are like them, belongs the Kingdom of Heaven 
* Talium dicit non horum, quia comprehendit tam puellos quam eorum similes, saith Musculus, hac ergo voce Christus parvulos & horum similes ad se pertinere testatur. So Calvin giving for a Reason, which St. Mark and St. Luke add, verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God, as a little Child, etc. insulse enim, as Marlor, sets down further. Anabap. pueros excludunt à quibus initium fieri debebat. And elsewhere, piorum liberos dicimus Ecclesiae filios nasci & ab utero reputari in Christi membris, quia hac lege deus nos adoptat ut sit etiam seminis nostri pater. .  
Again what ground of comfort can such as he give to their Parents, in case of their Death, that they sorrow not as Men without hope? Seeing they don't appear to such to belong to Christ. And if withal they have no means to bring them to Christ, they may well be thought to be in a desperate Estate, while in their Infancy. Certainly it hath been looked upon as a great advantage, to be in God's ordinary way of Salvation. In the time of the Jews, before and under the Law, 'twas a great preference to be of the number of God's People, members of the visible Church, Branches of the Olive-Tree; and is it not now as great a Privilege and Advantage to be in a like Covenant-relation, grafted into the same Olive-Tree? Or can it be reasonably supposed that God would so often, and so emphatically make Promises to the Righteous and their Seed, to be a God to them and theirs, if there was not somewhat of peculiar preference intended them beyond those of the Wicked, or those that are out of God's visible Church? But if no more be intended, but upon condition of Faith and Repentance; this is equally true of the Children of the most profligate, and of Heathens, as of Jews and Christians: And Christ's coming must have rendered the condition of Children worse than before. Whatever then be the Privileges of being within the Pale, and the Promise of the visible Church, they must belong to the Children of Believers now, as they did to the Seed of Abraham heretofore: By being such, they have jus ad rem, a right thereunto; and by being baptised, they have jus in re, and are as it were put into the possession of the same. So that denying them Baptism, we do as much as lies in us debar them of the outward means, the enjoyment of the Privilege of being in the Church, and the benefits thereunto appertaining.  
Should a like Question be put concerning a baptised Christian, a member of Christ's Church, with that which the Apostle proposeth, Rom. 3.1. touching a circumcised Jew, What advantage— the Answer may be the same with his. v. 2. Much every way: And in Rom. 9.4, 5. are reckoned up no fewer than eight Privileges or Prerogatives belonging to a Jew upon the score of that Relation. The same advantage that there was then to the Jews, (as God's visible Church) is now common to the Gentiles also; and if Children were sharers therein with their Parents, during the former Administration, how are they excluded now? Those Children more particularly, whose Parents kept their Station 
* Rom. 11.5, 17. ; and if some Children continued within, because their Parents so continued; what hinders but others should be admitted, whose Parents are reinstated, or have gained a like Privilege with those that are?  
The Prophet Elisha wept when he looked upon Hazael; because he foresaw he would dash the Infants of Israel against the Wall; and even Hazael thought himself worthy to be esteemed a Dog, if ever he should do such a thing. But certainly to dash all the Infant Children of Believers out of the Covenant of Grace (as much as in them lies) and to deprive them of the Seal of it, is in a spiritual Sense far more heavy; and I dare appeal to the tender Bowels of any believing Parents, whether it were not easier for them to think that their Children should be dashed against the Stones, and yet in the mean time to die under Christ's Wing, as visible members of his Kingdom; rather than to have them live, and behold them to have a visible standing only in the Kingdom of the Devil. We read of Herod the Tyrant, that he destroyed all the Children in Bethlehem and the Coasts thereof, from two Years old and under: But is it not a far more cruel sentence, to set these in no better state than Pagans and Infidels, without Christ, Aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, strangers from the Covenant of Promise, having no hope, and without God in the World? How far Heaven extends its mercy to those that are without means, and cannot use them, is a Mystery hid from us, and known only unto God. 'Tis our Happiness, that he hath not left us destitute of the ordinary means of Salvation, with respect to our Children as well as to ourselves; and therefore whatsoever means of Grace God has appointed, as Instrumental to that end that they are capable of, are to be afforded them; unless God hath made any particular exception in the Case. And Baptism being appointed by God as such a means, we cannot well Administer it too early to our Children; for tho' it doth not confer Grace, ex opere operato, yet it always doth so, when God is pleased to vouchsafe the concurrence and co-operation of his Holy Spirit with it. And we know not how soon the operation may be, how soon God may by his Grace pre-dispose their Souls to an aptness for good through the means; it may be long before they are in a capacity to Act any, and therefore the Ordinance ought by no means to be withheld from them or neglected.  
Pag. 16. He questions what a Disciple is, whether he be not a Scholar or one taught, and whether Infants can be said to be Disciples, till they are taught? To this I Answer, That a Disciple in the New Testament is the same with Christian 
* Act. 11.26. , any one that hath a Relation unto Christ, and so of as large an extent as the word Israel in the Old Testament. Infant's therefore having a Relation unto Christ are of his Body, not Heathens but Christians, and so consequently Disciples infieri; not for that they are actually taught of God, but because they are, as I may say, retainers to Christ, and designed for his School; into which when they are admitted or initiated by Baptism, they are more completely Disciples, Disciples in facto esse, having than not only a right to, but are invested with the Privilege of those that are properly and actually Scholars or Disciples, not as being personally instructed, but as consecrated and set apart for the service of Heaven; placed so, as to be reckoned Scholars of Christ, being entered into his School, tho' they be no Proficients. And thus, they are commonly reputed of the number of the Scholars or Disciples, who are admitted into a School, and only entered there to learn, tho' they have not learned a Lesson or a Letter. As John the Baptist baptised to Repentance, or in order to it. Who should limit God? May not he make Disciples several Ways? By the Administration of the Ordinance of Baptism, and so by putting on them his Livery; or by teaching them by his Spirit from the greatest to the least; by writing his Laws in their Hearts; or by graciously accepting them into his Covenant with their Parents; or bringing them under a Religious Government?  
Page 18. He would know, whether I can tell Lydia was a Maid, Wife, or Widow, or whether there were any Infants in her House? I answer, 'Tis plain she had a Family, and that upon her Faith alone they were brought into God's ordinary way of Salvation, and were forthwith baptised 
* Act. 16.15. ; unless they'll understand by her House the Stonewalls.  
By Salvation coming to Zacheus' House, he understands (Page 19) the Messiah. Answer, Christ would have rather said I am the Messiah, which had been true, whether Zacheus was the Son of Abraham or no, and so there had been no occasion of giving that Reason, that the Covenant of Abraham reached him: But why doth he so perversely understand by Salvation, the Person only of the Messiah, but purposely to avoid the Argument; which yet is no other but what the whole Current of the Scripture holds forth, viz. That the blessing of Abraham immediately descends to an House or Family, upon the Conversion of the Head or Chief thereof. But none are more blind than they that will not see.  
In the forementioned 18 and 19 Pages, he endeavours to render it probable, there were no Infants in the Households I had instanced in; but there is enough said in these instances, that the blessing of Abraham, viz. Salvation, came to an House, especially to the Children, if any such there were, upon the Faith or Conversion of the Chief; that 'twas usual for the whole Family thereupon to be put into the ordinary way of Salvation, added to the Church to be saved; and especially Children that have not committed actual Sins, nor could reject the Counsel of God against themselves. Whereas there might have been perchance some others in the Families, who with those Pharisees and Lawyers might have so done, and so have rendered themselves unworthy of the blessing; but this could not have been incident unto the Children.  
The stress then of the business lies not in this: Whether it can be proved there were Infants in those Families, where 'tis recorded whole Households were baptised; but the truth of the Case is this, That in all Families whatsoever, were there never so many Infants they were all baptised, when their Parents were baptised. Which shows the vanity of this repeated saying, Not one word of an Infant in this House, Not one word of Infants in all those Households, and the like.  
Now to retort this their negative Argument upon themselves, let it be demanded, where they find mention in Scripture of any Children of Christian Covenanting-Parents that were baptised, when they came to Years of Discretion, and not before. That they were baptised I suppose they'll not deny; and if so, let them show where and when, for this let all the sacred Register be searched, from the time that John the Baptist began his Ministry, to the time that John the Evangelist ended his, (which was above 60 Years, during which time thousands, if not millions of Children of such Parents were grown up to Maturity) and if in all that time they can but show any one Instance of any Child so privileged, whose Baptism was deferred till he came to Years of Discretion, and that then he was baptised, it may then be acknowledged, that there is some strength in their Negative Allegations. In the mean time having such general Instances of baptising whole Families, surely we have more reason to believe that Infants were comprehended, and are to be reckoned in the number, than they have for the contrary. I said we read of none laid aside or excluded Baptism upon the Account of their Nonage. To this he answers, Page 20. We never read in the whole Word of God, that ever any Infant was commanded or offered to be baptised, and if so, how should we read of any laid aside or excluded, that were Nonsense. But I say again, Is there any Direction given in the Gospel to lay them aside, in case they be offered to Baptism? And who can say they were not offered? Where then is the Nonsense? Can it be imagined, but that the Jews brought their Children with them to the Baptist, to save them as well as themselves from the wrath to come, who were so tender of their Children, and so zealous for their Circumcision, they who had been always used to have their Infants admitted into the same Covenant with themselves, by virtue of a Divine Law, would have raised great Arguments against the Divine Authority of Christ, if he or his Disciples in his Name, had refused to admit their Children together with themselves into this Covenant, of which they taught God's Messiah to be the Mediator. So that 'tis no Nonsense, to suppose that we should have heard in the Gospel of Children being excluded, if they had not been of course admitted. I ask therefore again, show us in any place of Scripture, where any one was excluded Baptism upon the account of Nonage, particularly such a one whose Parents were admitted thereto; for if in that sacred Book, such are not expressly excluded, we are to take it for granted, they are not to be excluded at all; since it hath been God's constant Method to take Children into his Covenant, when he took in the Parents. Thus for instance, the Covenant made with innocent Adam included his Infant Children. The Covenant made with Abraham (which hath been already proved to be the Gospel Covenant) included his Children. So the legal Covenant of which Moses was Mediator, included the Jewish Infants also: Therefore they should show us, where God hath altered this Method in the Gospel; or else we are to take it proconfesso, that God hath not altered this his constant Method. And the Abrahamical Covenant which included Infants (seeing it could not be disannulled by the legal Covenant) continued till Christ unrepealed. 
Gal. 3.17.  If therefore they can't show, that 'tis repealed by Christ, we are to conclude that 'tis not repealed at all.  
Wherefore our negative Argument is more cogent from Scripture, for Infants being in Covenant with their Parents, and that they have a right thereupon to Baptism, than theirs is against it, and proceeds on the fairest and most credible Grounds. As first, That there were Children in some at least of those Households that are said to be baptised upon the Conversion of the Chief of the Family. Secondly, That if the Jewish Converts Infants had been forbidden Baptism, they would have made such a noise about it, that the sacred History of those times must needs have taken notice of it. And lastly, It having been God's constant Method, when ever he made a Covenant before Christ came, to include the Infants in it, and particularly God having by an express Law commanded Infants to be admitted to the sign and seal of the Gospel Abrahamical Covenant, it must be supposed that God, if he had intended to exclude Infants from the sign and seal of the Gospel-Covenant under Christ, would have signified his Pleasure, that his former Method of dealing with Infants was altered, or that the aforesaid Law in the Covenant with Abraham was as to Infants repealed. Whereas the Anti-paedo-Baptists negative Argument proceeds upon all the contrary improbable Grounds, and therefore their objecting, that we have no certain instance of the Baptism of any such, and that we don't read that ever they were offered to be baptised, is of no force; for it shall be presumed by virtue of that Law which is unrepealed, viz. That Children should keep the Covenant in the sign of it, that they were both offered and admitted of Course. How highly had the Jews been scandalised, if the first Planters of Christianity had denied an admission of Infants into the Covenant under the Gospel despensation, when they had ever been allowed it under the Mosaic oeconomy, and had wholly shut them out like the Children of Infidels? This must in all probability have galled them, to see their Infants so treated, to have had no visible difference put between the Infants of those that embraced, and those that resisted the Faith, having always reckoned upon Pagan's Children as common and unclean, but their own as separate and holy. St. Paul makes the same distinction, that tho' but one of the Parents be a Believer, yet they are so far sanctified each to other, that their Children are thereby entitled to the Covenant of Grace, which they had not been, if both the Parents had been unbelievers. Had St. Paul taught a contrary Doctrine, or any other of the Apostles, viz. That the Children of Christian Parents had no more right to Baptismal Initiation, than those of Heathen Idolaters, it would certainly have offended them more than all they preached against Circumcision, and keeping the Ceremonial Law.  
Page the 17. He hath these Words: The nearer you are to the Truth, the further off you are from the Papists, and the further off from the Truth the nearer to them. Which is so false, that 'tis not in the least deserving a confutation; since they hold most, if not all the fundamental Articles of Faith, how e'er they may endanger the Foundation by their building Hay and Stubble thereon. But it signifies nothing it seems, to retort upon them for symbolising with the Papists, tho' in points diametrically opposite to the Protestant Religion; it don't affect them, as he gives us to understand in the Words just before; neither will they be concerned to take notice of any such charge. At this rate they themselves may fall into the grossest Principles of Popery, and yet be nearer the Truth, and it must pass for sound Protestant Doctrine. And no reflection must be made, as if they had a Prerogative peculiar to their Sect, that whatsoever opinion they espouse (they are so infallible in their Tenets) though it be never so Erroneous and Popish, it immediately commenceth Orthodox.  
To my saying and proving that Antiquity is on our side; instead of answering the Authorities, he says, Page 23. that 'tis my great Mistake, and wonders how I could assert such a thing; since they can go back as far as John, and Christ, and his Apostles. Now I must and do acknowledge, that no Argument or Antiquity is equal to the Scriptures, when the Interpretations are not doubtful; yet when they are so, I appeal to any sober Dissenter of whatsoever Sect or Party, whether the harmonious Practice of the ancient Churches, and the undivided consent of Apostolical Fathers, be not the most sure and authentic Interpreters that can be betwixt Men and Men; they thought Infant Baptism lawful and valid, and no abuse of the Ordinance of Baptism. And let any modest or moderate Man judge whether it be likely that those famous Saints and Martyrs, so near the Apostles times, should fall into such a delusion, as as to conspire in the Doctrine and practice of a Mock-Baptism, and of making multitudes of supposititious Christians and Churches? Or whether it be not more probable, that a little Sect, repugnant to all the Ancient as well as modern Churches, should be in an Error. The very Scriptures, whose sufficiency we admire as well as they, cannot be proved to be the Word of God without Tradition; and though they are sufficient, where they are understood, to determine any Controversy; yet the right Understanding and Interpretation of them in many Points, the practice of the Church is as requisite, as the practice of the Court is to understand the Book of the Law.  
I may further observe to them, that they themselves cannot defend, according to their own Postulatum, the baptising of such grown Persons, as were born and bred in the Church, from the Scripture; for that the very Institution there, of Baptism, hath a special regard to Proselytes, who from Judaisme or Gentilism were coming over to the Christian Faith. Neither can they produce a Precedent of such an one baptised in the New Testament, but all the baptised Persons we read of in it, were Jews or Gentiles of an expiring or false Religion newly converted; and therefore according to their own demands, if to justify their own practice, they must produce such a particular Distinct Precept or Example; they cannot defend themselves against the Quakers, who for this and other Reasons have quite laid aside Baptism; nor against the opinion of the Socinians, who use this very way of Argumentation for the Nonnecessity of Water-Baptism. Though they think good in their present Circumstances to practise it 
* Vid. Johannis Volkelii, Misnici de verà Religione Lib. 6. Cap. 14. de Aqua-Baptismo ab Apostolis Usurpato, pag. 663. .  
In the same Page he saith, 'tis strange reasoning to Argue, that 'twas not likely that St. Paul was dipped when he was baptised, seeing he was Sick and Weak, having fasted three Days, etc. Methinks he should rather have said strong reasoning, being it would be so unsuitable to the easiness of Christ's Yoke; who will have Mercy and not Sacrifice. Ay, but saith this Answerer, he being commanded to be baptised, closed with the Command; and did not consult with Flesh and Blood. Very good, it would ill become him to dispute God's Commandment, but was the manner prescribed? That it must be by dipping the whole Body under Water, or plunging it as they do with their clothes on, which would be rather a baptising of Garments than of Bodies; nothing of this appears. All Circumstances agree, that he was not so baptised: Such a penance to St. Paul in his Condition, had perhaps been more Unsupportable than Circumcision, and more dangerous than whatever the Ceremonial Law required; to those therefore who are such stubborn Assertors of the Doctrine of dipping, that of St. Peter may be well applied: Why tempt ye God to put such a Yoke on the Necks of Christians, that are not able to bear it? And let them fear who submit thereto, that God say not unto them at last, who hath required this at your Hands?  
What he saith to the Instance of the Gaoler, is in short this: If they had not gone forth out of his House, how could he say, when he had brought them into his House? As if the Keeper had not, or might not have an Apartment in the Prison peculiar to himself, and distinct from that of the Malefactors?  
He is again with my strange reasoning, Page 24. about the manner of Philip's baptising of the Eunuch. It seems 'twas too difficult for him to Answer to any purpose; and therefore he bids me to leave off such Carnal Reasonings. But what doth he seem to say to it, he endeavours to show that Philip and the Eunuches meeting could not be accidental, as I had observed, for this very Reason: Because it was eminently Providential, which argues that he is so very Simple and Ignorant, that he understands not what accidental Means, or that he most erroneously thinks that some things may happen or fall out without the Divine Prescience, and in which the Providence of God is not concerned. He hath a mere Figment of his own Invention, though he don't apply it, which would argue, that their Meeting was not altogether accidental, but that Philip at least had some previous Knowledge thereof; for he says, Act. 8.26. The Angel of the Lord bids him, arise and go to meet him: When as there is no such thing in the Text. And therefore he may justly fear, lest that Curse he more than once causelessly alludes to Page 22. as of so tremendous and dangerous a Consequence, should light upon himself, for having so palpably and so grossly added to the Word, and to the belying of the Angel, making him say what he did not.  
But he saith 'tis hard for him to believe, that I really think that they were baptised so by sprinkling, though I so write, and appeals to me, whether the word Baptise doth not signify to dip or plunge and not to Sprinkle? I have shown that the Word signifies not only to dip, but to wash or pour on Water, or to Sprinkle, and is often so used in Scripture; and gave instances of which he takes no notice. Christ no where requires dipping but baptising. And as to the method or manner how it should be done, the Scripture is silent; nor can there be an Example produced absolutely for dipping: I believe that some were baptised in Scripture, by pouring on of Water, or by Sprinkling; others by dipping: But I question, whether after the manner of our Anabaptists. We don't deny dipping as in itself unlawful, as they do pouring on of Water, or Sprinkling; but we say, the practice is Schismatical when done in opposition, and dangerous in such a cold Climate, and in some seasons of the Year. And when too the Party is of a, weak and sickly Constitution: And troubled with Catarrhs, Consumptions, and the like.  
Page the 26. He pleads for dipping from the significancy of the Ceremony, referring to Colos. 2.12. I do not in the least deny, but that it seems to follow from thence, that there was such a Custom in those Days as too Baptise by immersion, which carried a very sensible show of a Burial and a Resurrection, but the Negative cannot be thence concluded, that there was no other way of baptising but that, nor is it probable there was no other way; because there are other Texts of Scripture, which allude to sprinkling in Baptism, as this doth to dipping: And the like Collection must be allowed to be made from the one, that is made from the other; and farther, because there may be and is a Baptismal representation made of a Burial, and of a Resurrection in aspersion and affusion of Water, as well as in dipping 
* Vossius citys several Authors, who deny any such Representation to be required, the thing being as they say but accidental and not essential to Baptism, and in case there ought to be at least some similitude of that Nature, this he tells us, is expressed in aspersione, etiam vel perfusione, quia cujus caput, as he adds, aspergitur vel perfunditur, is aquis istis quasi sepelitur. Theses Theologicae, pag. 360. . He that hath Water poured on him as well as he that is dipped, is put under Water: And the Water falling on him that is sprinkled, fairly represents the Earth falling upon him that is Buried, and speaks the similitude of a Burial. And by the one as well as by the other, we may be said to be buried with Christ by Baptism into Death. The Representation than is made both ways, tho' in the one 'tis more lively and sensible than in the other; and the appearing again after, and from under that affusion, represents also a Resurrection; so that the Symbol is not spoiled here. Accordingly in the Provincial Council of Colen 
* Sub Hermanno Celebrato, Anno 1530. , sprinkling as well as dipping is indifferently spoken of, as expressive of a Type of Christ's three Days Burial, and our conformity to him in that and his Resurrection. Moreover Christ's bodily Actions and Passions must be imitated and represented by us after a spiritual way; and 'tis a vain thing to imagine, that every Metaphorical Expression used in the Scripture, signifying our Communion with Christ and conformity to him, should punctually express the Mystery in the Sacrament, both as to the Letter and Spirit. The Metaphorical Expressions are various: Putting him on, buried with him, sprinkling with his Blood. And what hinders but that the Symbolical Ceremonies and the Sacramental Signs may be so too, or at least variously used, or accompanied with various circumstantial Ceremonies? One Sign after one, and the same way administered, cannot express our Communion with Christ and our conformity to him in his Death and resurrection, as to all the foregoing Metaphors. Our Communion with Christ in his Death and Resurrection, and our conformity to him therein is the sacramental Grace, and that being represented as well by sprinkling or pouring on of Water, as by dipping; it follows, that Water in either way of application is Sacramental. Again, our washing and cleansing from Sin by the Blood of Christ, and the raising up our Souls to a spiritual Life, being the principal effects of Christ's Death and Resurrection represented and sealed in the Sacrament, is truly set out as hath been showed by sprinkling as well as by dipping. Hence under the Law the sacrificial cleansing was done by sprinkling in some Cases, and by dipping in others 
* Numb. 19.18, 19 Heb. 9.13. , and the purifying by Christ's Blood is equally represented by both, called therefore the Blood of sprinkling, and sprinkling of Blood 
† Heb. 12.24. 1 Pet. 1.2. .  
In his Conclusion, not to spare me, but to tell me my own, he reminds me of his old Item, formerly given, that we have neither Precept nor Example for Infant-Baptism. So say the Papists as well as the Anabaptists, tho' in other Words: That 'tis a mere Ecclesiastical Constitution, no Divine Apostolical Ordinance. In this they are not unlike Sampson's Foxes joined together by the Tails, whilst their Heads look several ways; both asserting the same Position; tho' to different Ends; the one to establish human Tradition, the other to undermine a Divine Ordinance. But I reply, nothing is more certain, than that the Ordinance of Baptism is instituted and appointed us in the Gospel. But there is no distinct Precept, that particularly determines us to administer it to those of such or such an Age, or more to Persons of one Age than another, but 'tis left to us to apply the Ordinance to those we find qualified, according to the rules and directions given us in the Word of God, without any respect to the Age. Neither do I know the particular Age of any one baptised in Scripture. Unless that our Saviour was then about thirty Years old 
* Luke 3.21, 22, 23. Answering therein the legal Type of the Priests and Levites, who ordinarily entered not their Function till at that Age. Num. 4.3, 23, 30. ; but who will say, that we are bound precisely to observe that Time in our reception of Baptism? If you say in general Terms, it must be when we are come to the Age of Maturity or Discretion, let it be proved, that the Scripture either by Precept or Example hath limited it to that only, or that the adult or grown Persons are declared in Scripture to be the only qualified Persons; or that those in the state of Infancy are declared not be qualified or capable, and you have gained the Point. But the Scripture shows that the one sort are in this respect as qualified and capable as the other: And therefore the Precept makes it as much our Duty, to administer Baptism to such as are in the state of Infancy, as to the Adult. We don't Baptise Infants as excluding grown Persons, nor grown Persons as excluding Infants: Before and under the Law they were commanded Circumcision precisely the eighth Day, but not so as to exempt others of other Ages. For Abraham was circumcised at 99, and Ishmael at 13 Years old 
† Gen. 17.24, 25. ; and afterwards, if through neglect or otherwise the time lapsed, as in the instance about which Moses 
‖ Exod. 24.25.  was concerned, 
* Joshua 5.2.  or that of the Jews, while in the Wilderness, they were not excused altogether from being circumcised.  
Now I have demonstrated that that Command of God, to keep his Covenant in the Sign thereof, whatsoever it be, is still of force; and that as Children and others were concerned to keep this Command, when Circumcision was the Token; so Children and others are in like manner bound to do so, now Baptism is the Token. I have also shown that Children are as fully commanded to be baptised, as any others by Christ's Commission. Go Disciple all Nations, baptising them: Their Discipleship is their qualification for the susception of Baptism. And that Children, whose natural or adopted Parents are Believers, are Disciples, I have abundantly proved. First, In that they have an interest in the Promise or Covenant. Secondly, In that they are made so, by God's graciously calling them in their Parents. Thirdly, Because they are reckoned as such by Christ, for that they belong to him. And Fourthly, Because they are so called by the Holy Ghost. To all which he hath not returned a word in Answer. Seeing then such are Disciples, who can forbid Water, that they should not be baptised? There being nothing in the Commission, as I have observed, to interpose between discipling and baptising.  
If it be said the Command don't run to Baptise all Disciples, but to make Disciples: And to Baptise those that they make, and that 'tis not in the Power of Man to make Children Disciples. I answer, this altars not the Case, as appears in the instance of Saul being baptised of Ananias, who yet was not made a Disciple by him, but immediately by God. And they had it in their Commission to Disciple Children, as being part of a Nation; and 'tis not to be supposed that they were commanded Impossibilities. The plain truth of the matter is this, some Infants are and others may be made Disciples, otherwise a Nation cannot be discipled, whereof Infants are no small part; or Christ gives in his Commission what is impossible. To understand it of as many or few as Men list of a Nation, is against the sense of the Scripture, which plainly is, That the whole of the Nations wherever they came was in their Commission to Disciple 
* Deut. 3.28. Psal. 2.8.72.11.86.9. Mic. 4.1. . To this purpose compare Scripture-Prophesies 
† Qui dixit omnes nullos excludit neque parvulos, saith St. Ambr. , with this Commission given in charge by Christ 
‖ Rev. 11.15. , and what the Spirit of God hath foretold in those Prophecies, that in succession of time must be effected; When the Kingdoms of the Earth shall become the Kingdoms of our Lord, and his Christ 
‖ Rev. 11.15. . And in Europe, to look to no other parts of the World, it hath been happily accomplished. If they think to evade this by that distinction of the Apostle 
* Rom. 9.6. , they are not all Israel which are of Israel: That distinction can be no otherwise applicable to the Christian Nations, than to the Nation of Israel, and so 'twill still entitle Christian Nations to the Covenant of God, and to the Privilege of Ordinances, notwithstanding there be amongst these Disciples who are called, many that are not chosen. They have then the whole of the Nation in their Commission; and it must be their endeavour in the utmost extent of the Word to Disciple it; yet this Work in no one Nation can be done in an instant. As a Nation cannot be born, so it cannot in a Day be discipled: The meaning therefore is, to Disciple Nations, that is the whole of any Nation, and being discipled to Baptise them; yet they are by degrees to Baptise, as they can Disciple, till the whole of the Nation be discipled and baptised; which can never come to pass, unless Children, who are a considerable part, may be discipled.  
But if this will not satisfy, unless they may understand too how they can be discipled: I Answer. Some are made Disciples in their Parents; so that in discipling the Parents we Disciple them. Others are made Disciples by adopting them into the Family of Christ's Church; that is bringing them under a Christian Government and Tuition; who are hence forth no more common or unclean, but separate and holy, within the Covenant, and consequently to be baptised; as those that were adopted into Abraham's Family were within the Covenant with others, and to be circumcised, tho' they were not of the Seed, as 'tis noted in the same verse 
* Gen. 17.12. , being they were under his Power and Education.  
Thus, I hope, I have evinced, beyond all contradiction, that Christ's Commission is as full for baptising Infants, as any others. Therefore how many untruths may he be justly charged with and convicted of, who hath so often said in his Papers, that we have not one Word of God, not one Precept or Precedent in Scripture for baptising Infants?    

THE SERMON Preached on Occasion of the Author's baptising an Adult Person. With some Enlargements.  COLOS. II. 12. Buried with him in Baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him. 
ALmighty God finding his ancient People the Jews too intent upon the Externals of Religion, without any due regard to the vital and substantial part thereof, the better to take them off from this their gross and carnal way of worshipping him, was pleased to declare by his Prophets against the very Rites and Usages of his own Institution; not that he did absolutely prohibit them, and countermand what he had enjoined, but disclaimed and rejected these external, these lesser matters, rather than the Spirit and Life of Religion should be neglected by them; or the more weighty concerns of the Law be left undone. Thus St. Paul gives his Colossians hear to understand, that the inward Circumcision of the Heart, is infinitely preferable to the outward Circumcision of the Flesh; and that tho' the Circumcision of the Flesh be now no more, yet God hath not left himself without a Witness in this Case, but has appointed another external Rite in its Room, viz. Baptism. Buried with him in Baptism, says the Text, whence we may note these following particulars.  
First, As the Words bear a Relation to, and are occasionally introduced from the verse foregoing; we may infer, that the Externals of Religion are not to be regarded in comparison of its inward Life and Substance. The Circumcision of the Flesh, when the Commandment was most in force, was nothing to that of the Heart.  
Secondly, We are given to understand that Baptism is the initiating Sacrament of the New Testament, and so succeeds Circumcision, which was the initiating Sacrament of the Old.  
Thirdly, We may note that our Baptism represents Christ's Burial and Resurrection, in the manner of its Administration, or if not in the symbolical Ceremonies, yet at least it doth and must in its spiritual Concomitants and Effects. And it behoves us to exemplify Christ's bodily Actions and Passions in a spiritual way; that as he died and was buried, so should we die, and even be buried unto Sin; and as he risen, so should we rise to newness of Life, Mortifying all our evil and corrupt affections, and daily proceeding in all virtue and godliness of living, as our Church exhorts.  
For the First, That the Externals of Religion are not to be regarded in comparison of its inward Life and Substance. In the former Verse the Apostle declares to his Colossians, that they are circumcised in Christ, that is by his Spirit, as the Margin of your Bibles of the Geneva Translation hath it; and therefore they need not be so scrupulously Zealous after an external Rite; much less this of Circumcision which is now antiquated. Since withal they want not an outward Rite in this respect, they have Baptism tho' Circumcision be laid aside and abolished, they have another Sacrament instituted in its room, Buried with him in Baptism. Now should you compare the Circumcision of our Saviour, the inward Circumcision of the Heart, with that of Moses, the outward Circumcision of the Flesh, you will without difficulty perceive, that it infinitely surpasseth it in Dignity and Excellency; that wounded the Body, this enlivens the Soul: The one pared away a little Skin, and marked the Flesh; the other mortifies the whole Body, and quickens the Spirit. And therefore they were extravagant, who notwithstanding that excellent and Divine Circumcision which Christians have received, are yet so solicitously bend upon that which is but the Figure and Shadow. Nevertheless to show how rich that sanctifying Grace is, which we have in Jesus Christ; he adds, that besides our being circumcised in heart, and so divested of the Body of the Sins of the Flesh; we have moreover been buried with him in Baptism, in which we are also risen again with him, which is a more excellent and lively Sacrament, than ever Circumcision was; a Sacrament resembling it, and answering to it; signifying and sealing up both our Mortification and Vivification. But then there is both an outward and an inward Baptism; or, there is in Baptism the Body and the Spirit; (as I might have said in effect concerning Circumcision) and the internal spiritual Part is the most material, and aught to be more especially minded by us. The thing that saveth us is by St. Peter said to be Baptism. 1 Pet. 3.21. But that in Baptism which doth most contribute to our Salvation, next to the virtue of Christ's Resurrection, is not the putting away the filth of the Flesh, but the Answer of a good Conscience towards God. Which shows the outward washing is the least considerable, q. d. 'tis not so much the outward Administration as the Conversion of the Soul to God, that is the effective disposition in which Baptism saveth us. God will have mercy and not sacrifice; as he said by his Prophet, Hos. 6.6. that is rather than Sacrifice. Not that he did then renounce Sacrifice, but would rather have Acts of Mercy and Charity shown to Man; than any such Sacrifices or Oblations offered or made to himself. He preferred not Mercy or Charity before inward Devotion, or the adoration of the Heart, the Sacrifice of a contrite Spirit, which he'll in no wise despise; but before any outward Acts, or external Performances in his Service: which is of little or no account at all with him, where the inward spiritual Part is wanting, which is the very Soul and Life of Religion: But it cannot be supposed he would not have Sacrifice too; seeing he had given so many Commands concerning it: And therefore the Prophet immediately adds, that he desired the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings, q. d. he did not desire either Sacrifice or Burnt offerings, in the same degree with other more material Duties. So when St. Peter says, that 'tis not the outward washing with Water, that saveth us, but the inward Purification of the Spirit, we are not to suppose his meaning to be, that the outward washing is of no virtue, or that the Baptism of Water is wholly excluded; being an Ordinance of God; but that if we would approve ourselves unto God, we must not rest in an outward formal Worship: No not in Circumcision, though the Law was never so much in being, or were renewed or reinforced. But we must Worship him inwardly with the Circumcision of the Heart. So the sealing of the Covenant in our Baptism, will be of little advantage to us, unless we make good our Stipulation, and can return some satisfactory Answer touching the Faith we have entertained, and the Resolutions we have taken up, to live according to that Religion we are initiated into: Circumcision availeth not, neither the outward Lavour of Baptism; without the inward Sanctification and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Hence ariseth our great Miscarriage, and the frustration of all the hopes and advantages of those blessed Relations we are admitted to by Baptism, when from time to time we mind only the external Rite and Ceremony; which is low and mean, without considering the substance and reality; which is high and excellent. The Figure, the outward Element is poor and beggarly: The thing signified is rich and heavenly. The Seal is mean; the Inheritance is great. It hath differently fallen out with the carnal Jew, and the carnal Christian; the outward Glory of their Ordinances was a stumbling Block to them; which made them rest in the Type, and look no further; the meanness of ours, is a stumbling Block with us; we look not for such Treasure in Earthen-Vessels. Nor indeed can we, so long as we make the Ordinance a customary Piece of formality. But here I would not be thought to insinuate the Nonnecessity of the Ordinance of Baptism, which God hath appointed, as the way, in the common Order of means, to bring to Grace and Glory; for in this way he ordinarily brings us to Salvation. And therefore makes it our Duty: But he has not bound himself to outward means and instruments, and consequently it cannot be said to be of that universal absolute necessity; as if there were no Salvation without it. The Covenant we know can convey Pardon and Salvation without the Seal. Abraham was justified before he received the sign of Circumcision: The seal of the Righteousness of Faith. And the Thief upon the Cross was saved without Baptism. But the Seal cannot do it without the Covenant, that is the great Instrument of Donation and Conveyance. Our Saviour prescribing the ordinary way of Salvation, Mark 16.16. says, He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved; but adds, He that believeth not, shall be damned: Not he that is not baptised. The Covenant of Grace, and our being in Christ is absolutely necessary. But the Sign, the external Seal, is not of a like necessity. And yet it is of such necessity too, that it cannot be neglected without Sin and Danger. To speak summarily and briefly, 'tis necessary, as a Law of Christ, as a part of his external Worship, as a Seal of the Covenant of the Promise of remission of Sins, as a means of exhibiting and conveying of Grace, necessary as the ordinary way, by which in Conjunction with the Covenant, and the Grace of it, God doth save. And therefore none can neglect it, without great indignity to Christ, and great ingratitude for such an high Privilege and eminent Advantage. But still we must take along with us this Caution: That this sacred Ordinance be not passed over, as a mere customary Thing, as an external Rite only, or Ceremony, without minding the thing signified; and the correspondent of our part of the Covenant, which our Baptism Signs and Seals. Our common Negligence in the Duties incumbent on us, and in those Conditions which our Baptism obligeth us to, is certainly one of the great Prejudices that hath hardened the Anabaptists, and made them look upon our Infant-Baptism, as a trifling Business, a mere insignificant thing.  
I proceed now to the next thing I noted, as the second general Head, which I am in order to consider, viz. That Baptism is the initiating Sacrament of the New Testament, and so succeeds Circumcision, which was the initiating Sacrament of the Old. And to discuss this the more fully and methodically; I will endeavour to show you, First, What Baptism or the Sacrament of Baptism is. Secondly, What it is to be baptised, or what are the Privileges and Advantages that do accrue to us by our Baptism. And then in the Third Place, I shall endeavour to prove that Baptism is the initiating Sacrament of the New Testament. As to the First, The word Sacrament in its original intendment, had the signification of such a Military Oath as was attended with sacred Rites, and such as led Men, by sensible resemblances, to things of an higher nature. As for the Sacraments of the New Testament, particularly that of Baptism; we may consider it in divers Respects; and so may take up various and distinct Notions and Conceptions concerning it. If we consider it with respect to the Divine Grace, so it may and aught to be conceived by us, to be such an outward and visible Sign thereof, as is moreover ordained by Christ to be a means of conveying it unto us, and a pledge to assure us of the same. Secondly, With relation to our Virtue, or the embracing the Conditions on our Part: So 'twill be such an outward visible Sign thereof, and aught to be so reputed, as is appointed by Christ for us to make a Declaration of it, and an Obligation to continue this our Profession, and to practise what we so publicly declare and profess. Thirdly, With reference to that New Covenant, by which the Divine Grace, and our Duty are as it were tied together, so it must be defined such an outward and visible Sign, as is ordained by the same Christ for God and Man to declare their mutual Consent, and by that Rite explicitly to enter into the said Covenant. Lastly, As to those who are joined together in the same Covenant, and so are connected to Christ, and to one another, then 'tis such an outward and visible Sign, as is by Christ ordained and fitted as a general Badge of their common Profession: And a means of bringing particular Men into Society, Communion, and Fellowship one with another. In sum, 'tis an outward and visible Sign ordained and fitted by Christ, to signify and convey and assure the Divine Grace unto us, and on our part to declare the Duty we own to God, and to Christ, and to one another, and to oblige ourselves to the constant Profession and Practice of it 
* See Towerson on the Sacraments. .  
Having thus seen what we are to understand by the Sacrament of Baptism; let us consider, (2.) What it is to be baptised. What are the Privileges and Advantages, that do redound to the party baptised.  
First, Then to be baptised is by a solemn Rite to be explicitly admitted into Covenant with God; a Covenant of Grace, Pardon and Salvation, which Christ hath purchased with his Blood. And surely 'tis no small Advantage to be brought into such a State; whereby we are consigned to the Grace of the Gospel, and the mercies of God: Who thereupon don't measure our performances by Grains and Scruples, by perfect unsinning Obedience; but with the allowances of the balance of the Sanctuary. Not exacting from us according to the strict measures of the Law, but saving us by his Grace, or as it is elsewhere in Scripture expressed: According to his mercy. That is by pitying and pardoning us, by relieving and supporting us; because he remembers that we are but Dust. Some say that Baptism only washeth away all the Sins that are past; or at present adhering; but not the Sins of our future Life. But this Sacrament promiseth more and greater Things, even in futurum, and therefore is not repeated, because it doth all at once, which it can do at a hundred times. For it admits us to a state of Pardon, to the condition of Repentance, and the Evangelical Mercy. He that hath entered into this gate of Life, is always in the ready way of having his Sins forgiven, unless he turns aside out of this Path, by renouncing his Baptism, and by utter Apostasy. The Messalians denied this, and 'twas part of their Heresy to undervalue their Baptism, and to lessen the Grace thereof 
* Whom you'll find confuted by Isidore Pelusiot, lib. 3. 195 Epist. ad Herman. . But it was in pursuance of this Grace of Baptism, that St. Paul calls the lapsed Galatians to their Covenant of Baptism, and the Grace of God stipulated in that Sacrament 
† Gal. 3.26. , and therefore wished them not to hope to be justified by the Law; seeing they are entered into the Covenant of Faith, and to be justified thereby. And this he proves, for that they have been baptised, this being the Covenant made in Baptism, the gate to all this Mercy. Wherefore he exhorts us to hold fast the Profession of our Faith, the Faith into which we were baptised, when we had not only the Truth of God's Promises absolutely Sealed and Confirmed to us; but likewise an assurance of what God is ready to do for us, in a way of Grace and Mercy, on condition we be faithful in the duties of the Gospel. For we must know that the Gospel-Govenant, of which Baptism is the Sign, is not without its Conditions, which Baptism seals in a way of particular application, not only that upon the performing our part of the Covenant, we shall obtain the Grace; but it seals up to every receiver, their particular right in the Graces promised. If we do not forfeit all by violating and breaking the Covenant, and rendering ourselves unworthy of the benefits of it. Hence the Sacrament of Baptism is said by the Schools to be gratiae exhibitivum, an Ordinance of exhibiting and conferring Grace to those that are rightly baptised; not by its own Operation, but through the Operation of God alone: who in the right use of Baptism does always perform what he hath promised: For who can deny the effect when we have God's fiat for it. Some indeed ascribe too much to Baptism, others leave it as a mere naked Sign. The bare Element, 'tis true, hath not a power and virtue to convey Grace. The Water is not a subject capable to receive it, and consequently cannot convey it; it toucheth not the Soul, it cannot operate upon that, to infuse real Grace; this would be to ascribe that to the external Instrument, which is peculiar only to the great efficient Cause. What it conveys and confers is not from any virtue of its own, by its bare application, but by virtue of Christ's Institution, and its relation to the Covenant. For this Reason its effects are not confined to the instant of its Administration. But it extends its efficacy and influence throughout our Lives, it continues a seal to the Covenant and the promises of Grace and Mercy; till the Covenant be utterly violated by absolute Apostasy, or final Unbelief: And so it continues an Instrument to convey Grace during our whole Lives; not only remission of Sins for the time present, but upon our perseverance in the conditions of Faith and Repentance, it continues this Grace of Pardon to us to the last Period. So that we are but once baptised for the remission of Sins; though we daily contract Gild; because being once received it remains a perpetual Pledge and Testimony of the everlasting Covenant of God; and of the continual washing away of Sin by the Blood of Christ. 'Twas therefore a causeless fear, occasioned from the Novatian Error, that made some of the Ancients defer Baptism till near their death, as tho' it did not continue to exhibit and convey the Grace of Pardon. But from what I have already noted, there is no resting on the bare work done: All are not upon the receiving the external Baptism regenerate, and made partakers of internal Grace; as if it were necessarily annexed to the outward Ordinance. Real Sanctification doth not always accompany the Ministration of Baptism Nevertheless the Ordinance is not without its effect, in a way of Grace; it doth confer on us in a Sacramental Way what it doth exhibit, and Seal to. And till there be a Bar put by Men's actual Rejection, those that are truly baptised have a right to the Grace and Mercy sealed. And tho' Baptism be not always an Instrument of infusing real Grace: Yet hereby we are actually, & de presenti, made partakers of relative Grace; and have a right to real sanctifying Grace, in that way that God gives it; and so are partakers of relative Regeneration: Being as it were, born again into a new State of gracious Relations, Privileges, and Hopes: And our Baptism is the Character and Sacramental Seal of this new blessed State of Adoption and Salvation. And this continues, as I have said, till there be a forfeiture on our Part; and he that will not call this Grace, knows not how to value things Spiritual. But how rich so ever this Baptismal Grace may be in its self and effects, for the benefit of Infant-Innocency; 'tis not that which is the terms of our Salvation in riper Age, when we come under the guilt of actual Sins: Those that arrive to the Years of Reason and Choice, to them the Gospel tenders Salvation upon condition of actual Faith and Repentance. What is sealed to us in our Infant-state is, continued to us, upon other conditions at Age: The Grace that is made over by the free Covenant of God, and sealed in Baptism, confers a right to the baptised. So that if he dies in this State, he dies in this right: But there are other things required for the continuance of it, at years of Knowledge and Reason, which as it is a great Foundation of comfort touching the Salvation of dying Infants, and justifies that Clause formerly in the rubick for Baptism; so it destroys the vain presumptions of others, and taketh Men off from resting on the Grace of Baptism, as if it were sufficient for their Salvation; not considering whatever Mercy or Privilege Baptism doth confirm, is continued to us upon other conditions, after we come to Age, and fall under the guilt of actual Sins.  
Again, To be baptised, is to be enroled a Member of the Church; incorporated into the Communion of Saints; engrafted into Christ's Mystical Body. The Apostle speaking of Christ Mystical, under the similitude of a natural Body, 1 Cor. 12.13. saith, We are baptised into Jesus Christ, into that noble blessed Society of which Christ is the Head; and to which belong the Adoption and the Covenant, and the Promises. It would be too large a digression, particularly to insist upon the Privileges and Advantages of the Church of Christ, beyond the rest of the World. Sure I am, of all the judgements that God inflicted upon the Jews, none had comparably that fire of Fury, that terror of Wrath in it, which was executed in the accomplishment of the threatening mentioned, Zach. 11.9, 10. upon their heinous Provocation, in crucifying the Lord of Life, which filled up the number of their Sins. Upon which they were rejected, cut off from the Olive-Tree, and their Church-enclosure plucked down: So that they were no longer his peculiar People, but were left in common with the rest of the World; without God, without Christ, and so without all hope of Salvation. Whereas they only that are added to the Church, that are separated to be God's peculiar Inheritance among all the Tribes of the Earth; are in the way to be saved; as being the sole objects of his special Care and Providence: And therefore it must needs be a blessed Privilege to be brought within the Pale; to be owned by God under such a Relation: Now into this Body, this Society, this holy Corporation, we are baptised. And as the Church, in its Constitution is blessed of God, beyond all the World: So all its Members have the advantage of other benefits flowing from the Communion of Saints, in order to their spiritual and eternal Good. As the labours and services of God's Ministers and Ambassadors all are theirs, whether Paul or Apollo's, or Cephas, they are all Servants of Christ, for the edifying this his Body, and the building of them up, till they come to Perfection. Again, they have the invisible guard of Angels, watching over, and ministering for the good of such as are Heirs of Salvation; they have all an interest in the Charity, Love, and Prayers of the whole Mystical Body; all joining in common in their Liturgies for every single Member, how e'er divided from one another, by Countries and Languages; yea every single Member of this Body hath the united strength of the Prayers of all the Saints on Earth; and I doubt not but in a general manner, the Prayers of all the glorious Society; the crowned part of the Church in Heaven; our elder Brethren; who have finished their warfare, and do now possess the Kingdom of Glory. Should we go no further, we may reflect, and thankfully acknowledge, this happy Privilege; to be called to this state of Salvation. Hence we are brought into a state of Union with Christ; made Members of his Mystical Body, and partakers of the influences of his favour, in all the means and ordinances, helps and advantages, whereby he declares himself the Saviour of the Body: By virtue of this Union, all the special saving Graces of his purchase are freely offered, the doors of Mercy stand open to us, and the gate of Life and Glory is ready to receive us; provided we abide in him, Hold the head from which all the body, as the Apostle says, Colos. 2.19. by joints and bands have nourishment ministered, and so don't separate from him by Apostasy, and fall off by an evil heart of unbelief; by an impenitent course of Sin and Wickedness; so long I say as we maintain this Union, we shall not fail to receive influences of Grace, and spiritul Life, till we come to Glory.  
Having considered what the Sacrament of Baptism is, and the Privileges and Advantages that redound from thence, I come to evince the truth of the general Proposition, viz. That the Ordinance of Baptism, is the initiating Sacrament of the New Testament, and so succeeds Circumcision, which is generally granted to be the initating Sacrament of the Old.  
In order to this, let it be premised, that there can be no Reason given, why we should not be by some rite matriculated Members of the Christian as well as heretofore, they were thus solemnly initiated into the Jewish Church. Now what other way is prescribed to us of doing this, than by Baptism; the most proper rite for this purpose, as it hath been in a manner all along accounted? This rite of Initiation, of admitting Persons into religious Societies, was used by the Posterity of Noah, at least very early among the Jews. Their Enquiry, John 1.25, 28. sounds as much as a tacit acknowledgement of their practising it, 
Vid. Wills against Danvers, pag. 7.  (though not as a Sacrament till the Messiah had confirmed it); for which we have the Testimonies of their Rabbis, cited by the learned Doctor Hammond 
* In his Query of Infant-Baptism. . And Bishop Taylor is inclined to give the more credit to such Authorities; because the Heathen (as he saith) had the same Rite in many Places, and in many Religions. Hence a Proselyte is called in Arrianus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one baptised: Baptism being his solemn Investiture, who should enter into any Sect or Religion; being thereupon reckoned one of that Sect or Religion. A Proselyte or Convert, in the Apostle's Phrase, such an one is said to be added to the Church. The Jews have a Tradition that Sarah and Rebeckah, when they were adopted into the Family of the Church; that is the Church respectively, as it was in Abraham's and Isaac's House, were baptised. In St. Paul's Catechism Baptism is reckoned, as part of the Foundation of the first Principles of Religion; and so proper for Babes: Whereby they are matriculated and adopted (as a late Reverend Prelate expresseth it) into the House of their Father, and taken into the hands of their Mother. This then is the ordinary method God hath taken of adding to the Church, such as should be saved: And therefore it cannot be denied, but that Baptism, as an initiating Rite, succeeds Circumcision: And my Text will avouch for the truth thereof: For the Apostle having told the Colossians, that they had the Circumcision made without hands, the Circumcision of the Heart: He further signifies, by way of implication, that they had as good as the outward Circumcision too, by being baptised; or he could have no occasion to add, buried with him in Baptism. And his Argument had been a mere Non sequitur, unless he gave them to understand thereby, that Baptism succeeded, and came in place of Circumcision. And that this was the genuine Sense and intendment of the Apostle, I have, I conceive, not only more fully illustrated, but demonstrated in the foregoing Discourse 
* Pag. 43. , whereto I refer the Reader.  
I proceed in the third Place to show, that as Christ's Death, so his Burial and Resurrection are not only exemplified in the Ceremony and manner of its Administration; but that they ought to be exemplified after a spiritual manner, in the blessed effects and fruits of that Holy Sacrament, viz. In our Mortification and Vivification.  
First, As to the Symbol or Ceremony, Christ's Burial and Resurrection may be, and are represented in the external Action of that Sacrament, or manner of its admistration. And the Apostle seems to allude to a Practice, which might then be used by some in those hot Countries, viz. Of dipping or putting the whole Body under Water in Baptism. But forasmuch as the Word Baptise, carries not always that signification, or import; and for that there is no Command, that Baptism should be always administered exactly after that manner, such a Practice cannot be binding to us: So that should it be granted, that there are some very probable instances and examples in Scripture, of dipping and immerging the whole Body in Baptism, as it must be granted, there are as likely examples and instances of only sprinkling and pouring on of Water: This will only argue, that we cannot thereby be bound up to either way. But are at liberty to administer it, according to the more prevailing custom, where we live. Moreover, this Ceremony of dipping cannot be practised towards Infants, without great inconvenience and even danger of their Lives, in so tender an Age, and in so cold a Country as ours is; especially in the Winter Season.  
But here the Anabaptists step in, and urge from hence their way of dipping, and think this is enough for them, not only to plead in their own justification, but to confute our way of baptising, only by sprinkling or pouring on of Water. Accordingly a certain Person who takes upon him, to Answer my foregoing Discourse, hath these very words: Baptism must be by dipping, not sprinkling; because Baptism rightly administered, doth figure out the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ. But I know not wherein sprinkling doth it. And then citing Rom. 6.3, 4. he immediately subjoins: When the Body is put down under Water, O what resemblance is this of the Burial of Christ. And the rising of the Body up out of the Water of his Resurrection! This is not so pointed out, by sprinkling. Now for Answer hereto, to avoid Repetition; see the Reply, Page the 80. And grant that we do not in our way of administering at least so exactly and fully represent Christ's Burial and Resurrection; of which, as I have shown, there is no absolute necessity that it should be so done in the Ceremony; it will concern us nevertheless to consider, how we may be said to be buried and risen with Christ, in a spiritual figurative Sense; and to see, that the fruits and consequence of our Baptism do answer, as his Death, so his Burial; which speaks not only our dying unto Sin, but our continuing and persevering in this state of Mortification, and likewise his Resurrection in our symbolising therewith, in rising to newness of Life.  
First, As to our Burial with Christ, our Saviour's lying three Days in the Grave, puts it beyond all doubt, that he was in the state of the Dead; so true believers are buried with him. But how can that be, you'll say, that we who are true believers suppose, being yet living, can be buried with him, we never were laid in the Grave? Surely not in our Lords! Which was situate on Mount Calvary, nigh to Jerusalem; places very distant from our abode. But we must know that 'tis not a natural, but a Mystical Grave or Sepulchre that the Apostle refers to, and so we may be said, in a figurative Sense, to be buried with Christ, and that in a double Respect. First, In regard of our justification for the remission of Sins. Secondly, With respect to our sanctification and the mortification of the old Man. Concerning the first, 'tis certain, as he was not crucified and put to Death, so neither was he buried, which is nothing but the consequent of Death, but for us; and having under-gone Death, and descended to the dismal state of the Grave for our Salvation; 'tis evident, that when he was buried, we were buried in him and with him; since 'twas properly for us that he descended into the Grave; in that his burial hath discharged this part of our Punishment, and consequently hath changed the nature of our Graves, that instead of being Prisons and Places of Execution, our Graves are now so many Beds, and Dormitories; wherein our Bodies do repose until the Resurrection. But 'tis not in this sense that the Apostle saith here we are buried with Christ, but he speaks rather of the first Part of our Sanctification, the Mortification of the old Man in us and its Burial, that is the bringing of it to nought; forasmuch as by Christ's Death and Burial, our old Man the body of Sin hath been destroyed and suffered a Death and Burial, like to Christ's; that as his Flesh after it was deprived of Life, was laid in the Grave, in like manner the old Man of true Believers having been slain, is interred. 'Tis in him and with him that we have been buried in this sort. If he had not suffered the one and the other for our Salvation, had not I say his Death and Holy Sepulchre derived unto us an Image and a Copy of his Burial, destroying and burying by the virtue and merits thereof, our old Man, and bringing on him a Mystical Death and Burial, Sin would still live and reign in us. In like manner the latter Clause of my Text must be so understood, viz. That Christ by virtue of his Resurrection doth work and produce one in us, which has Resemblance and Analogy with his own, viz. A Resurrection to a new Spiritual and Evangelical Life, instead of that vile and wretched Life which we had by Nature; without which we had lain still dead and in bondage to Sin. For that which formeth in us the new Man, and gives us the courage to renounce the World, that we may live above the World, is the persuasion of the love of God, and the pardon of our Sins, together with the hope of a blissful glorious Immortality, of which he gives us assurance, from his having taken possession of the same for himself and us. These are the blessed effects and fruits issuing, as from the Death, so from the Burial and Resurrection of Christ, which are sealed to us in the Ordinance of Baptism. Indeed all the means and ordinances which God hath appointed, and enjoined us to make use of in Religion, have no other tendency, but to communicate Jesus Christ to us, as dead, buried, and risen again for us, to the destroying of the old Man, and reviving the new; nor do they ever fail to produce these effects, in any of those that receive them as they ought, and are not wanting in their Duty. But the Apostle speaks here only of Baptism, the first and proper Sacrament, or means of Regeneration. So treating of the same Subject elsewhere 
* Rom. 6.3. , where, he expresseth himself in like manner; which should confute their folly, who withstood one of the old Sacraments of Moses, its giving place to this of Christ's institution, so productive of this double effect, and which is also represented as our Apostle here intimates, and as I have already observed, in the external Action, and manner of Administration. But suppose sprinkling does not carry so express a Figure of Christ's Burial and Resurrection, as that of immersion or dipping; nevertheless the virtue of Holy Baptism is still the same. If therefore we meet with any baptised Persons, as there are but too many such, in whom the old Man is so far from being buried, that he lives and reigns with absolute Power; and the new Man hath neither Life nor Action at all: It may not be imputed to Christ, who always accompanies his Sacraments with his saving virtue; but unto their own unbelief, who do wretchedly repel the operation of the Grace God, and obstruct the effects which he would have assuredly produced in them, if their unworthiness had not frustrated his efficacy towards them: And therefore 'tis added, Through the faith of the operation of God, an evident Token, that the Sacrament doth mortify Sin in us, and raise us to Holiness, according to the Faith it meets with in us. Now how happy should we be, if we had these things Written and Engraven in deep Letters on our Hearts; if our actions did justify our Profession; that we are buried, and risen again with Christ in Baptism, by the faith of the operation of God; but alas, it must be confessed to our shame, there appears in the lives of most of us, a very imperfect Idea, of the Burial, and least of all of the Resurrection of Christ, the Flesh lives and exerciseth great Tyranny in us. The new Man, that breathes nothing but Heaven, and loves nothing but Holiness, hath no place in us; 'tis so far from reigning there, that he, acts no more than a dead Body fast shut up in the Grave. There is no need to run to Palestine, nor to go up to Mount Calvary, for to enter into his Sepulchre, you are entered into it, and buried with him, if by Faith you do mortify and destroy the Body of Sin; to this end we are baptised. Nor is it a whit the more necessary for having part in his Resurrection, to go and kiss the last Print of his Feet, upon M. Olivet. We are risen with him, if being affected with the glory he brought out of his Tomb, and convinced of the truth of the discoveries he made of a blessed Immortality, we live, as becomes the Gospel, in all holy Conversation; all the Graces and Privileges, of which Baptism is a sign and seal on God's Part, are continued to us upon performance of that Duty, to which Baptism is an Engagement on our Part; and there is no Grace of God, but tends to lay an Obligation on us. The Grace which hath appeared unto us in the Gospel teacheth us to deny ungodliness and worldly Lusts, and to live righteously and holily; for 'tis naturally inconsistent, that we should be happy partakers of the blessed effects of God's Love and Favour, and the merits of Christ; unless we be holy: and therefore, as we have the privilege to be buried with Christ in Baptism, or to be baptised into him, so 'tis necessary that we put on Christ, as our great Lawgiver and Example, to live according to the rule of his holy Doctrine and Precept, and to walk in that way which he hath trod before us. For in the Institution of Baptism our Lord did not only design a benefit to us; so as to make it an Instrument of Advantage in a way of Grace, but also to bring us under an Obligation of Duty. As than we value the Privilege; let us not neglect the Duty. As we are glad of the mercy offered: So let us mind the Stipulation on our Part, what an obligation lies upon us, to live a Christian life, solemnly to resolve upon the profession and practice of the Law of Christ, according to our utmost Capacity, and the Ability God hath given us: So that tho' in our Infancy, the faith and repentance of our Parents or Proparents, such I mean by whom we are adopted, may be reckoned as ours by virtue of God's Promise to Believers and their Seed: Yet if in due time, we do not personally believe and repent, our Baptism is made frustrate and vain, 'tis then in our Choice, either to rescind or annul our Baptism, and to turn Heathens or Apostates: Or to ratify and confirm the same. If we disclaim and renounce our Baptism: We do in effect disclaim and renounce all Right and Title, claim and interest in the promises of Christ; we cast him off, tread his Blood under Foot, as an unholy Thing: Neither can we expect any strength from him against Temptations; but are left in the Power, and under the dominion of all Sin and Villainy. We renounce the Article of remission of Sins, and the claim and right which otherwise we might have to everlasting Life. But if we submit to the terms of the Covenant, and embrace the Conditions, we stand obliged and bound to lead a mortified and a Holy Life; to be implanted into the similitude of Christ's Death and Resurrection; or we make void the Grace of God, and most unworthily forfeit and reject it, by breaking Covenant with him. These things being considered, we cannot choose but confess, that as it was a great act of Charity in our Friends, so early to engage us in so beneficial an Indenture: So we are bound to stand to their Engagement, which they made in our Name, and to observe the Conditions of it, through the whole course of our Lives; especially considering, that as God hath by his own Institution and Appointment, put us under a strict Obligation of Duty, so we have by our Baptism submitted to the terms, and actually undertaken the Conditions. Having to this purpose entered into a most solemn League and Covenant, and as it were subscribed thereunto; promising and vowing unto God, to answer our Engagement, to our utmost Ability: So that the Vow and Covenant of God is upon us, to live as his Servants, as Men who are dead to Sin, and alive unto God: Know you not? was the sharp and cutting expostulation of St. Paul to all licentious Christians; Rom. 6.3. who presume, when once they are baptised into the Church of Christ, and profess themselves Christians, and partake of the Ordinances, they may then live as they list, and be saved however. This is intimated in the first Verse of that 6th to the Romans, where 'tis said, Let us continue in sin that grace may abound; as if some had thus flattered themselves, that though they continued in the course of their Sins, yet however grace and mercy from Christ would abound towards them and save them. But the Apostle, as startled at such an Imagination, cries out, God forbidden! God forbidden such a horrid thought should possess any of our Hearts; and then subjoins the impossibility, that any such foul imagination should prevail upon the Heart and life of any regenerate Christian; which would be as strange a Prodigy, as if the dead should rise out of their Graves, and Walk, and Live, as they did in their life time; and thereupon he bids them to look to their Baptism; for that they cannot be Ignorant, that when they were baptised into Christ Jesus, they were baptised into his death; and here in my Text, buried with him in Baptism. And doth the Death, the Burial of Christ, stand for a cipher? Hath Christ his Death and Burial, no tye upon us in this holy Sacrament? Hath it no Power, Virtue, or Influence? Certainly it hath done us little good, if we exemplify it not in the death and mortification of Sin: This is the duty of every baptised Christian. So far necessary, that we can have no benefit by our Baptism, no portion in Christ, or in his Death and Burial, but by our being dead and even buried unto Sin.  
If it be said, how must we be thus dead to Sin, to have any share in Christ and his Death? For we cannot say we are dead to it, we find it still lively and stirring in us, and too much prevailing with us. I answer, We are then dead to Sin, when we live not any longer therein. And that is (to expound the Apostle's meaning) First, When we do not only refrain, and forbear our Sins for a while, but do really aim at no less than the mortification of our Lusts. Secondly, When though we are not quite dead to Sin, yet we are not dead in Sin, but are sensible of the Venom and Sting of it. Thirdly, When though we cannot live, and not Sin; yet we do not live in it: 'Tis not as our Life, so far from that, that 'tis grievous to us, 'tis as Death. Lastly, When, though our Sins be not quite dead, yet they are languishing and decaying, in a linger and dying state: and if we commit Sin; yet we do not continue in it, but repent and turn from it. But how shall we, you'll say, thus mortify our Sins? Why we must fetch our Weapons against our prevailing Lusts from our Baptism: As David took the smooth Stones out of the Brook of Water, with which he slew Goliath, 1 Sam. 17.40. So ought we to draw help and directions, from the Water of Baptism, to deaden the force of the most Giantlike Sin, and to lay it at our Feet: Yea our Baptism doth not only direct us herein, holding forth the conditions on our Part, what Duty is incumbent upon us, and likewise empower and enable us for the Encounter, as it conveys unto us the Grace of God, and the assistance of his Spirit; but moreover it obligeth us thereto in the highest nature, by the most solemn and the strongest Bonds that may be; in that we Vow to God through Christ to perform it. The firmest Obligation imaginable; upon the deepest penalty, as ever we hope to have an interest in Christ, or in the Death of Christ, q. d. we disclaim all hope and interest in Christ, and his Death, if we be not the Death of every ruling Sin in us. This surely is enough to make us bestir ourselves; and set upon it, and even to compel us to it. When the forty Jews, (Act. 23.12.) Bound themselves with an Oath, that they would neither eat nor drink, till they had killed Paul; how did the consciousness of this Oath urge them to lie in wait for him! v. 16. and how resolved were they upon his Death with all suddenness! And we, saith they, ere he come near, are ready to kill him, v. 15. We are under such an Oath to God by our Vow of Baptism, to mortify and kill our prevailing Sins; as these were to kill Paul; theirs was unjust, to murder an Innocent; ours most just and necessary, to Execute the greatest Traitor in the World. And therefore let us remember, when our hearts would fain spare our Sins, and any way indulge them: That this sacred Vow is upon us. What was the Reason Jonathan durst venture to taste of the Honey in the Wood, when the Israelites durst not touch it, 1 Sam. 14.27? He considered not the Oath by which he and they were obliged not to eat of it. So why do you thus follow and pursue such and such a pleasing profitable Sin? You mind not the Oath, the Sacrament, the Vow, in which you are obliged, not to taste such forbidden Fruit; but on the contrary to renounce the devil and all his works, the pomps and vanities of this wicked world, and all the sinful lusts of the flesh. But to come more near and home in the way of Application; Is Baptism an Ordinance that engages us to Duty, and that as the Condition of the continuance of the Benefits contained in the Promises and Covenant to which it is the Seal? We see what a Foundation of lose vain hope, a bare Baptismal Christianity is: What slight tinctured Christians those are, that have only the outward washing of Baptism, but abandon the practice of a Christian Life: Who please themselves in a Sign, without the effect; and boast themselves in a Figure and Shadow, without the Substance and Grace of it. The Baptism of Water, howsoever it may avail us in the state of Infancy, in which state God requires no actual Performance of Duty: Yet when we grow up to Years of Knowledge and Reason, and come under the Law of Duty, it availeth nothing, without the Baptism of the Spirit in actual Regeneration and Sanctification; I mean without an actual Repentance and Abrenunciation of Sin and Satan, and the practice of a Holy Life. Our Baptism will but remain as a Testimony against us of our perfidious violation of the Covenant of God, and of the falseness and treachery of our evil Hearts, who pretend to be and own ourselves the Subjects and Servants of Jesus Christ, and yet basely revolt from and disobey him: This is to speak Christ fair, and then to betray him. Mens receiving the name of Christ's Disciples and Servants in Baptism, makes the Disobedience of their sinful Lives more hateful and abominable. In this respect some had an erroneous conceit of Old, which made them defer their Baptism, thinking they had a greater Liberty before than after their Baptism; and therefore were wont to say in St. Austin's time, Sine illum facere, nondum baptizatus est; let him alone, he is not yet baptised; implying the strict Obligation that lies upon Men by Baptism unto Holiness of Life: What is Christian Baptism without a Christian Life? 'Tis not this external Badge or Cognizance, 'tis not a common profession that follows it, that will be a Title to Heaven. 'Tis in vain to pretend that we have been baptised into Christ, or are buried with him in Baptism, and have made profession of his name; if we be workers of iniquity; our doom at last will be to departed from him. That which is most material and considerable in our Baptism, and which most contributes to our eternal Interest and Salvation, is not (as at first I noted from St. Peter) the putting away the filth of the Flesh: But the Answer of a good Conscience towards God. What then doth our Conscience answer, touching the performance of the Conditions on our Part? We build our hopes and confidences upon the Sands, unless we keep the Faith whereinto we are baptised, and perform the Duty to which our Baptism obligeth. How vainly do Men bear themselves up, upon the Title of an outward Baptism, as if thereby they were good Christians! though the course of their Lives be a flat Contradiction to the holiness and purity of the Christian Religion, and in effect the renouncing of it! The truth is, there is a sad answering of this Engagement, in the generality of those that are baptised. What backsliding from, and violations of the baptismal Covenant! From the observation of whose Lives, a Heathen might conclude, as Salvian complained of old, Si Christus sancta docuisset, if Christ had taught holiness, why don't christian's practice it? Either, as he goes on, your Christ is no God, who allows such evil Lives, or you are no Christians who practise such Things. Are they Christians, are they dedicated to the honour and service of God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, who lead such impure Lives, who slight the ways of Religion, and set at nought the Laws and Commands of Christ, and are so devoted to the ways of their own evil hearts? Would Men but consider how they have performed their Covenant with God, into which they were entered by Baptism, and what an aggravation of the Sin of their unholy unchristan Life ariseth hence, this must needs give a check to their sinful Career. If Infidels, and they that know not God do Blaspheme his holy Name, and fight against Heaven by their open Impieties, this is no such great Wonder; but for you that have given up your names unto Christ, that have dedicated yourselves by Covenant to his Honour and Service, to break those sacred Bonds, and to stand it out in your Impenitency and Rebellion against God, and to live like Gentiles, his professed Enemies; to forsake him and his ways, and to wallow in the impurities of an evil Conversation, is unaccountable. How dreadful will the Day be, when the Lord shall come to avenge him of his Adversaries? You shall not perish under such easy Circumstances of Wrath and Vengeance, as do the Gentiles. The Aggravation of your Sin and Judgement will be the treading under Foot the Blood of the Covenant. Thus far in general.  
But to proceed to some particulars, and so to make some further improvement, by way of use, of what hath been delivered on this Subject. Doth holy Baptism admit us to a state of such high Privileges and Advantages, as I have observed? Then we may see how injurious they are who deny Baptism to Infants; and so as much as lies in them keep them from Christ, I mean in the visible way, in which we are brought unto Christ; from that Grace, which is the internal mystery of this sacramental Ordinance. In which respect we are said to be baptised into Christ, if they have any right to the grace and spiritual Benefits, which are the Mystery, the Spirit and Life of this Sacrament, why not to the external Symbolical signification and Seal of it? Shall Men hinder them from this visible application of the Grace of Baptism? If we affirm they have no right to this Grace, what greater uncharitableness and presumptuous straightening the favour of God and Christ? For where has he debarred and excluded them from his Covenant and Promises, and cast them out of that Body, whereof he is the Head, and the Saviour. Certain it is, this was one of the great Blessings of the Covenant with Abraham; I will be thy God, and the God of thy Children after thee. Thus ran the Promises of old, He showeth mercy unto thousands of generations of them that love him, and keep his commandments; the seed of the righteous is blessed: Children are the heritage of the Lord. They had the Seal of the Covenant, Circumcision externally applying the Promises: And are the favours of Christ more narrow under the Gospel, who is yet the Mediator of a better Covenant? Has Christ only a love for the Parents, and none for the Children? and yet hath told us, if the root be holy, so are the branches; Is not Christ the Redeemer of Infants? Did he purchase no Pardon, no Grace, or remission of Sins for them? How abominably injurious would this be to Christ, and the fullness of his Oblation and Merit! Will Christ give them no place in his mystical Body, in his Church and Kingdom? And yet, when he was upon Earth, commanded the little Children to be brought unto him, and took them into his Arms, and blessed them, declaring that such did belong to his Kingdom; of such is the kingdom of God, Mark 13.14. If the Infants of Believers under the Gospel be not capable of the Grace signed and sealed, then there will follow many sad unscriptural Consequences: Then they belong not to the Church and Body of Christ, they are in the same Case with the Children of Infidels, left without as common and unclean. This Principle mingles the holy Seed with the Heathens, and renders the favours of the Gospel more narrow than those of the legal Covenant, and the Christian Seed in much worse Circumstances, than the Jewish. Yea they would not only be without the Church, but without the Covenant; and so without Christ, or any special relation to him. So far without as are the Gentiles, Dogs and Strangers: While they are disputed out of the Covenant, all well grounded hopes of their Justification and Salvation are disputed away, dying in that State. 'Tis vain to recur to the secret Election of God, for the grounds of this Hope. Faith and Hope must be grounded upon some Word of God: If God have excluded them from the Covenant of Salvation, how shall we conclude that they belong to the Election of God? And if the Case were so, well may the Parents of dying Infants, mourn over them as those that have no hope. All those than are rash groundless uncharitable Conclusions, highly derogatory to the Love of God, to the infinite riches and freeness of his Grace. But on the other hand, if God and Christ have not excluded them from the Grace of Baptism, the Mercy and Grace which is there signified, who shall forbid Water, the external sealing Application? If God have not denied the greater, who shall deny the less; if God have not excluded them from the Substance and Mystery, why shall they be denied the external Rite and Symbol? Either then they must be highly uncharitable, in denying Infants the Grace of Baptism, and so leave them in an evil Case; or else be very unjust, in denying them the Seal, where God grants them the substance.  
Thirdly, Let this serve to humble those that walk unworthy of this Privilege of being baptised, and thereby admitted into the fellowship of Christ's Religion, initiated Members of his Church. Can it seem a light thing in our Eyes, that when God has passed by the greatest part of the World, as strangers from his Family and Kingdom, and hath left them under the Kingdom of Satan, and taken us, no better by Nature than they are, to be his peculiar ones, into Covenant with himself, and to train us up under such heavenly Ordinances: We should notwithstanding walk as Rebels and Enemies unto him, like the unbaptized World? Do we know into what a Covenant he hath taken us, what he hath done for, and expects from us? What means then our Conversation, so repugnant to our Profession? Is it because we renounce the Covenant, as being made when we understood it not? If there be any such Apostates, let them take their Course, serve the God they have chosen. But say what iniquity, what ill is there in this Covenant of your Baptism, what disadvantage have you met withal? Or how, or where do you hope to find better things, than what are here exhibited and insured? Than, for instance, for God to be your Father, Christ your Saviour, the Spirit your Comforter; than to have your Sins pardoned and remitted; than to be adopted, justified, sanctified, and every way comfortably provided for here, and in the end eternally saved. Do the Gods you have chosen to serve provide better things than these, that you renounce Christ for their sake? If you say God forbidden you should so do, you hope to be saved by him, as well as any other; then tell me seriously, do you expect that Christ should stand bound to perform his Part of the Covenant, and you left at liberty, whether you discharge your part or no? That he should love you, and you hate him? That he should be your God, and you remain the Devil's Servants? That he should provide Heaven for you, and you walk in the way that leads to Hell? Be not deceived, he hath sworn the contrary, and hath heaped up Tribulation and Wrath for every Soul that doth Evil. For that Person more especially, who, though baptised, hath profaned and made the Blood of the Covenant as an unholy Thing.  
Fourthly, Let the consideration of this great Privilege excite us to a Holy Life, to live as Men who are dead to Sin, and alive unto God. To make account, that it ought to be as strange, to see a baptised Person walk in a sinful Course, as to see a Spectrum a walking Ghost at Noonday: We are buried with Christ in Baptism; And how can we, who are dead to Sin, live any longer therein? saith the Apostle. So that we are or should be at least as it were dead and buried to Sin; and that this may be the rather effected, and brought to pass, we must be mortified as to the World. To this use the Apostle seems to apply the Argument of the Text in the following Chapter, to call off men's affections from earthly Things, towards the Things that are above. There is acted a kind of Similitude upon the baptised to the Burial and Resurrection of Christ. And we profess in a spiritual Sense to be dead to the World, and to be risen again to a more Noble and Divine Life, so as to be above the World: And 'tis the Engagement of Baptism to be as it were dead and buried, with respect to the Things here below. Thus some interpret that of the 1 Cor. 15.29. where the Apostle arguing against the Atheists and saducees who denied the Resurrection, and the hopes of Glory in another Life, says, What shall they do that are baptised, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for dead Men, or as dead Men, into a mortification of this World, so as to run all Losses, Dangers and Hazards for the Profession of Christ; such would then be of all Men most miserable, if things were so as the Sadducees and Atheists suggest. But certainly, there is a glorious state of eternal Life hereafter, and therefore let us not be befooled with the Snares of earthly Vanities, to neglect things Eternal: Our Baptism engages us to live above the World, to be dead to it, to have mortified Affections to the things thereof. The World indeed affords lawful comforts for the living, and convenient resting Places for the dead; but their Souls are above: So should Christians be in the World; use it, as it doth administer to their necessities, and conveniences, but the Soul, the affections should be above. We are not dead Naturally, and so there is need, and there must be a using of the World; but we must be dead spiritually to every thing in it, that is matter of allurement and temptation, to draw us aside from God; and must be strangers to such immoderate cares and desires, as drown multitudes of Men in Perdition.  
Lastly, Let this serve to comfort those whom God Honours so far as to bring them thus near unto himself; as to adopt them into his Family, and to take them for his own. Let this encourage them to believe in him, and to rely upon him for all the good things, that he hath promised in the Covenant of Grace. They of the Church of Rome, as in some things they give and ascribe too much to Baptism, making it to take away original Sin, by the mere applying of the Ordinance; so in other things, they rob God's People of the comfortable use of it, because they say, when once we commit actual Sins after the susception of Baptism, we make Shipwreck of our Baptism, and then Penance must be secunda tabula post naufragium; the only Pinnace or Plank which we can safely catch hold of in this extremity. But this blessed Sacrament is of a more durable and comfortable use, even to be an Ark, (whereto 'tis assimulated, 1 Pet. 3.21.) to carry us to Heaven. 'Tis not a business past and finished in the very Act of its Administration. There are in it Promises of such Grace as we may still have need of, and by its engaging us to Mortification and Holiness, (the most comprehensive Duties of Christianity,) we may experience it to be an Instrument of Grace throughout the whole transaction of our Lives: That is, when 'tis from time to time improved, and actuated by a sober Consideration, and a serious Recognising of the Baptismal Covenant, and reflecting on the Terms and Conditions upon which we stand with God, with respect to Justification and Glory: And when the same is pressed home by the conviction of the Spirit. These things being premised, we may readily Conclude, what an effectual Instrument and Means it may prove of converting the Souls of Men, and regenerating them long after the time of its reception. So that Holy Baptism continues still to be altogether as effectual to apply the Blood of Christ, for washing away of Sin, upon true Repentance, as when we first received it. Know then, that when ever we find ourselves at a loss, sensible of our undone Condition, conscious of our Gild and Bondage through Sin, and so do fly by Faith unto Christ, and our Conscience bears us Witness, that we would fain Walk for the time to come, according to the rule of the Covenant, in Uprightness and Sincerity; as often, I say, as we do this, we may have recourse to our Baptism, and plead it for our Comfort; as we may plead the Rainbow in great Inundations against the World's destruction by Water. Thus upon the renewing of our Repentance, and Faith in Christ, Holy Baptism will be as an Ark to the Soul in all Cases of Relapse, Desertion, and Temptation. For the like figure whereunto doth baptism also now save us, saith the Apostle. Which that it may so prove to every one of us, and particularly to the Person that hath even now received it, God of his infinite mercy Grant, for Jesus Christ his sake. To whom, etc.  
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 5. line 19 read putting. p. 12. l. 12. r. token p. 17. l. 18. r. Gentiles. p. 18. l. 16. r. the Case. p. 19 in marg. r. Rodolpho. p. 28. marg. l. 30. r. Canon. p. 31. marg. l. 15. r. eâdem. p. 33. l. 30. r. Independent. p. 34. l. 32. blot out has. p. 76. l. 20. blot out as. p. 83. l. 13. r. not to be.   

A Catalogue of Books Printed for, and sold by John Taylor, at the Ship in St. Paul's Churchyard.  

POOL's Annotations on the Holy Bible, in 2 Vol. The 4th Edition: Much corrected. Folio.  
Philips' New World of Words; or an Universal English Dictionary, containing the Proper Significations, and Derivations of all Words from other Languages, etc. The Fifth Edition, with large Additions and Improvements from the best English and Foreign Authors. Folio.  
Archbishop usher's Life, and Letters, Published by Dr. Parr, his Grace's Chaplain. Folio.  
Archbishop usher's Sermons. Folio.  
The History of England. By Dr. Frankland. Folio.  
Love's whole Art of Surveying, and Measuring of Land, made easy: With plain and practical Rules, how to survey, protract, cast up, reduce or divide any Piece of Land whatsoever. 4 to.  
Strode's New and Easy Method to the Art of dialing. 4 to.  
— His Arithmetical Treatise of the Permutations, Combinations, Elections, and Compositions of Quantities. 4 to.  
Miracles performed by Money. A Poem. 4 to.  
Godwin's Roman and Jewish Antiquities. 4 to.  
Bishop Hopkins on the Lord's Prayer and Commandments. 4 to.  
Happy Union betwixt England and Holland. 4 to.  
Lord Shannon's Letter to an, Atheistical Acquaintance. 4 to.  
Reasons why a Protestant should not turn Papist. 4 to.  
Rich's Epistle to the seven Churches. 4 to.  
Religio Militis. 4 to.  
Archbishop Cranmers Judgement on the Holy Scriptures, Published by Dr. Gee. 4 to.  
Baxter's Church History and Episcopacy. 4 to.  
Mr. boil's free Enquiry into the Vulgarly received Notion of Nature. In English and Latin. 8vo  
— His Disquisition of the Final Causes of Natural Things. 8vo.  
— Of Languid and Local Motion. 8vo.  
Abbadie of the Truth of the Christian Religion. 8vo.  
Quintilians Declamations. 8vo.  
Dr. Newton's Complete Arithmetician. 8vo.  
Counsellor Manner's Legacy to his Son. 8vo.  
Ray's Nomenclator Classicus, sive Dictionariolum Trilingue. A Classical Nomenclator, with the Gender and Declension of each Word, and the Quantities of the Syllables, etc. For the use of Schools. 8vo.  
Robertson's Large and General Phrase-Book. 8vo.  
Dr. Owen's Meditations of the Glory of Christ.  
Yworth's whole Art of Practical Distillation. 8vo.  
Bishop Hopkins Sermons and Discourses, in Four Volumes. 8vo.  
Dr. Salmon's Practical Physic, showing the Method of curing the most usual Diseases happening to Humane Bodies; the whole completed in Three Books. 8vo.  
Lord Shannon's Discourses for the Modish Ladies and their Gallants. 8vo.  
Mrs Eliz. Walker's Life and Character 8vo.