PAEDOBAPTISMUS VINDICATUS: OR, INFANT-BAPTISM STATED.  
In an Essay to evidence its Lawfulness from the Testimony of Holy Scripture;  
Especially St. Matthew, XXVIII. 19 The Grand, if not Sole Place so much insisted on by the Antipaedobaptists, to prove their mistaken Principle.  
Handled in a different Method from other Tracts on the Subject, as appears in the Contents.  
With an Account of a Conference publicly held with an Antipaedobaptist of no small Fame.  
By J. R. A. M. A Presbyter of the Church of England.  Prov. IX. 9 Former part. Give Instruction to a wise Man, and he will be yet wiser. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
LONDON, Printed for John Dunton at the Raven in the Poultry, MDCXCIII.   

Imprimatur.  
Geo. Royse R. Rmo. in Christo Patri, ac Dom. Dom. Johanni Archiep. Cantuar. à Sacris Domesticis. Octob. 8. 1692.   

To the Truly Worshipful, my very highly Honoured Friend, WILLIAM STRONG ESQ one of Their Majesty's Commissioners for the EXCIZE.  
SIR,  
I was willing to take this Opportunity of an Address, that I might make my grateful Acknowledgements for the obliging Favours I have received from you. While you were in a private Capacity you were assistant to your Friends and Relatives, and have not forgot them, since you were in a public Concern, wherein you have been so serviceable to the Kingdom, that if I have not been misinformed, you have been esteemed, and honoured by several Princes, and in a particular manner by our gracious King and Queen: And possibly few Persons have served the Public so long with so little Advantage to their own private Interest as you have done; which demonstrates the Greatness of your Spirit, and a generous Contempt of the World. I have had the Happiness of an intimate Conversation with you, and been oft with Satisfaction entertained by you with Excellent Discourses, That I can without a flattering Compliment, say, I have thought you a great Master of Reason. And when you have been in an hurry of Affairs, and under the fatigue of business upon others Account more than your own, you have appeared so calm and serene, that there hath no Wrinkle been seen in your Brow, nor Passion in your Breast, to ruffle and discompose you. You have not had the least Emotion of Mind, but have been as sedate, and tranquil (like the pure Aether) as those that have had not Concern of their own, or others upon them. And this last Character makes you as Great a Master of Empire, as the most victorious Conqueror, if we may believe one of the most excellent Poets.  Latiùs regnes avidum domando Spiritum, 
Horat. Carm. Lib. 2. Ode 2.  quam si Libyam remotis Gadibus jungas, & uterque Poenus Serviat Uni. 
Which the wisest of Monarches properly translates, when he saith, 
Prov. xuj. 32.  He that is slow to Anger, is better than the Mighty; and he that ruleth his Spirit, than he that taketh a City. But besides the Obligation of Gratitude, I have another Reason why I presume on this Dedication, because you have a piercing Judgement, and can well judge of a rational Consequence from Holy Scripture, or a true Deduction from Reason; and seeing I have from these two Topics undertaken a Defence of one of the main Doctrines of the Church of England (whose Principles I have heard you hearty espouse, and rationally maintain) I submit it to your Censure, which tho' it may deserve, yet I dread not; because your natural Goodness will, I doubt not, mix so much Candour therewith, that it will instruct, rather than affright; and I had much rather have a Censure with a Reason, than an Approbation without it, because the one may make a Man wise, when the other may be a Temptation to Pride. But I will not trouble you long, because the Minutes of Public Persons are not to be disturbed. Nor shall I need, because I am not so well able (as others to whom I reserv that Province) to give a true Character of your Worth: Nor am I willing if I were able, because I have known you long endued with such a stock of the Virtues of Humility and Modesty, you had rather do well than hear of it; and are much better pleased in the Reflections of your Mind, than with the Eulogies of the best Men. And I am very confident you never did a Service for the Public, or a Kindness for a Friend, but it was as great a Satisfaction to yourself, as it was to them who received the Benefit, and reaped the Advantage. Great Spirits that are endued with strength of Reason, and have obtained a Conquest over unruly Passions, are Persons fit for the Menage of Public Employments: And that you have a large proportion of these Qualifications, is not only my Judgement, (which possibly may not be valuable) but the Observation of those that have known how faithfully you have transacted a Trust for the Public: And therefore by giving this Account, I cannot in the least be suspected guilty of Flattery. Men that are qualified for public Service may be said in a true sense to answer the Ends, promote the Conduct, and carry on the Designs of a wise Providence in his Administration of, and Government over, the World. And such Persons who by their Prudence (with the Man after Gods own heart) serve their Generation, 
Acts xiii. 22, 36.  shall inhabit more Glorious Mansions in the Regions of Bliss above, shall receive greater Compensations in the Apartments of Glory. I will conclude with the same Option the Poet puts up for his great Maecenas, Caesar Augustus.  Serus in Coelum redeas, 
Horat. Carm. Lib. 1. Ode 2.  diuque Laetus intersis Populo. 
Which St. Paul may English, when he saith, 
Phil. 1.23.24.  Though he had a desire to departed, and to be with Christ; yet nevertheless to abide in the Flesh, i. e. to continue longer in the World, was more needful for the Public.  
And he that shall reflect upon your indefatigable Pains for the Service of others may without Ostentation believe that what St. Paul said as a Minister of the Church, you may say as a Minister of the State; That you will gladly spend, 
2 Cor. xii. 15.  and be spent for the Public.  
SIR,  
That after many years expended in the Public Service for the Good of the Kingdom, you may leave behind you the Honourable Name of a Patriot of your Country; And that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Phil. III. 14.  the Prize, the Crown of Glory that hangs at the end of your Race may be more Luminous, and Bright, have a greater Refulgency and Splendour, is, and shall be the sincere Prayer of,  
Greatly Honoured Sir, Your most Humble Servant, And ever Obliged Relativ, J. R.   

A PREFACE.  
To all disinterested, and unprejudiced Persons; especially those among the Antipaedobaptists, that love Truth above Interest or Humour, and are desirous upon rational Convictions to embrace it, and lead their Lives according thereunto.  
Candid Readers,  
I Beseech you out of Love to your Souls, cast not aside this Tract after you light on a Matter that displeases, but ponder why you are displeased. If your Sentiments in Religion are charged to be against Evidence of Reason, and Testimony of Holy Writ, you ought to be offended, because you entertained such high Thoughts of your Abilities; but if you will not assume or take so much Confidence, proceed, and consider if the Author hath, or hath not good cause to oppose you; & whatever the Result be on a due Trial, you will have no Cause to be troubled at your labour in the Inquisition or Search: For if there be no cause to oppose your Sentiments, you may think you have ground to continue them: If the Author hath ground for what he writes, you may with Satisfaction alter them. It is probable a word may be too jocose or too sharp; but let not such Expressions cause the Argument to be cursorily or hastily read, but weighed without the  of Passion, or bias of Interest to hinder that Conviction the Author aims at. I declare with sincerity I bear not any Bitterness towards any, nor was I under an emotion or heat of Mind, when I studied or preached on this Subject. The Author knows how hard it is to remove a prejudice, and withal believes it no easy thing to change Sentiments (how impertinent soever) born and bred with us. For such Reasons as these, I cannot express Indignation against my Adversaries; but truly pity them, because they subdue not that intemperate Zeal by which they appear for Novel Opinions against Primitive Canons and Ecclesiastic Establishments. I have endeavoured to express myself as moderately as I could, not designing to provoke a Passion, but work a Conviction. I have treated my Adversaries with respect, designing only to reduce them from Error to Truth, not to boast of Victory, or proclaim a Triumph. If you have other thoughts of him, than he declares, he importunately entreats you, if you meet with any thing may seemingly raise a Passion, esteem it a slip of his Pen, and consider rather the reason is offered, than the Dress it appears in. I will now acquaint you with the Reason engaged me in this Controversy. You may believe me (who know my own Mind best) it was a charitable Design on such deluded Persons, as have sincere Intentions for what is true, (but through the smallness of their Understanding, have such narrow Capacities as not to attain the knowledge of Truth,) and a Zeal to promote Christian Doctrine. His Adversaries may entertain what thoughts they think fit; his natural Temper is not waspish nor contentious; neither is he displeased with any, because he doth not think as he doth: He knows not of any Quarrel he hath with any on the Account of Religion: He neither affecteth Differences, nor is maintained thereby: He hath possibly more Esteem than he deserves; but if not, what he is satisfied with, as much as may preserve him from being tempted to envy others, and the unworthy Arts of purchasing Credit by lessening his Neighbour. And as he publishes not this for popular Applause, so is he at no loss for what he opposes; but it is the Interest of Religion, and a Love for Truth have engaged him in this business; for he apprehends them greatly endangered by Error. Many Persons have not time to inquire into the Causes of Matters of Moment, nor are they without great Importunity engaged therein: But believe as such act, for whom they have an Admiration; and though they know not the Reason of things, they oft outvie those they follow. That the Truth of Religion be discovered, tends much to the quiet of the World, and the welfare of Mankind. Men cannot but believe it necessary Religion should be clearly understood; and certainly such Men's Travels deserv Praise, who endeavour to make persons know its Principles, that their practice may be directed. I can with sincerity own I have used my Endeavours to set this Controversy in as clear a Light as the Revelation of Holy Scripture, and the Dictates of Reason could discover, which are the best Instructors of our Mind in the knowledge of Truth, and the best Directors how to lead our Lives accordingly. But I may wish for Success on this charitable Design, rather than expect it, if there be Truth in the excellent 
* Vide Lord Bacon 's Letter to Mr. Matthews, p. 69. cited by the Author of the Friendly Debate, p. 176. Part 4th.  Lord Bacon's Observation, That there is little dry Light in the World, but it is all moist, being infused and steeped in Affection, Blood, and Humours. The Reason of Men is made to stoop to Interest, and they judge according to the Current of their Inclinations. I can make the same Declaration the Excellent 
† Vide Dr. Sherlock 's Preface to his Case of Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers stated, and resolved according to Scripture and Reason, and the Principles of the Church of England.  Dean of St. Paul's doth, and with the same sincerity I doubt not he doth; That one occasion of publishing his Book is, That it is extorted from me by the rude Clamours and unchristian Censures of some, and the earnest Importunity of others: For an Antipaedobaptist told me I dare not publish my Conference with Mr. M. C. for if I did, he would so expose me I should not dare to look him in the Face. I have, for once, accepted his bold Challenge, to evidence the fierceness he delivered himself with did not put me in a fright; and that their Coryphaeus in that Country where I am concerned, may have an Opportunity of showing his Art. And as for Importunity, though it be a trite Apology for the Publication of a Book; yet I had more than was usual, so much that I was tired therewith. Whereupon from a distrust of myself, I shown my Argument to several Persons, eminent for their Learning among the Clergy: (even some of the highest Station) Some said I was bound in Conscience, out of Obligation to the Catholic Church in general, and to the Church of England in particular, to print it; which I would not be so conceited as to believe said on Account of the Argument; but from this Consideration, The Defence of a Fundamental Truth is a Public Service. Infant-Baptism being not only an Article of the Church of England's Faith (as she declares in these words, 
* Vide Articles agreed upon by the Arch-Bishops and Bishops, and the whole Clergy of both Provinces. Printed, 1562. Art. 27.  The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the Institution of Christ) but likewise is, and hath been a Doctrine of the Catholic Church in all Ages, as the excellent Mr. 
† Vide Mr. Walker 's modest Plea for Infant-Baptism. Printed at Cambridge. 1677.  Walker hath made appear. Others would persuade me to it, from a likely prospect of Success it might have on the advers Party; because they said, though others had done it in a rational way; (and in particular Mr. Walker in his modest Plea for Infant-Baptism) yet none had handled it in such a Scriptural Way by Testimonies from Holy Writ; which manner of treating this Christian and comfortable Doctrine, might be most effectual on the Minds of such as opposed this Truth; because the Antipaedobaptists will not admit any Proof but from the direct Words of Holy Scripture, or an Exposition so plain, that may be equal to a literal sense: And this way I have endeavoured to prove this momentous Subject; and for this Reason some thought it might be successful on those of that Party that have teachable Minds, and this Consideration, the Conscience, and real desire of doing good, was the strongest Motive to expose it to the Public. And truly if it may be instrumental to the convincing any that are not too far gone by Interest or Humour, it will be a greater satisfaction than the Eulogies of the wisest Men; and I shall think my Labour sufficiently compensated. If any admire this Subject is methodised, and worded so like the way of Preaching; it is, because I believed it would have the stronger Impression on the people it was preached to, if it were printed as they heard it; and I had rather be subservient to my People's Good, than comply with the capricious Humour of the nicest Critic.   

An Account of the Conference with Mr. M. C. upon the Subject of Infant-Baptism, and the Occasion of it.  
AFter this, I hope useful Introduction, I come to perform the Obligation of my Promise, which was to give a Relation of a Conference publicly held with an Antipaedobaptist of no small Fame on the Subject, and of the Occasion; and this I will endeavour to do with all imaginable Sincerity, and take all possible Care not to commit any voluntary Error, or wilful Mistake.  
In the Month of October 1686. I was collated to a Living by my reverend Diocesan: After a Year I received Information that an Antipaedobaptist had perverted one of my Parish. But I hope without a reproachful Reflection I may say of some that pervert true Doctrine, what the Holy Jesus said of the glozing Pharisees. woe unto you Scribes, and Pharisees, Hypocrites; 
St. Matth. XXIII. 15.  for you compass Sea and Land to make one Proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the Child of Hell than before. The first Intelligence I had (as I remember) was from my Parishioner's Neighbour, of whom he held a considerable Farm: the Gentleman was firm to the Church of England; and though he is no Loquacious, Talkativ Person, yet I have heard him give good Reason for his Principles. From the Account he gave, I found him in Christian Charity concerned for his Tenant, whereupon he desired me to discourse his Tenant; and because he thought he would be unwilling to give me a Meeting, he told me the next time he came he would send for me to discourse him, to make a Trial if I could reduce him to the Church. Accordingly he did, and I readily went, where I treated him with all the Civility he could look for, and discoursed what I thought proper; and I spoke with all the kindness and plainness was possible, that what 〈◊〉 said might have an Influence on him: But I was disappointed in my hopes; for I found ●im weak, and (which is usually the unhappy ●ate of such) obstinate, so that though I spoken plainly; yet he either did not understand me, or would not be convinced by what I offered. So true is the Observation of the wise Lord Bacon, 
●ertinaciae Hominum nullum Remedium posuit Deus. The Lord Bacon.  That God hath appointed no Remedy for the Obstinacy of Men: And if he have appointed none, it will be in vain to endeavour to find any. All I could get, was an importunate Request I would permit him to bring one to dispute with me: I was much against it at first; because usually such Designs come to no good, nor seldom have their desired end, but are attended with noise and clamour, and generally there is a greater Contestation for Victory than Truth, and a Man's Reputation is more consulted than their Satisfaction on whose Account the Meeting is appointed.  
The Answer he gave, was, He was no Scholar, and so not able to discourse with a Man of Learning, as he supposed me to be: I replied, whatever my Stock of Learning was, I would make no use of it with him, because I charitably intended his Good; but this instead of satisfying, engaged him to renew his Importunity, there might be a public Disputation, which he pretended would be much to his Satisfaction; but I believe it was but a pretence. For on the Account of some after-Circumstances, I have reason to conjecture that his Importunity for such a Meeting, was not so much to be convinced, as from a Confidence that the Advocate he pitched on (for he was in Vogue with his Party for his Disputatious Faculty; and as I have heard, hath often traveled many Miles to dispute with a Clergy man) would so far baffle me, it would give a Reputation to his Cause, and confirm him in his Principles: But because he could not prevail for a Consent, his Neighbour joined, desiring I would comply: Upon which, out of respect to him I condescended; but on this Condition, there might be but a few at the hearing of our Discourse; and if he would name how many he would bring, I would endeavour to equal his Number, or be content with fewer: For I told him, I believed three or four judicious Persons of a side, might better understand the Reason and Truth of an Argument, than a Multitude. For I had for many Years been of the same Mind with the ingenious Mr. Matthew Clifford, who hated Crowd and Noise.  
A little after, I had notice my Parishioner would bring his Man on December the thirteenth, 1687. And because I would be just to my Word, I acquainted (to the best of my Knowledge) only two Persons; viz. my Parishioner's Neighbour, and his Father: But he on the other side dealt unfairly with me; for, contrary to his Promise, he sent his Man to Church (the Sunday before the Day) to acquaint my People, when Sermon was done, there was to be a Dispute between Mr. M. C. and Myself. Some time before which, I addressed myself to a Consideration of the Doctrine of Baptism, and the Holy Gospel Covenant, and what Persons are to be admitted thereto, and to enjoy the Privileges by receiving the Sign thereof. I had only by me one Book on the Subject, that treated of the Nature of the Covenant; and whether Persons that were not capable of understanding the Articles thereof, could by the external sign be admitted to the Privileges.  
But I had a belief he would not, or cared not to manage the Controversy from that Principle; and thereupon I laid the Book aside, and for some time consulted the Holy Scriptures, and addressed myself by importunate and sincere Prayers to the Throne of Grace for the Divine Assistance, not in the least trusting to myself; but earnestly begging the Aid of Heaven, that the God of Truth would enable me to maintain what was true: And this I the rather did, because I believed this one of the Doctrines of Faith once delivered to the Saints, 
St. Judas vers. 2.  St. Judas exhorts Christians earnestly to contend for. When the Day was come, I waited till about ten or eleven of the Clock before my Antagonist appeared, about which hour he came, and knocked at door; which when I opened, I saw him and a great Crowd, I let in as many as my room I intended for our Dispute would hold; for so many crowded in. There were some scores. After I let him in, he walked somewhat briskly, and with a sort of Smile (as if I were to be led in Triumph, as the Roman Victors dealt with their conquered Slaves,) at the end of my Hall, attacks me with a Challenge to dispute in the Church. I told him there seemed some Vanity in the Request, as if he designed Noise more than Argument.  
Whereupon I desired him to look into my Parlour, which I told him was large enough for as many as were fit to hear us: Beside, I told him to dispute in the Church might be accounted a Riot; and I asked him, if he would secure me from the damage I might sustain, by undergoing the Penalty assigned for the Transgression of the Laws? Whereto he answered, he thought the Act for Liberty of Conscience was my Security: To which I replied, though I had the use of my Church for Preaching, as he his Meeting-place to Hold-forth in; yet I did not believe the Law allowed the Church to be a place for Disputation, nor was it fit it should, because it was improper, where the Holy Gospel of Peace was Preached, there Contention or Controversy should be managed. However, if he would go to my Reverend Diocesan, and request his leave, upon Licence from him I would comply. After which he walked into my Parlour to enter into Discourse: I told him, being so many were gathered together, we should act with good Intentions, designing the People's satisfaction, that they might be convinced which of us had Truth on his side, being our Principles were diametrically opposite, and directly contrary; not consulting our Credit, as if we contended for Victory more than Truth; and being we of the Church of England had the Laws on our side for what we professed, and as we thought Truth in Possession, he ought by strong Reasons to show our Title was not Good, before he attempted to disseise us of the Truth, we hoped we justly possessed: But before we begun, I desired one thing, which I thought was reasonable, because for the Good of the Auditors; and that was, I had a Licence from my Lord Bishop to teach School, and on that Account I had an Usher, that did write a fair and swift hand, and desired he might write the Argumentative part of our Discourse, and such Collateral Proofs we urged to strengthen our Arguments; and after our Conference was done, the Writing might be viewed by such as heard us, and they have Liberty to judge which had spoken most Truth; and that he might be sure he should not be imposed on, I told him, the Man that wrote what he spoke should read it, and ask him if it were his Words and his Sens, or if he could read Written-hand, he should read it himself; which I had not said, but he moved me, by ask an impertinent Question before; but he answered, he would have nothing writ on either side. That Proposal being denied, I had another to make, which was as reasonable, viz. That I might propose two or three Cases, that should include the greatest part of what was necessary for solving the Doubts, and answering the Objections against Infant-Baptism; and if he would allow any of his Party to understand the Principles of Antipaedobaptism better than himself, I would appeal to him, whether they did not; or if he thought I imposed too much by such a Proposal, (for I had resolved before his coming to treat him with civility,) I would allow him the Liberty I desired to take; provided the Questions he should ask were as proper as mine; for I am of the Poet's Mind, — Damus petimusque vicissim.  
The Answer I had, was, He should not ask me a Question, nor should I ask him one; upon which I replied, That his coming was to wrangle, ●ot dispute; and I was sorry the People were so disappointed; however, I was willing they should hear what he had to say, on which I desired him to begin; but I perceived (which he ought not to have done, for a Reason I have hinted) he expected I should begin; whereupon I did: But before I give an Account of what was said, I will give you the three Cases, propounded for a resolution of.  
The Antipaedobaptists Object, 
An Obj.  Baptism is only to be administered to the Adult, and those of years of Discretion.  
For the making out of which (in Answer to what is objected) it is desired these things appear.  
If Children are to be Baptised, answ. 1 than it seems necessary, there should be an express place of Holy Scripture to enjoin it, though the former part of the Proposition be allowed, yet the Consequence follows not; and therefore is desired to be proved.  
If a Party be admitted into Covenant, answ. 2 than it seemeth needful the Party should understand the Articles of the Covenant he is admitted to; but in some Cases, this is as inconsequent as the former; and therefore it is desired, that the Consequence of this Hypothetic, or Conditional Proposition, be evinced, or made out, to be universally true in all Cases, and in all Times.  
answ. 3 If there was an express place of Holy Scripture for the Circumcising of Children under the Law, than it seems reasonable there should be an express place of Holy Scripture for Baptising Children under the Blessed Gospel; and this likewise is desired to be made evident; and because according to the Logicians Rule, 
Affirmanti incumbit probatio.  The Proof lies on his side that Asserts; and the Antipaedobaptists do affirm these things, it is desired they make proof, or else they have no Reason to expect we should entertain a Belief of them.  
And now (being I was engaged to begin) I will give as true an Account as I can of what I offered, and he answered. I told him, I thought it as reasonable Children should be admitted into Covenant under the Holy Gospel, as under the Law, there being nothing more in the Holy Gospel-Covenant to debar them an admission thereto, than there was in that under the Law; besides, it adds strength to the Argument, if we consider, that the Covenant made with Abraham, and the Holy Gospel Covenant, are for substance one and the same, as St. Paul tells us expressly, 
Gal. iii. 8.  and as we have made appear in the Book; 
Vid. p. 97, 98. of this Book.  and certainly the Holy Apostle understood the Nature and Difference of Covenants, better I believe than any Antipaedobaptist in England. To all which he made no return; but after some Pause, and an Harangue to the People, he told me he would not be satisfied unless I brought him an Example out of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, for any Child being Baptised; or a Command for his admission into Covenant that way. To which I urged the probability of Children being Baptised, 
Acts xuj. 15.33.  when it is said, That Lydia was Baptised, and her Household; and of the Jailor, That he was Baptised, and all his straightway; 
1 Cor. 1.16.  and when St. Paul saith, I Baptised also the Household of Stephanas; and to speak ingenuously, the only thing considerable he said, was the proving the probability there were no Children in those Families. I am very sorry I have forgot what he said; but if I could remember it. I would do him that Justice, as to relate it; for I would pay my Adversary that respect, as to declare all the Truth and Reason of him that his Cause will bear, or that he can with good ground desire; but that which is but probably true, may notwithstanding be false. However, that I may allow my Adversary all he can reasonably ask, supposing there were no Children in those Houses mentioned, 
Dato, sed non concesso, disputandi gratia.  Allowing, but not granting it, (as we say sometimes in the Schools,) for disputation-sake; yet the Argument is not weakened, because the Holy Apostle spoke those Words not with the consideration of there being Children in those Families; but in allusion to known Customs among the Jews, in their receiving Proselytes of Righteousness, as we have made appear in the Book. Afterwards he urged the necessity of a direct Command, in the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, 
In totidem verbis.  for the Baptising Children, in so many Words; whereupon I asked him, If he believed such a Command necessary; to which he replied, He did: I returned upon him, I thought it was undecent, if not absurd, so positively to assert a thing necessary, and offer no Reason; beside, I said if he would give a Reason why he believed it necessary, I would do that which by Rules of Disputation he could not oblige me to, (for no Man is bound to prove a Negative,) viz. prove it not necessary: Hereupon he made a longer Pause than before, and after he recovered himself, made so long an Harange to those present, I was forced to pull him by the Sleeve, and desire him not to make my House a Meeting-place, and assume, or take, so much Confidence, as to instruct my People, unless he thought me not able for such an Employment; which if he did, I desired him to make proof, and when he had done, to make his complaint to my Reverend Diocesan: Upon which, with a sort of flattering smile, he complemented me, and told me he thought me able for my Office, and said, he and I might agree well in all points but one, viz. Infant Baptism; for he heard I was an Arminian, and so was he: Whereupon I told him, I somewhat doubted whether he understood the Quinquarticular Controversy, managed at the Synod of Dort, and knew what an Arminian was; but whether he did or no, was not material now; but I acquainted him I desired not to pass under any Character, but that of a Christian; nay, that Honourable Name, (for the best things may be abused,) in some Cases and Circumstances (if I understand St. Paul right, where it is used for a Faction in opposition to Christian Peace) is blame worthy: Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollo's, and I of Cephas, 
1 Cor. 1.12, 13.  and I of Christ; Is Christ divided, was Paul Crucified for you, or were you Baptised in the Name of Paul: So that there were four Parties in the Church of Corinth: And therefore did I affect to be called by a Name that should preserve Universal Charity, I would espouse that of a Reformed Catholic (without renouncing the Name, Christian.) And then I offered a Reason, why there was no necessity for an express Text of Holy Scripture, in the New Testament, for the Baptising Infants; because it was so long known in the Jewish Church before our Blessed Saviour's days; and as he took the other Sacrament from the Jews Post-coenium, or After-Supper; so he took this from their way of admitting Proselytes of Righteousness, before they Circumcised them: And why should we not for the same Reason debar Women from the Lord's Supper, as Children from being admitted by Baptism into the Covenant, seeing there is no more Command for one, than for the other: So that Christ's not saying, whether Children were admitted to Baptism, is so far from being a cogent Proof, that weighing the former Jewish Customs, it is the strongest Motive to believe it. But still (notwithstanding all I said to show the absurdity of his Request, and the Arguments I offered to signify the unreasonableness of such a Demand, without answering one of my Reasons) my Adversary importuned me for an express place of Holy Scripture, in the New Testament, for the Baptising Children; whereupon I asked him, if I brought a place of Holy Scripture, whose Sense could have no other tolerable meaning, but the allowance of Infants to be Baptised, it were not the same, as if I brought express Words for Baptising Children? which he yielded: Upon which it pleased God (as if he would assist the defence of his Divine Truth; for I thought not on it before; this I own because I am not willing to ascribe any thing to myself) to suggest to my Mind that place of St. Paul, For the unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the Wife, 
1 Cor. VII. 14.  and the unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the Husband, else were your Children unclean, but now are they Holy: Where Interpreters understand, by the unbelieving Husband or Wife, an Infidel; and by the Wife or Husband that sanctifies, a Christian; from whence I drew this Argument, That if Children, as soon as born, had a right to the Covenant by the Parent's Faith, where but one of the Parents is a Christian, than Baptism being the Sign of the Covenant, and not the Covenant, (as the Antipaedobaptists own,) It follows [by the Argument, à Majori ad Minus, from the greater to the less] if the Child when born hath a right to the Covenant, he hath a right to the Sign; 
Omne majus includit in se minus.  for according to the Logical Maxim, The greater includes the less; and he that should deny this, would be as absurd, as he that should say, he that receiveth Ten Pounds receives not Five. And then I told him there were but two sorts of Holiness, with reference to Men, (though there may be a Relative Holiness, with respect to things,) a Personal, and a Foederal Holiness; at which he stared on me, as if he understood me not; on which I told him I would speak more intelligibly, and that by Foederal, I meant a Covenant Holiness: Now Children, antecedent to exercise of Reason, are not capable of a Personal Holiness, (which is a comprehensive Word for all the Graces of Christian Religion.)  
But here the Antipaedobaptists object, object. We read of two Persons endued with Holiness before they came to the use of Reason, the Blessed Jesus, and St. John the Baptist.  
To which I answer, answ. We do not find that either of them acted any Divine Grace antecedent to Years of Discretion, though they were sanctified from the Womb. After I had given this Sense, I was told the reverend Dr. Hammond had given the same Interpretation: Upon which I was pleased I had the concurring Judgement of so learned a Man. (Though I had not read it in him, or any else to my remembrance; but it was purely the suggestion of my own Mind, assisted by the Divine Spirit, who is never wanting with his Grace to help those that are sincerely employed in the Investigation of, and Enquiry after Truth.) This is the main Substance (so far as my Memory will reach) of the many hours Discourse we had: If I had had any Thought of printing it, I would have transcribed it while fresh in my Memory, and then possibly might have given a more particular Account; but I hope this may be satisfactory, being as much as I can remember. Toward the end of our Discourse I told him, if he could make appear he had answered any Argument of mine, or properly stated any for his Principles, I dare promise to yield the Cause; but to this (as I remember) he returned no Answer.  
After this was brought from 1 Cor. VII. 14. I remember not I had any Answer; but he did as he used, make an Harangue to the People: And when he could neither answer my Argument, nor state any proper for his Principles, he diverted to another Subject, and would needs enter into a Dispute against Tithes: Upon which I desired we might come to a better Conclusion about the Doctrine of Infant-Baptism, but I could have no further Discourse on that Subject: But he requested me to show him a place of Holy Scripture, in the New Testament, for Tithes; which I told him was unreasonable to demand, seeing our dear Redeemer, and his blessed Disciples lived under Heathen Governors, that were Enemies to Christianity; and it could not be expected such as were Gentile Rulers should make Laws in Favour of the Christian Religion: Yet St. Paul asserts the Reasonableness of Ministerial Maintenance, 
1 Cor. IX. 14.  when he saith, He that preacheth the Gospel, should live of the Gospel. But when Constantine made Profession of Christianity, he adopted Tithes into the Laws of the Empire; and then Tithes were to be paid under as high an Obligation of Conscience, as the Jews were under by virtue of their Judicial Law, which was a part of their Theocracy, or the Government of God himself: So that a Man, who after such an Obligation defrauds his Minister, either in whole or part, may be said to be guilty of the Sin of the Jews which they committed, 
Mal. III. 8.  (and it is well if none commit it in our days) who are said directly to rob God; which they that love their Souls, believ a God, and a future Judgement, may tremble at the Consideration of: Which made me wonder Mr. M. C. should tell me, he paid Tithes to a certain Clergyman, (I think he said one of the Residentiaries of Chichester) but he did it (as he said) against his Conscience. Whereupon I told him he could not be an honest Man; because he paid that voluntarily, which was against his Conscience: For any Man that payeth what he thinketh he ought not to do, without force, doth it voluntarily, because he is under no Compulsion; and he that consents to that which he believes a Sin, though it be not, yet is a Sin to him; as the Author of The Whole Duty of Man informs us: 
Dr. Tillotson, in his Sermon at the Funeral of Mr. Gouge.  (the best of Books, as our learned, and most rational Archbishop calls it) Because God judgeth according to our Wills, not according to our Understandings. And now to pay my Adversary all the Respect he may look for, and to do him all the Justice he can expect, I believe from the Fame I have heard, he could have disputed like a Scholar, more coherently, and congruously, argued more closely and properly; but without breach of Charity, I think I may suspect he talked impertinently with a Design to put me in a Passion, (which I was somewhat ware of, and therefore stood on my Guard; and that I might not be guilty of selfconfidence, I implored the Divine Assistance to prevent my falling into the Indecencies, and Disadvantages of Passion, because. I knew from my natural Temper I had some Inclination thereto) and that makes me think he did not believ the Character I have been told, he heard that Morning he came: For enquiring, whether I was a Man of Passion, he was answered I was not easily disturbed, on which I was told he shook his Head. But I believe by his roving Talk he thought to raise a Passion; (for nothing disturbs a Man of Sens more than impertinent Talk) and when that would not do, he fell to the mean Art of Flattery, by commending my Patience; and told me, after three hour's Discourse, he had oft talked with Men of my Coat, but before so long time had been turned out of Doors: Upon which I told him, his impertinent Discourse deserved such usage; but I would not give him occasion against me: For than I supposed he would go into the Town, and boast what a Victory he had obtained. But being he was there, I would inflict that Penance on myself, as to discourse till Bedtime, if he would stay, and then leave him; but I would have the Courage to meet him next Morning: For I now found where his Strength lay, which was more in evading an Argument, than in rightly stating one, or standing to it, and learnedly defending it. After this Day's tedious Work (because of the Impertinency I was troubled with) I saw him no more till New-Year's Day, which happened to be on a Sunday, the Festival engaged me to say something of Infant-Baptism. When Evening-Prayer was done, I sent to Mr. M.C. where he held forth; and I think it was the first Day he did so in my Parish: He was so kind as to come, and brought two of my Neighbours of his Opinion. I treated them civilly, and after a while desired them to withdraw; (because I had a Mind to speak with my Antagonist alone) which they did; when they were gone, and none but he and myself, I told him, He might have the same suspicion of me, I had of him, that when he and I discoursed before a Company, we might be tempted more to purchase Reputation, than to maintain Truth, but now it was not in the Devil's power to lay out such a Temptation, there being none but he and I; and therefore I desired he would allow me to propose something calmly to him, which since resulted to my thoughts; for I was willing to be his Proselyte, if he could convince me to be in an Error; and as willing he should be my Proselyte, if I could prove him in a Mistake: For though I loved the Church of England well, yet I loved Truth better; and if he could evince or prove she had not Truth on her side, I would forsake her; but I could have no Answer; for he diverted to other discourse, and said we had spoke enough on the Argument. He hath since been with me, and desired a Dispute in the Church; I told him, I would meet him in any Church, if he would submit to two Conditions, which I thought reasonable; the one was, That he would get my Reverend Diocesan's leave, or secure me from any Penalty the Bishop, or the Law, might lay on me: The other was, That he would be at the Charge to hire an Amanuensis, to write down the Argumentativ part of his Discourse, and I would be at as great a Charge to hire one that should write down what I offered, and then at the end of our Conference, the Papers should be exposed to the consideration of the most Judicious Auditors, to examine which spoke most according to the true Sens of Holy Scripture, or the dictates of right Reason; but this offer he refused, and said he would have nothing writ on either side: And the cause why I would engage him thereto, was, because it would be a kindness, in that it would be a great Caution, we should speak properly, and would oblige us to circumspection and care, from the consideration and fear of that shame and reproach we should be exposed to, by delivering ourselves inconsistently and incoherently, and it would be a satisfaction to the People, because than we should use our endeavours to speak Truth, and to confirm it by Reason, which, if we did, it might have a good effect on the People that heard it, to understand who spoke most properly, according to the sense of Holy Scripture, and so consequently who had the clearest Truth on his side; but no Argument would prevail with him to submit to such reasonable terms; and then I told him, I would allow him to tell, I refused to accept his Challenge: But then I desired him to tell on what terms I denied to comply; or if not, I should take care to do it; and then he would have cause not to be satisfied with, but ashamed of the Report. When he was with me, on New-years-day, 1688. I told him I understood that was the first day he Heldforth in his Meeting-place, and I supposed he spoke against our Principles; and truly the Festival engaged me to say something in defence of our declared Doctrines. I said, I doubted he trusted to such an Extemporary Effusion, and such an extraordinary Measure of the Holy Spirit, that I thought he could give little Account of what he said after he concluded; but I told him, I hoped I trusted as much to the Holy Spirit as he, in a rational way; for I studied for what I delivered, and then I implored the Divine Blessing on what I studied, which I thought as much as I ought to trust to; for I believe, since the Miraculous Aids of the Holy Ghost are ceased, the Divine Spirit doth afford his Blessing in the use of means, and not in an extraordinary manner; and then I read what I spoke in reference to Infant-Baptism, which I desired him to censure as severely as he pleased, provided he would give me a Reason: The Account whereof is as followeth, Preaching that day on the Institution of Circumcision, from Gen. XVII. 9.15. I made this Observation, That Heathen Proselytes, and their Infants, were made Partakers of God's Covenant; whence I thus argued in the General for Infant-Baptism: If this be understood, it will afford a strong, though not usually brought-Argument, for Baptising of Infants: For if this be true, as may be made appear by Jewish Customs, it is plain not being of the Seed of Abraham, but being of the Faith of Abraham, gave a Person a right to the Covenant, and to the Sign of it, Circumcision; or else no Proselytes could be made from Heathenism, and so admitted into Covenant by that Sign; and then by Parity of Reason, the Faith of the Christian Parent shall be imputed to the Child: And if the Faith of the Parent gives a Title to the Covenant, or being a Christian, (Baptism, like Circumcision, being only the Sign of the Covenant,) by Parity of Reason, the Faith of the Parent (as I have hinted) gives a right to the Sign, because the Sign is less than the Privilege. Besides, there is no being a Disciple of Christ, without being Baptised into his Blessed Name, that being the Sign of the Holy Gospel Covenant, and made as necessary as Circumcision, which was the Sign of the Covenant under the Law; not that I would be so uncharitable, as to Damn all that die unbaptised; because it is here as in Circumcision, the Infant can be in no fault, as not being capable of Obedience to the Command, or transgressing the Law by contempt; and so cannot be said to break the Covenant, that doth nothing belonging to the keeping it; and though the Child did not, 
Ezod. iv 24.  yet Moses the Father of the Child went in danger of his Life, whom the Lord met by the way in the Inn, and sought to kill; which, if duly considered, might make all Christian Parents, that neglect the bringing their Children timely to Baptism, tremble for fear of some severe punishment falling on themselves; which may be one reason, why our excellent Church declares in the Rubric of Private Baptism, and enjoins the Pastors and Curates of every Parish, oft to admonish the People, that they defer not the Baptism of their Children longer than the first or second Sunday, or other Holiday, next after the Child be born: Unless on a great and reasonable Cause declared to the Curate, and to be by him approved. Moreover, if there be no enjoying the Benefits of the Covenant, without the Sign, this makes the Sign necessary; and the wilful neglect of necessary means endangers any Person's Salvation, without the Interposition of an extraordinary Mercy; and that which is above, or beyond means, is ever miraculous: And if such a miraculous proportion of Mercy were indulged, as oft as such a wilful neglect gave occasion, it would cease to be miraculous; because a Miracle is not only an extraordinary act of Power, but a rare contingency, and therefore cannot oft happen; otherwise the Sun's daily motion about the Earth, would be as great, if not a greater Miracle, than it's once 
* Josh X. 12, 13. 2 Kin. XX. 9, 10, 11.  standing still, or once Retrograde Motion. Lastly, let it be considered, that our Adversaries think Christian Instruction necessary, before the admission of the Party to Baptism, and we think it necessary afterward, supposing the Party liveth to years of discretion; and if not, we have more reason to rely on an extraordinary act of Mercy, that have given the Sign, and all the Party is at present capable of, (and being also what the Party was commanded to submit to, under a previous dispensation, and which was never prohibited; and also such an one as was Typical of the Dispensation we are under,) than they have to depend on a miraculous proportion of Mercy, who will not use what the Child is capable of, nor give it that Sign to which the Benefits of the Covenant are annexed, 
An Apostrophe to unbaptized Children.  and without which they are not to be enjoyed. Alas! poor helpless Children, that their Parents should be so unmerciful, as not to allow them as much Pity, as God vouchsafeth Mercy; and refuse that Sign of the Covenant, God hath appointed as the only conveyance of the Advantages thereof; and deny them those means God hath instituted, as the Title to make over the Blessings of Heaven, and convey that Happiness that is only to be enjoyed in the Mansions of Glory above. A great part, if not most, of this, hath been urged in a Conference for the establishing this considerable, because comfortable, Truth, the necessity of Baptising Infants; which if it had been weighed, and the force of its Reason examined, (as the importance of the matter required,) there had been no cause for that which I have been more than once told of, I mean unreasonable, because undecent singing Io Paans', and making boasting Triumphs before the Victory, by Men that had rather serve a Faction, and an Interest, than promote that Religion that is true, because rational, and love their Reputation more than their Conscience, and value their Credit and Honour more than the Truth in Sincerity; or to use an Holy Scripture Phrase, (and an Expression by them much delighted in, and as much abused, and wrested to the deceiving the unthinking many) The Truth as it is in Jesus. This I read, and asked what he had to say: He gave me no other Answer than this, that he thought I was a Man understood my Principles. I thanked him for his Candour; and told him I was not fit to be a Public Instructor if I did not: And then I added I would make some Enlargements to the Paper I shown him, and would print it if he would give me a Civil and Rational Answer.  
To which he returned, I might do as I pleased; but he would have nothing to do with me in Print, because (as he said) I understood my Principles; which was an Intimation he would have nothing to do with any in Print, but such as he thought he could confute.  
But to do Justice; When I read the Paper, I told him of the Boastings I heard he made of the Victory he had obtained. He assured me he had not said any such thing; but pretended a respect for me: Yet I have reason to suspect he might underhand encourage such Reports (for I am inclined to believe he is not a Man of that Perfection, but he may be tempted to, and without breach of Charity, I may suppose him sometimes to entertain with a sort of Pleasure some little Titillations of the Animal Life, to use the Platonic Phrase, which the best Men may be too propens to) if what I have heard be true; for I was told by a Neighbour-Minister, that one in his Parish who was an Antipaedobaptist, told him he had an excellent Gift of Praying: And he hoped to have an excellent Gift of Preaching. Whereupon he asked, if he had heard of me, and the Conference I had with their great Man, and reputed Bishop. He answered, yes, and said I was a Man of great Noise, but little Sens: I am content for once that pert Fellow should make a Trial of Skill on me, and employ his little Learning and Art about me; and if he can prove his Charge, I will be satisfied patiently to bear the reproachful Accusation. He added, Their Goliath, their great Champion had so baffled me, that I had not the Courage to appear before him. But I will entertain such candid Thoughts of Mr. M. C. as to believe he will not give so mean a Character of me as this Thrasonic Fellow hath. However I was a little after at a Market-Town, where I heard he was; and when I found him, I told him I would give him any thing the House afforded, (for I had a Mind to acquaint him what his wise Admirer said of him and me) if he would be so kind as to allow me a little Discourse with him; but he answered he could not then spare time. Thus I have given as true and fair an Account as possibly I could of the Conference, as my Memory would serve to relate of what was done some Years ago. If any ask why I did not publish it sooner; the Reason is, because I was willing to preach it to my People before I published it.  
And that I did not, nor could do it till this Summer, there were some Reasons I think not necessary to publish. I find a Poet tells of an Author who was so exact in the composing a piece of Work, that he was nine Years before he published it.  — Nonumque prematur in Annum. Horat. 
I must confess I was not so exact as to spend half the time in the composure of this Treatise, tho' it hath not appeared till now. I have endeavoured to treat my Adversary with Respect; for I had much rather persuade and convince the Judgement by Arguments of Reason, than exasperated an angry Humour, or raise a Passion by a petulant Expression. If any of the Advers Party shall judge themselves obliged, in vindication of a weak and almost baffled Cause, to make a Return: If they will do it candidly and ingenuously, like Scholars or Gentlemen, they shall be entertained with the same Civility in my Reply. But if they shall answer with Noise and Nonsense, impertinently, or in a Burlesque way, I acquaint them I affect not Domitian's Employment; and time doth not so hang on my Hands, that I have any to expend in catching Flies; and I had rather bear with their buzzing, than be so diverted from Business. And truly I was willing to treat my Adversaries kindly, and manage this Controversy with Plainness for the Reasons the learned Mr. Walker gives, 
Vide Mr. Walker 's excellent Preface to his modest Plea for Infant-Baptism.  to whom I refer my Readers.  
And as I have not committed any voluntary Error in this Relation; so I have taken Care in the Book itself to write with so much Plainness, that if perchance I have used a difficult Term, I have adjoined a Synonymous Word to explain my meaning. And because some of my People have desired I would print all I preached on the Subject of Infant Baptism, I will here transcribe one or two Papers which I used before I came to my main Argument; and then with this Preface, and what is in the Book, I shall have delivered what not only myself, but others of far greater Judgement (if they do not flatter me) think necessary to be said on the Subject, according to the Method I have handled it in, and the Topics I have proved it by. What I said next, was, when I had occasion to preach on that former Text, and quoted 1 Cor. VII. 14. I thus delivered myself: Give me leave now to say something in defence of Infant-Baptism; being willing to seize on any Opportunity that inviteth me to speak thereof. For being there is a Sect of Men called Antipaedobaptists, that have set up a Meeting in this Parish to seduce Men from the Ancient Truth, I think it my Duty (out of kindness to your Soul's Health) to preserve you in the true and Catholic, because Christian Doctrine of Baptising Infants, that you may, by defending your Orthodox Principle of the Church of England, be able to Answer some of their weak (though they imagine them strong) Arguments.  
If then that be true, which I do not in the least doubt, (having no reason for it,) that the Learned Rabbins among the Jews acquaint us with, (who best understood their Usages,) That one Reason of Circumcision, was to teach the derivation of God's Covenant to the Seed of the Faithful. This place of St. Paul's will hint us a seemingly unanswerable Argument for Infant-Baptism, which with an allowable confidence, and without too much conceitedness of myself, (for I have laboured to mortify such Inclinations,) I may challenge the most Learned Antipaedobaptist in this Country, or possibly in the Kingdom, to give any tolerable Answer to, or to offer any Sens of this Text, different from what I shall now deliver, as its true meaning, provided it be according to the Testimony of Holy Writ, the Connexion of Sacred Scripture, the Analogy of sound Faith, and the clear Dictates of right Reason. I call this Doctrine an Ancient Practice, because I do not in any measure Question, but it was used in that Age of Christianity next to the Holy Apostles, which is as soon as we could expect it to be used; because in the Holy Apostle's time, there was no one Nation brought over to the Christian Faith; but because of the swift propagation of the Christian Doctrine, we may reasonably suppose there was such a Conversion by the end of the first Century, or Hundred years after the Holy Apostles death; 
Viri Apostolici.  and the Fathers of that Century were called Apostolic Men; and if you will not allow such a Tradition to be Apostolic, I know not what Tradition can claim that Ancient and Honourable Name. And now I will give you the plain Sens of that place of St. Paul's , such as may confirm what I have before offered, as its meaning, in a Conference on this Subject: For the unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the Wife; and the unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the Husband; i. e. the Paganish Husband is sanctified by the Wife that is a Christian, I mean her Foederal or Covenant Holiness is imputed to the Husband, that the Children begotten and born after such a Marriage, may be Holy, or Partakers of a Foederal or Covenant Holiness: For a Personal Holiness cannot be conveyed, (as some Men of ill Principles, particularly the Antinomians think, for they believ the Personal Holiness of God and Christ may be transmitted, and therefore they declare a Man may be Godded with God, and Christed with Christ.) And so the Paganish Wife is sanctified by the believing Husband. That no other sense can be the proper meaning of this Text, I appeal to the Context, which is the best way to have a right understanding of Holy Scripture, (or any other Book or Author,) as will appear by two verses preceding, If any Brother hath a Wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away; and the Woman which hath an Husband that believeth not, if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. And then the Holy Apostle, as an encouragement for Co-habitation, and a Reason why the Husband should not Divorce the Wife, or the Wife forsake the Husband, adds the following Words, for the unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the Wife, and the unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the Husband; which being so great a Privilege should be a Motive to dwell together, and not by separation to forfeit so considerable an Advantage; and when there is so plain Sense in Holy Scripture for the Baptising Infants, it is unreasonable in the Antipaedobaptists to demand a positiv Precept of Holy Scripture in express Words; and therefore having so much Reason on our side, grounded on the plain sense of Holy Scripture, Why may not we, with as much Reason retort on them, and demand a positiv Prohibition in express terms? And ask, whether they can show any Text in the whole Sacred Book of God, that saith, Infants shall not be Baptised? Having therefore so much Reason for our Principles, we may rationally presume we have the Holy Scriptures, seeing they never contradict Reason, though they may in some things transcend Reason; but I shall need say no more from this Text, having spoken so fully to it in the Book, to which I refer my Readers.  
I know but one Objection, 
An Obj.  I shall need to take notice of here (seeing I have answered so many in the Book, and in particular This, and therefore shall be the shorter in the Account I now give; and what I say, shall not be the same with that in the Book,) and this I am the more willing to, because I know some of the Antipaedobaptists think it may have some force in it, against our Principle, though few of them know how to manage it; and I confess it hath been started to me by one that knew not how to use it; and this they think the stronger, because drawn from our acknowledged Principles; I mean from one of our authorised Books; and so they take it to be like the Logicians Argumentum ad Hominem, as strong as a Dilemma, and so hope to gore us with our own Horns, and expect we should say as the Apostate Emperor of the Christians in his Age, when he was overcome by the Christians, 
●ropriis 〈…〉.  with Arguments drawn out of his own Quiver, We are wounded with the Arrows feathered from our own Shafts. The Objection is drawn from an Answer to a Question in our Church Catechism: To that Question, What is required of Persons to be Baptised? the Answer is, Repentance, whereby they forsake Sin; and Faith, whereby they steadfastly believe the Promises of God made to them in that Sacrament.  
To which I Answer, the Repentance here spoken of consists in forsaking Sin, which is the same with that Abrenunciation they make at their Baptism, by their Com-promisers and Undertakers; by whom, and by certain Conditions promised by their Sponsors and Sureties, they are admitted to an Holy Gospel-state, by the same Reason as a Child may be admitted to a Worldly Inheritance by Guardians, who undertake for certain Conditions the Child must perform when he arriveth at years of Discretion, and for Faith that the Child hath in the right of his Parent, because the Parent's Faith giveth him a Title to the Covenant, and so by consequence to the Sign of it, Baptism; beside, that Faith may be thus imputed from some Instances in the Holy Gospel we see, where we find that Christ makes the Parent's Faith necessary to the recovery of the sick Child: But there is no necessity of saying ●ny more to this, there being a much larger Answer in the Book. And now I have but one Account more to give of what I delivered before I come to my main Argument; and that I am willing to transcribe, because it will the better prepare the way to those Holy Scripture-Proofs I have offered in the Book, for evidencing the necessity of Infant-Baptism. Preaching at the Festival of the Nativity of the Holy Jesus, on that Text, Isai. VII. 14. Therefore the Lord of Hosts shall give you a Sign, behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel, I had an Occasion to quote St. Matth. XXVIII. 19, 20. Go you therefore, and teach all Nations, Baptising them in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: And, Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the World. Amen. I thus addressed myself to my People; I beg leave to give you the true Sens of this Text, that you may not be seduced from any important Truth of the Christian Religion: And this I am willing to do, because the Antipaedobaptists do so much triumph in, and boast thereof, as if it contained an unanswerable Argument against Infant-Baptism; but I will evidently show, it hath no force for their purpose. And now I will clearly evince, and make out, That this Text they so much insist on, hath nothing in it against our Principles: And this I will do by showing what the Coherence of this Text (they think so much for them) is, and the Design of Christ's Commission to his Blessed Disciples in these Words, which is the only proper way of coming to the knowledge of their true Sens, whereby you may understand this place doth not in the least countenance their erroneous Principle. Their Argument is, because it is said in the Commission, Teach before they Baptise: Now how could Men understand a Religion, that could not be known but by Revelation, before they had a knowledge of the Revelation? That being the only way of making a discovery; and therefore it was necessary the Holy Apostles Commission should be so worded, that they might by their Instructions preach to the Heathen World that Holy Doctrine the Blessed Jesus came from Heaven to reveal; and which could not be known but by such a Publication: For it is impossible that Men could be made Partakers of the sign of the Covenant, till they owned, and were admitted into the Covenant. For as the Covenant supposeth some Promise on God's part, so it engages to some Service on ours; and we have no Reason to expect the Privilege, if we will not undergo the Service. So that with relation to the Context, and the Design of the Commission, (which as I have insinuated, is the only way of coming to the knowledge of their true meaning) the Sens is plainly this: All Power is given to me in Heaven and in Earth, Go you therefore, and teach all Nations, Baptising them; i. e. seeing so great Power is delivered to me by the Father, I impart to you so much of that Power as is fit to be communicated, and as is necessary for the Message I send you on, and the business I have entrusted you with, which is to travel all the World, and instruct all Nations in the Holy Doctrine I came from the Mansions of Glory to acquaint you with. Now that this is the true Sens, appears from the following Words of the next Verse, Teaching them to observe all things whatever. I have commanded you; and then encouraging them with hopes that Success should never be wanting to the diligent performance of their Duty, And, Lo, I am with you always even to the end of the World. Amen. Now I do not at all question, but if the Law had been as extensive a Dispensation as the Holy Gospel, Moses their Legislator would have given such a Commission to Twelve Elders of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, as our dear Saviour gave his Blessed Apostles, and said, Go teach all Nations, Circumcising them: But because the Law was confined to Judea, and the Jews, God's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his peculiar People; therefore that could not be done: But supposing it might have been, I say such a Commission would have been no Argument against the Circumcising the Jewish Children; and by a rational consequence, this Commission of Christ to his Blessed Disciples, can be no Argument against Infant-Baptism, because it is directed only to those that were not in Covenant, and had not the least Instruction in that Holy Doctrine that was now revealed. For they that were in Covenant, had a Power of transmitting their Title and Interest in the Covenant to their Children; and it is not only uncharitable, but irreligious, to believe that because the Holy Gospel was a more extensiv Dispensation than the Law, it was not as merciful an one. For our Adversaries allow (and from Evidence of Revelation are forced) Children under the Law were admitted into Covenant; and then by Parity of Reason, why may they not under the Holy Gospel? I am certain St. Paul (who I believe understood Religion much better than any of them) saith so in express Words; for he maketh Children holy as soon as born, tho' but one of the Parents were a Christian, as I hope I have made unanswerably appear from 1 Cor. VII. 14. For the unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the Wife, and the unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the Husband, else were your Children unclean, but now are they holy; and if so, they must have a Right to the Sign that conveyeth the Privileges of the Covenant, because they actually have a Right to the Covenant by their Birth.  
And this may answer a seemingly strong Objection of the Antipaedobaptists, 
Obj.  That it is unreasonable to admit those into Covenant that are not capable of understanding the Terms.  
But not to say this Objection is a Reflection on the Righteousness of God's Dispensations; which I might do, and prove it.  
It is a sufficient Answer to this their great Objection, 
Answ.  That this Method of Dispensation is reasonable, because according to the Laws of Heaven and Earth too. For all that understand Instituted Religion, own God did by Circumcision admit Children into Covenant under the Law: And St. Paul saith, He that is circumcised becometh a Debtor to keep the whole Law; which the Jewish Children were as uncapable of keeping, as Christian Children are of the Holy Gospel; and so the Objection lieth as strong against Circumcising, as Baptising Children. And it is reasonable according to the Laws of Men too: For it is well known to all Lawyers, that it is a common thing to admit a Child to an Estate by Guardians and Tutors, under several Conditions, which the Child cannot undertake the Performance of, till he come to that Age wherein he can exercise his Reason: And is it not full as reasonable to admit Children, on certain Terms, to an Holy Gospel Estate, as to a secular one, on Conditions they are uncapable of executing. And thus we have the Laws of Heaven, and Men too, against our Adversaries: Nay, we have three strong Weapons to defend the Truth, if we know but how to wield and manage them.  
1. The Holy Scripture, which is the Sword of the Spirit.  
2. Reason, which I may call the Sword of Nature.  
3. The Law, which I may name the Military Sword.  
And being thus secured with spiritual, natural, and material Armour, we may be so courageous as not to fear the most violent Attempts that shall be made against us; and may believ according to an Holy Scripture Phrase, very proper to our Case, that against Truth, and us too, while we hold the Truth and stick to sound Principles, no Weapon form shall prosper, or have its intended effect; and when I had delivered these three Accounts from the Pulpit in defence of Infant-Baptism, I was thinking that if I could make the Sense of this last Text, viz. St. Matth. XXVIII. 19 Go teach all Nations, baptising them: I say, if I could prove those Words to be not only not for the Antipaedobaptists, but against them, and for us, I did believe I should say all was sufficient to prove its Lawfulness from Holy Scripture. And meditating one Morning, I employed my Thoughts to give the Words such a Sens, and to justify it when I had done: And in order thereto I did humbly, and fervently implore the Divine Assistance, and God (who is never wanting to help them, who with Humility and Faith address themselves to him) suggested this Account of the Text to my Mind, that I have offered in the following Papers; which when I had composed, I penned down, because I was not willing to forget what my Thoughts had delivered as the proper meaning of the Text, according to my Judgement; and I made use of no Book, but the Greek Testament, to satisfy myself in the Account the Original giveth of Acts II. 39 which with 1 Cor. VII. 14. I made use of, as collateral Proofs, to confirm the Sens given: For I did believ the comparing of one Place of Holy Scripture with another, one of the best ways of coming to its true Meaning; which when I had drawn out, it made about two Sheets of Paper, which was all at first I did design to print.  
But the Occasion of enlarging it, was this: A Neighbour-Clergy-man (with whom I discoursed about the Sens given of St. Mat. XXVIII. 19 and the Confirmation I brought from those two other Places of Holy Scripture beforementioned) acquainted me he had a Book of an ingenious Antipaedobaptist, that did seem to invalidate any Proof for Infant-Baptism from those two Texts; which I desired to read, and he lent me. When I came home, I did without prejudice peruse what he had wrote, and at the first sight I was somewhat surprised; but on consideration, and retiring into myself, I did find his Arguments against the Sens I offered, were but weak, as I hope will appear to any impartial Reader by the Answer I have given. After I had done this, I resolved to use all Means I could think of, or remember, to establish the Sens I had given of the Text, and accordingly read over some useful Treatises upon the Subject; and because as Pliny somewhere saith, 
Ingenuum est profiteri per quos profeceris. Plinius.  An ingenious thing it is to own by whom we have profited, I will give an Account to whom I am obliged, and more particularly I stand engaged to the reverend Dr. Hammond, in his Resolution of Six Queries; one whereof is about Infant-Baptism; the other is the Excellent Author of the Case of Infant-Baptism.  
Which was one of those cases the Reverend Lord Bishop of London did, out of a pious and excellent Design, engage his City Clergy to state and resolve for the satisfaction of Dissenters, and to reduce them to the Church of England.  
As for Dr. Hammond, I have used his words in a manner; and for the other, I have in most, if not in all places, altered his words, and taken his since, that I might adapt it to my own style, that the Work might look the more alike, and seemingly appear all of a piece. Something I have borrowed from Mr. Ellis, in his Book called, Pastor and Clerk; or a Debate (real) concerning Infant Baptism.  
As to the Authorities I have used to confirm the since delivered, I have not taken things on Trust; but perused and examined good Editions of the Original Authors, and have been careful neither to misreport their words, nor misrepresent their sens, and having made this Ingenuous Acknowledgement, I cannot be accused of Plagiarism; because I give my Authors all the Reputation they can desire, by owning what I have taken.  
And now, I hope, I may without any conceitedness, say, I have used all the proper Methods for reducing Gainsayers into the Paths of Truth and Peace: For besides three Rational Arguments for Infant-Baptism, I have endeavoured to prove it from that place of Holy Scripture the Adversaries think against it; and to engage the belief of the most avers and prepossessed, I have offered all the proper methods of Conviction.  
1. I have given a clear Exposition to confirm the meaning.  
2. I have much enlarged that Exposition.  
3. I have proved the Sens by the Coherence.  
4. I have confirmed the meaning by the Original; for in some places of Holy Scripture, no Translation cometh up exactly to the Original; for in every Language there are some peculiar Idioms that cannot well be translated into another Tongue.  
5. I have strengthened the Sens by two other places of Holy Scripture; for the Holy Spirit, by comparing one place with another, doth best interpret his meaning.  
6. I have given some general Observations to establish the Sens of the three Texts delivered.  
7. I have defended the Exposition given by an Allusion to Jewish Customs, without which Account it is impossible to come to an understanding of some places of Holy Scripture in the New Testament.  
8. I have confirmed what I have offered, as the since of the three places of Holy Scripture, from the Authority of some of the Ancient Fathers, who living nearest the times of the Holy Apostles, may reasonably be presumed best to know the sens of their Writings; and I could have produced more in defence of Infant-Baptism; but I was not willing to stuff my Book with Quotations from the Ancients; but only thought good to use those, that might establish the meaning of these Texts I quoted.  
9 I have endeavoured to Answer three strong Objections of the Antipaedobaptists against the since delivered.  
After I had done, I showed it to some of the Clergy in the Country, and I was told by one, it had been done in part this way by others; I said possibly it might so, but I had never seen it in any Book or Author: I speak not this to put any value on, or assume, or take any thing to myself; but only to own a Gracious Return to my importunate Prayers, while I was employed in the Investigation and Search after Divine Truth, and to implore his Blessing, that it might have that good effect I sincerely designed in the composure of it. 
Non nobis, Domine, non nobis; sed Nomini tuo sit Gloria.  And if it shall work a Conviction on any that have erred from the way of Truth, I will say in the Words of the Royal Prophet, Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us; but unto thy Holy Name be the sole Praise, Honour, and Glory given, and ascribed.  
And indeed it is almost morally impossible for a Wise Man to be Proud, if he duly consider what St. Paul saith, Who maketh thee to differ from another? And what hast thou, 
2 Cor. IV. 7.  that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, Why dost thou Glory, as if thou hadst not received it? I have so far consulted the satisfaction of the Vulgar Readers, that I have placed almost all my Quotations in the Margin, (except where I had occasion to give an Account of the Original, as to St. Matth. XXVIII. 19 and Act. II. 39 which I could not well do; and if the candid Reader shall skip those two Chapters, and what I could not well put into the Margin, I hope the unprejudiced Person may receive satisfaction from the rest of the Book.) And that the meanest Capacity may understand the strength of my Argument, and the since of what I have wrote, where I have used any Greek or Latin, I have set in the Book, and could not place in the Margin, I have put it between these two Marks [] and made the Sens entire without the understanding, or reading, what is so written. Nay, some of the Antipaedobaptists are desirous to adorn their Books with the Authorities of Learned Men, and to make use of Tradition, if it be of their side: In truth it is usually seen that hardly any oppose Tradition, but those that suppose it is not of their side, or cast off Authority, but such as believ it against them. And I suppose for this Reason, Colonel Danvers, a great Patron of, and Advocate for their Cause, and a Principal Head of their Party hath flourished his Book with many Quotations of the Authorities of the Ancients: But I doubt not if his Book be examined, it will appear he hath either misquoted his Authors, or misrepresented their Sens; and this the Learned Mr. 
Mr. Walker 's Modest Plea for Infant Baptism. Prope finem.  Walker hath in part already evidenced, in the Postscript to his excellent Book; and in particular tells us, that St. Cyprian's Epistle to Fidus, hath not yet been demonstrated to be illegitimate; and saith that this Author, even Mr. Danvers, owns not it is yet made out, no not so much as by Monsieur Daillé, who hath given the World the greatest discovery of that kind; and we have good reason to believ it to be genuine; and good ground we have for such a Belief; seeing it is allowed by Two Learned Doctors of the Church, St. Augustine, and St. Hierome, as Mr. Walker hath evidenced towards the end of his Book by two Quotations from them, to which I refer my Readers. And truly, I have been told by some of the Learned, that some worthy Persons of our excellent Church, have challenged the Antipaedobaptists to stand to the Trial of Antiquity, and to appear for their Principles no farther than such Authority will allow; but I have heard they have refused to submit to such a Test; and pretend they will not be convinced by any other Arguments (how strong soever they may not only appear, but really be) than the plain Words, or literal Expressions of Holy Scripture, or its direct Sens; and the making out the Truth, by this way, is the hearty Endeavour, and sincere Design of this Book; and how far it is done according to such a Rule, is submitted to the Judgement of the candid and judicious Readers.  
And now, on the whole matter, I hope I may venture to say, if I have given the true sens of Christ's Commission to this Blessed Disciples for the Administration of this Holy Sacrament of Baptism, and confirmed it by proper Proofs; and answered the strongest Objections brought by the Adversaries, against the since delivered, in defence of the Orthodox and Christian Doctrine of Infant-Baptism, than he who resists such Evidence renounceth his Belief of the Sacred Scriptures, the Revelation of the Holy Will of Heaven, and forfeits his Title to the honourable Profession of Christianity. And truly the Learned and Judicious Mr. Walker hath given the World such a rational Discourse in defence of this Principle, in his Modest Plea for Infant Baptism, and hath proved by such strong Arguments, the Infants Need for it, 
Idem Ibidem, In the Title Page.  Benefits by it, Capableness of it, and Right to it, that whosoever will not believ the comfortable and Christian Doctrine of Infant-Baptism, upon the Testimony he bringeth for its proof, renounceth his Title to Reason, and forfeits his right to the Noble Estate of Humanity, and with Nebuchadnezar degenerateth into the Nature of a Beast: 
Dan. IU. 32, 33.  Nay, I think I may without too much boldness say, Mr. Walker hath so undeniably proved their Claim and Title to it, that in a Spiritual and Evangelic Sens, he makes it Sacrilege, and in a Temporal and Legal one, Robbery, to debar them of admission to it; all, or a great part of which hath been made manifest and apparent, consequentially and implicitly, from the method we have pitched on, and the Arguments we have made use of: so that there is no need of borrowing any thing from him, he having done it in his way so plainly and fully: But they that would have a more particular Account, than I have thought fit to give, may have plenary and full satisfaction from his excellent Book , to which I refer them. I have endeavoured to answer all the Objections that I ever heard of, or read in any of their Books that were started by the Antipaeaobaptists, that were material; and I know not any I have passed by unanswered for their difficulty, but may have omitted some that were so trifling, they either needed not, or deserved not any Answer.  
As for that Objection of the Antipadobaptists, 
An Obj.  that our way is not Baptism, or Baptising; but Rantism, or Rantizing.  
I Answer, 
Answ.  Though our Church alloweth dipping in some cases and circumstances, as supposing the Parents desire it, and the Party's health is not in the least endangered, (and of that there may be much greater hazard in our cold Northern Climate, than in those hot Eastern Countries where Baptism was first used;) and of the Party's health our excellent Church taketh such care in her Rubric, that she Order, if it be done at all, 
See the Liturgy in the Office of Public Baptism.  it shall be done with great discretion and wariness, and not without the Sponsors and Undertakers certifying the Child may with safety endure it; but if the Party's health may in the least measure be endangered thereby, there cannot by any means be a necessity for it, for this good Reason, 
Hos. VI 6. St. Matth. IX. 13. XII. 7.3.4. St. Luke VI 4. Levit. XXIV. 9  because the God of Heaven will have Mercy, and not Sacrifice, i.e. The Almighty God and best of Being's dispenseth with his own Institutions, in such cases as is plain from the Instance of David eating the Shewbread, when he was well an hungered, and they that were with him, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, because it was lawful for none but the Priest's alone: So that for the Reason I have offered, the Objection lieth not directly against the Church of England, or any that own her Rational, because Scriptural Principles; yet the Judicious Mr. Walker hath made it demonstrably, and therefore unanswerably, appear from Divines, Grammarians, and Lexicographers, 
Vide Mr. Walker 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the Doctrine of Baptisms; which whole Book (with his Modest Plea for Infant Baptism) is very well worthy any Man's perusal.  that neither the Primitiv Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor the Derivativ Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signify only to dip; and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not always signify a total Immersion, and that the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not restrained to a total Immersion among Christians, by the practice of the Jews: Nay, farther he hath clearly evidenced, that sprinkling was used in the earliest Centuries, or first Ages of the Primitiv Church; besides he hath given probable Arguments, to incline, if not engage any unprejudiced Man's Belief, that sprinkling was the Custom in the Holy Apostolic times, even in those early days, when the first commissionated Teachers went forth into the several parts of the World to publish the Sacred Gospel; and more than all this he gives great probability of believing, 
See Mr. Walker 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the Doctrine of Baptisms. Chap. X.  that our ever Blessed Saviour, the Holy Jesus, when he was Baptised by St. John the Baptist in the River Jordan, did not undergo a total Immersion.  
And this I think is abundantly sufficient, if not more than enough, to Answer, if not for ever silence that Objection; but they that would have a more ample and large Account, may receiv a full and clear satisfaction from what that excellent Man hath said on that Subject, to whom I refer the Readers.  
I know but one Objection (that is any thing at all considerable, for I would not willingly neglect any that are worth answering) I have not mentioned; and that I find started by Mr. Walker, in his late excellent Book I have so oft quoted. It may be met with in his Preface; and because he hath stated it so fairly, and answered it so strongly, I will give it you in his own Words, because I cannot better express it, either as to Sens, or Words.  
object. Because there is no one prejudice holds a stronger possession of our Antipaedobaptists, than what springs from that bright Evidence they have of Baptising Adult Persons in all Ages of the Church, and of Persons deferring either to be Baptised themselves, or to Baptise their Infants in several Ages of it, and those especially that were nearest the Primitiv Times; and the removal of that Prejudice, and answering that Objection, may be a fair Introduction to their depositing and laying down all the rest.  
answ. Therefore I will endeavour by way of Conclusion, and Answer, to remove that, and if I can show the delays of Baptizing, which the Antipaedobaptists so greatly insist on in the ancient times, were on other Grounds from those they allege in the Case, and plead for a defence of their erroneous and mistaken Principles; then that Plea of theirs from the Practice of Baptising the Adult in the early Ages of the Church, and deferring the Baptising Infants, will neither serve their Hypothesis, or Principle, nor disserve ours. The Grounds, as I understand, on which our Antipaedobaptists refuse Baptising of their Infants, and defer their Baptism till they come to full Maturity, or Ripeness of Age, are, because as they suppose, there is no Command in Holy Scripture for it, and because there is no Example in Holy Scripture of its practice; either of which if there found, our Adversaries would hold it lawful; and because they find neither of them, they hold it unlawful. Now if it appear the Unlawfulness of Baptising Infants for the want of an Holy Scripture-Command, or Example, was none of the Grounds on which the Ancients did delay their Baptizing. And if it be likewise evident, that never any such thing was in the Primitiv Times pretended, or pleaded by any Persons to justify or excuse that delay; then I hope the Case will be clear, that their delays of Baptising, on other Grounds, can afford no Protection to, or Defence for the Hypothesis, or Principle of our Antipaedobaptists, who deny Baptism to Infants on the Account of its Unlawfulness. That never any such Plea was made by any in the Primitiv Times (even for Five hundred years) against Infants being Baptised, I rationally presume, because I find none yet produced by any of the most learned of our Antipaedobaptists, who, I believe, have searched through all the Writings of the Ancient Fathers, and Ecclesiastic Historians, and ransacked every Page, and rifled every passage in them, for some Patronage to their Hypothesis, or Principle. And as they are quick-sighted enough to have espied it, if there had been Quotation, or Authority from them to have produced it in their behalf; so on the most curious and diligent Enquiry I have been ever able to make, I profess I have not been able to find any.  
And then learnedly from Tertullian, St. Gregory Nyssen, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. chrysostom, he gives Eighteen or Nineteen Instances of several Cases for the deferring of Baptism; and afterward brings in three or four other Cases, which are all I think could be reckoned up. Upon which he saith, (that I may draw to a Conclusion) and now so many Reasons being alleged for the delaying of Baptism, so many shifts used for the putting it off in the Primitiv Times, and yet the Lawfulness of its being administered to Infants never once questioned, the Unlawfulness of it never urged, it is a plain Case, that those Times had no such Thoughts of Infant-Baptism, as the Antipaedobaptists in our Days entertain: For had they thought Baptising Infants unlawful, for want of an Holy Scripture Command or Example, when any Persons had been exhorted to an early Baptising their Children, how easy an Answer had been at hand? The Holy Jesus never commanded such a thing as Infant-Baptism; the Blessed Apostles never practised such a thing as the Baptising Infants: There is neither Precept, nor Example in Holy Scripture; and therefore it is unlawful, and we dare not do it.  
But in regard there is in all those times not the least appearance of any such Objection, or of any such Plea pretended for the delay; it is evident, they thought there was either Precept, or Example, in Holy Scripture, or both; or else that the want of either or both, did not make it unlawful; and so did not delay it on the Account of the Unlawfulness thereof: And so all our Antipaedobaptists boasting of Antiquity for the Baptising only Adult, Believing Persons, and against the Baptising Believers Infant-childrens, affords them little Boast; there is not the least strength added to their Cause, nor weakness brought on ours.  
I hearty wish those ignorant People that are deluded, and cozened with the great Noise and gay Show of Antiquity, to take notice hereof that they be no longer deceived, and imposed.  
And now this grand prejudice is (as I hope) fully removed, and all Objections I can imagine any way considerable, have been endeavoured to be rationally and clearly answered in the following Book, I shall now hearty desire my Readers to join with me in the pious and devout Suffrage of our excellent Liturgy in the Office of the Litany.  
That i● may please thee to bring into the way of Truth all such as have erred, and are deceived.  
We beseech thee to hear us, Good Lord.  
And now as I begun this large Preface with some of the Sens of a Learned Bishop of our Church, in some of his Prefaces to his Books; so I will conclude this large Account, not only with some of the Sens, but in the Words of the same Reverend Bishop, I mean the Lord-Bishop of Ely. In short then, to shut up all; if it had not been to fill up some vacant Pages (and to be just to the performance of the Promise I made in the Title-Page, of giving a Relation (so far as my Memory would serve) of a Conference publicly held with an Antipaedobaptist of no small Fame) I had made almost as short a Preface, as those Words of the Son of Syrach (according to which I expect the Success of my Labour) Ecclus. XXI. 15. If a skilful Mad hear a wise Word, he will commend it, and add to it: But as soon as one of no Understanding heareth it, it displeaseth him, and he casteth it behind his Back.  
Examine all things, and judge righteous Judgement.  
July, 26. 1692.   

A TABLE OF THE CONTENTS.  

CHAP. I. AN Introduction unto the Subject discoursed upon. Pag. 1  
CHAP. II. Some Rational Arguments offered for Infant-Baptism. Pag. 2  
CHAP. III. The true Sens of the Holy Jesus 's Commission unto his Blessed Disciples, for the Administration of Baptism recorded, St. Matth XXVIII. 19 maketh for the Baptising of Infants. Pag. 4  
CHAP. IV. An Exposition, whereby the Sens delivered of St. Matth. XXVIII. 19 is farther cleared. Pag. 12  
CHAP. V The Exposition for clearing the Sens of St. Matth. XXVIII. 19 farther enlarged. Pag. 26  
CHAP. VI The Sens of St. Matth. XXVIII. 19 proved by the Coherance and Connexion of the Words. Pag. 38  
CHAP. VII. The Sens of St. Matth. XXVIII. 19 farther evidenced from the Original. Pag. 40  
CHAP. VIII. The Sens of St. Matth. XXVIII. 19 confirmed by an Exposition of Acts II. 39 in general. Pag. 48  
CHAP. IX. A farther Confirmation by a particular Exposition of Acts II. 39 Pag. 53  
CHAP. X. The Sens of St. Matth. XXVIII. 19 strengthened by an Exposition of 1 Cor. VII. 14. Pag. 57  
CHAP. XI. Some General Observations upon the Sens and Expositions given. Pag. 62  
CHAP. XII. A defence of the Expositions delivered from Jewish Customs. Pag. 68  
CHAP. XIII. Authorities of the Ancient Fathers to establish the Sens of the Three Texts of Holy Scripture. Pag. 72  
CHAP. XIV. The just Complaint of the Jews if this Doctrine be not true. Pag. 76  
CHAP. XV. An Answer unto an Objection that would overthrow the Sens given of St. Matthew XXVIII. 19 Pag. 79  
CHAP. XVI. An Answer unto an Objection that would undermine the Sens offered for Acts II. 39 Pag. 91  
CHAP. XVII. An Answer unto an Objection that would overturn the Sens delivered of 1 Cor. VII. 14. Pag. 125  
CHAP. XVIII. An Account whence Infant-Baptism results. Pag. 137  
CHAP. XIX. An Appeal unto the Reason of Mankind. Pag. 140  
CHAP. XX. The Conclusion. Pag. 142  
A Prayer used at the end of these Discourses, by way of Humble and Importunate Address unto the God of Truth, sitting upon his Throne of Grace (his Mercy-Seat, the [true Scheinah, or] Symbol of his Divine Presence) to implore the Descent of the Heavenly Blessing upon this charitable and well-intended Design. Pag. 145    

CHAP. I. An Introduction to the Subject discoursed upon.  
SEeing some Men of ill Principles, and Separatists from our excellent Church, have, with an evil design, set up a Meeting in this Parish, as we may reasonably conjecture, without breach of Charity; I think it my most indispensible Duty to confirm and settle you in those necessary and fundamental Truths our Church holds by the clear Testimony of Holy Scripture, and the evident Dictates of Reason, that you may not be seduced into dangerous Errors by weak or cunning Men, that lie in wait to deceive. I have formerly made appear, I hope, to the satisfaction of unprejudiced, because disinterested Persons, that the Place of Holy Scripture, the Enemies of Infant-Baptism so much insist upon, and boast of; viz. St. Matth. xxviij. 19 Go teach all Nations, baptising them, is no more against the Comfortable and Christian Doctrine of Infant-Baptism, than Gen. 1.1. In the beginning God created the Heaven, and the Earth. And now I will endeavour to prove, That that Place of Holy Scripture, if rightly understood, is not only not against us, but for us, and against them: And this I will attempt to evince and make appear by the Evidence of Reason, and the Testimony of Divine Revelation.   

CHAP. II. Some Rational Arguments for Infant-Baptism.  
THE Argument I offer, in short, is plainly this, which I will reduce into the form of a plain and proper Syllogism; That Principle which hinders the Propagation of Christian Religion, can be no Christian Doctrine: But the denying Baptism to Infants, hinders the Progress of the Christian Religion; Therefore such a Principle can be no Christian Doctrine. The Major, all Christians, even our Adversaries, allow, but the making out the Minor is the Difficulty; for which I offer this Proof. That Principle which makes the Covenant of Grace less beneficial and extensive, than the Covenant of Works, hinders the Propagation of Christian Religion: But the former Principle does so; Therefore such a Principle hinders the Progress of Christianity. The Major is undoubtedly so, and I will endeavour to make the Minor to be such by this One Argument: That Principle which allows not as great Immunities, Benefits and Privileges to the Covenant of Grace, as to the Covenant of Works, makes the Covenant of Grace less Beneficial and Extensive than the Covenant of Works: But the Principle that denies Baptism to Infants does so; Therefore it makes the Covenant of Grace less Beneficial and Extensive than the Covenant of Works. 
Siquidem evidentissimum est, quod semel cum Abrahamo Dominus foedus percussit, non minus hodie Christiano constare, quam olim Judaico populo: adeoque verbum istud non minus Christianos respicere, quam Judaeos tum respiciebat. Nist forte arbitramur, Christum suo adventu Patris gratiam imminuisse aut decurtasse, quod sine execrabili blasphemianon vacat. Calv. Institut. lib. 4. cap. 16. Par. 6.  And the Judicious Mr. Calvin, in his Institutes, seems to speak the same sense with this last Argument; for after he had said, It is most clear, that God entered once into Covenant with Abraham, he tells us, That that Covenant had a respect and regard to Christian, as well as Jewish People; unless peradventure we should suppose, that Christ by his Advent, or Coming, had diminished, or curtailed the Grace of his Father, which would be execrable Blasphemy to imagine.   

CHAP. III. The true Sense of the Holy Jesus' Commission unto his Blessed Disciples for the Administration of Baptism. St. Matth. xxviij. 19 makes for the Baptising of Infants.  
AND now I will endeavour to confirm these Arguments by the Authority of Holy Scripture; and prove, in particular, That that Text of St. Matth. xxviij. 19 must have such a sense, as to evidence, That the Covenant of Grace (or else it would not be such a Covenant, and so forfeit its Title) is full as (or rather more) beneficial and extensive than the Covenant of Works; and consequently, that the Baptising Infants is a Christian, as well as a Comfortable Doctrine, which is the Truth to be proved; and than it will plainly appear, this Text, our Adversaries so much Glory in, and Vaunt of, is on our side. For if there had been as General a Commission given by Moses to Twelve Elders of Israel, as the Blessed Jesus gave to his Disciples, and it had been said to them, Go teach all Nations, circumcising them, this had been no Prohibition to the Circumcising the Jewish Children, because there was a Positive Command given them by Divine Revelation, and no After-Commission could discharge from Obedience to such a Command; And where the same Reason holds for the same Observation, under a different Dispensation, there is no necessity for the Publication of a New Command to enjoin its Observance. Now there never was, since the Creation of the World, but two Instituted Religions that had Truth on their side, the Jewish, and the Christian. And the Blessings that were conferred by either of these Religions, and the Duties and Services required to ensure and consign the Blessings from the Party that was to bestow them, to the Parties that were to enjoy them, were transacted, transmitted and conveyed in a Covenanting way. Now the Evangelic Dispensation being in a Covenanting way as well as the Legal one; those that had a right to the Covenant under the Holy Gospel, had a right to the Sign, Seal, or Sacrament of the Covenant, as well as those under the Law. Hereupon that Children under the Holy Gospel had a right to the Covenant, is not very difficult to prove from St. Mark x. 14. Suffer little Children to come unto me, and forbidden them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God; i. e. the Kingdom of Grace: For in that sense is that Phrase of the Kingdom of God, in several places of Holy Writ, to be understood; and it plainly signifies, that his Holy Gospel-Dispensation (by which the Kingdom of God is meant) was as extensive and merciful as the Legal Dispensation, and of which they were capable of being Members; and having the Benefits and Blessings therein communicated, consigned to them; which is true not only in respect of their Innocency and Meekness; (for by reason of their Infantile State, they were not capable of actual and voluntary Sins, and so might, in some sense, be fit for his Kingdom of Glory;) but because also they were to be allowed an admission into his Covenant, by virtue of an Imputation of their Parent's Faith, as the Jewish Children were upon that account capable of being Members of the Covenant, and of receiving the Sign thereof, Circumcision. So that by this Argument, which I doubt not is sufficiently founded upon this place of Holy Scripture, whereby Christian Children have as true a right to Baptism under the Holy Gospel, as the Jewish Children had to Circumcision under the Law; It may appear there is no necessity for an express Place of Holy Scripture, (in so many words) for the Baptising Children, when the reason of the thing is founded in Circumcision, for which there was a Positive Command. Now our Blessed Saviour substituted Baptism in the room of Circumcision, for these two Reasons, as may probably be conjectured.  
(1.) Because he was the Author of a more Merciful Dispensation; and that That might not be said of the Christian Parents, which Zipporah said to Moses, Exod. iv. 25. Surely a bloody Husband art thou to me.  
(2.) Because he was the Author of a more extensive Dispensation; and therefore he appointed a Sacrament, or Seal of his Covenant, that Females, as well as Males, might undergo: Whereas under the Legal Dispensation, Females were not capable of the Sign of the Covenant; and because it was a more narrow Dispensation, and likewise, for St. Paul's reason, the Man being the Head of the Woman, 
1 Cor. xj. 3.  she was included in, or comprehended under the Man, which there was no need she should be under the Evangelic Dispensation, that admitting a Sign, or Seal of the Covenant, she was as capable of as the Man Thus, as our Blessed Saviour took his Holy Supper from the Postcoenium, or After-supper, after the Passover, (which as I have found in some Authors was only a Salad of Endive, Lettuce, and Succory,) so he took Baptism as the Sacrament of Initiating, or Entering Disciples into his Evangelic Dispensation, (being well known among the Jews, because it was the Ceremony for admitting Proselytes into their Church;) That by taking both Sacraments from known usages among the Jews, he might the more easily and powerfully reduce, and bring over his own beloved Countrymen, the Jews, to his Holy Gospel; and this being a more gentle way of Entrance into his Church, might have a better Influence, and be more probably successful to the gaining the Gentile World to his New Dispensation, and to be professors of his Sacred Institutions, and obedient Subjects to his excellent Laws. And this did more suitably answer his Advent, or Coming into the World, who came to be an Universal Saviour for all Mankind. For Moses was but a Legislator to the Israelites, and Joshua a Saviour to the Jews only; and yet on that account called Jesus, because he delivered that People from their Enemies, and entered them into Canaan: But he that was to be an Universal Redeemer, and so the true Jesus in the most extensive signification of the word, thought fit to appoint such a Sacrament of Admission into his Kingdom, as might work upon, and prevail with the whole World, even all Mankind  
Now from what hath been said (and from a custom among the Jews concerning Proselytes of Justice, which all learned Men know to be so, and Men of Sense among the Antipaedobaptists acknowledge, that after such a Proselyte was Baptised and Circumcised, and had thereby a Right to eat of the Passover, his Child born after such an Admission into the Covenant, had a Right to Circumcision at Eight days old, as well as a natural-born Jew,) it may appear, that denying Baptism to Infants now, is an Hindrance to the Propagation of the Holy Gospel both as to Jews and Pagans. As to the Jew, because he might say to an Antipaedobaptist, offering Arguments to persuade him to become a Christian, He would not be of his Religion; because, after he was in Covenant, and had received the Sign of the Covenant, his Child was not in Covenant, and so had no Right to the Sign, which he had in his Way by virtue of his Faith, and so consequently the Benefit and Privilege less in ours, than in his Way. And so the Pagan might say to an Antipaedobaptist, persuading him to embrace Christianity; I will rather be a Jew, than a Christian, because as soon as I own and profess their Faith, my Child, after such a Declaration, is in Covenant as well as myself, and hath a Right to the Sign. So that, by this account, it plainly appears, that the denying Infant's Baptism, is an Hindrance to the Progress of the Holy Gospel from Evidence of Reason. From whence it may seem rationally to follow, That he who holds any Principle that derogates from, and diminishes the Honour of Christianity, and impedes the Propagation of the Religion of our dear Redeemer, hath no true and proper Right to the Honourable Name and Title of a Christian, which is the natural and pernicious consequence of Antipaedobaptistic Tenets. So that how General soever the Commission the Holy Jesus gave to his Blessed Disciples for converting the Heathen Nations, was, the sense must be plainly this; (which, if I can secure by two other Texts of Holy Scripture, confirm by Allusion to Jewish Customs, and by the Coherence, establish by the Authority of the Ancient, Primitive Fathers, and answer the strongest Objections of our Adversaries, I shall say all that can be thought necessary by Men of Reason in defence of Infant-Baptism,) Go teach all Nations, Baptising them; i.e. When you have sufficiently instructed the Pagan World in, and convinced them of the Excellency of my Holy Gospel, and thereby persuaded them to embrace my Divine Religion, my Spiritual Worship; and then, after a public Profession, they have declared themselves my Disciples and Followers, ascertain them, that they are admitted into my Covenant of Grace, and receive them into, and give them a possession of my Covenant by the Sign and Seal of Baptism; and then assure them, that their Children shall have the same Right to my Covenant that the natural-born Children of Jews have, and the Children of the Proselytes of Righteousness or Justice had after their Parents were converted to the Jewish Religion. The Naturalists have learned, by diligent enquiry, That if a Pearl have a foulness, and happen to fall into the Womb of a Dove, 
1 Pet. ij. 2. Albertus' lib. de Gemmis. Vid. Mr. Carpenter's Anabaptist washed, and washed, and shrunk in the washing, p. 15, 16.  and continue some time there, the Dove will return it fair and clear: So Doctrines should be proved in the Womb of the Holy Spirit, the true Holy Scripture-Dove, which Womb is the sincere Word of Truth, (the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉;) and if the Doctrine be true Pearl, the Holy Spirit will speedily deliver it for such, and cleanse it from any Foulness or Impurity it hath contracted in this naughty World. This Interpretation is suitable to the Nature of Baptism, because it was appointed for all that need it; and all should have Baptism, that stand in need of Baptismal-Grace; and all stand in need of Baptismal-Grace, that would be cleansed from Original Pollution; and all stand in need of being cleansed from Original Defilement, that are Polluted therewith. 
Aequè certa sunt, ac evidentia quae ex sacris literis evidenter, ac certe deducuntur, atque ea quae in illis expressè, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. ad verbum & in terminis habentur. Ex veronil nisi verum. Principia fides, vel quae ex iis deducuntur, sunt in Scriptura. Omnis divina Revelatio est in Scriptura vel direct, vel per necessariam, & inevitabilem consequentiam.  It is a true Maxim, That Matters are alike sure, and clear, which are assuredly and evidently drawn from Holy Writ, as the Matters which are read there in their own proper terms and phrases. Or the same Observation may be thus worded: Consequences are as true as the Principles they are drawn from, if truly and properly deduced: The ground of this is as certain as Truth itself. From Truth proceeds nothing, but what is so, if drawn by a right Consequence. And another Ground may be, because the Consequence so drawn is, in a manner, as true as the Principle; and Truth so drawn, is the same with that from whence the Deduction springs and rises. Upon this account we observe, That the Doctrines of Faith, and what is deducible therefrom, is contained in Holy Writ. And again, Every Doctrine that is the Discovery and Birth of Heaven, is either expressly, or by a needful and unavoidable Conclusion, in Holy Writ: And on this account we declare, That he who believes a Truth, believes all the Deductions that can properly be drawn therefrom.   

CHAP. IU. An Exposition of St. Matth. xxviij. 19 Whereby the Sense delivered is further cleared.  
IF Christian Children, from the Sense I have delivered of this Text, be not as capable of Baptism, as the Jewish Children of Circumcision; Upon what account arises the Distinction? Not from the Nature of Abraham's Covenant, for that, as to the material part, was the same with ours made over to us by the Holy Jesus; Nor from the manner of Conveyance, for Circumcision did signify the same thing under the former Dispensation, as Baptism under the latter: And hereupon, seeing the two Covenants were, for the Nature of them, alike, and only a distinction in the manner of Conveyance, why should any bar lie against the Admission of Children now, more than formerly? Is Baptism an higher spiritualised Rite, than Circumcision? That is not possible, because Circumcision is an Evangelic Institution; I mean an Institution of that Doctrine which was to Abraham delivered of old. And if the Spirituality of outward Ordinances is to be drawn from the design of their Appointment, than Circumcision was as much spiritualised as Baptism, because it truly seals the same Covenant, and assures the same Grace, and was a Rite of Admission for the same spiritual stock of the Father of the Faithful, as Baptism is among us. Hereupon, if Circumcision as a Sacrament was the same formerly that Baptism is now, it must be consequent, That Infants now are as capable of the One (provided there is no Precept [de novo] (or a new) to exclude them) as formerly they were of the Other. If it were not absurd that Children than were allowed to be Members of the Church, why should it be so under the Holy Gospel? If the Almighty allowed them under the former Dispensation to be embodied into the Church, (without a Precept to forbid them,) there is reason they should be allowed the same favour now: Nay, if Children were made Members of the Church when the Admission was more harsh, how irrational is it not to allow them an Entrance now, when the way of Admission is more suitable to the Tenderness of an Infant? Surely, if Jewish Children were Circumcised by blood made with hands, Christian Children (without a Prohibition of Holy Scripture) should be allowed the Spiritual Circumcision, which is Baptism. Whom the Lord hath admitted an Heir to the Glory above, and given an Interest in his Church below, no Man should dare to hinder his Title that seals the Inheritance, and offers the Privilege. But yet so impertinent and censorious have some Antipaedobaptists been, 
Vid. Case of Infant-Baptism, p. 30.  as to say, Children are as unfit for Baptism as the Offspring of Brutes; and that it is as nugacious and triffing to Invocate our Heavenly Father for the Descent of his Divine Spirit, as to beseech him to enlighten a Stock, or a Stone. So that upon this Hypothesis, or Supposition, That Children are not fit to be Baptised, the Antipaedobaptists generally affirm, That admitting Children to it is a reproach to the Sacrament, a very Nothing, an uncommanded Duty, and thereupon, in contempt, term it Baby-Baptism, as I have heard some of them phrase it; (though, in truth, the strongest Arguments I have heard from them, or met with in their Books, may more properly be called, a Baby, than a Manly Defence of their mistaken Principles;) Not remembering at the same time, that Circumcising Children was no Reproach to the Sacrament of Admission into the Jewish Church, but had a proper sense and signification; so that the Antipaedobaptists might as well say there was Baby-Circumcision, and Baby-Baptism, under the Mosaic Dispensation, both being used to Children among that People.  
Obj. The main Argument they offer against it is drawn from children's unfitness for some Purposes of that Ordinance, which can be performed by none, but such as are Adult, who have the use of Reason to know the terms of the Covenant they are admitted to, and to exercise the Grace's proper for that Ordinance, and to confirm those Graces by such an Exercise; but Children cannot undertake these things, and therefore should not be allowed the use of that Ordinance, whose design is so much disappointed in the Application thereof.  
Answ. But this Argument, or Objection, how pleasing soever at first sight, is not good.  
(1.) Because it is deceitful in its Consequence, and therefore the Conclusion will not hold.  
(2.) Because it is a reflection upon some of the former Dispensations of the Wiseft Being.  
(1.) Because it is deceitful in its Consequence, and therefore the Conclusion will not hold; and that for a Reason I find urged by a Learned Man in his Excellent Tract, called The Case of Infant-Baptism; which is so strong, that if well understood, would fully answer, if not for ever silence this Objection. His Reason is this: Because this way of arguing takes away the difference between a strict Institution, which is appointed to answer one or more Purposes, and particularly for persons of one kind; and an Institution of Latitude, which is appointed for several Purposes, and for different kinds of Persons differently qualified for those several Purposes. Of the first kind was the Institution of Fringes, which could only be worn properly by those that were Adult, because they alone were fit to perform the design of their appointment, viz. To look upon them, and remember the Commandments of the Lord: And these you may suppose were those Phylacteries the Pharisees did wear; and because they were Ostentatious Men, affected to make them broader than others; which Hypocrisy and Dissimulation our Blessed Saviour, the Holy Jesus, did severely reprove in them, and tartly upbraid them for and with. And of the other kind is the Sacred Institution of Matrimony, which was Instituted by Heaven for several Purposes, and for those that are differently qualified and fitted for those several Purposes, inasmuch as Persons that are not fit for some Purposes, may yet lawfully enter into that State of Life, because they are fitted for other ends thereof. All the Purposes for which it was Instituted, cannot be performed, but by such as are past the Age allowed by all for the begetting Infants; yet such as have out-grown those years, are not wholly unfit for that State; Nor is their Matrimony of no force, or an Impeachment of the Sacred Institution of Matrimony, because they are only fitted for one Purpose, for which Matrimony was Instituted; and that is the last End for which our Excellent Church tells us Marriage was Ordained, viz. the mutual society, help and comfort the one ought to have of the other in prosperity and adversity. This one Instance declares how deceitful our Adversaries Argument is against the admitting Children to Baptism, because of their unfitness for some Purposes for which it was Instituted, they should first offer a Proof for what they would have allowed; but have no reason to expect, viz. That it was a Sacred Appointment of the former kind, which I term a strict Institution, and then their way of arguing would hold: But this I am well satisfied they can never do, because that Ordinance came in the place of Circumcision, which was a Sacred Appointment of the second kind; and because the Blessed Jesus underwent Baptism, in whom there was more unfitness than there could be in Children. The Baptist, in truth, used the Baptism of Repentance, and thereupon assured the World of the Pardon of Sins; and on that account, knowing our dear Saviour stood in no necessity thereof, was not willing to admit him to it. St. Matth. iij. 14. But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptised of thee, and comest thou to me? But our Blessed Saviour returned such an Answer as satisfied him, in the next Verse; Suffer it to be so now: 
Mat. iii. 15.  for thus it becometh us to fulfil all Righteousness: i.e. It is just and equitable that I (who being now Thirty years old, and so qualified by Moses' Law to Preach, should enter upon my Public Ministerial Office, and being I intent Baptism as the Sacrament to admit Members to my Church) should undergo that Ordinance myself, being the Head of my Church, which may be a good Reason why our merciful Redeemer would not be Baptised before, and may satisfy such of the Antipaedobaptists (for some of them have urged it to me) as would from thence draw an Argument against Infant-Baptism; and besides, [it is like the Logicians Argumentum ad hominem,] it is against themselves; for it is well known, that sometimes they Baptise persons before that Age. And this Account plainly signifies, That the Ordinance of Admission into the Christian Church, is a Sacred Appointment of Latitude; and that in such Appointments, the unfitness of the Party, as to some Purposes, doth not unfit him for the Ordinance, when he is qualified for others.  
(2.) Because it is a reflection upon some of the former Dispensations of the Wisest Being: For it was the Appointment of Heaven that Infants should undergo Circumcision, though all the Purposes of that Ordinance could not be performed but by such as were grown to years of discretion, who were only fit to know the Meaning of the Appointment, and the Obligation of the Covenant they were admitted unto. So that this Argument is as much against Circumcising, as Baptising Children; because Circumcising them was appointed for the same Purposes, as that used in our Church: And hereupon, when Men were by that Sacrament received into the Church, they were to believe in God, and repent of any breach of his Laws, and openly to disown any Idolatrous Belief, or Practice, and even to forsake their Idolatrous Relatives and Acquaintance; and yet, on the Request of those Proselytes, their Children were Baptised and Circumcised, and thereby admitted into their Church, though they were wholly ignorant of those duties their Parents undertook the performance of. Hereupon such who oppose Baptising Children, because it agrees not to all the Uses of that Ordinance, vilify the Wisdom of God, and undervalue the Wisdom of the Ecclesiastic Governors among the Jews; not weighing with themselves, that Circumcising Children then, and Baptising them now, is an Appointment of great Latitude, intended by Heaven for Infants, in whom there is a a fitness for some; nay, the principal uses of that Ordinance, as well as for grown Persons, to whom all are fit. 
Rem praecipuam in Baptismo non attendunt, viz. testificationem divinae benevolentiae in foedus, & tutelam suam suscipientis, & gratiam conferentis, etc. Name in Baptismo praecipua res est divina Gratia, quae consistit in remissione peccatorum, regeneratione, adoptione, haereditate vitae aeternae, cujus sane gratiae infants & indigentes, & capaces sunt. Cassand. de Bapt. Infant.  They neither regard, nor consider the chief thing in Baptism, viz. the Testification, or Witness, of the Divine Benevolence, taking them into his Covenant, Protection and Patronage, and conferring and bestowing Grace upon them: For in Baptism, the chief thing is the Divine Grace, which consists and stands in the Remission, Pardon, and Forgiveness of Sins; in Regeneration, or the New-birth; in Adoption, or Sonship; and in a Right and Title to the Inheritance of Eternal Life; of which Grace Infants stand in need, and are as capable as the Adult, and fullgrown Persons, as the Judicious Cassander observes in his Excellent Treatise of the Baptising of Infants. Children are fitted for all the Purposes of Baptism, as it is appointed by Heaven for a Sign to us to convey unto us the Advantages of the New Covenant. For their Infancy is no bar, but they may be accounted Parts of the Church, as well as Members of any different Company, or Society, of congregated Persons; Nor does it any more hinder them from being the adopted Sons and Daughters of Heaven, than it denies them a Right to any Earthly Possession; nor of being the Inheritors of Everlasting Happiness by force of such Adoption, than by force of any other Civil Adoption, the Inheritors of an Earthly Estate. For Infants are fitted for all Testimonies of Honour and Favour from God and Men, and of having a Title to the Benefits of any Company, though they are not able to discharge the Services thereof, nor know the least matter of them. Since therefore Infants are as fit to receive, and do as greatly want almost all the Advantages of the New Covenant, and the Immunities of Church-society as grown persons; Is it not as reasonable that the Seal, which confirms those Advantages and Immunities, should be given to one, as well as the other? If a Monarch adopts the meanest Man's Infant, and Embody him into his own Family, and make over to him some of his Revenue and Empire; and to establish and strengthen to him this, should, in allusion to Circumcision, take away a piece of his flesh; or in resemblance to Baptism, should order him by Water to be purified and cleansed; who would reckon this a Ceremony of no signification, or declare the Infant not fit for the Sign, when he was fit for the Principal matters, of which the Rite was a signification? Or to give you another Similirude, that may more properly suit our present Case: Imagine a King should order an Attainted. traitor's Infant to be brought before him, and before many people gathered for that intent, should thus deliver himself: You understand the Blood of this Infant is Attainted by his Parent's Crime; the Title to his Father's Honour and Possessions is confiscated by Law, and he is wholly ruined, though he understand not his miserable Estate. My Pity for him is great, and here I give him a Title to his Blood and forfeited Estate; and for the future he shall have as proper a Right as if his Ancestor had not been Attainted: I hearty pardon him, and hereby publish, that I take him into my Favour; and that no stain may be imputed to him, I do in the presence of you, called together, sprinkle him with clean Water, to show that he is purged from all Gild upon his own, or his Father's account. Now imagine this transacted for an attainted Infant; Will any declare, that what is done signifieth nothing, and is of no force, because the Infant understands it not? or that he was not fit for the Sign, when he was fit to be cleansed from the Gild transmitted to him by his Parent, and had his Estate re-conveyed to him, which was the Principal matter thereby signified? What I have now offered, aught to be seriously weighed by those that are Adversaries to the Baptising of Children, to whom I might propose the Precedents of Circumcision and Baptism used among the Jews, both which (as I shall show hereafter) were used for Children, as well as for the fullgrown under Moses' Law: And hereupon, though the Father of the Faithful did believe, and openly own that his Belief before Circumcision; yet I presume the Antipaedobaptists will not acknowledge, That the Wisest Being did imprudently in laying Circumcision upon Isaac, before he knew the Intent of the Ordinance, or could Actuate Faith, or make declaration of it. He was by Sacrament admitted to the Covenant, before he knew the terms thereof; yet I hope the Antipaedobaptists will not declare his Circumcision to no purpose, though he was as unfit to understand why he was Circumcised then, as Children are, in our days, why they are Baptised now.  
Obj. If any of the Adversaries to this Principle shall say, All that I have offered doth not amount to a Command for Baptising Children, or in express words. 
In totidem verbis.   
Answ. To which I will give a short (yet I hope full) Answer: There is no need (after what hath been already said to prove it) there should be a Command, or Example, to approve the Usage of admitting Children to Church-membership in the New Testament; but it is enough to make it practicable under the New Dispensation, that it is not anywhere in Holy Scripture prohibited. Nay, as I may possibly take occasion to show hereafter, there is greater ground to believe, that Christians ought to have had a direct Precept to let alone the Custom of admitting Children into the Church; Because it was expressly enjoined by God in the Circumcising Children, and had his Approbation in the Baptising Children (which the Jews superadded unto their Circumcising Children) under Moses' Law: Precepts are ordinarily delivered, when a New Custom is introduced, which was not formerly used to be done; But to vindicate the continuance of a formerly-appointed, or practised Custom, it is enough, That the Authority which did appoint and allow it, doth not prohibit or revoke his former Injunctions. And this being the Original Case of allowing Children a Right to the Covenant, and by a Sacramental Rite admitting them to the Possession of the Benefits of that Covenant, the Admission of Children into the Church under the New Dispensation by Baptising them, must by a necessary Consequence be enjoined, or approved of. And if the Case be thus, as undoubtedly it is, than Fathers, Guardians, and Undertakers for Children, are obliged by indispensible Duty to offer them to be Baptised in submission to the Church's Authority. For the Church is a Company of persons in Covenant with Heaven; and in this Company, as in Humane Societies, there are such as give forth Rules, and such as practise those Rules; such as enjoin, and such as submit: And hereupon, if the Universal Church, or any part thereof, enjoineth her Members, the practice of any Doctrine, not forbidden by an higher Power, which must be the God of Heaven, they are obliged by the known Rules of all well-governed Societies, and by the Commands of the New Dispensation (which hath a respect unto Church-Government) to submit to, and practise her Precepts, as the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews asserts, Chap. xiij. 17. Obey them that have the Rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they do watch for your Souls. And for this end it was that we find the Holy Apostle of the Gentiles, when he traveled the Grecian Countries, giving unto the Christians the Orders which the Holy Apostles had decreed at Jerusalem to be observed. But there is no necessity of speaking further to Evidence this Truth, which all Separatists from our Excellent Church do allow: For though they disagree amongst themselves, as well as diffent from us, as to the subject of true Ecclesiastic Jurisdiction; yet they all own there is such an Authority; and that all Precepts enjoined thereby, if not contrary to the Laws of Heaven, should be submitted unto; which will force our Adversaries (from their own acknowledged Concessions) to allow the Lawfulness of Infant-Baptism, or recede from, and renounce one of their owned Principles; neither of which, I fear, they will be willing to do, though, in Reason, they ought to do one of them.   

CHAP. V The Exposition for clearing the Sense of St. Matthew xxviij. 19 further Enlarged.  
AND now I will offer some further Account to strengthen the Sense I have given of the Holy Jesus' Commission to his Blessed Disciples in St. Matth. xxviij. 19 From the Exposition I have delivered, it is not a proper Question for the Antipaedobaptists to ask, Whether the Holy Jesus hath appointed Children to be admitted unto Baptism; but, Whether they are by him forbidden, or denied it: Because upon a consideration, that the Mosaic Dispensation allowed Children to be not only Circumcised, but Baptised, it will necessarily follow, That a Precept delivered by the Blessed Jesus to admit Disciples from all Parts of the World, to his Holy Institution, will, without a Prohibition, be interpreted to include Children, as well as the Adult. As for instance: Imagine our dear Redeemer had not altered the Sign, but in the room of Baptism had declared to his Followers, Go, teach all Nations, Circumcising them. Now I make appeal to the Conscience of any considering Person, whether by such terms it can be supposed the Children of such as were Proselyted from Heathenism, could be denied Circumcision; and than what ground is there from such Expressions, that our merciful Saviour designed the Children of such as were converted from Paganism, the being Baptised? This is so reasonable, that it was necessary the Commission should be so expressed: For who can suppose, but that they who were Enemies to the Institution of the Holy Jesus, were to be first instructed, and made Disciples before they were admitted to Baptism? For imagine a Commission should be given to certain Men, among whom Baptism is customary, Go, and teach the Indians, baptising them. Can any one believe the design of it was to bar the Children of those Indians from being Baptised, when Baptising Children was an usual Custom among those to whom the Commission was delivered? So that this being the clear sense of the Commission, the Blessed Jesus could not well express it in words more plain, and easy to be understood by his own People, to whom he spoke; for they must necessarily apprehend those capable of Church-fellowship under the New Covenant, that were allowed it under their own Dispensation. Common sense would oblige them to interpret the words according to their known Custom. Moreover, with what sense can any person suppose, that he who drew several Appointments from the Jews, should leave out this, and in this alone vary from what the Jews practised, when there was Reason for the Continuance: Children are as capable of the Seal of Divine Grace, and of the Advantages thereof now, as they were under the former Dispensation; There is as much Reason for the Baptising them now, as for the Circumcising and Baptising them formerly; Their Admission under the Law, and Holy Gospel, have something alike Reason in it; and though the Seal be changed, the Covenant continues. In short, there was no engagement on our merciful Redeemer to disuse the Custom of Baptising Children, as being disagreeable to the Ingenuous, Catholic and Generous Notion of his Divine Institution. And surely these things, being duly weighed, there is much greater ground to infer our Blessed Saviour would have forbidden Children being Baptised, had it been his Design not to have had them admitted thereunto; than that he would have enjoined that Holy Ordinance, if it had been his Design (as undoubtedly it was) the Custom thereof should be used, and allowed under his New Dispensation; For there was no necessity to enjoin his Disciples to observe what without a Command they would practise, unless he had forbade them; and that he did not forbid them the use of this Holy Ordinance, is plain, in that he did not forbid Children being Baptised: For if he forbade Children that Holy Ordinance, he either did it by a direct Injunction, or by Consequence, by confining the use of that Holy Ordinance only to Adult persons; That he never did debarr them by a direct Injunction, all Antipaedobaptists of sense allow, because we read it not in his Sacred Gospel.  
Obj. But they say it was his Purpose, that those alone that were Adult were to be admitted thereunto, because antecedent to Baptism Men were to be instructed to believe, and to repent; which they seem to prove from this Text of St. Matth. xxviij. 19 and St. Mark xuj. 15. and Acts ij. 38. Now they allege these are only suited to those that are Adult; and therefore they only should be admitted to Baptism. These are the Texts by which the Antipaedobaptists would evidence that Christ did so far confine that Holy Ordinance as to debarr Children its use.  
Answ. But I Answer, They herein notoriously err, for these Places do no more evince or prove, that only those that are Adults should be Baptised, than what St. Paul saith, 2 Thess. iij. 10. will infer that the Adult only should eat: For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any man would not work, neither should he eat. On which account, in a fallacious manner, this Argument might be drawn; because St. Paul saith, Those that eat must work, but now the Adult only can work; therefore they only must eat, whereby we should starve Children, and infirm People, that cannot work, and Aged persons that are passed it. I have given this Example to signify how impertinent the Arguments against Baptising Children are; and that it can never be evinced, or made out, from any place of Holy Scripture, that That Ordinance is limited only to the Adult, because such only can be instructed, can believe, and can repent. The falseness of this way of arguing will appear from an easy Similitude, (that, as I remember I have read in the Learned Cassander's Excellent Tract of Insant-Baptism,) which the weakest Man may apprehend. Imagine there was a mortal and infectious Distemper in a populous City, and Heaven should appoint a set number of persons to acquaint them with an Infallible Remedy that should cure this Distemper, and it should be declared to them; Travel to such a City, and assemble the Inhabitants, and acquaint them with the good this Remedy will do; and ascertain them, That whosoever hath Faith to receive it from you, for that purpose shall recover; but he that doubts the truth of what you say, shall perish. Upon this allowance, which is reasonable to allow) I ask any Antipaedobaptist if the terms of such an Order were enough for those that had it; or any else to infer, That it was the Design of Heaven that they ought to communicate this Remedy only to the Adult, because only such could be assembled to know its Worth, have Faith in its Efficacy, or doubt of its Power? Surely such a conclusion would not be allowed, because Infants would be as fit to receive the Remedy as the Adult, though they did not at all know the Advantages thereof. Now then, because Infants were fit to receive the Advantage of that Holy Ordinance, and the Disciples to whom the Order was imparted so understood it, and were not unacquainted with its Usage under the Old Law; how was it possible to suppose, but that it was the Holy Jesus' design, that Children should be admitted to Baptism as well as those that were Adult. That which was really true, is this: Their Order was an Instruction how they should Disciple the Enemies to the Blessed Jesus, Jews and Pagans to his Holy Institution, according to the manner of Publishing a New Dispensation in Foreign Parts. Hereupon they were Commissionated to Proselyte grown Persons by Preaching to, and Baptising such as should thereupon believe and repent; but notwithstanding that according to Order they should do so, as the Jews used to do with those that they Proselyted to their Religion; and this was no bar to their admitting the Children of such Proselytes according to their known Custom.  
Obj. The Antipaedobaptists lay great weight in one Phrase, relating to the Commission, as it is expressed by another Evangelist, St. Mark, Chap. xuj. 16. He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved.  
Answ. To which I answer. Now if they did but seriously ponder what follows, they might thereby understand that Children are not thence to be denied the Right of being Baptised, because it is afterwards declared in the same Verse; But he that believeth not, shall be damned. So that what takes away the Right of being baptised, takes away the Right of being saved; and therefore not to be applied to Children, except they will declare with the Petrobrusians, 
Vid. Cassand. Praefat. adv. Anabapt.  the Foundation of the Antipaedobaptistic Sect; That the same want of Faith that unfits for being baptised, unfits for being saved. So that it is clear from that place, That the having, or wanting Faith, is to be applied to those that are able to understand, and by Faith embrace the glad-tidings of Salvation. Thus much I have said to make appear how impertinent and unconcluding the Arguments of our Adversaries from Holy Scripture are, to deny Children a right of being Baptised; because all the places I have mentioned, or they insist upon, do signify the Duties, Virtues and Graces of those that are Adult, before they are admitted to Baptism. Having said thus much for the Necessity of Baptising Infants, I need not say any thing as to the Benefits thereof, to make appear how useful it is: For if it be necessary, it will absolutely, and by unavoidable consequence follow, that it is useful. However, they that desire to receive an Account thereof, may be fully and excellently satisfied from the Learned Author of the Case of Infant-Baptism, who acquaints us with five or six Benefits; and from the Reverend Bishop Taylor, 
Bp. Tailor's ●s Life of the Holy Jesus.  who reckons up eight Effects or Blessings of Baptism in his Grand Exemplar; and likewise from the Judicious Mr. Walker, 
Mr. Walker's Modest Plea for Infant-Baptism.  who gives an account of ten Advantages thereof; to whom I refer my Readers. And now having given you the true sense of this Text, and a large Exposition to confirm it, let me make this one Observation: Our dear Saviour, in the Translation of his Church from the Law to the Holy Gospel, did not annul or revoke the old Custom of Baptising Children, but he designed the Administration of it as large as under the Law, otherwise he would not have been so merciful and extensive a Saviour, as Moses was a Legislator; and so consequently had not been so faithful in his House as Moses was, which he certainly was, as the Author to the Hebrews plainly insinuates, Chap. iij. 5, 6. If therefore it be so, (as undoubtedly it is,) than it will follow, There is as great an engagement upon Fathers and Tutors (separated from the Church's Authority) to bring their Infants to be Baptised, as for those that are Adult, and fullgrown, to request for it. Now seeing Christ did not revoke the Old former Custom, it is an evident Declaration to the World, That it was his Will it should remain as it was, and had been formerly used; and that, being Children were admitted into Covenant, under the Law, by a Sacramental Sign, they should be admitted unto Covenant under the Holy Gospel by a Sacramental Rite likewise. It was the Custom of the Jews before our Blessed Saviour's Advent, or Coming; and the Custom of his Followers within a while after his Illustrious Ascension unto the Mansions of Glory. And there being an agreeable Harmony between the former and the latter Custom, we may reasonably believe, that what was Antecedent to, and Consequent upon, his Advent, or Coming, was used in the Interval; I mean in the Holy Apostolic Age, as his supposed design and desire, who never declared or acted any matter (that can with tolerable Reason be urged) against the Old Usage of receiving Members into Ecclesiastic Society. So that his and the Holy Gospel's not saying any thing whether Children were Baptised or no, is so far from being a cogent Proof against it, that weighing the former Custom, it is the strongest Motive to believe it, as the most Excellent Dr. 
Nam cum Paedobaptismus in Ecclesia Judaica in admissione Proselytorum ita fuit notus, usitatus & frequens, ut nihil fere notius, usitatius, & frequentius: (1.) Non opus erat ut alique praecepto roboraretur [cum Baptismus jam in Sacramentum evaderet Evangelicum] name Christus Baptismum in manus suas atque in usum Evangelicum suscepit, qualem invenit, hoc solum addito, quod ad digniorem finem atque largiorem usum promoveret. Novit satis gens universa parvulos solitos baptizari. Illud praecepto opus non habuit, quod communi usu semper invaluerat. Si prodiret jam edictum regale in haec verba, Recipiat se unusquisque die Dominico ad publicum conventum in Ecclesia, insaniret c●rte ille, quicunque olim hinc argueret, non celebrandas esse die Dominico in publicis conventibus preces, conciones, psalmodias, eo quod nulla in Edicto de in mentio. Nam canit Edictum de celebratione d●ei Dominicae in publicis conventibus in genere, de particularibus autem Divini cultûs speciebus ibidem celebrandis non opus erat, ut esset mentio, cum istae ante datum edictum, & cum daretur, semper, & ubique notae essent, & in usu assiduo. Ipsissimo hoc modo res se habuit cum Baptismo; Christus eum instituit in Sacramentum Evangelicum quo in professionem Evangelii omnes ad●●itterentur ut olim in Proselytismum ad Religionem Judaicam. Particularia eo spanciantia, modus scilicet baptizandi, aetas baptizandorum, sexus baptizandus, etc. Regula & Definitione opus non habuerant, eo quod haec vel lippis, & tonsoribus satis nota erant ex communi usu. (2) Econtra ergo plana & aperta prohibitione opus erat us inflantes, & parvuli non baptizarentur, si eos baptizandos nollet Servater. Num qum per omnia saecula praecedentia usitatissimum esset, ut baptizarentur parvuli, si aboleri istam consuetudinem vellet Christus, ap●rte prohibuisset. Silentium ergo ejus, & Scripturae hac in re Paedobaptismum firmar, & propagat i● omnia saecula. Dr. Lightfoot Horae Hebraicae in Ma●thaeum, Cap. iij. ver. 6.  Lightfoot doth irrefragably make appear in his Commentaries on St. Matthew, Chap. iij. 6. called Horae Hebraicae in Matthaeum; which, because it is in Latin, and the Account large, I will give you the plain sense of it in English For when Infant-Baptism, in the Jewish Church, in admitting Proselytes, was known, usual and frequent, so that nothing was more known, usual and frequent, there was no need of a particular Precept to strengthen it; For Christ took and translated it into his Holy Gospel, as he found it, only with this addition, That he employed it to a larger use, and exalted it to a more noble End; For the whole Nation of the Jews knew very well that little ones were wont to be Baptised, so that there was no need of a Precept to establish that which was grown into use by common Custom. If a Royal Edict should be published in these words, Let every one repair on the Lord's Day to the Public Assemblies in the Church: Certainly that Man would be distracted that should argue, Prayers were not to be offered in the Public Assemblies on the Lord's Day, nor Sermons preached, nor Psalms sung, because there was no mention of them in the Edict, when antecedent to the publishing the Edict these things were known to be in common use and custom. It is the very same thing with Baptism, when Christ made it an Evangelic Sacrament, whereby all should be admitted to the Profession and Privileges of his Holy Gospel, as formerly Proselytes were to the Jewish Religion. There was no need of Rule, or defining the particular manner of Baptising, as what Age should be Baptised, or what Sex, etc. because these things were by common usage known to the weakest understanding: So that there was a necessity for an express and open Prohibition that Infants and little ones should not be Baptised, if our Blessed Saviour would not have them so to be admitted into his Covenant. If then Christ would have had that Custom abolished, he should have openly prohibited it; His and the Holy Scripture's silence therefore doth for ever confirm and maintain the Baptising of Infants. So that if Baptising Children be not only needful, because the Church hath instituted it; but the Church hath instituted it, because it is needful, and by all means to be continued; then this preceding Needfulness is the greater Motive to Fathers and Guardians to bring them thereunto, as correspondent to the Custom of the first Planters of the Blessed Gospel, and the design and desire of our merciful Redeemer; because it may reasonably be believed it had their Allowance, or Command, being it was used in the times immediately succeeding to the Holy Apostles; and also, if it had been disagreeable to the Mind of Christ, it is very probable he would have forbid it, or some way or other declared his Aversion, or Dislike. In short, to conclude the Exposition of the Sense I have delivered of this Text: Nothing can more disparage the Wisdom of Heaven, and the long-approved Custom of the Jews, than to affirm Children unfit by Sacramental Seal to be admitted to Covenant under the Holy Gospel, that were admitted under the Law, and which Heaven and the Jews allowed them; For Heaven enjoined Circumcision for Infants, and the Church of the Jews enjoined them Baptism as well as fullgrown Proselytes; and under the Law they were allowed both. It is highly unreasonable then, that under the Holy Gospel they should be denied one, or any other Token of Admission into the Covenant, as they must necessarily be by Antipaedobaptistic Principles.   

CHAP. VI The Sense of St. Matthew xxviij. 19 proved by the Coherence and Connexion of the Words.  
AND now that I may engage you to believe the Sense I have offered, I will prove it by the Connexion of the Words. Whereas the Antipaedobaptists say, Children are to be Instructed before Baptised, I will endeavour to evince, That the Coherence of this Text seems to be of our side, and that Children are to be baptised before taught.  
Obj. I know the Antipaedobaptists, by the placing of the Words in the Commission, would insinuate, that Infants must be Instructed before Baptised.  
Answ. To which I return, That if the placing of the Words be a sufficient Objection against our Practice, we have the same Argument, by way of Retortion, to urge against their Custom of Teaching first; and if they do not like our Argument in that Case, we have the same Reason not to like theirs: For we find in St. Mark i 4. John did baptise in the Wilderness, and preach the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins. Where we may observe Baptism precedes, and Preaching is subsequent thereupon: The same we may find in our Text, with respect to the Verse before; and that which follows, ver. 18. And Jesus came, and spoke to them, saying, All Power is given to me in Heaven, and in Earth▪ i. e Now I am exalted to the right hand of God, I am the great King of all the World, the Supreme Pastor and Head of my People, the Highpriest of my Church; Go you therefore, and teach all Nations; or, as St. Mark expresses the Commission, Chap. xuj 15. And he said unto them, Go you into all the World; i. e. Travel into all the World, and from every Nation gather me Sheep into my Fold, make Subjects to my Kingdom, and then by Baptism receive them as Members of my Church: And this is your Office of Discipling all Nations; and then the Instructive part follows, ver. 20. Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you.   

CHAP. VII. The Sense of St. Matthew xxviij. 19. further evidenced from the Original.  
IN truth the Term itself, if seriously considered, will not conclude what they would have it do; for the Word in the Greek hath a peculiar signification, and is not properly translated, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Word, i. e.] make Disciples, or receive into Discipleship all Nations, baptising them: And let this Form of Baptising be the Rite for their Admission into my Church; you may find the Word so rendered in another place of the Holy Gospel, not unlike hereto, St. John iv. 1. When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptised more Disciples than John; where to Baptise, and make Disciples, is the same thing [with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] where the Baptising being immediately annexed to the making, or receiving Disciples; and the making Disciples not granting any foregoing Teaching, but looking to it as a consequent Duty, (in like sort as in the next Verse, ver. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, [Teaching] subsequent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Baptising, which must signify different from what he used for Discipling, else why should he not continue the same word?) must needs infer the no necessity of Teaching before Baptising; so that all that are thus admitted [ad Discipulatum, or] too Discipleship to be taught and improved in the Religion of the Holy Jesus, and such that shall and will be instructed for the future, may certainly, by being Baptised, be admitted into the Church, the Rite appointed and instituted, whereby Disciples may have a Reception and Entertainment in his Family the Church.  
Obj. And now give me leave to offer something further to an Objection of the Antipaedobaptists, in reference to the Commission. Their Objection (as I have already hinted) is from the Order of Words, because Teaching is set before Baptising; Therefore none but the full grown can be admitted to Baptism.  
Answ. Now all that I shall say, or need to say, in return to the placing of the Words, is this: Teaching, according to the sense we have given, may go before Baptising, as in the Adult; and Baptising before Teaching, as in Infants: So that without altering the Order of the Words, there is nothing in the true sense of the Commission that condemns the Baptising of Children; and I may say of Teaching and Baptising, or Baptising and Teaching, as it may be said of Faith and Repentance: Divines do generally say, Repentance is the fruit of Faith; and yet in the Holy Gospel it is said, Repent ye, and believe the Gospel, St. Mark i 15. And now what I have said of the Order of Teaching and Baptising, the same may be said of Faith and Repentance; There may be a Faith that may go before Repentance, and a Faith that may follow it; That which precedes, may be said to be that Faith that fills the Head, and informs the Judgement; That Faith which may be said to be subsequent, is the Faith that influences the Heart, and saves the Soul; The one may be called a sound Faith, the other a saving Faith. My meaning, in short, is this: I must first believe the great Love of Christ, which is a sound Faith, or else I cannot so truly grieve for those Sins that pierced the Holy Jesus' side, and put him to death; and so Faith precedes Repentance: But then I cannot exercise the other sort or kind of Faith, until I really detest, and hate, and fully purpose to relinquish and forsake those Sins that put my dear Lord and Master to so much shame and pain; and then I may safely and comfortably make an Application of Christ's Merits to myself for my Salvation: And this is that which is properly called a saving Faith; and this is that which may be said to be consequent upon, and follow true Repentance. And this I do think may sufficiently satisfy us, that the ordering or placing the words destroys not, nor evacuates the sense I have given of the Commission. And now seeing the Antipaedóbaptists are so peremptory, positive and stiff for an express Command out of Holy Scripture for the Baptising of Infants, (though there can be no Reason given for such a request or demand; for what need of direct words, when we have plain sense against them,) Why may not we with equal Reason, and with the same Importunity, return upon them by way of Retortion, and ask where they find any Command for the Baptising Elder persons? If they shall reply, that is included in the Commission, St. Matthew xxviij. 19 Go, teach all Nations, baptising them, we may with equal strength of Argument return upon them again, Children are included as well as the Adult, they being by all Men of Sense acknowledged and owned to be a part of the Nations, to whom the Commission is directed; and whatsoever they are upon the account of the smallness of their Number, or weakness of their Understanding, they are a considerable part of a Nation.  
Obj. But if the Antipaedobaptists shall object, that Children are in the Commission, as soon as capable of Teaching.  
Answ. I Answer: The Commission intends those should be taught that are capable, but excludes not those from the Seal of the Covenant, that have a right to the Covenant, as Children have: Besides, if the placing of the Words be for them in St. Matthew, the Order of Words is for us in St. Mark, where we read the Baptist did Baptise before he Preached. So that the Methodizing the words is neither for, nor against them or us. So then, seeing Children are not by any necessary and rational Consequence shut out of the Commission, let the most Learned Antipaedobaptist of the whole Christian World show the least passage of Holy Scripture that excludes them; and if they cannot produce any such place of Holy Writ, they are bound by the Obligations and Principles of Conscience (unless they will renounce Reason and Truth too) to confess the Children of Christian Parents, having a right to the Covenant, have as undeniable and unquestionable a right of being admitted to the Holy Sacrament of Baptism as the Adult and Fullgrown.  
Obj. But if the Antipaedobaptists shall urge, That we have Instances and Examples in Holy Scripture of Elder persons Baptised.  
Answ. To that I Answer, That an Example, or Instance of Holy Scripture, is not as of the same Force, so not of equal Authority with a Positive Command: And further, I observe in answer to this Objection, That there was no need of a Precept, or Example, for the Baptising of Children; and my Reason is this, Because there was an Institution of the Abrahamic Covenant, and also of the Sign or Token for admitting Members thereunto, and a Conveyance of the Privileges thereunto belonging. Surely the sense of those Texts in the Holy Gospel, that enjoin a Declaration of Faith, and an Exercise of Repentance, before the Adult were baptised, was known to the Primitive Doctors of the Church, they unquestionably had seriously weighed, and fully understood the Usage of Baptism in the Apostolic Acts related by St. Luke; but yet they never inferred this unreasonable Conclusion from them, That because Faith and Repentance were to precede the Baptismal Sacrament (which is an Institution of Latitude) in fullgrown People, that therefore Baptising was not to precede Faith and Repentance in Infants, and little ones, as Circumcision and Baptism did under the Jewish Dispensation: They understood a Distinction between Actual and Potential Believers; and likewise understood it was very absurd to draw Conclusions from the Graces and Virtues of those to the excluding these. Besides all this, to be somewhat more particular:  
(1.) There are different ways of Instruction, as well as different methods of Faith or Believing; and the Holy Jesus doth not declare, instruct each Party personally, and that presently on the place, (which may be almost Morally impossible, for it is not probable that though there were Three thousand Souls converted by St. Peter's first Sermon, and immediately baptised, that he could personally instruct so many in so short a time, as we may suppose between his Preaching and their Baptising;) it is enough if they be instructed, though in their Fathers, as Levi paid Tithe in Abraham's Loins, as the Author to the Hebrews acquaints us, Hebr. seven. 9 So Children are by the Blessed Jesus directly termed Believers, St. Matth. xviij. 6. (which, by the Coherence, cannot be understood of the Adult, as the word sometimes is, particularly St. John xxj. 5.) But whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me. Infants are supposed to believe by their Father's Faith; so that as they fell from the Divine Life in their Forefather's the Protoplasts or first Adam's Loins, so they may be instructed by their natural or legitimate Fathers to be Disciples to the Holy Jesus.  
Obj. 
Ch. Blackwood's storming of Antichrist in his two strong Hold, Compulsion of Conscience and Infant-Baptism.  But I have read an Objection to the Sense I have offered, started by a seemingly Ingenious Antipaedobaptist, who would make these little ones to signify such as are little in their own Apprehensions.  
Answ. But to this I Answer: It is impossible that this can be the meaning; for it plainly is meant not of such as are little in Understanding, but of such as are little in Age and Stature: For in St. Mark, Chap. ix. 36. the Blessed Jesus, who best understood the Divine Writings, expounds it of such an one as he took up in his Arms. Now it is not usual to take up Youths that are arrived at years of Discretion (which is about the Age of Sixteen years) in our Arms.  
(2.) They were to teach them all things, whatsoever their Lord and Master had commanded them. Now our Blessed Saviour continued in the World after his miraculous Resurrection, sometime above a month, speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, as St. Luke acquaints us, Acts i 3. And how know we but this Doctrine of Baptising Children he then instructed them in, if he had not done it in the time of his public Ministration upon Earth, before his Passion and Sufferings, because the nature of the Doctrine may seem to imply and require it; and in all likelihood some, if not all the Holy Apostles did use it: For it is probable that it begun in their Age, seeing in the Times immediately succeeding them, we are by Ecclesiastic History assured of its Practice.   

CHAP. VIII. The Sense of St. Matthew xxviij. 19 confirmed by an Exposition of Acts ij. 39 in General.  
AND now that this Exposition may be the more firmly believed, and readily embraced, I will confirm and strengthen it by the consequential Sense of two places of Holy Scripture; The one from St. Peter, the Holy Apostle of the Circumcision, or the Jewish Church; and the other from St. Paul, the Holy Apostle of the Uncircumcision, or the Gentile World. I come now to the Exposition of the first place, that of St. Peter, the Holy Apostle of the Circumcision, or the Jewish Church, for the confirming the Sense I have given of the Holy Jesus' Commission, to his Blessed Disciples, for the bringing whole Nations over unto Christianity. And that I may speak fully hereto, I will give, (1.) A General; and, (2.) A Particular Account. First then in General; The Text is Acts ij. 39 For the promise is to you, and to your Children, and to all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call. 
An Obj.  That is true, saith the Antipaedobaptist, As many as the Lord our God shall call by the public Ministry of his holy Word; so that they would insinuate, that Children are not to be admitted into Covenant, or the Sign thereof, till converted. But hereto I answer, answ. This is plainly false, because the word [Many] cannot refer to Children, seeing it should have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because the Greek word for Children is in the Neuter Gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So that the sense is plainly this, The Promise is to you and to your Children, i. e. after you have forsaken the beggarly Elements of Moses, and embraced my holy Religion, my more excellent Dispensation, your Children (while Children) shall (after such a public Profession of your Faith in me, and my heavenly Doctrine) be made capable of being Members of my Covenant of Grace; and by the Sign and Seal of my Covenant, Baptism be admitted and received into the same, and to all that are afar off (a usual Phrase in holy Scripture, to express and signify the Heathen Nations by) as many as the Lord our God shall call, i. e. as many of the Gentile World as shall be converted by the public Ministry of the holy Word, shall have the same Privileges which the Proselytes of Righteousness or Justice had, in your Church; i. e. after such a Conversion and public Profession of the Christian Faith, your Children likewise shall be received into my Covenant of Grace, and by the baptismal Seal have a Right and Title thereunto; and now that any other Interpretation must distort the Words from their proper meaning, and that this I have now given, must be the true Sense of them, will clearly appear from the Original. For what the Antipedobaptists would make the meaning of this Text is true in one sense, tho' not to their purpose; i. e. That Children cannot be called or converted to the Christian Faith (because of their natural Incapacity) by the public Preaching of the holy Gospel; and therefore it could not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So that the holy Apostle, St. Peter makes this comfortable Promise to those of years of discretion in the Pagan World, that should embrace the Christian Faith, upon the Conviction they received in their minds from the public Ministry of the holy Apostles. And St. Peter uses a word of the Masculine Gender, because that agrees with a Greek word of the same Gender, that signifies Men (I mean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and that being the more noble Sex, includes the Feminine, and so takes in the Female; and that when Persons of Discretion were brought over into the Christian Religion, their Children should have the same Privilege with natural born Jews, or the Children of the Proselytes of Righteousness (who had publicly owned and been converted to the Religion of Moses) may appear plainly and evidently from the Literal and Grammatic sense of another Phrase in the Text, where there is a Dative Case applied to the Pagan World in the same sense that he applies two words to the Jewish Nation, that have the same Case in the Original [which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which do answer unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e.] the Promise is to all that are a far off, must have the same sense with the words preceding in that Verse, The Promise is to you and to your Children; which not Antipedobaptist that hath sense, but must own that they refer to the Jewish Nation, otherwise the words could have no force upon those to whom St. Peter spoke them: So that when St. Peter saith, The Promise is to you and to your Children, the meaning must necessarily be this, if you will have him speak consistently and with any tolerable good sense. If you of the Jewish Nation will embrace the Christian Religion, and own and submit to the Faith of the Holy Jesus, the Benefits, Immunities and Privileges of the New Covenant of Grace, are by us Apostles promised to, and shall by the power of the holy Ghost (the Gift of which for the use of the Church is communicated to us) be conveyed and made over, conferred and bestowed upon you and your Children; and the same Promise St. Peter makes to the Jewish Nation; and their Children he also makes to the Heathen World, and their Offspring, which enlarges the sense I have given: And that this must be the sense, may appear from the Original Word used for Promise [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] which is of a like sound, and of the same derivation, and of a near signification with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the Greek word for the holy Gospel; which is as it were the counterpart of the new Covenant, or the Covenant of Grace, that contains all the Parts and Articles thereof. So that by virtue of your Faith, the Title and Blessings of the Covenant shall be imputed to your Children, that thereby they may be made as capable of Baptism (the Sign of Admission into the Christian Church) under the holy Gospel, as your Children are now by virtue of your Jewish Faith capable of Circumcision (the Seal that gave a Title to the old Covenant under the Law) and if you will not allow the words this sense, what St. Peter spoke must rather confirm and harden the Jews in their own way, and their Mosaic observations than persuade, and bring them over to Christianity; and upon this undeniable sense of the former part of the Text, the latter must be allowed the same Exposition; because any other Sense and Interpretation will be an impediment, bar and hindrance to the Progress of christian Religion. So that if we have any love for the blessed Jesus, and desire exactly to observe his divine Institutions, this Phrase [And to all that are afar off] must be expounded and interpreted from unquestionable parity of Reason; according to the sense we have already given of the former part of the Text [The Promise is to you and to your Children] which answers the true meaning of our blessed Saviour's Commission to the holy Apostles, according to the Account we have offered, and may be called a Logical Demonstration; as convictive to Reason, as a Mathematic Demonstration is to the Senses of Mankind.   

CHAP. IX. A further Conformation by a particular Exposition of Acts ij. 39  
BUT Secondly, I will give you a more particular Account, that I may offer all that is necessary to be said upon this Text: And here that I may deal fairly with our Adversaries, I will give them two Concessions, which I think is all they can reasonably ask. (1.) We will allow that St. Peter designed to support their Spirits, as to their Infants, upon their outcry (when the Roman Precedent declared himself innocent of the Blood of that just Person, 
St. Matth. xxvij. 25.  upon which they exclaimed) His Blood be upon us, and upon our Children. (2.) We will allow, that it is not impossible, but that by Children, here, may be understood adult Persons, yet in the words are several particulars so clear as will be strong enough to defend our Orthodox Principle. (1.) That the Promise here offered to them and their Children, was the New Dispensation the Holy Jesus was Author of, and the same Dispensation, which (tho' in obscurer terms and times) had been declared to the Father of the Faithful, which Dispensation also included Father and Son. (2.) That except St. Peter did in this Promise include their Children, they had not been strongly supported under the Curse they wished for themselves and their Offspring, upon supposition they should departed this World before actual Repentance. (3.) They had no reason to believe their Infants included in the Promise, except they had been qualified for the Sign and Sacrament under the New Dispensation, as they were of the Sign of the Old Covenant; for all visible Confirmation is by Seal, and by this account we may understand the full sense of what is said, Ver. 41. And the same day were added to them about three thousand Souls, viz. Masters of Families, becoming Christians, Infants, and all in their House, according to the Terms of the Covenant and Usage of the Jews, were admitted and received to Baptism, otherwise how should three thousand Souls be particularly taught; for it is not probable, that St. Peter's Sermon did reach the ears of all that were there present; and moreover, (as our Adversaries would persuade us) they must every one be treated with, and spoken to, which was morally impossible for so few Apostles, as may probably be conjectured to be there, and in so short a time, as we may reasonably suppose they stayed where they were. But to all this our Adversaries gainsay, because the Text tells us not, 
An Obj.  they and their Children were received to Baptism, but they only, that gladly received his Word. 
Answ.  To which I make this return: (1.) This Text doth not so evidently conclude the thing done, that Children were then received to Baptism (tho' it may properly enough infer it from what hath been offered in the general Account) as their Title to it by force of their being adopted into Covenant by virtue of their Parents Faith. (2.) That the Infants were received to Baptism, is not specified, becauset here was no necessity for doing that which might be reasonably supposed. (3.) Because the Covenant, for substance, was the same with that delivered to Abraham of old time, the Administration made the sole distinction. (4.) There being three thousand Souls added to the Church, they could not be admitted Members thereof without Baptism; and this being all done in one day, it is not in the least probable they could all be adult Men; or if they were, it is as highly improbable, so few as the Holy Apostles than were, could have time (which our Adversaries think necessary) to treat with, and discourse every person. (5.) Because all is not expressed in Holy Writ that was transacted; and when an Historical Account is rehearsed, some Particulars are inserted not named in the prior, or former Declaration. As for instance, In the Story of the Holy Apostle of the Gentiles, his miraculous Call is taken notice of three times, and his being baptised more than once; and yet in the second Relation, concerning his Baptism, there is something added to the first Account, Acts xxij. 16. Arise, and be baptised, and wash away they sins, calling on the Name of the Lord, declaring the Scope and Design of Baptism, as well as how necessary it was; and it is probable had there been reason to rehearse this Account related Acts ij. as there was of St. Paul's other matters, possibly this of admitting Infants to Baptism had been inserted. (6.) By way of Retortion, to return their own Argument upon them, because Women are not named neither in the Commission, St. Matth. xxviij. 19 nor Acts ij. 41. to be baptised, both being rendered by the Greek in the Masculine Gender; I may therefore, according to their way of arguing, urge, because it is not declared in the Sacred Text, that they who gladly received the Word with their Wives were baptised, I might therefore, according to their manner of disputing, say, no Women had as yet received Baptism; for it was after this time, that we read in Samaria, Women were baptised by St. Philip. 
Acts viij. 12.  So that tho' the Design of the Covenant be known, yet not always declared in Holy Writ, and the baptising of Infants may verily be believed to be of this kind.   

CHAP. X. The Sense of St. Matth. xxviij. 19 strengthened by an Exposition of 1 Cor. seven. 14.  
THE second place is that of St. Paul, the Holy Apostle of the Uncircumcision or the Gentile World, 1 Corinth. seven. 14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, else were your children unclean, but now are they holy. This place of St. Paul is a strong confirmation of the Sense, and a clear conviction of the truth of the Interpretation I have given of the first Text of the last quoted place of St. Peter. St. Paul was a Pharisee, (the most learned and strictest Sect among the Jews) and was so well instructed in the Christian Religion, that he himself saith, he was not a whit behind any (the best, and most knowing) of the Holy Apostles, and for the encouragement of the Pagan World to embrace Christianity, he publicly declares, and assures them, that the believing Paganish Husband, or Wise, should have a Power and Privilege to transmit and convey their Faith to their Seed; so that their Children, after such a conversion of the Parent, should be capable of a Federal, or Covenant-Holiness, which should be of such efficacy and virtue, as to impute and make over to them a Right to the Covenant, and then, by the Seal of Baptism, to be received into the Church, admitted to the favour of God, and made Heirs of Heaven by virtue of their Membership in the Covenant of Grace. Thus we plainly see, by the Testimony of Holy Scripture, and by the Evidence of Reason, (a Reason so infallible and unerring, that it is conducted by the Light of Divine Revelation) what is the plain, natural, and proper sense of the Holy Jesus' Commission to his Blessed Disciples, St. Matth. xxviij. 9 Go teach all Nations, baptising them. So that he who shall from a mistaken sense of that place of Holy Scripture, deny Baptism unto Infants, hinders the Propagation and Progress of Christian Religion, makes the Covenant of Grace less beneficial and extensive than the Covenant of Works; and so consequently doth not allow as great Benefits, Privileges and Immunities to the Covenant of Grace which he doth to the Covenant of Works, all which are the dangerous Consequences of Antipedobaptism, as I hope I have sufficiently proved, and convincingly made out; and in the evincing, or proving this Argument, I have plainly showed, that we have the proper meaning of three Texts of Holy Scripture, which I think to any Man of sense is as clear a Proof, and as powerful an Evidence to engage our belief to the truth of any Doctrine propounded to us, as if we had brought the positive and express Words of Holy Scripture, which is as strong a conviction as any Man can with the least show of reason desire. So that if the true sense of the Holy Jesus' Commission to his Blessed Disciples be duly considered, and that no other meaning can tolerably be put upon them, being backed with the Authority of two other places of Holy Scripture, (and a threefold Cord is not easily broken) no Antipedobaptist, that is a Man of sense, will hereafter press for a positive and direct place of Holy Writ, because he hath no reason to expect a Tautology in Sacred Scripture, to please an Humour, or serve an Interest, and because he will thereby weaken his Cause, and then have great reason to be ashamed of, if not repent for the Injury he doth his Principles, and he will see the vanity of demanding express words for a confutation, when he hath plain sense against him; for the Holy Scriptures are to be expounded and interpreted by their Sense, and not by their Sound; by their Spiritual Meaning, and not by the bare Words, Syllables, and Letters; for they are best understood by their proper Design and Purport, or a true Relation to their Coherence and Connexion with what precedes, and follows after. And now give me leave to offer one thing that will confirm the sense of the Texts I have delivered, and will also further show how unreasonable, and absurd, weak, and trifling, the Antipedobaptists are, for being so peremptory and positive in demanding an express place of Holy Scripture for the baptising of Infants, and this I will endeavour to evince from Customs among the Jews, well known to all learned Men. Three things were required by the Jews to make a Male Proselyte of Righteousness, Circumcision, a kind of Purfication by Water (which was an Allusion to Baptism) and Oblation, which was commonly two Turtles, or Pigeons; To a Female Purification by Water, and Oblation. Now because the Jews, since their Dispersion, have neither Altar nor Sacrifice, they say, For the Male, Circumcision, and Purification by Water, are sufficient: For the Female, Only Purification by Water. In David's time, they tell us many Thousands were added to the Church without Circumcision, by Purification only. Hence we may observe, that a kind of Admission by Water into the Church, was long in use among the Jews, tho' it were not Sacramental till the Blessed Jesus' Institution, therefore it may seem to be used by them, because they looked for it as a Sacrament at the coming of the Messiah, as is evident by their coming to St. John the Baptist, not so much scrupling his Baptism, as his Authority, by what Power he baptised: St. John i 25. And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, nor that Prophet? By which three different words they meant the Messiah, because he was well known to the Jews by those Terms or Phrases to be foresignified; so that had he owned himself for such, they would not have doubted his Commission; but Christ being plainly proved the Messiah, he was Lord of the Sacrament, as well as of the Sabbath, and so had a sufficient Power to institute a New Sacrament, and so substituted Baptism in the room of Circumcision, which whosoever believes not to be as extensive as the other, is so irrational as to make the holy Jesus not so merciful a Legislator as Moses; which shows the unreasonableness and absurdity of demanding an express Text of holy Scripture for Infant Baptism, which was the Truth to be cleared; and I hope is sufficiently made apparent and manifest.   

CHAP. XI. Some general Observations upon the Sense and Expositions delivered.  
LET me now offer some general Observations upon the Sense and Expositions of those Texts I have brought for the Proof hereof; and I will begin with the Observation of Chemnitius, in his Plea he makes against the Antipedobaptists of Germany: 
* Ego sane qui simplicitatem amo etiamsi nec intelligam nec explicare possim quomodo Infants, qui Baptizantur credant; judico tamen suffitire firmissima illa testimonia explicata. Infants esse Abaptizandos, neque enim ab illis propterea discedendum, etsi non possim vel intelligere, velexplicare quomedo credant Infames. Chemnit. Exam. Conc. Trid. part 2. Tit. de Baptismo ad Canon. 13.  I do so truly love Simplicity and Truth, that altho' I cannot tell how Children who are baptised believe, yet I judge the Testimonies from Holy Scripture , most strong Evidences, and a sufficient Proof for this Christian Practice; neither ought Christians to departed from this Truth, tho' I cannot understand or explain how Children believe. In some things we should take St. Paul's Advice, And become Fools that we may be wise, 1 Cor. iij. 18. Obedience being more acceptable than  Offerings, 1 Sam. xv. 22. And we should offer up our Understandings to divine Revelation, where there is clear Reason to submit to it. Faith is the wisest, and most wellpleasing Service we can offer to God [Nescire ea quae docere non vult Magister maximus erudita est inscitia] not to know those things our great Master would have us ignorant of, is (if I may so speak without a Solecism) a learned Ignorance. But praised be Heaven, I have yet met with no Arguments of the Adversaries so strong, as to need such an Apology or Plea. We find not any Accusation laid to the Charge of Christianity, by the Jewish or Pagan World upon this Account, which certainly would have been done by some of the Enemies of our holy Religion, if the Jewish Believer had not enjoyed the same Immunities, when Christian, that he did before: Or if the first Planters of Christianity had preached the same Doctrine the Antipedobaptists do now, how would the Enemies of our holy Religion have declamed against us, and declared the Doctrine they preached, was not the same Covenant God offered to the Father of the Faithful, and the People of Israel, because that included Father and Son, as to the Covenant and the Sign that conveyed the Benefits of the Covenant. 
An Obj.  Now because the Antipedobaptists call upon us for an Example of any baptised in a gathered Church without Faith, and that herein the holy Scripture is silent: 
Answ.  To which I will give a full Answer; and for which, I shall in great part, 
Vid. Mr. Ellis' Treat. called Pastor and Clerk: Or a Debate [real] concerning Inant Baptism, p. 182,— 195.  be obliged to the Judicious Mr. Ellis. (1.) I am not obliged to make any return. (2.) This is a perilous Method of arguing to Religion. (3.) That it doth not further their Cause. (1.) I am not obliged to make any return: For we may well continue the Custom, seeing we have so strong Reasons from holy Writ for it; and seeing we have so long enjoyed and used it, by so many Instances from the Primitive times (as may be proved;) so that we have Prescription to plead, and that Lawyers tells us, in some Cases, is a good Bar against all other Titles. It is upon these Accounts your duty, that contradict it, to declare any one Instance or Proof, that these Reasons, and this continued Custom of all times since the holy Apostolic Age, should not be continued; which I am satisfied they will not be able to perform, if they should be so courageous as to undertake it, and therefore it will be in vain to make any attempt that way. (2.) This method of demanding positive Words from Holy Writ for all that Men are to believe, or do, is extreme hazardous to Religion, where there is sufficient reason without such an Authority to engage our Faith. (1.) As to Doctrine, it would censure the Method of arguing used by our Blessed Saviour and his Holy Disciples, and so make way for a falling from the Truth, and giving entrance to the most pernicious Heresies; and therefore he that believes such a Doctrine can be no good Christian: and possibly for this Reason several have gone from one Sect to another, till they came to be of no Religion at all, and looking for what is not to be had in Holy Writ, nor should be expected from any sort of arguing, they have thereupon cast off all. (2.) As to customary Practices, what a door of entrance would there be for strange Doctrines, and stranger Practices? there is no Command for, or Instance of a Woman partaking in the Holy Communion; we read not of the baptising of the Holy Disciples; no Command or Instance of one that is not a Clergyman may not have more Wives than one, whereupon I have read of one in Essex, that married more than one at a time, and as it was supposed for that Reason. (3.) It doth not further their Cause, because where there is a good Reason for us to believe or do, we are not to stop or stay our belief, or defer acting, till we have an Instance from Holy Scripture: What Command or foreknown Instance had the Holy Apostle of the Circumcision to admit the Centurion of the Italian Band and his Family to Baptism, seeing they were not circumcised, only that he collected it, that because he had a Title to the Covenant, (by the miraculous Gift of the Holy Ghost) he had right to the Sign that conveyed the Privilege of the Covenant. The Commission the Holy Jesus gave to his Blessed Disciples at his leaving the World, in relation to the persons, is in the Masculine Gender, and the Account of St. Peter's baptising his first Converts was in the same Gender; Why then did St. Philip admit to baptism, Women as well as Men, Acts viij. 12? And why do the Antipedobaptists, as well as we, admit Women to the Communion, when there is neither Command nor Rule to enjoin it? To conclude all, I shall need to say by way of Exposition upon these three Texts, As the Obligatory Power of the Ceremonies and Rites among the Jews was abolished, because they did not agree with the ingenuous temper of the Christian Institution; so more principally was it taken away, as being disagreeable to the Notion of its being an Universal Society, for it would have impeded the Propagation of the Religion of the B. Jesus, had it been burdened with the Ceremonies and Rites of the Jews, which were grown hateful, as well as nauseous to the Heathenish part of Mankind; and, to name no other Instance, he was upon this account engaged to alter the Sacrament for Admission into his Church, or the Sign of the Old Covenant Circumcision, I mean, whereby the People of Israel (excepting some few Nations, as the ancient Egyptians, Ethiopians, Ishmaclites, and Colchians) were differenced from the rest of Mankind: They were, I say, 
Vid. Case of Infant-Baptism, pag. 20.  grown nauseous and hateful to the World for the use thereof; as it is insinuated by several of the Poets, as Martial, Horace, Petronius, and Juvenal. Is any man called, being circumcised, let him not become uncircumcised; i. e. 
1 Cor. seven. 18.  Let him not use means to attract the [Praeputium, or] Foreskin, which the Jewish People were frequently wont to do, to shun reproach, and to deliver themselves from Persecution in Paganish Kingdoms. And upn this account it would have been a great hindrance to the propagation of the New Dispensation, should the Heathen World have been admitted to the New Covenant by that way; no Sacred Ceremony could be more unacceptable to Mankind in general; and hereupon the Wisdom of our. Merciful Redeemer, as well as New Legislator, is to be commended in altering the old antiquated Sign into a more gentle, pleasant way of admission by Water, which was as of a more universal use, so of a more general signification, because the Heathen World, as well as the People of Israel used it, (For Heathenism was little else but the Jewish Religion abused by the Prince of Darkness, and Father of Lies, as Christianity was little more than pure Natural Reason exalted, and improved by the King of Light and Purity.)   

CHAP. XII. A Defence of the Expositions delivered from Jewish Customs.  
AND now, that I may engage you to the belief of the sense I have given of these three Texts of Holy Scripture, I declare the Account I have offered is according to Jewish Custom, and the sense of things well known among them; which is the only true and proper way of coming to their right meaning, and without such an Exposition or Allusion, it is impossible to understand several Phrases and Places in the New Testament. 
Dr. Hammond's Case of Infant-Baptism in his Resolution of six Queries.  And this may appear from an excellent Account given by the Reverend Dr. Hammond, in eight. Particulars, which I will only mention, but not enlarge upon, referring you to the Account he gives, and then add one memorable Instance to confirm this way of expounding H. Scripture. (1.) In the calling and receiving Disciples. (2.) In the Donation of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. (3.) In the Blessed Sacrament of the Lord's H. Supper. (4.) In Imposition of Hands. (5.) In the Title of Apostles. (6.) In the Name and Office of Bishops. (7.) In the Title of Deacons. (8.) In the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or] Church, in both Notions of it, for the People, and the Rulers thereof, (or Church-Representative) and when he complied in so many Customs, why should we believe he varied in this only? But I will give one remarkable Example, and so conclude this way of confirming the Sense and Expositions I have given and the Sense of what I shall say, (for his words I cannot give you, it being so long since I read him) I shall borrow from the Reverend Dr. Lightfoot, a Man of the greatest knowledge in understanding the Custom of the Jews and Rabbinic Learning; The Text is St. Matth. xvij. 20. If you have faith, as a grain of mustardseed, you shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place, and it shall remove, and nothing shall be impossible unto you. Now this is naturally impossible in a literal sense, but to such as are acquainted with a customary Saying among the Jews, this seemingly difficult place hath an easy and intelligible meaning; for it was an usual Saying among them, of a learned Rabbi, (that had a skilful Faculty in the expounding hard places of Holy Scripture) That he was a Man of such Learning, he could remove Mountains. Now this Phrase the H. Jesus applies to a true, sound, saving Faith, (of which it is properly meant, and not of the Faith of Miracles, as some perchance may believe) and his sense is plainly this, (as may appear by the last words of the Text, And nothing shall be impossible to you.) A right, orthodox, strong Faith in the Almighty God, will be of such power and efficacy, as to support and bear you up under the sorest Pressures of Human Life; and when your Faith and Patience are sufficiently tried and exercised, your Belief in the same God shall work a deliverance, and no difficulty or distress shall be insuperable to, or conquerable by such a Faith, because so great a Faith shall (like Jacob, when he wrestled with God Almighty, prevailed with, if not overcome Omnipotence itself) obtain what it desires, 
Gen. xxxij. 28.  as the Canaanitish Woman's importunate Faith did with the B. Jesus, when he said unto her, 
Mat. 15.28.  O woman, great is thy faith; be it unto thee as thou wilt. And, to encourage to the exercise of such a Noble Act of Faith, St. Paul speaks the same sense with that Exposition I have given of that place of St. Matthem, 
1 Cor. x. ●●.  when he saith, There hath no temptation taken you, but such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that you are able, but will with the temptation make a way to escape, that you may he able to bear it. And that I may the better engage your belief to the sense I have given of these three Texts, I have interpreted them according to Jewish Customs and Phrases. As to the first, 
St. Matth. xxviij. 19  I have explained it according to the sense it must have, if Moses their Legislator had given such a Commission to twelve Elders of Israel, as the H. Jesus gave to his B. Disciples. As to the second place, Acts ij. 39 we have so expounded it likewise; for it is well known, [By those that are afar off] the Jews constantly meant the Heathen Nations, or the Gentile World. Lastly, For the third place, 1 Cor. seven. 14. we have interpreted the word Holy, according to the Jewish custom and manner, who always understood the word Holy so, and applied that Phrase to any Thing or Person that was dedicated and peculiarly set apart to the Service of God; and therefore, neither according to the coherence of the place, nor the Jewish way of interpreting H. Scripture, can that word be understood of a Matrimonial Legitimacy, that should render the Children clean after such a Marriage, and free them from the odious Character of Bastardy, as we shall make more fully and clearly appear, when I come to answer a seemingly strong Objection of the Antipedobaptists against the sense of that Text, which we have given as its proper meaning.   

CHAP. XIII. Authorities of the ancient Fathers to establish the Sense of the three Texts of Holy Scripture.  
AND now, that I may engage you to believe the Sense I have given of these three places of H. Scripture, I will confirm it by the best Authority, the Testimony of three of the most ancient Primitive Fathers, who lived near the Age of the H. Apostles, and therefore may be reasonably supposed best acquainted with their mind. The first shall be the Authority of Justin Martyr; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Resp. ad Orthod, or whosoever was Author of that Primitiv Book.  Children are allowed to enjoy the good things that come by Baptism, by the Faith of them that bring them to Baptism. Punctually correspondent to the sense (and so fit to establish the meaning) we have given of 1 Cor. viij. 14. where upon the Account of the believing Husband's living with the unbelieving Wife, and the reason allowed, that one may build up the other in the Christian Doctrine, and accordingly, christianly educate their Children, the Children are Holy, i. e. vouchsafed the Privilege of Baptism, and the Benefits thereupon consequent. Next we find Irenaeus speaking to the same sense, who flourished in the first Century after such as had an ocular view of the H. Jesus, who declares the Messiah to be an Universal Saviour; and mentioning Infants, [& Parvulos] small Children, as well as [Pueros, Juvenes, and Seniores, Boys, Youths, and Elder Persons] saith further, all, 
Omnes inquam qui per cum renascuntur in Deum. Iren. l. 2. adv. haeres. c. 39  who by him are reborn to a Divine Life, where Children being renewed, or reborn, must needs be expounded according to the H. Scripture-phrase of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being renewed or reborn by the Laver of Regeneration, and all that are acquainted with the Primitive Fathers, know they thereby mean Baptism, (Dominica & Apostolica phrasi, according to the sense of H. Scripture, as delivered by the B. Jesus, and his dear Followers) and as he concludes there, Sanctificat Infants he renders, Children holy, according to the Interpretation we have given of that place of St. Paul, 1 Cor. seven. 14. Lastly, Tertullian, who flourished much about the same time, gives a much like account; for speaking of the [Fidelium filii] (the Sons of the Faithful) he affirms, 
* Sanctitatis Candidati, hinc enim Apostolus ex Sanctificato alterutro sexn Sanctos procreari ait Sanctitam ex seminis Praerogativa, quam ex Institutionis disciplina, Tertull. L. 1. de Anima, C. 39  They are Candidates of Holiness, and Holy, as upon different regards, so from the prerogative of their Birth, punctually adequate to the sense we have given of the Text to the Corinthians, and according to our Exposition thereof; and as it is a Testimony, it was so used by the Christians then, so it's an Evidence of the Custom of the H. Apostles in that Age, to allow the Infants of Christian Parents to be baptised. And now to conclude the Authorities, I will add two more, with the Canon of a Provincial Council; and the first of the two I will bring, shall be that of the famous Bishop of Carthage, St. Cyprian, who lived at the end of Origen's time, who flourished about fifteen Years after Tertullian; what he writes is in that which he sends to his Friend Fidus, and in it there is so clear a proof for baptising Children, that it is sufficient to satisfy any person in whom prepossession and Interest do not Rule; Fidus had sent to him to acquaint him, that he did not think fit that Infants should be admitted unto Baptism before the eighth day, as the Jews were under Moses' Dispensation; whereupon he sent this Return; 
† Quantum ad causam Infantium pertinet, quos dixisti intra secundum vel tertium diem quo nati sunt conllitutos Baptizari non oportere, & considerandam esse legem Circumcisionis antiquae, ut infra octavum diem eum qu● natus est Baptizandum & Sanctificandum non putares, long aliud in Concilio nostro visum est; In hoc enim, quod to putabas faciendum esse, nemo consensit, sed universi potius judicamus nulli hominum nato misericordiam Dei, & gratiam denegandam, Saint Cyprian, Ep. 58. ad Fid.  That he and the Council, wherein were 66 Bishops, were of a different Judgement, having declared, that as the Lord had no respect of Persons, so no regard for Age, but that Children might be admitted to Baptism presently after their Birth, to cleanse them from their Original Gild. The second shall be from St. Augustin, the Reverend Bishop of Hippo, which I will the rather do, because the Pelagians have been mistakenly supposed by a Consequence from their Doctrine, to deny the baptising of Infants for the Remission of Sins, (which they that did, have been censured by the Church for Heretics in all Ages) as may appear both by St. Ambrose 
* Hine evacuatio Baptisinatis parv●●orum q●● sola aco●tione donar●, nullo ●●rem rea●●●●cerentur ab●o●vi, S. Ambr. Ep. lib. 4. Dem●tradi Virg. . From Pelagius' Doctrine follows the evacuating or making void the baptising of Infants, who would by his Opinion be said to be adopted, but not absolved from any guilt. And in like manner; by the definition of the Council of Milevis, where, speaking of the H. Catholic Church's understanding, Original Sin, we have these words; 
‖ Propter hanc regulam fidei, & Parvul qui nihil peccaforum in semetipsis committere po●●erunt, deo in peccatorum remissionem veraciter Baptiza●●ur, ut in eyes regeneratione m●ndetur, quod generatione trarerunt, Conc. Milev. Can 2.  Upon this Ruse of Faith (the sense of the H. Catholic Church [ubique semper] , always) it is that Infants are baptised for the remission of sins, that what they have contracted by Generation may be purged by Regeneration. Now the words of Caelestius, as quoted by S. Augustin, are these; 
* Infants Baptizari remissionem peccatorum secundum regulam universalis Ecclesiae, & Evangelii sententiam, S. Aug l. 2. cont. Pel. & Cael. c. 5.  That Infants are baptised for Remission of Sins, according to the Rule of the Universal Church, and the appointment of the H. Gospel, whereby it is probable, that he meant this Text of H. Gospel, according to the sense we have given of it, because none can be admitted into Covenant with the guilt of their sins upon them, and to signify, that he must make absolute and sincere renunciation of them; which may be one reason why the H. Church appoints Sponsors and Undertakers to make such Promises in the behalf of the Child. I will now finish my Proofs from the Testimony of the Ancients by the Authority of a Council: the Provincial Council of Milevis. The Church of Afric was one of the most famous Churches of the Primitive Times, for Piety and Learning, and the determination of the Council, (which, 
Case of Infant Baptism, p. 152.  as St. Augustin observed an 100 Years after, was not a New Decree, [Novum Decretum] seems to allow baptising Children in that Church, to be a long and uninterrupted Custom. This Council was held about the middle of the third Century, about 150 Years after the decease of St. John. This Council, in its second Canon, thus declares, It is decreed by the Council, i. e. [Placuii Spiritui Sancto, & nobis] it is decreed by the H. Ghost, and by us; 
† ●●em placuit ut quicunque parv●●los receates ab uteris matram baptizandos negat; aut dicit in remissionem quidem peccatorum baptizari, sed nihil ex Adam trahere originalis peccati quod regenerationis lavacro expi●●●r; undo fit Consequens ut in eyes form a baptizmatis in remissionem peccatorum non vera, sed falsa intelligatur Anathema sit. Synod. Milevitana. Can. 2. apud Carazam.  That whosoever will not allow Children to be baptised presently after they come out of their Mother's Womb, or saith they are baptised for remission of Sins indeed, but draw nothing of Original Sin from Adam, which is to be explated by the Laver of Regeneration (whence it doth follow, that that form of Baptism for the remission of Sins in and to you, is understood not to be true, but false) let him be declared Accursed; and this I think Proof enough from Antiquity, however they that desire more may be excellently satisfied from the learned Mr. Walker's Modest Plea for Infant Baptism, where he not only asserts, but proves its usage for about fifteen Centuries of years.   

CHAP. XIV. The just Complaint of the Jews, if this Doctrine be not true.  
AND now what Reason can be offered why those Christians that were converted from Judaisme, who were scandalised at the omission of Circumcision, should not have been more highly scandalised, if the first Planters of Christianity had denied an admission of Infants unto Covenant under the H. Gospel Dispensation, when they had been ever allowed it under the Mosaic Oeconomy? Is it not rational to imagine, that they who made so great Complaints, only because the H. Disciples instructed the Jewish People that dwelled in Heathen Countries, that they were not bound to use Circumcision, would not have made greater Complaints if they had not admitted them and their Children unto Baptism, but wholly shut them out, like the Children of Infidels, and not allowed them to be Members of Christ's Mystical Body? It certainly, in all likelihood, would have been a sore Grief to them, to observe their Infants used as bad as the Infants of Pagans and Foreigners, and to have no clear distinction between such Children, whose Parents received the H. Gospel, and such as with stood Christianity. For they ever esteemed Heathen Infants as unclean and common; but the Infants of Believers they reckoned Holy and Consecrate, according to the Exposition we have given of 1 Cor. seven. 14. But now had the H. Disciples publicly preached that the Infants of such as were admitted into Covenant with God, had no other Title to an admission into the Church by Baptism, than the Infants of Pagans, who were not in Covenant; they had preached a Doctrine, which would assuredly have been a higher Scandal than whatever they had preached against the necessity of circumcising Males, and the observation of Moses' Law of Ceremonies: Whereupon since we do not find among their grievous Accusations on the change of the Jewish Usages, that they murmured or repined that their Infants were not baptised, and so made capable of the Benefits of the new Covenant of Grace; It is a much more probable Reason to believe, that the first Planters of Christianity and their Associates, admitted Infants to Baptism, than the not showing a plain Example or direct Precept for it under the H. Gospel Dispensation, is that they were not at all baptised. And now having given such Reasons and Authorities for this laudable and christian Usage, before I come to answer the Objections, which is the last part of my Undertaking, give me leave to make one Observation. Menno, who was one of the greatest Scholars of the Adverse Party, who lived about 100 years since, 
Vid. Cassand. adv. Anabapt. Case of Infants Bapt. p. 47, 48.  was so close put to it by this sort of Argument from Authority, that he owned the Ordinance of baptising Children as ancient as the H. Apostolic Age, but then declared it came from counter felt Pastors of that Age; but if so, how happens it, we find not any thing recorded of it in the sacred Epistles, nor in the Books of any of that Age; such as S. Clement, S. Ignatius and S. Polycarp? How happens it that S. John, who lived the longest of all the H. Apostles, mentions it not? Or how happens it that the Inditer of the Apocalypse, that censured several Errors of that Age, should take no notice hereof? It is very wonderful that none of the inspired Writers, such as assisted them 〈…〉 should not mention so reproachful a practice, that would stock the Church with counterfeit Professors, and in a short time Unchurch it. In the same sort if it happened by erroneous Guides in the times immediately after the H. Apostles, how came it to pass that none of the Illustristious Confessors that lived in that Age contradicted it, as a Doctrine that might endanger the overthrow of Christianity, nor told us any thing in the least of it? They published Books against the Errors of Simon Magus, Menander, Saturninus, Cerinthus, Ebion, Valentinus, Basilides, Martion, etc. but we read not any thing in their Writings against baptising Children, tho' we are assured from Iraenus and Tertullian, that it was used in their times, as we have made it appear.   

CHAP. XV. An Answer to an Objection that would overthrow the Sense given of St. Mat. xxviij. 19  
THe Antipedobaptists do object, 
An Obj.  that the Command for baptising all Nations doth not help the cause of Infant-baptism, because there are some places of H. Writ of a like sound, are not to be interpreted as if they took in all indefinitely, but only such as have a capacity to act the Duty, as worship God, and sing to him all you Nations. To which I return (1.) answ. 1 Supposing (da●● said non concesso, as the Logicians speak) that the sixth, S. Mat. xxviij. 19 doth not conclude (though it do not forbid) that Children should be brought to Baptism, I say this Allowance being given, the Antipedobaptist can never prove his Principle from it. (2.) This Text being no more than a Command, can be no Evidence in matter of fact, nor have I urged this Text as matter of Fact, but necessity of Duty. (3.) The Example that is brought to overthrow the force drawn from the Sense we have given of the Text, is mighty weak; For tho' in the Precept, Worship God, and sing to him all you Nations, they that are not able to do either cannot be believed to be obliged (For nemo tenetur ad Impossibile, none is bound to Impossibilities, as the Civil lawyers speak) yet in a Precept in acting that for others, of which all are alike able to whom the Precept is delivered (as certainly there was no more difficulty for the commissionated Teachers to administer Baptism to Children than to adult Persons) there is no ground to limit or confine it: And that this is the truth may appear, because the Precept is not delivered to all Nations, to fit and qualify themselves for Baptism, but to the H. Disciples to disciple them, and administer Baptism to them; and of being brought to the Church, and admission into the number of the Members of Christ's Mystical Body. And of cleansing by the Baptismal Waters, the Infant is capable, tho' not of worshipping God, or Singing (at least Musically and Harmonically.) 
An Obj.  Again another Objection they fetch from the Original [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] baptising them into the Name; because the baptised should not only catch for themselves the Profession and Name, but also be deeply immersed in the thing named and professed. answ. To which I return: The Sponsors promise for the Children, out of a regard to the Profession, but the name and thing themselves take: They are sanctified and washed in the Name of Christ, and are thereupon termed Christians, outward Communication being needful to a Member of the visible Church, but not Profession personal, and outward in this matter, the Party being not fit for it, and the profession of others equivalent for those Parties. 
An Obj.  But still they object against [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] them, and perceiving it to be of another Gender, and not the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they find out a word to lay it on, which themselves have obosen, and that is [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉]. Disciples, and thus, they would have [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] them, not applied to Nations, 
Rev. xx. 8.  but to the Disciples of the Nations. To which I return, we have the same Conjunction in H. Writ, I mean of [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Nations and them, and they are both mentioned in one verse, with relation to one another: And why may not we more naturally draw a Companion from the common Custom of Speech, and rather substitute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a word appliable to all Ages Men, Women and Children, and bind up all in the end of the Construction with [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] out of all Nations. Neither is the Conjunction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Nations and Them, improper, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is most expressive in the Original Tongue, and so fit to make the Construction perfect; Nations being made up and composed of Men, Women, and Children: And seeing now we are criticising upon the Text, let me offer something should have been brought in at the Coherence, Go teach all Nations, baptising them. If we correct our Translation by the Original, it will run thus, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Disciple you all Nations, not [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Teach you them: The meaning of the Term is, Separate such and such Persons from the rest of Mankind, and by initiation admit them to be my Disciples, or dedicate them to the Service of Heaven, and then by Baptism set a Mark upon them, that they may be known to be my Disciples, and let them be afterwards instructed, who in respect of their present unfitness cannot immediately become Disciples by personal Instruction; and the ground of this Interpretation is strongly laid, because an Active Verb of Injunction should be allowed such a meaning; for being made to People, and Nations, it must have such a sense as must extend itself to all, to whom it is made; and assuredly little ones on account of their Number are a larger Portion of People, and Nations, than they are upon account of their Stature; and that Infants may by this way be made Disciples, is out of doubt; Because, (1.) They are by their Fathers, or the Church, presented to Heaven, who consecrate them to God, and are thereby enroled in the Register of the Holy Jesus. (2.) The Sponsors, or Undertakers, promise upon their account, that correspondent to their Engagement expressed in the Form of Baptism, (which is declared in the following Charge) they are to be instructed in the true Service of God: Hereupon they become Disciples in Fieri. (3.) They have the Regal Seal stamped upon their Spirits, whereby they are set apart for the Service of Heaven, and become Christians and Disciples in Facto esse, not as being personally instructed, but as being placed so as to be reckoned the Servants and Scholars of the blessed Jesus, and so really looked upon, and accounted his Disciples: We put little ones to places of Instruction not so much for their growth in Knowledge, as to be secured from Mischief. And after this manner Infants are kindly admitted into the Institution of our great Master from the hazard of their departing out of the World without the Seal of the Covenant, and for fear, because they have not the Divine Mark, either they or ourselves may undergo punishment. To all this I may add, (which is sufficient to stop the mouth of Gainsayers) That the placing Instruction before Baptism) doth not any more infer, that Instruction should go first, and should have the preference, than that Repentance, as being enjoined before Faith by St. Mark, Repent you, 
St. Mark 1.15.  and believe the Gospel, aught to challenge the precedence, which is the proper product of Faith. Faith in this place being consequent upon Repentance by an elegant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Such Transpositions in Holy Writ have caused this Observation to be made; 
Non datur prius aut posterius in Scriptura.  There is not a former or a latter allowed in Holy Scripture. And now I pity mine Enemy, being so beset that he cannot stir out of the Circle; which calls to mind the Observation of one of the ancient Fathers, 
Quid est miserius misero non miserante seipsum. S. Aug. Confess.  What is more miserable, than for a miserable Man not to commiserate himself. But still the Antipedobaptists object and say, The altering the placing of the words, 
An Obj.  inverts and discomposes the Method of the Holy Jesus' Commission, because that principally relates to the adult, and such as have entertained Christianity. answ. To which I make this Return, It shutteth not out little ones, as we have (I hope) abundantly proved. Let them produce any one single Instance in the whole Bible of the Infant of one that had received the Faith, either Jew or Christian, that was denied being baptised and tircumcised, and I think I may venture to give our Adversaries the Cause, tho' we find mention of such as had Mothers and 
2 Tim. 1.15.  Grandmothers. If we were to Preach unto perfect Infidels the same that Christ commissionated his holy Disciples to go unto, those that were adult before they embraced Christianity, we must first instruct them, and then Disciple them; which word in the Original the Antipedobaptists are very fond of; and yet I suppose, with due submission, I have made clear proof, that the true sense of it doth not in the least assist or strengthen their Principle: The phrase Discipling is the principal word in the Commission, and Baptising and Instruction the formal modification of the Commission; though if the words were otherwise placed, and Instruction in express words had preceded Baptism, their turn would not have been served thereby; for the Commission naming no Sex or Quality, neither for Age, nor on any other account, must necessarily take in whatsoever particulars can be comprehended under that Phrase; and the Antipedobaptists cannot possibly make a difference from the words themselves. Hereupon it is clearly evident, that if the blessed Jesus intended all Capacities, when he used the Phrase, all Nations, than it is all one as if he had declared all Capacities of Reasonable Being's, both as to Sex and Age, should be admitted unto Baptism, the sign of admission into his holy Gospel Covenant. Now that this General Commission takes in each several Capacity of Reasonable Being's, we will evidence from three things, (even the several Circumstances necessary to any Human Action) the Place where, the Time when, and the Parties concerned in the Action. (1.) The Place where: This Commission was not delivered out in any Foreign Country, but in the Land of Judea, where it is acknowledged by all Parties, that the Usage of admitting all sorts of Gentiles, that embraced the Jewish Religion unto Baptism was constantly practised. (2.) This Commission was delivered when the People of Israel were most strict and exact in the observation of their ancient Rites and Usages. (3.) This Commission was given out by our Messiah, born in Judea, to his immediate Followers and Attendants, his dear Friends, that were Natives of the same Country, and thereupon it is not in the least improbable, but that they well knew the constant and general Usages then transacted by the Jews. Now upon these Accounts it is evident, that Christ's Commission for Discipling all Nations was as genuine and clear, as if he had descended unto Particulars. For he that gave the Commission, and they unto whom it was granted, fully understood what Persons were capable of the Ordinance of Admission into his Holy Church; and hereupon an Universal Usage and an Universal Commission were most proportionable and correspondent to the Wisdom, Goodness, and Power of our Great Legislator. It was a constant and uninterrupted Usage with the Jewish People to admit unto Baptism whole Households (wherein we may reasonably suppose Men, Women, and Children contained) of Gentile Proselytes; so that it being the usage to leave none unbaptised, there was no necessity for a particular Order, or mentioning who should be baptised; so that if there were need of exempting any, we may well imagine the Holy Jesus would have excluded them; but we read of no such Exception in Holy Scripture: So that the Question ought to be thus stated, Whether Infants are prohibited Baptism, and in what Place, or at what Time? We appeal to all the Christian World, if this be the sense, as is most probable, whether the Commission is in the least obscure, or more obscurely published for Infants, than for those that are adult, can be no Exception, because no particulars are named. Three Thousand Converts are baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus. 
Acts 2.38, 41.  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Which no whit disagrees from the Command, 
St. Matth. 28.19.  Go you therefore, and teach all Nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. For the Form of Baptism in those first days of the Holy Gospel (of which the New Testament giveth the Story) may be considered under a threefold Condition. (1. St. John the Baptist baptised in the Name of Messiah, or Christ, that was then ready to come, but that Jesus of Nazareth was he, he himself knew not until he had run a great part of his Course; And I knew him not, 
St. Joh. 1.31.  but that he should be made manifest unto Israel, therefore am I come, baptising with water. (2.) The Holy Disciples baptised the Jews, baptising in the Name of Jesus for this reason, because the great Point of Controversy then in the Nation about the Messiah was, Whether Jesus of Nazareth were he, or no? All the Nations acknowledged a Messiah, but most of them abominated that Jesus of Nazareth should be thought to be he; therefore those that by the preaching of the Holy Gospel came to acknowledge him to be the Messiah were baptised in his Name, as the Critical Badge, (the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) or Characteristic Mark of their embracing the true Messiah. (3.) Among the Gentiles, where that Question was not on foot, they baptised in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; so that the baptising in the Name of Jesus was but for a season, for the settling of the Evidence of his being the Messiah. And when that was throughly established, than those Gifts ceased for ever. It is said, Acts 2.44. All that believed were together, and had all things common. The Children of those that believed must come under the Title of Believers too, or they must famish, (which affords no weak Argument, that the Parents Faith is imputed to the Child; and if for the use of the Body, why not for the service of the Soul, by an Argument [a minori ad majus] from the lesser to the greater?) For this Community of Goods being for the relief of the Poor, the Children, Babes and Infants of believing Parents must be taken in under this Expression, [All that believe] or else how did they for support? If the Community of Goods reached them as well as their Parents, the Title must reach them too. The Community of Goods may be considered under these two Animadversions, (which, because it may be useful, I hope will not be thought too impertinent a Digression). (1.) That altho' Persecution as yet for the Holy Gospel had brought none to poverty for the Holy Gospel's sake, for if they were poor before they received the Holy Gospel, than the Synagogue (of which they were) provided for them, but now they were destitute of that provision, they having forsaken the Synagogue, or at least the Synagogue them, because of their forsaking their Judaisme; for the Evangelic Church, that was now beginning to provide for her Poor, it had not only the Synagogue for an Example, but would have had it for a Reproach, if they had neglected so needful a Duty, which that took care for so conconstantly and tenderly. (2.) This having of all things common, therefore was not an Extinction of Propriety, [and of Meum & Tuum] as if one rich Man should have as good interest in another rich Man's Estate as himself, but it was intended mainly for the relief of the Poor, not to bring any that had Estates, to voluntary Poverty, nor to level Estates, (as some Fanatic People among us, the Fifth-monarchy-men, (whose Principle is Dominium fundatur in Gratia, Power is founded in Grace, and so the Saints must have the Riches, and Rule the People of the World) would persuade the World unto) but to relieve those which stood in need; for it is said, 
Acts 2.45.  that they sold their Possessions and Goods, and parted them to all Men, as every Man had need; and again we are told, they laid them down at the Holy Apostles Feet, 
Acts 4.35.  and distribution was made unto every Man, according as he had need. Distribution then, I say, was made to them that preached the Holy Word for their maintenance, and to the Poor for their relief. When a Master of a Family was baptised, his Children, were they never so young, were baptised with him; and hence the mention of the baptising whole Households, 
Acts. 16.15.  And when she was baptised, and her household, she besought us, saying, If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And, again, 
Acts 16.33.  he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptised straightway, he, and all his. They that, pleading against Infant-Baptism, 
An Obj.  do cavil, That it may be there were no Infants in those Families that are mentioned, bewray that they little understand the manner of administering Baptism in its first use; and therefore to give satisfaction to such of the Antipedobaptists as start this Objection, I answer; answ. The stress of the business lieth not in this, Whether it can be proved, that there were Infants in those Families where it is 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. This was the constant Custom among the Jews for admitting of Proselytes; and the New Testament giveth so little evidence of the altering this Custom at those first Baptizing under the Holy Gospel, that it plainly on the contrary shows the continuance of it, when it speaks of the Holy Apostles baptising whole Households.   

CHAP. XVI. An Answer to an Objection that would fore-undermine the Sense offered Acts 2.39.  
NOW that the Sense I have given of Acts 2.39. may be the better secured and confirmed, I will endeavour to answer an Objection made against it, 
A. R. in his Tract, called, The 2d. Part of the Vanity and Childishness of Infant-Baptism.  which may be of some seeming strength, until duly weighed and considered, and then I hope it will appear to be of no great force; and this I find to be started by an Ingenious Antipedobaptist, a Man of some Learning: And therefore that I may do the Party justice, 
An Obj.  I will state the Objection in his own words, that our Adversaries may see I deal fairly with them. He argues from the Coherence and Sense of the 15, 16, 17, and 33. Verses of Acts 2. and recites Vers. 38. And that by you and your Children, are meant the same which are mentioned, Vers. 17. under the term of Sons and Daughters. answ. To all which I answer, This cannot be the Sense so as to exclude Infants from Baptism, if they have a Right unto the Covenant (which the Holy Scripture seems plainly to assert, and hath been sufficiently, convincingly and undeniably proved by Learned Men, which may supersede any Attempt of mine to evince it, or make it plain and evident) because it was Repentance and Baptism, gave a Title to the Promise; and till they did Repent and Believe, i. e. Embrace the Holy Gospel, they had no Right to the Promise; for it is said, Repent, and be Baptised, and you shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost. But they were to be in Covenant by Repentance or Faith, before they enjoyed the Privileges of the Holy Gospel, and until then were in the same Case with them afar off, who were not in Covenant; and so had no right unto the Promise, until they did Repent or Believe. But here it may be further objected by the Antipedobaptists, 
An Obj.  that the gentile Converts of Cornelius' Family, had this Gift of the Holy Ghost antecedent unto Baptism, so that that was not necessary unto the Gift: 
Act. 10.44.  For it is said, While Peter spoke these words, the Holy Ghost fell upon all them which heard the word, i. e. that believed; and upon their hearing, St. Peter was convinced of the Truth of his Blessed Doctrine, and thereupon embraced the Faith of the Holy Jesus, and became Christians. So that the same Qualification that fitted them for the reception of the Holy Ghost, capacitated them for Baptism, as appears three Verses after, 
Act. 10.47.  Can any forbid Water that these should not be Baptised that have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? answ. To which I answer, Supposing the Promise to relate to the Gift of the Holy Ghost, it neither excludes the necessity of Baptism, nor Children from coming, or being brought to receive the benefit of that Holy Ordinance, 
Vid. ch. 8, 9 pag. 43. 51.  according to the rational and true Exposition we have already given of that Text, in this Book, to which I refer my Readers. But here, 
An Obj.  like the monstrous Hydra, another Objection springs up and arises. It's true, saith the Antipedobaptist, tho' we own by the Promise the Gift of the Holy Ghost, yet we do not believe that Gift excludes from Baptism, but we deny Baptism unto those that are not qualified, as those first Converts were, i. e. endued with the Gifts and Graces of Repentance and Faith. answ. This I acknowledge true in those Subjects that are capable of acting those Graces, but not necessary in those that have a natural, as well as moral incapacity to act those Graces, as the Case with Children is, because they are in Covenant, as hath been already declared and proved. And being Baptism is not the Covenant, but the Seal of the Covenant, he that is in Covenant hath a right to the Seal that ensures the Benefits and Privileges of the Covenant, by the same Rule and Reason as he that is the true Heir unto an Estate, hath a Right and Title unto the Instruments that convey that Estate. Moreover add to this, Children have one of these Graces, tho' not the other; and if one be sufficient, the other is not necessary; I mean Faith, which in some, and a true Sense, they may be said to have (otherwise the Blessed Jesus would not have cautioned Persons against offending little Ones that believe in him, 
Mat. 18.  by whom he meant small Children, as I hope we have made sufficiently to appear. 
Vid. ch. 7. p. 42, 43.  And that this was a true Faith, we may be assured not only because it was spoke by Truth itself, who would not therefore impose upon Mankind, but also because Christ is the proper Object of Faith, and him the Text expressly tells us, they believed in;) and for Repentance it is not indispensably necessary, which I shall thus endeavour to prove: I may say of Hatred as is usually said of Love [Ignoti nulla Cupido] for that which is unknown we have no Desire or Affection. So of Hatred the odiousness and deformity of that I am wholly ignorant of, I cannot properly be said to hate: Now before Hatred, there usually precedes Grief and Sorrow; and I cannot be said truly to lament or mourn for a Thing, if I understand not any loss or damage I thereby sustain. Now to apply this to our present Case, there may be a Sin pardoned in some Cases, and in some Persons without Repentance, as that word imports Grief and Sorrow, Detestation and Hatred, Dereliction and Forsaking; by all this I mean Original Sin of which Infants are guilty as well as the Adult Person, by the imputation and transmission of the Protoplast's or first Adam's Gild. Now Children by reason of their Infantile capacity are not allowed the ability of exercising these Passions, and cannot be said to be afflicted and grieved, to detest and hate, to abandon and forsake that which was not their own proper and voluntary Act. So that upon this Account, Repentance is not necessary for their state and condition, because of their Incapacity to act the proper parts of Repentance; and because they lie not under such a Personal Gild, as may be said in a more especial manner to be proper and peculiar to the exercise of some parts of Repentance. But for Faith, so far as it is necessary, that Children in some sense may be said to have it, as they have the Benefits of their Parent's Faith derived to them. But that Faith and Repentance are not always, and in all Cases indispensably necessary unto Baptism, may appear plainly from the Instance of the Holy Jesus [who was Nullius Poenitentiae Debtor] in him was no Gild, and so consequently no necessity of Repenting; there was was no necessity of Faith in him; For of Faith he was the Author and Finisher; as the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews acquaints us, 
Heb. 12.2.  and yet he submitted to St. John's Baptism, which was in order to Repentance, and therefore called the Baptism of Repentance; and hereupon it is that Faith and Repentance are not always absolutely and indispensably needful to the being baptised. And this may sufficiently solve an Objection lately made to me against Infant Baptism, 
An Obj.  by an Antipedobaptist, from our excellent Church Catechism, (who promised me, upon conviction, to return to our Church, which Promise he is obliged in Conscience to perform, if he give not a Rational Answer to what I have said, and shall offer, for the solution of this seeming Difficulty.) What is required of Persons to be baptised? Repentance, whereby they forsake Sin; and Faith, whereby they steadfastly believe the Promises of God made unto them in that Sacrament. answ. That is, (for answer hereunto) Those that are baptised, when adult, are indispensably obliged thereunto; and Infants when they come to years of discretion, and thus our Church Catechism expounds her sense, which Promise (or Graces) Children, when they come unto Age, are bound to perform. It is a good Rule in the Civil Law, [Nemo tenetur ad Impossibile,] No Man is obliged unto the performance of that which is impossible to be done by any human power. And then we cannot believe, that he who is the God of Reason, as well as Truth, will oblige his Creature to a Duty, which he is not able to perform by any Powers he hath created him with; and suppose God should infuse into a Child an extraordinary and miraculous measure of Grace as well as Reason, as he did into our blessed Saviour and St. John the Baptist, who were sanctified from, or in the Womb; yet we read not (tho' they had so great a proportion of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit) that during the state of their infancy they magnified God, and spoke with Tongues, (antecedent to the use of Speech) the manifestation of which Miraculous Power, and the discovery of which Divine Gift, the Jews at the Feast of Pentecost, 
Acts 2.4, 8, 11.— 10.46.  and the first Gentile Converts showed. But to return, Tho' these Graces are not needful to all in all circumstances, for where there is not a capacity to act them, there can be no obligation to their exercise; yet that the Children of Believers have a right to the Covenant as soon as born, and so have a right to the Seal that conveys the Title, and are obliged to its Use, if they will enjoy the Privileges of the Covenant, I hope, hath been made appear beyond contradiction, yet they are needful for some that are admitted unto that Holy Ordinance; and this Distinction ought to be well understood and weighed. If Baptism be allowed to those, who have not the proper Qualifications, than those Qualifications are not absolutely needful unto the Undertakers of that Holy Ordinance; Faith is sometimes needful, when Repentance is not so; sometimes Faith and Repentance conjoined, and otherwise sometimes. 
Acts 8.37.  When St. Philip admitted the Ethiopian Eunuch to Baptism, he only enjoined Faith, 
— 2.41, 38.  not Repentance; St. Peter, when he made three thousand Converts at his first Sermon, enjoined Repentance only. In short, It is as the condition is, or the needs of the Party require. In Infants, the matter is plain as to Repentance, the non-performance whereof cannot hinder their being baptised; because they (having committed no sin) are not obliged unto the Duty; and yet this is as needful for being baptised as Faith: So that this evidences they are not absolutely needful, not to all, not to Children, but only accidentally so; and if they may be baptised, if they want one, why not if they want the other, is a Mystery that will not (nay, I am inclined to believe, cannot) be discovered by those that (because they think the contrary) are engaged to make the Revelation. Besides, I add, Actual Faith is needful not to the undertaking, but to the subsequent Products of that Holy Ordinance; because the first Planters of Christianity admitted some (tho' adult) to Baptism, who had no Faith, but were only formal Professors, and of this sort were Simon Magus, Alexander the Coppersmith, Demas, and Diotrephes, and Judas, (if baptised) and also the Gnostic Heretics: For the Effect is from the Searcher of Hearts, who knows our secret thoughts, but the External Ordinance may be performed and undertaken by those who know not such Secrets. And this is a clear Proof, that that Faith which is needful to the product of the Holy Ordinance, is not needful to its undertaking; and if formal Professors may be partakers of it, much more Children; if to such as actually impede or hinder the product, much rather to them that do not so. If it be objected by the Antipedobaptists, 
An Obj.  The Church cannot tell but that those that say they have Faith may have it, but she certainly knows Children have not. I answer, answ. The Church cannot tell but Hypocrites stop the Product, and oppose the Grace of Baptism, but she can tell Children do not, nor can make hindrance or opposition; there is a possibility one may partake of the Grace, but the second cannot stop its effects. Moreover, Children have Faith, because they believe in the Holy Jesus, 
St. Matth. 18.6. St. Mark 9.42.  as we are told in Sacred Scripture, in express words, recorded by two Evangelists, if one be not enough, (And that this is a satisfactory and sufficient Proof, the Holy Scriptures do assure us, when they tell us, 
St. Joh. 8.17.  that the Testimony of two Men is true;) and this witness and evidence (it appears) we have for the truth of this Doctrine, that Children have Faith; and that this their Faith was true, sound, and such as God will accept, we may with good reason believe, because he that is truth, and will not therefore deceive us, doth seem so to assure us, 
Vid. pag. 89.  (as we have already made appear in this Chapter) Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me; and therefore fit for his Blessing, which is Divine. The exercise of our understanding is no more necessary to make us fit for Grace than for Reason; but we have seeds of Reason congenite and innate, antecedent to the exercise of our understandings, otherwise there would be no distinction between a Rational Creature and a Brute, when first produced into being and brought to light. Sparks and Seeds then of Reason there may be, to use the words of the great African Father, 
Per Infantis animan non ubi ratio nulla erat. sed ubi adhuc sopita erat. St. Aug. Ep 23. add Bonifac.  The Soul of an Infant hath Reason, but as yet not capable of use, like Fire raked together in the Embers. So likewise there is a possibility of Grace being infused by the Divine Spirit, as is clear in the forequoted Instance of the blessed Jesus, and his [Praecursor, or] Forerunner, St. John the Baptist, who were sanctified in or from the Womb. Or else they may be said to believe by the Faith of those that present them unto the Holy Ordinance in the Sacred Place; 
Fide gestantium. Idem ibidem.  For to this I may add, the Child hath the Faith of the Parent imputed to it, and that the Faith of the Parent is imputable to the Child, and available for great purposes, is apparent, because we read in the Holy Gospel, That the Blessed Jesus makes the Faith of the Parent necessary unto the Healing of the Child. From whence I argue thus, That if the Faith of the Parent may be imputed for the recovering of the Bodily Diseases, why may not the same be imputed for the curing the Distempers of the Soul, I mean Sin? And is it not as reasonable, that seeing the Gild of another's Sin is imputed to us to make us miserable, the Faith of another should be conveyed and made over to us, to qualify and fit us for a participation in such an Ordinance as should procure our Pardon, and deliver us from our Gild, and thereby make us Happy, which is done by being washed in the Laver of Baptism, which is called by St. Paul, 
Titus 3.5.  [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] the Washing or Laver of Regeneration. And this is a proper Term, it being rational, that we, who have the imputation of our Forefathers guilt, should have an imputation of our Father's faith, to bathe us in that Fonntain, that was set open to wash away the defilement of such an imputed Gild and Uncleanness. And that there is reason for such an Imputation, may appear from the relation Children have to their Father, which is that of Members with the Head, and of Parts with the Whole, the Father and Son, both in Holy Writ and Customary Usage, (upon some Accounts) being taken for one. Hereupon the Covenant made with the Protoplast, or first Man, was transmitted unto his Posterity, and the Deluge, or Noah's Flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the perishing of the Rebels in the gainsaying of Core, 
St. Judas 11.  included Infants, as well as the adult and fullgrown. Now Reason as well as Religion in this matter, requireth help for Children; for if the Son be reckoned one with his Father, and so obnoxious to punishment, without any acting by the consent of his own will, solely by the transmission of his Father's guilt, certainly then, when the Father is one of the Faithful, they ought so far to be reckoned one with him, as upon that account to receive some advantage, and so to be allowed an Imputation of the Father's Faith, which may render them fit for a reception of the Benefits of the Covenant, and the Seal that ensures them. Hereupon the Covenant given to Abraham is the same with that transacted with Adam; 
Gen 17.7.  I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting Covenant, to be a God unto thee, and unto thy seed after thee. But here the Antipedobaptists object, 
An Obj.  That this Covenant is not the Holy Gospel-Covenant, but the Jewish Covenant made with Abraham; because it is said, a Covenant between me and thy Seed, and this Covenant to continue to him and his Seed after him, and that in their Generations, i.e. in the Generations begotten by his Seed. I have thus strongly stated the Objection, that the Antipedobaptists may see I deal fairly with them, and give their Argument all the strength it can have, and possibly more than some of them would or could afford it. 
Answ.  But (for Answer hereunto) if you will allow St. Paul to understand this Text, (which I believe he did as well and better than any Antipedobaptist in England) he in express terms makes this Covenant with Abraham to be the Holy Gospel itself, and then it must needs be the Holy Gospel-Covenant; 
Gal. 3.8.  and the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Heathen through Faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, 
Gen. 12. ●.  in thee shall all Nations be blessed; which is a Quotation from the Book of Genesis, which must needs be more extensive than the Covenant to Abraham and his carnal Seed, the Posterity of the Jews, which was so small a part, that it could not include all the Families of the Earth, and comprehend all Nations. And therefore Abraham's Covenant must certainly be the same with the Holy Gospel-Covenant, because it was that which was to be published to all the World, and take in all Mankind. But if any Antipedobaptist shall object and say, 
An Obj.  The Covenant made with Abraham when Circumcision was instituted, is not the same with the Gospel St. Paul mentions in his forecited Epistle, because that is a Quotation from Gen. xij. 3. To which I answer, It is the same Covenant, because God saith, I will establish my Covenant between me and thee; so that it plainly signifies, it was the Confirmation of a former Covenant, not the Institution of a new one; and that this is true, may appear by the Coherence, for it is said but three Verses before, As for me, behold my Covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a Father of many Nations; or, as the Original, and the Margin of the Bible hath it, 
Gen. xvij. 4.  Thou shalt be Father of a multitude of Nations; which Abraham could not be as a Father of the Jewish People, Jewry being so small a Continent of the Earth, and so little a Part of the World, that it could not comprehend a multitude of Nations. So that by virtue of this Covenant, Abraham was to be considered, as the Father of all Christians, as well as Jews, being the Holy Jesus, that was to be an Universal Saviour, for the whole World proceeded, and came forth from his Loins. Hereupon we may strongly press home St. 
Rom. v. 12.  Paul's Argument, and say, Because the Blessed Jesus and his Holy Dispensation convey a greater measure of Divine Assistance, and promise higher Rewards than the Protoplasts, or first Adam's Fall did Evil and Punishment; If the Parent's Gild be transmitted unto Father and Son for Death and Condemnation, both shall have interest in the favour of the Holy Jesus, the first unto Justification and Life, the second so far as to take him into the Covenant, and consequently by the sign thereof to give him a right and title unto the Benefits and Advantages of the Covenant. So that we may declare the Holy Apostle's words and say, 
Acts x. 47.  Can any forbid Water, that these should not be baptised? Which St. Peter spoke not only because the Gift of the Holy Ghost was fallen upon them, but because that Gift was a Proof of their Title to the Covenant; and if by any different method a Man can prove his Title to the Covenant, he hath a Right to the Sign that ensures the Benefits thereof. And therefore being the Holy Gospel-Covenant now preached is the same with that made unto Abraham, is there not a true consequential Implication, that the same Privilege is now to be enjoyed that was under the former old Oeconomy or Dispensation, viz. That upon the account of the Faith of the Principal of the House, each of that House that did not contradict or gainsay was included, and by Sign admitted in Covenant? And if this be not allowed, Christian Doctrine will be very hard, and there may seem a sort of Impeachment to lie against the Divine Justice; for by the Protoplast's, or first Man's Fall, Sin imputed was enough to damn the Child; and shall not the Father's Faith in the Blessed Jesus and his New Dispensation be available so far as to put him into a state of salvation? Now that the Promise is imputed to the Children, may appear, Because, (1.) The first thing in every sort is the Rule for the rest, that are consequent upon it; but to Abraham, as the prime Guardian, the Holy Gospel-Covenant was given, and the Sign of it applied to Infants; hereupon the same must be to all that believe, and their Offspring. For all that believe shall inherit the Promise, and be Heirs as well as the Father of the faithful. This St. Paul speaketh clearly in express words; 
Gal. iij. 29.  And if you be Christ's, then are you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (2.) That which was granted to Abraham was not a particular Privilege to him alone, or to his People, the Jews, but it was the Holy Gospel-Covenant, that all Nations were to be interested in, and concerned with; what it was to Abraham, it was to be unto the whole Race of Mankind, and therefore called a Covenant of Grace, as may appear by the forequoted place of the Holy Apostle St. 
— 8.  Paul; and from St. Matthew we are assured, 
St. Matth. viij. 2.  that the Heathen World shall sit down in the Kingdom of Heaven, as equal unto Abraham, 
Eph. ij. 19  because they are fellow Citizens with the Saints, and of the Household of God. Now the Covenant made with Abraham, included Father and Son, as I have (I hope) proved, and upon this account, possibly, it might be the Holy Jesus called the Chief of the Publicans a Son of Abraham, 
St. Luke nineteen. 9  and so consequently a Son of God; for it was usual to call the People that worshipped any God, the Children of that God, whether the God they worshipped were true or false. 
Mal. ij. 2.  Now that there is a necessity of Baptism, this Consideration may prove it, That Children as soon as born (by reason of Adam's transgression) are under the Sentence of Death and Damnation, except secured from it, even while Children; if they die without (according to any outward means yet revealed) they cannot ordinarily be happy; and except this be cleared, the Fathers can have little comfort in them. Now there is no other Method appointed by Heaven for the Pardoning and Purging of Gild, but the Blood of Jesus, and the Covenant that Blood gives a Title unto; and there is no other external [Medium, or] Means discovered to us by God to make this Blood so efficacious as to procure us pardon and peace, but only the being baptised. St. Paul tells us, that those that are baptised into Jesus Christ, are baptised into his Death. 
Rom. uj 3.  So that if we are not cleansed by this external Baptism, supposing the neglect to be with our own consent, (which cannot be the condition of Children) we have no interest in his Merits. When we thus declare, we intent only the external, common, appointed Means of Salvation. The Holy Ordinance of Baptism is the Instrument that sues out and purchases, through Christ's Blood, a Pardon to ourselves and our Infants. 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. But now to return to a more particular defence of Acts ij. 39 Besides, this particular and express Gift of the Holy Ghost was only in the infancy of the Church, and then that Gift was indispensably necessary to enable the Blessed Apostles to perform the Holy Jesus' Commission, which he gave to them presently after his Miraculous Resurrection, and not long before his Illustrious Ascension unto the Mansions of Glory, which was to teach and publish his Holy Gospel to all Nations, which they could not do without this Gift of Tongues; because they knowing no more than their own Native Language, had been Barbarians to a great part of the Gentile World, and therefore could not have spoken so intelligibly as to be understood; and this appears by the effusion of the Holy Ghost on the first Jewish Converts in this Chapter, and upon those of the Gentile World, as appears eight Chapters after this, 
Acts x. 46.  they heard them speak with Tongues, and magnify God, which Children were incapable of, not being arrived to the use of Reason or Speech, which might be for the greater encouragement of the Gentiles, because the Holy Gospel-state assures a more plentiful effusion of the Holy Spirit than the weaker Oeconomy or Dispensation of the Law. Besides, seeing the Antipedobaptists object and say, Infants are excluded from Baptism by this Text, 
An Obj.  because this Gift refers to Sons and Daughters, mentioned Verse 17. To which I do answer, 
Answ.  I may say Children are not excluded for a like reason; because Sons and Daughters may in reason be supposed to mean more adult and fullgrown persons, and because this Promise referring to the Gift of Tongues, could not belong unto Children capable of Baptism; for they had not the use of Speech. Infused Habits must suppose the Subject capable of them, or by the Infusion render them so; as in this Instance of the Gift of Tongues, when it is supernaturally infused, it must either suppose the Subject predisposed with understanding, or must make him so by that Infusion. Now we read not where, that this Gift of Tongues was bestowed, but it found the Subject predisposed with understanding; for upon all, on whom this Gift was conferred, it is said they spoke with Tongues, 
Acts ij. 4, 6, 8, 11.— x. 46.  i. e. in different Languages, which we never yet read, or heard any Infant-childrens did, which evidences beyond denial, to you and to your Children, must be meant of Sons and Daughters, that were adult and of fullgrown Years. Lastly, I may urge this descent of the Holy Ghost, was the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, and of Fire, prophesied of and foresignified by S. John the Baptist, 
St. Matth. iij. 2. St. Luke iij. 16.  and that he who was [Praecursor Christi,] the Forerunner of the Messiah, should be the Minister of, and dispense and deal forth to the World; and this may appear true, because when St. Luke describes this Advent, or Coming of the Holy Ghost, he tells us he descended in cloven Tongues, like as of Fire, i. e. having a resemblance like unto Fire; 
Acts ij. 3. St. Mark 1.8.  and this St. Mark calls expressly the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. And this doth not vacate or make void the other Baptism of Water, because St. Peter makes it the assurance of the Messiah's Baptism, 
Acts ij. 38.  Repent and be baptised every one of you, in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the Remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 
An Obj.  And tho' it is objected and said by the Antipedobaptists, answ. that the Gentiles had this Gift before Baptism; Yet in answer hereunto, they had the Grace of Faith, that qualified them for Baptism; because the Holy Ghost fell upon all them that heard the Word, i. e. by Faith embraced and received it, and yet this doth not exclude Infants from Baptism, as appears from the reason already offered. To all this, let me add in short, what is meant by the Promise as recorded by Joel, and cited by the Text; and it is double, (1.) The Pardon of Iniquity, (2.) The Gift of the Divine Spirit, whereby was not always intended a miraculous Gift, but the comfort and support of the Divine Spirit in their Souls, by his Holy Inspirations and Breathe, 
1 Cor. xij. 29, 30.  his powerful Aid and Assistance; for it is clear by St. Paul, the Gift of Miracles was not imparted to some, and the Kingdom of God, or Grace, that good Christians enjoy in this World, 
Rom. xiv. ●. 6.  consists in Righteousness, and Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost; and that these very persons had this Communication of the Holy Spirit, appears at the latter end of this Chapter, for this reason, 
Acts ij. 46.  Because they did eat their Meat with gladness and singleness of Heart. And further, Another Communication of the Holy Spirit they had, in that they were willing to leave their Possessions, and deliver them to be disposed of as the Holy Apostles thought most useful for the good and benefit of the Church; 
— iv. 34.  which were clear and great Testimonies, that the Divine Spirit resided and dwelled in their Souls. I know a great and learned Man saith he will not defend the Arguments from this Text, because he thinks it inconcludent, for this reason, because he believes the word Children, there used, is really the Posterity of the Jews, and not their Infant-childrens. And I believe so too: And yet, with deference to my Superiors, and with submission unto better Judgements, I take the Argument to be concluding upon this account, because it would be a great Incentive to encourage the propagating Christianity, and a Motive to both Jews and Gentiles, to embrace and come in and own themselves Professors of the Holy Gospel, and Disciples of the Blessed Jesus. And it is very probable, in his first Sermon, St. Peter would use the most prevailing Argument with the Jews, that he might remove the Prejudice that lay upon their Hearts, to hinder them from believing in a crucified Saviour; and it is not improbable his numerous Auditors understood him in this sense, because we read in the latter part of this Chapter, the same day were added to the Church about three thousand Souls: 
Acts ij. 41.  So that when St. Peter saith, the Promise is to you, and unto your Children, it is as much as if he had said these words, O you Jews, that now hear me, if you will repent, and be baptised, you, and your Posterity, and the Children of you, and your Posterity, if you will repent, i. e. own your Gild, in crucifying the Lord of Life and Glory, and embrace his Holy Gospel, and live according to the Rules thereof, and be baptised, i. e. receive the Sign of Admission into the New Covenant of Grace, you and your Children shall have the same Privilege you had in your own Dispensation under the Law, i. e. your Children shall be in Covenant, as well as yourselves, and equally with you be admitted to the Sign of the Covenant, Baptism, as your Children are now admitted to Circumcision, the Sign of the antiquated Covenant in your way; and this might be a great Argument to the Gentiles to become Christians, because they should not only enjoy the same Privilege as the Jew, if one of their Proselytes, but much greater by being a Disciple of the Blessed Jesus; as much greater as the Holy Gospel did exceed the Law, as appears by St. Paul's Argument. But if the Ministration of Death, or the Law written and engraven in Stones was glorious, so that the Children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the Face of Moses, for the Glory of his Countenace, which Glory was to be done away, how shall not the Ministration of the Spirit or Gospel be rather glorious? For if the Ministration of Condemnation, or the Law, be Glory, much more doth the Ministration of Righteousness or the Gospel exceed in Glory; for even that which was made glorious, or the Law, had no Glory in this respect, by reason of the Glory or Gospel that excelleth; for if that which was done away, or the Law was glorious, much more that which remaineth, 
2 Cor. iij. 7.— 12.  or the Gospel is glorious. Thus, I hope, I may say, without assuming or taking too much to myself, I have rescued this Text from the Antipedobaptists Objections, and drawn a concluding Argument from it for Infant-Baptism; but because the Reverend Dr. Hammond thinks he hath founded the Practice upon a better Basis, give me leave to mention it, because it will corroborate and confirm what I have said, and when I shall have answered the Objections brought against the other place of Holy Scripture, I hope I shall for ever silence the Objections of any Antipedobaptist from Holy Writ, from having any influence or prevalency on unprejudiced minds, that love Truth better than Interest, and had rather comply with the Sacred institutions of the Holy Jesus, than carry on and promote any Faction against him and his Holy Religion. The Argument is this, Baptism, or Washing, was a known Rite, solemnly used among the Jews (as it is now among Christians) for the initiating or entering Jews and Proselytes into the Covenant of the Lord, and so into the Congregation of the Jews, as among us it is into the New Covenant, and into the Church of Christ. Many Branches of that Custom there were, I shall briefly gather them together, and farther testify the truth of those Affirmations, which any way seem questionable to any. (1.) Baptism, or Washing the whole Body, was a Jewish Solemnity, by which the Native Jews were entered into the Covenant of God made with them by Moses. This that learned Doctor makes appear by several Quotations from their great Rabbins, and tells us, nothing can be more clearly affirmed by them. (2.) As the Native Jews were thus entered into Covenant by Baptism, so the Proselytes of the Jews that were taken in as proselytes of Justice or Righteousness, as professing or undertaking all their Law, (and not only as Proselytes of the Gate to live among them) were received into their Church by Baptism likewise. This also the same excellent Doctor proves by several Authorities and Testimonies of their learned Men in all Ages, whensoever any Gentile was willing to enter into Covenant, and to be gathered under the Wings of the [Schecinah, or] Divine Majesty, and to undertake the Yoke of the Law, he was bound to have Baptism, Circumcision, and a Peace-Offering; and if it were a Woman, Baptism and Sacrifice. And again, the stranger that is circumcised, and not baptised; or baptised, and not circumcised, 
Arrianus in Epictet. l. 2. c. 9  is not a true Proselyte until he be both. A clear Testimony we have of this in Arrianus, the Stoic Philosopher, where the Jewish Proselyte is by him called [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Dipped; and he that is so only in show, not indeed, is termed [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] a counterfeit baptised Person. So that it is observable, that the Baptism of the Native Jews, was the Pattern by which the Baptism of the Proselytes was regulated, and wherein it was founded. By all this it appears how little needful it will be to defend the Baptism of Christians from the Law of circumcising Infants among the Jews, the Foundation being far more fitly laid in that other of Jewish Baptism, a Ceremony of Initiation or Entrance for all, (especially for Proselytes, who were by Water to be cleansed from the Pollutions and Defilements of Heatherism, before they were to be admitted into Covenant, by the Token, thereof, Circumcision) as well as that of Circumcision; and whereas that of Circumcision belonged only to one, the other was common to both Sexes; and yet from that Example of Circumcision, among them, thus much must needs be gained to our present Design, that the Child's not being able to understand the Vow of Baptism, doth no way prejudice the baptising of such, for if it did, it must necessarily be an Objection against circumcising the Jewish Child at eight days old, who could then no more understand the Covenant, of which that was made the Sign, nor the Wickedness that the Eutrance into the Covenant obliged to abstain from, than the Christian-Infant now can, and yet (under pain of Excision, or cutting off) was commanded to be circumcised, which being so far vindicated from being unreasonable and incongruous, 
Vid. Dr. Hammond's Resolution of Six Queries, (whereof Infant-Baptismis one), p. 179,— 181, & p. 189, 190.  by the Example of Circumcision, (which is alallowed by all Dissenters) there will be little ground to fear the Objections from Reason, or upon that score, to doubt of the Practice of that which is so reasonable, when it hath, besides this, the Example of Baptism among the Jews, (from which it is immediately deduced) so adequately proportionable, and directly parallel unto it. And here I shall found Christian-Baptism, rather than in Circumcision; but if any shall overthrow the Argument commonly taken from Circumcision, my Return is, That it may be made use of by the Rule of Proportion, and tho' it may not directly prove, yet it clearly illustrates the truth; for, 
Argumenta symbolica sunt magis illustrantia, quam probativa.  according to the excellent Lord Bacon's observation, such Arguments do rather illustrate than prove. Yet it may be reasonably inferred from the Judgement of Heaven, (in a Case exactly like) that such may be admitted in a Sacramental way, to be partakers of a Covenant, who do not, at their admission into it, clearly apprehend the terms of it, as is evident in the circumcising of the Infant. Now against this Account of Circumcision, the Antipedobaptists Argument or Objection infers, 
An Obj.  and proves nothing, As that Types infer nothing, unless a Precept attend them, answ. or the signification of something that hath such a tendency. To which I return, I do not say, Circumcision is a Type of Baptism, nor do I infer any thing from it; Baptism was substituted instead of Circumcision, not as the Antitype comes in the room of the Type, but as one established Appointment comes in after a former, that is disused and laid aside; and this is needful Men should be acquainted with, because the Antipedobaptists would weaken the strength of some Reasons, which, without the allowance of this Hypothesis, or Supposition, are not easily answered by objecting and affirming, 
An Obj.  that the Circumcision used in Abraham's and Moses' days, was a Type of the Sacrament used in Holy Gospel-times. Now, to evidence, that the Jewish Sacrament of Admission, was not a Type of the Holy Gospel one, we must (by way of Answer) observe (if we will speak pertinently) there was a like distinction between the thing typifying, answ. and what was typified, as between a living person, and his resemblance drawn with a Pencil that what was substantial in the Antytipe, and of a true force, virtue, and value, was usually, by way of representation in the Type, and did prefigure somewhat which did in an higher and more exalted Sense appertain to the Antitype, than to itself. Accordingly the Mosaic Offerings that had a tendency to cleanse the outward Man, were but weak Representing of the more powerful force, and greater value of the Blood of the Holy Jesus, the Sacrifice of whose Blood was of such great Efficacy, (as the Author to the Hebrews tells us) that it was able to purge the Conscience from dead Works to serve the living God. 
Heb. ix. 14.  But it is not thus with the Old and New Sacrament, because the former had not such a Resemblance unto the latter, nor any thing the same with it, which doth not as truly appertain to it, as to Baptism. Is Baptism an Ordinance of Admission into the New Covenant of Grace in our times? So was Circumcision in the days of Abraham and Moses. 
Rom. iv. ij.  Is not Baptism what St. Paul calls Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith? So that what Baptism doth now, Circumcision did then; Circumcision was then a Sacrament, as well as Baptism is now; the one did as truly admit Members into the Covenant, as the other did. Moreover if we look back unto the first rise of baptising, as a Mosaic appointment, we shall be satisfied Circumcision could not be a Type thereof: Because a Type in its genuine Notion is a representation, or a prefiguring of somewhat that is to come. A Type, so far as that word hath a Theological Sense or Divine Acceptation, 
Typas quatenus vox ista sensum habet Theologicum ita definiri posse videtur, ut sit futuri a●icujus symbolum, aut exemplum ita a Deo comparatum, ut ipsius plane institutio futurum illud praefiguret, quod autem ita praefiguraturillud Antitypus dici solet. Outramus de Sacrificijs, l. 1. v. 18.  may seem thus to be defined, That it is a certain representation of something future, or a resemblance ordained by God, that by his institution and appointment should plainly prefigure something future, or to come: What is so prefigured, is that which is wont to be called the Antitype. But baptising was an institution or appointment under Moses' Dispensation, and therefore Circumcision could not be a Type and Representation of it; because it was for some Ages administered at the same time therewith: I allow Circumcision to be a Divine Institution, a Rite of entering Jews and their Infants into Abraham's Covenant: And I allow Baptism in this to be the like, by a correspondency therewith of entering us into the Holy Gospel-Covenant; that it is a Rite of Entrance for the Proselytes of Christians and their Infants into the Covenant of Grace, not after the way of Circumcision, but the Jewish Baptisms. For the making out of which Principle, if I had only the proof of the Circumcision of the Infants of the Jews, and the concurrent usage of the first Planters of Christianity and their Successors, in the early times of the Church that followed their Example, I should not infer it from the Jews circumcising Children; because tho' by the instance of circumcising Children under the old Law, it hath been defended from several Objections brought to disprove it; Yet I understand there is not a proper and infallible Consequence, that whatsoever is not Irrational must instantly be; that a thing is therefore true, because a possibility it may be so, according to the old Logical Maxim [Ab esse ad posse non valet Consequentia; or,] that what is allowed must therefore have an Institution. 
An Obj.  But when the Antipedobaptists object and allege, That tho' there be a correspondency of Analogy between Circumcision and Baptism, yet is there no correspondency of Identity. Tho' (by way of Answer) I own with the Learned Dr. Hammond, 
Answ.  I know not the Sense of this latter Term, and therefore understand not why they use it; yet I own the agreeableness doth not suit with all Circumstances, especially in one particular; because I find Females were not, nor could be circumcised (there being no Foreskin, of which there could be an abscission) which is no more an Objection against Christian Baptism, than the Jewish one. I think it fit to fix the agreeableness, where there is greater reason for it; and seeing, as the Author to the Hebrews saith, He tasted death for every Man, 
Heb. ij. 9  it was fit that he, who upon that account was an universal Saviour for all Mankind, should make choice of such a Sacrament of admission into his Church, as should be correspondent with, and agreeable unto both the Sexes. 
An Obj.  But under this Head I meet with another Objection of the Antipedobaptists, which I am very willing to remove. They seem to offer an Argument why circumcising should be more proper for Infants than baptising them; because Circumcision left a Character in the Flesh, which being impressed on Children did its work, when they were Adult, and baptising left no remanent Character. But (in Answer hereto) this hath no force, 
Answ.  if we lay the Foundation of the Christian Sacrament in that which was used to Jewish Proselytes, which had no outward Mark on the Body (for Water being fluid, though it hath a Dew, leaves no Impression or Sign, but what is immediately transient) and not in Circumcision which hath; yet I will not wholly neglect it, but if it be of any seeming strength, own it to be allowed in some measure against our Principles; but in truth I believe it hath not; for though there be a small distinction in reference to Circumcision and Baptism, the first Maims, the second Cleanses; the first Hurts, the second Washes only; yet that Objection is of no great strength in this concern; for upon different Accounts (but solely in respect of the Infants) in regard of God and the Assembly, there is nothing that differs; for in regard of both, both are alike Signs of the Covenant. And whereas it differs in regard of the Infant, sure it is that at the season of Administration it signifies not at all; because then the Child hath not the power or faculty of understanding the Character; and that he knows when he becomes Adult, arises from Teaching and Discipline: For the Character imprinted, when he is circumcised hath no signification by Nature, but only by the will of him that appoints it, or because it is instituted; else Ishmael was in Confederation and Covenant with God, as well as Isaac, and consequently the Infant can never know it by the force of natural Principles, but as he is taught when he is at Age, how he was used in his Infancy, and the reason of it; and therefore the Law that enjoined Circumcision, enjoined Instruction; and of that the Christian that hath Baptism, when a Child, is as capable as a Jewish Child that hath Circumcision in its Infancy; and the diligence of the Church may be as exact in our days, as the care was great in the Synagogue formerly. 
An Obj.  As for the Objection the Antipedobaptists make, That Christ baptised none: I Answer thereunto, 
Answ.  That will hold against baptising at all; for the Text is clear, Christ baptised not, but his Disciples. 
St. John iv. 2.  (1.) The negative Argument holds on our side, that his Holy Disciples (so far as we can know) never denied the baptising any. (Nor is it like they would, when they were once reproved for doing something of such a Nature, as you may read in the Holy Gospel) as it can be reasonably supposed they did not Baptise any, 
St. Mark x. 14.  but indeed neither is conclusive. However (2.) That in the Holy Apostolic Age, Infants did receive Baptism is more than probable by the Sense we have given of 1 Cor. seven. 14. and then there will be no imaginable ground left, but that the Holy Apostles did administer Baptism unto such, or at least (which is much the same) did well like it; and by such their approbation did strengthen the same: And that we may confirm the Sense we have given of that Text of Holy Scripture, and prove, and make appear, that what we offered is its true and proper meaning, we come with our endeavours to give a satisfactory Answer unto the strongest Objection that ever was started by the most Learned of the Antipedobaptists, or any of the Adverse Party.   

CHAP. XVII. An Answer to an Objection that would overturn the Sense delivered of 1 Cor. seven. 14.  
THE same Ingenious Antipedobaptist makes this Objection to the Sense we have given of 1 Cor. seven. 14. 
An Obj.  That the word Holy, there used, is only such an Holiness as is opposite to some kind of Uncleanness, which (saith he) I take to be this, as if when they are said to be Holy, it is no more than to say they are not Unclean, viz. no Bastards. To which I answer, If 1 Cor. seven. 14. 
Answ.  may seem rationally to be interpreted of Matrimonial Legitimacy, and thereby a Privilege of freeing from Bastardy, then [a fortiorl] with more strength it may signify a federal Holiness, that gives them a Title unto the Sign of the Covenant, and thereby makes them the Legimate Sons of Heaven by Adoption, which is a greater Privilege than a Matrimonial Legitimacy; and this might be a greater Motive unto the Gentile World to be proselyted to Christianity, as much as the Spiritual Legitimacy is to be preferred before the Matrimonial one, and the Holy Scripture is to be taken in the more favourable and exalted sense, rather than in an inferior or subordinate one; and besides this is agreeable to the Jewish Custom, where when any married to an Heathen, the Male-childrens after such a Marriage were circumcised, (whether the Children were born before or after such a Marriage) which caused the Holy Apostle, in allusion thereto, to use that Phrase of Baptising whole Households (which makes the Argument concluding, whether there were any Children in those Families mentioned or no) by virtue of one of the Parents Faith. And without the allowance of this sense, it is impossible to (come to the right interpretation of this and many other places of Holy Scripture in the New Testament. Add to all this, that tho' this Hypothesis, or seemingly fair Principle of the Matrimonial Legitimacy, may seem plausible to the inconsiderate Many, yet it cannot be a true Interpretation, as will appear unto any judicious considering person, for this reason, because it offereth no greater encouragement to the Gentile to become Christian, than what he enjoyed in his Heathen state. For I doubt not but it may be proved from several Testimonies taken from the Authorities of good Classic Authors among the Greek and Roman Writers, that where a Man or Woman were lawfully married, according unto the Rites and Customs of their several Countries, their Children were legitimate, and if that should be the sense, they might be Holy in their Heathen state, which may seem to be [contradictio in adjecto] (to use the Logicians Phrase) the highest absurdity being a contradiction in terms; whereas our Interpretation offereth a considerable Privilege, so far that it cannot be interpreted of a Matrimonial Legitimacy, as is evident by Ver. 16. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband; or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? Which shows, that the preceding Coherence cannot contradict the subsequent Connexion; and the Holy Apostle, doubtless, would not have said this, if his meaning in the 14th Verse, had carried only the sense of a Matrimonial Legitimacy, to free the married Couple from the great and crying guilt of Adultery 
* And this may be a sufficient Answer to the two Objections started against Acts ij. 39 and 1 Cor. seven. 14. by A. R. in his Tract, called, The Second Part of the Vanity and Childishness of Infant-Baptism, Printed May 3. 1642. .  
And truly I was the better satisfied with the account my thoughts suggested of this Text, when I found it supported by the concurrent Judgement of the very reverend and most learned Dr. Hammond, who I think, beyond exception, hath evinced, that the Antipedobaptic sense of a Matrimonial Legitimacy, cannot be the true and proper meaning of this place; and because I cannot better express it, I will give it you in his own words, as I find them in one of his excellent Books, 
Vid. Dr. Hammond's six Queries Resolved, whereof Infant-Baptism is one, P. 203.— 202.  A Remain, or Footstep of the Holy Apostles Practice, is the Reasoning of St. Paul, 1 Cor. seven. Which supposes it then received, and known in the Church, (at the writing of that Epistle) that Christian Children were received unto Baptism; the sum of which will be best discerned by the setting down a few Verses, and a brief Paraphrase upon them, (whereby the preceding Connexion appears to be as little for them, as I have made the subsequent Conherence to be.)  
i e. 
Verse. 12. If any Brother hath a Wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.  If any Christian-Husband hath an Heathen-Wife, and she be desirous to continue with him, he ought not to put her away, Unbelief being no sufficient cause of Divorce by the Law of Christ.  
i e. 
Vers. 13. And the Woman which hath an Husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.  And so in like manner for the Christian-Wife that is married to an Infidel, if he be desirous to live with her, let her by no means separate from him.  
i e. 
Vers. 14. For the unbelieving Husband [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] hath been sanctified by the Wife, and the unbelieving Wife hath been sanctified by the Husband, else were your Children unclean, but now are they Holy.  For (beside the Command of Christ, St. Matth. v. 32. who obliges to this) other advantages there are to the believer's living with the unbeliever worth considering, for by this means it has oft come to pass, that the unbelieving party has been brought to the Faith by the Company and Conversation of the believer.  
And considering the efficacy of good Example, and seasonable Exhortation, 
1 St. Pet. iij. 1.  and Instruction, on presumption of the great Zeal, (and consequent Endeavours and Diligence) that by the Laws of Christianity the Husband will have to the eternal good of any so near him as a Wife, there is great reason to hope, that it will be so, that their living together may produce this effect in the unbeliever, and the intuition and prospect of that (more than possible, because highly probable) effect may move the Christian Party not to forsake the other voluntarily; and this one probability, that the conversation of the believer should gain, that is, bring the unbeliever to the Faith, and the reasonable presumption, that it will be so, is the reason why the young Children of Christians which cannot as yet be deemed actual believers, are yet admitted to Baptism; because by their living in the Family with Christian Parents, they probably, and by the Obligation lying upon the Parent, aught to be brought up in the Faith, and kept from Heathenish Pollutions, (and the Church requiring and receiving Promise from the Parents) it may be reasonably presumed they will; and upon this ground it is, that tho' the Children of Christians are, the Children of Heathens are not admitted unto Baptism: That this is the true importance of the Holy Apostle's words, and force of his arguing, doth for the former part of it appear evident, (1. By the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] hath been sanctified, which must needs refer to some past known Example and Experience of this kind, or else there could be no reasonable account given of the Holy Apostles setting it in the Preterperfect- Tense. (2.) By the Phrase [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] by or through the Wife. This the Greek Preposition [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] so ordinarily signifies, that it cannot need to be further testified, (and in this Notion it is that we here take it) whereas the Notion which by the Opposers (the Antipedobaptists I mean) is here affixed to it, that it should signify to (that to which is the sign of the Dative Case) [sanctified to the Wife (as Meat to the Believer) made lawful to live with] is never once found to belong to it in the New Testament, nor can with any tolerable congruity or Grammatic Analogy be affixed to it; (whereby the Antipedobaptists Argument for Matrimonial Legitimacy is totally overthrown) And that the Greek Preposition is thus to be accepted, the learned Dr. Hammond proves from the Original, in no less than five particular places of the New Testament, and so still the rendering it [to the Wife] will be without any one Example, and the turning it into quite another phrase, as if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which to do, without any necessity or reason, (save only [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to serve the opposers turn upon the place, and support his false Opinion) must needs seem to be very unreasonable. (3.) This appears most irrefragably by the express words added on this Argument, Verse 16. where [the unbeliever having been sanctified by the believer] used as an Argument (why they should live together) is farther explained by these words, of an undoubted perspicuous sense, For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save thy wife? Where the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] [save] which ordinarily signifies, to reduce (or as it is 1 St. Pet. iij. 1. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to gain) to Repentance from Heathenism or wicked Life, is set parallel to [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] sanctifying, and maketh it clear what was meant by it, which being once yielded to be the true meaning of the first part, there will then be little reason to doubt but that this of the Admission of Christian Children to Baptism on this score, is the improvement of the latter part, that and no other being it, which exactly accords with the former reasoning, and it being not imaginable that this should be here added in that argumentative style, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereas, (or for) elsewhere, etc.] if it were not an enforcing of the foregoing Position, thus proved by him. For the confirming of this sense it may be remembered, (1.) What [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Holy is known to signify in the Sacred Dialect; not only an inherent, but a relative Holiness, being separate, or set apart to God, discriminated from common ordinary things or persons; and as that belongs to higher degrees of separation, the Office of a Prophet, or the like, so the lowest degree of it is that of being received to be Members of the Church, into which all are initiated, or entered by Baptism, and accordingly all visible Professors, and not only those that are sincerely such are in Ezra ix. 2. the Holy Seed, and in the Epistles of the Blessed Apostle called [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Holy, and reasonable it is Children should have an imputed or relative Holiness; because they have the [Prohibens, or] Obstacles, which kept the Holy Jesus from them, or them from the Blessed Jesus, (I mean Original Gild) taken away with this reserve, when they shall be able to perform the Terms of the Covenant they are admitted to, as [the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Vid. Dr. Hammond's Query of Infant-Baptism.  as Arrianus calls it] the Promise of every reasonable Creature, when he hath first leave to become such, [the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] the Oath consubstantiate with us, the Engagement that our Creation ties every Son of Man to, is actually required of those only that are of age to practise it, but may in the mean time be presumed even in the Womb of the Parent, to be undertaken by us; this by our being in tended for the use of Reason, as Holiness from our being made Proselytes unto the Christian Religion. And (2.) That the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] unclean, 
Acts x. 14.  is used by St. Peter for those that must not (as he conceiveth) be received into the Church, as [God's having cleansed] is God's reputing them fit to be partakers of that Privilege, whereby it appears how fitly receiving, and not receiving them unto Baptism, may be expressed by those Phrases. (3.) It is known of the Jewish legal Uncleannesses contrary to their Sanctifications, that they were the cause of removing from the Congregation, they that were so [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Unclean might not partake of the privilege of the Temple, till they were washed and sanctified; and that is proportionable to the Notion here given of it, That the Christian Children are Holy, i. e. not inherently (they are not capable of that) but in the Account of God and Man, capable of separation for the service of God, of being entered into the Church, into Covenant, which denominates Men Holy (as the Gentiles, as long as they were out of it were Unclean and Unholy, Acts x.) Now are they Holy, i. e. it is the present practice of the Church, that Holy Apostolic Church of St. Paul's time, to admit to Baptism such Infant Children of Parents, of whom one is Christian, though not of others; and the ancient Fathers who certainly knew the Sacred Dialect called, Baptism, Sanctification. So St. Cyprian, 
* Eum qui natus est baptizandum & sanctificandum S. Cypr. Ep. 59  He that is Born, must be baptised and sanctified: So St. Gregory Nazienzen, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, St. Greg. Naz. orat. 40.  It is better to be sanctified without sense of it, i. e. baptised in Infancy, when they are not sensible of it, than to departed or die without the Seal of Baptism: And again, 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pag. 648.  Let him be baptised from the Infancy, i. e. baptised then; and many the like. This Passage being thus interpreted, is a clear proof of the point in hand. Were not this the Import of it, there were no Privilege imaginable, no Sanctity could be attributed unto Christians, which would not belong to the Infants of Heathens also, which yet is here directly affirmed of the one, and denied to the other by the Holy Apostle; and as this evidently concludeth such a Custom known and acknowledged among Christians at that time, so it is directly the thing that the Jewish practice (in which Christ founded his Institution) hath laid the foundation of in baptising Proselytes and their Children, and to which the primitive Church conformed: And so though that Judaic practice taken alone were not deemed any demonstrative evidence, that Christ thus instituted his Baptism for the Gentile World; yet being taken in conjunction with this Holy Apostolic practice, and the primitive usage, it brings all the weight with it that a divine Testimony, interpreted by practice, can afford, which is as great as any such matter can be capable of. And thus I have sufficiently, I hope, answered the Objection that would overthrow the true Sense I had before given of this place of St. Paul, and offered Reasons so strong and so plain, as may satisfy any unprejudiced reasonable Man. For Reasons must be plainer than the Matters they are brought to give a Proof of; because when we go about to prove a Matter that is questionable, we must do it by such (Mediums and) Methods that are apparent as well as cogent. And now from this Text of St. Paul, I have made it evidently appear, That Children have a right unto the Covenant, under the new Dispensation, as our Adversaries own and acknowledge they had under the old one; and then let the most learned of our Adversaries make appear at what time, or when they were excluded and shut out, and we will acknowledge and own ourselves in a Mistake: And if they cannot do that, they ought to confess and declare, we have Truth on our side, and that they are in an error; which though Men (out of love to their Reputation or a mistaken Interest) they are unwilling to come to, yet I am certain it is their Duty to do it.   

CHAP. XVIII. An Account whence Infant-Baptism results.  
AND now the business may be determined in this one Enquiry, Whether the baptising of Infants do appear to be a divine Institution and holy Apostolic usage? And if it do, we have all we can desire in the Case; but if it do not, we are obliged and bound to disown the Method we have taken for the asserting our Principle, or drawing from it what we would conclude thereupon; and because the best Method for the solving of this doubt is the urging home what we have said, laying the foundation upon a divine Institution, and the usage of the holy Apostles: Therefore give me leave to press it close upon the Consciences of such Men as love the Truth, and value their Souls above all Worldly Considerations, in six Particulars. (1.) Whether by the holy Jesus' laying the Institution of this blessed Sacrament in the Jews usage of baptising Proselytes, which hath been evidenced to appertain unto the Infant Children of such Proselytes, (2.) By his being so far from rejecting the Age of Children, as an impediment of coming unto him (i. e. unto their Proselytism) that he affirms them to be the Pattern of those of whom his Kingdom consists; and though he be not affirmed in the holy Gospel to baptise such (when indeed the blessed Jesus baptised not at all, 
St. John iv. 2. St. Mark x. 16.  but his holy Disciples) yet he took them in his Arms, and laid his Hands upon them, and blessed them (which being the Rite customary in the holy Church, for those that were qualified for Baptism, and directly preparative to it) they that were by the Christ allowed, that cannot be esteemed by him less fit for Baptism than for that. (3.) By the express words of the holy Apostle, that their Children are holy expounded by the coherence and connexion of the Text (as we have already made evident and apparent, by giving its proper sense, and answering the strongest Objection against what we have offered as its true meaning) so as to conclude from the reason of the holy Apostle's Discourse, that it was the usage of the days Apostolic to admit the Infants of Christian Parents unto Baptism, and so expounded by the Christian Authors of the earliest Centuries. (4.) By the Authorities of the ancient primitive Fathers that treated of this Doctrine, without the least pretence of theirs (who were best acquainted with their Customs) that this was not an holy Apostolic usage, and therefore continued in all the times of the ancient Church successively. (5.) By the Testimony of Councils, when the obstinacy of false Teachers contradicted, resisted and gain said it. (6.) At last enjoined by the holy Church, whence I believe with the other Accounts already given, the needfulness of its usage and continuance ariseth, and not from any other Grounds. Now all I urge, with due submission of myself and the Cause unto the Opinion of  Persons (any Man of Candour and Ingenuity, that is freed from Passion, Prejudice and Interest) is this, Whether these six Particulars being duly and seriously considered (the Truth of all which is well known unto any learned Man) it be not clear enough, that admitting Infants to Baptism, is a divine Institution and an holy Apostolic usage? If it be not, I would willingly understand, what is more needful for satisfaction in a business of this Concern? And whether by any other (or more properly) convincing Arguments, the contrary can be proved to be an holy Apostolic custom, or that they denied the Infants of Proselytes the holy Sacrament of Baptism?   

CHAP. XIX. An Appeal unto the Reason of Mankind.  
AND now I have one Consideration to offer by way of Appeal, unto all disinterested and  Persons, to engage their Belief unto such a comfortable and christian Doctrine, as well as so necessary and useful a Practice: That whatsoever appointment or precept hath God the Father for its Author (whether discovered by the Revelation of the holy Prophets, or by the service of those (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Ministering Spirits above, that are sent forth into all the Parts of the World to Minister for them, who shall be the Heirs of Salvation (as the Author of the Epistle unto the Hebrews acquaints us) or the Holy Jesus for its Institutor (whether directly from himself, 
Heb. 1.14.  or mediately by his Successors the holy Apostles, and those that succeeded them, holy Apostolic Men) is not of Infallible Obligation unto all to whom it was given (and so each Institution of Christ unto all Christians) and that the peculiar way of its Derivation unto us, whether by the Inspired Discoveries of the Law or Holy Gospel, or any different Method, is but of an extrinsic Consideration to any such Divine Appointment or Command; I say, upon this Consideration, I have, I hope, in the Judgement of all sober and rational Men (for the full clearing of this Doubt, and satisfying this Case of Conscience, concerning Infant Baptism) by proper, and the most highly probable Arguments manifested, That by appointing Baptism as a blessed Sacrament to be used amongst Christians, the blessed Jesus and his immediate Followers, did not deny Children the use of that comfortable and holy Ordinance, but freely and willingly admitted them thereunto.   

CHAP. XX. The Conclusion of the whole Matter.  
AND now I have one Proposal to make, (by way of Importunate Request) which I hope is reasonable for me to desire, That none of the Antipedobaptists will look upon, or account me as their Adversary, because, according unto the Duty of my Place, and the Obligations of my Conscience, I declare unto them what I verily believe to be true, and have no different purpose or intention in the management of this Controversy, but to bring Men to a Great Regard, and Reverend Esteem for, and an humble and dutiful Submission to the Holy Jesus' Ordination and Appointment. Upon the whole Matter then, and an impartial and serious Consideration of what hath been offered, I cannot imagine what Plea (except such as is conducted by Interest, Humour, or Covetousness) any understanding Man can with the least probability use to throw off the concording Agreement of so many Testimonies and great Authorities for so necessary a Practice, as well as comfortable a Doctrine: And I shall with all Hearty Affection and Brotherly Love conclude, and presume no farther than these Arguments and Testimonies will allow me to do, (surely not be so Censorious as the Antipedobaptists, and Anabaptists are, when they declare heinous Matters of us, and affirm, that we, by Baptising Infants, Pollute the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant) God forbidden, that we who hearty Pray in our Public Liturgy, (which all Clergymen are obliged and engaged unto the daily use of) That it would please thee, good Lord, to bring into the way of Truth, all such as have erred, and are deceived. The sense of which is, That all Separatists from the Holy Catholic (or any Orthodox National) Church, that is a true Part, or sound Member thereof, may return home unto Christ's Fold, and be received into the Bosom of the Holy Church, and cannot be thought, without breach of Charity, to have the prospect of any other purpose, but the Everlasting Happiness and Welfare of men's Immortal Souls; I say, that we should ever entertain a thought of persecuting, kill, or damning those that differ from us, while they profess the Holy Name of the Blessed Jesus: Our Mind is the same with St. Ignatius 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. St. Ignat. , that Holy Martyr, to soften the sharp Humour, by tender and skilful Applications of the Gentle Word, (like pouring Oil into the Samaritan's Wounds) I mean to heal by Embrocation, or the most tender Methods, and not by Scarifications, and Caustics, (to use the Chirurgion's Term of Art) and I do esteem it my Obligation, to deprecate that deceitful Prosperity, that should be strong enough to breathe into the Spirits of persons any higher measure of sharpness in the Fathers, 
Vid. Dr. Hammond's Query of Infant-Baptism, Pag. 312.  or Sons of the Holy Church, than what I now believe to be a powerful Engagement to bring Men to the Church.  
THE END.   

A PRAYER used by the Author after the public Preaching and Delivery of these Discourses.  
O THou holy, ever-blessed and illuminating Spirit, the Fountain of Wisdom, who was sent by God the Father, and promised by God the Son to conduct and guide Men into all necessary Truth, who wouldst not the Destruction of any of the Sons of Men, but art really and truly desirous that all Persons should come unto the saving Knowledge of thy revealed Will, and hast formerly Commissionated peculiar Messengers; and at last didst send the beloved Son of thy Bosom to reduce all People from dangerous Mistakes and Errors, and to lead them into the Paths of divine Truth; that at the end of their days they may arrive at, and be placed in the Mansions of Glory and Happiness above, to live an immortal and neverdying Life, with thee the best of Being's: Give thy Blessing, we humbly beseech thee, unto these Discourses, and render them serviceable unto those excellent Purposes unto which they are sincerely intended Prepare and qualify the Spirits of those that have, or shall hear them, to embrace whatsoever is discovered in them according to thy revealed Will, with a Spirit of Love and Meekness: Mollify and soften all obdurate hardened Souls, all callous brawny Consciences that are seared, as it were with an hot Iron; enlighten the dark-sighted that they may discover and understand thine holy Will, when it shall be powerfully offered unto them; and give them the Assistance of thy divine Grace, and the Aids of thine holy Spirit to live according to such Convictions: Take away from all Men Conceitedness and strong Prepossessions, secular Interests and fond Humours, or whatsoever may put the least stop unto the Operations and Workings of thy divine Spirit, in the Proposal of thine holy Will unto the Sons of Men; and make these Discourses useful unto such as know and are acquainted with thine heavenly Doctrine, unto the Conviction of those that scruple the Truth, and are therefore unwilling to own and acknowledge it, and unto the recovery of such as are apostatised and fallen therefrom; and if thou shouldest be so merciful unto me, as to make me the unworthiest of thy Servants, in the least measure an Instrument for the advancing thine Honour and thy Churches good, by curing our Divisions, and reducing any wand'ring, straying Sinner from the Error of his Way; deliver me from any tumors or Swell of Spirit, any undecent Exaltation of Thought or Mind, any assuming or taking the least thing unto myself; and grant I may ascribe and return all Laud and Praise to thee, who art the Fountain of Light, and the Author of Truth; and that I may acknowledge that the Improvement as well as the Talon proceeds from thee, who art the Giver of every good and every perfect Gift. Grant these Requests for the Merits and Mediation of thy dear Son, who is not only the Way and the Life, but also that bright Daystar, who by his irradiating Beams lightens every Man that comes into the World, even our only merciful Saviour, and most powerful Redeemer the Holy Jesus, Amen.  
Now to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, be given and paid all Honour and Glory, as is most due from Angels and Men, henceforth and for evermore, Amen.  
FINIS.   

Errata Corrigenda.  
IN the Preface. Pag. 15. Marg. Lin. 7, 8. read, P. 103, 104. P. 24. l. 7. r. been. P. 53. l. 11. r. hit. P. 60. l. 26. r. Roast. P. 62. l. 8. r. Man.  
In the Contents. Pag. 5. Lin. 8, 9 read, Schecinah.  
In the Book. Pag. 3. Marg. Lin. 18. deal sine. P. 17. l. 4. r. as are not. P. 35. Marg. l. 22. r. cavit. P. 50. l. 25. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. P. 58. l. 3. del. of. P. 70. l. 20. r. prevails. P. 75. Marg. l. 25. a Baptizari in. P. 80. l. 14. r. Harmoniously. P. 91. l. 3. del. fore. and in the same line, r. offered for. P. 92. l. 27. r. were. P. 93. Marg. l. 4, 5. r. 48. 53. P. 94. Marg. l. 3. r. 46, 47. P. 100 Marg. l. 4. r. 94. P. 120. Marg. l. 16. r. instituto. P. 127. l. ult. r. Antipadobaptistic. P. 133. l. 3, 4. r. Obstacle. P. 136. l. 21. del. they. P. 138. l. 15. del. the.