/Am 
 
 BAP 
 
 1^1 
 
 ^'M 
 
 -V k 
 
^ PRINCETON, N. J. '^* 
 
 Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 AgJieiv Coll. on Baptism, No. 
 
 
-"? 
 
Mr. SmtWs 
 
 DEFENCE 
 
 O F T H E 
 ibodrine of Believers Baptifm> 
 By lihmerfldn only* 
 
THE 
 
 DOCTRINE 
 
 Of Believer's Baptifm, 
 
 By Immerfion only ; 
 
 Afferted and maintained, againfl: the AttemJ)ts 
 of Mr. Jonathan Parsons, A. M. to 
 invalidate it, in two Sermons preached at 
 Haverhill We0L'P^n(hy Lord*s-Day Jpril 
 %hQ 2Stb. 1765 : And finqe publifhed. 
 
 By Hezekiah Smith, A. M, 
 
 Late of NafTau-Hall in New-Jerfey. 
 MInifter of the Baptift-Church in Haverhill. 
 
 ". Go ye into all the World, and preach the Gofpel 
 " to everv Creature. He that believeth, and is bap-- 
 «« tized, fhall be faved." 
 
 JlyANGELIST, 
 
 ** Buried with him i^ Eaptirn?," 
 
 Paul. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 Printed for, and Sold by PiiiLir Freeman, in Ugiorv 
 Street. Mdcclxyi. 
 
THE 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 €yiNCE a good Name is rather to be chofen 
 ^j than great Riches, none can reafonahly blame me^ 
 for thus appearing in public, to vindicate my Cha^ 
 raBer from the heavy, and unjufi Charge alledged by 
 Mr, Jonathan Parfons, in his Difcourfes preached 
 Jajl Spring, at Haverhill, Wefi Parijh, on the Subje£i 
 cf Infant Baptifm -, which he hathfince printed : Nor 
 for appearing in Vindication of the f acred Ordinance 
 of Believers- Baptifm^ againfi his unfcriptural Repre- 
 fentations, Tet my diftnclination for engaging in Con- 
 trover fy, would have prevented tbefe Sheets ; had not 
 the Solicitations of my Friends, my own Chara^er^ 
 and the honour of God,^ prevailed abov^ every other 
 Qonfideration. 
 
 Before I proceed te remark upon his Arguments fe^ 
 down in Favour of Infant Baptifm, 1 pall briefly touch 
 Upon the Charge juft hinted at, * " Haverhill Weft 
 «' Farilh had been for fome Months A-tiptoe after 
 ^' a zealous Anabaptift Teacher, who contrary to 
 
 t Marginal Note, P. I3^ 
 
ii P R E F A C E, 
 
 *' his Engagements to me, has fet up the practice 
 '* of rebaptifmg, and openly denying the Right; of 
 " Infant Baptifm. How he will reconcile this to 
 '•"' the Gentleman, or the Chriftian, after he had 
 " promifed to keep thofe Notions private to him- 
 *' lelf, I know not." My Name indeed is not men- 
 tioned in the place referred to -, yet fror/i the Circum- 
 fiances related^ all agree that I am pointed at. The 
 Charge I totally deny : For to the hefi of my. Know- 
 ledge^ Mr, F. Jiever. required fuch an Engagement of 
 mCy and furely Ijhould have been very unwife to have 
 entered into it^ unlefs it had been required ; neither 
 would his making fuch a Requefi^ and my Compliance 
 with ity haye reflected any Honour or Credit on his 
 Piety or my Wifdom. I am at a Ipfs t*o devife (if he 
 believes what he has afferted) from what he could ga- 
 ther it^ unlefs it was from my Expectation of travel- 
 ling further to the Eaftward, and faying IhadnoThoUs 
 of fettling in thofe Parts^ &c. which 1 might proba- 
 bly have told him^ as that was the Cafe. But will 
 my faying I did not expeoi to fettle in thofe Parts^ but 
 travel further to the Eaflward^ amount to an En* 
 gagement that I would not ? Or will it amount to a 
 breach of Fromije^ if being providentially detained^ I 
 have altered my Purpofe ? Let the Reader judge. 
 
 If a particidar Relation of the concurring Circum- 
 fiances^which caufed me to alter my Purpofe^ would not 
 have fwelled this Preface beyond due Bounds^ I fbould 
 have related them here : But if the Public fl^ould mani- 
 feft a Defire to hear them^they may be gratified hereaf- 
 ter In the mean Time, it is fufficisnt for me to have 
 maintained a goodConJcience in thofeRefpe£is^ notwith- 
 fianding a}l the ill UJage 1 have recnved from thcfe^ 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Ill 
 
 of whom better "Treatment might have been reafi'nably 
 expelled. 
 
 In the Courfe of my Remarks upon the forejnention- 
 ed Difcourfes, I have made uje of fever al Authors ; 
 to the moji of which I have given fufficient Credit. 
 Andfince Mr. F. in his Preface gives us no Reajon 
 to expeSl any thing new upon the fubjc6l of Baptifm, 
 he cannot reafonably find fault with me^ if 1 Jljould 
 produce nothing new in his Confutation : Especially 
 ftnce the Arguments produced by him, have been judi- 
 cially, and clearly refuted already by abler Hands, 
 But why this Entrance upon the Cofitroverjy, if 
 nothing was to be expe5led new ? Are his perfonal 
 Engagements he talks of from countenancing an 
 *' Anabaptifl Minifter*^ fufficient ? Or does his In^ 
 fluence exteyid fo far, that nothing fhort of public Re- 
 monftrances, could prevent the fuppofedMif chief -, that 
 would enjue in Confequence of the Countenance he 
 gave that Minijter ? The Sermons preached (even 
 btfore they were printed) together with the many 
 hard Sentences thrown out by him ; and his Afftduity 
 amongfi thofe he could influence, had prejudiced the 
 Minds of a great Number of People, againft that 
 Minified s Principles and Condu5l, So that I verily 
 think, we muji feek for fome other Motive, exciting to 
 the Undertaking, beftdes the pretended Countenance he 
 gave a certain " Anabaptift Minifter* S&pitsiaakm^ : 
 And it would be well if amufing the Minds of unwary 
 Readers, and to keep them from forming theirPrinciples 
 from the Bible, was not the impulfive Caufe, 
 
 I fhall fubmit my EJleem of the Covenant of cur 
 God to the Reader'' s Judgment, as he will find my 
 Senfe of it exprejfed in the following Pages : So by 
 
 comparing 
 
Iv 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 comparing it with Mr. P— 's ^enfe of the Covenant ^ 
 he may judge which of us thinks andfpeaks mojl con- 
 ftftently and worthily of it. How plain his Evidence 
 for the ^rulh is ; and how calmly he has treated the 
 Suhje5l^ may he better determined by carefully p'Tufing 
 ayid cowpr. ring it with the Bible. And now to the 
 candid Reader^ 1 fubmit what is written \ dtfring 
 the hleffing of him^ whoje Caufe thefe Sheets are hum- 
 bly defigned to promote ; and who himfelf was bap^ 
 tized by John in Jordan. 
 
 Xle 0» 
 
 lII^211^^2S£Sl^l^Sl£Sliil^£i.lS 
 
 The 
 
 3^&^f5®^g^1^l^ 
 
m m m m m m loi m \e>\ m m \o\ mm m m m m mm^m 
 
 The Dodrine of Believer s Baptifmj 
 by Immerfion only. 
 
 )g()^)^5^5^HIS defcnfive piece makes itjappear^^ 
 )e(^— )^)aC ance, not with an expedation of en- 
 vfv«f Jf^ tertaining the curious ; nor from aa 
 QQwQw ambitious defire of being feen in pub- 
 AMMMM 1}^ . ^^^ ^Q remove the mafk, under 
 which the fcrmons which occafioned it, came into 
 the world : That truth might appear in its fimple, 
 artlefs drefs ; ftrijgt of all thole fophiftical arts, 
 defigned to decoy the unwary reader. 
 
 We find in A6ls 16. 32, 33, Sc 34. — That the 
 jaylor, and all that were in his houfe, had the word 
 of the Lord fpoken unto them : After which they 
 were baptized, not in his houfe, altho' it was about 
 midnight, when the ordinance ofbaptifm was ad- 
 miniflred to them ; but out of his houfe : It is 
 probable in the river near the city of Fhilippi, Adls 
 i6, i2j 13, Jnd when he had brought thsm into his 
 B koufci, 
 
( 2 ) 
 
 hcufe^ he fat meat before them, and rejoiced, believing 
 in God with all his houfe. We may learn from 
 hence, that the cuftom of the Apoftles was to bap- 
 tize abroad, out of a houfe, as did John in a river -, 
 and to baptize fuch who were capable of being in- 
 ftrtiried, and of behevmg -, which is evident by 
 the Jaylor and all his houfe rejaycing together. 
 Joy being the effed of the believer's obedience in 
 baptifm, which was the cafe with the Eunuch, 
 Ad:. 8. 39. ntid iz'h n they were come up out of the 
 water — he went on his way rejoycmg. And fuch 
 who thus obey Chriifj have reafon to rejoyce in his 
 per(9n, offices and righieoufneis i Whofe example 
 in this ordinance of baptifm they are enabled toob- 
 ferve, by ftepping into the watry-grave. Which 
 example being viewed by faith, gives us a lively 
 y\t\y of Chrift's death, burial and refurre6lion y as 
 well as our death unto fin, and being raifed unto 
 newnefs of life : All which are pointed out in the 
 mode of baptifm ; therefore we are buried with 
 hifH by baptifm into death, Rom 6 4. The mode 
 of baptifm, which the Apoitle evidently alludes to 
 here, is not only pointed out 5 but likewife the 
 burial, and reluiredtion of Chrift, as the head and 
 reprefentative of all his people ; of which burial 
 and refurrcclion, baptifm is a lively emblem. Now 
 fince believers had a reprefentative being in 
 Chrift, before they had a perfonal exiftence in the 
 world, Eph. I. 4.-^2 Tim, i 9. Surely the reafon 
 ot their being Chrift's difciples, can't be becaufe 
 they are the children of believing parents, as Mr. 
 Parfons alTerts •, neither can their good qualities 
 or moral duties be the procuring caufe of fuch a 
 favour : Confequently it mull be owing to the 
 
 good 
 
( 3 ) 
 
 good will of a gracious God, in the difplay of his 
 love, by choofing them in his fon, who is God's 
 eledl in whom he delighted, Ifa. 42 i. and with 
 whom he early made a covenant, which covenant 
 was to be fealed with his own blood : Hence we 
 have it. By the blcod of thy covenant 1 have f em forth 
 thy prifoners out of the Pit^ Zech. 9. 1 1. This co- 
 venant had certain conditions to be performed by 
 Chrift, who is termed the meffenger of the covenant^ 
 Mai. 3. I. And in confequence of the fulfilment 
 of thefe conditions by Chrift, the way is open for 
 the prifoners to be fent forth out of the pit of ruin, 
 and to enjoy all the bleflings and privileges of the 
 covenant. This covenant is that which is ufually 
 called the covenant of grace.— Which, fays Mr. P, 
 *' was primarily and principally with theLord JrTus 
 *^ Chrift, as the fecond Adam, and therefore he is 
 " called the furety of the covenant of grace, to ad- 
 *' juft and make up the difference betweenGod and 
 *' his people. But altho' the covenant of grace is 
 ^' primarily made with Chrift, as the reprefentativc 
 " of his feed, yet in him, it is made wi.h believers 
 " or with his {^^d^T And thus the Affembly of 
 Divines exprefs themfelves, " The covenant of 
 *' grace was made withChrift, as the fecondAdam ; 
 " and in him with all the ele6l, as his feed." — • 
 From this view of the covenant of grace, v/e may 
 readily fee, the miftake of Mr. P. in affirming 
 ^' bap'ifm to be the initiating feal of the covenanr 
 of grace." * Thus : '^ But when Chrift came, and 
 **' would introduce a new difpenfation of the cove- 
 ^' nant of grace, he appointed baptifm with water 
 *^ to be the feal of initiation." It baptifm initiates 
 B 2 * us 
 
 ^ P. 36. and in P, \. 
 
( 4 ) 
 
 ys into the covenant of grace, then we may thank 
 the minifter that baptized us ; or our parents who 
 were the means of it ♦, or ourfelves who volunta- 
 rily complied with it : And not Chrift who is the 
 mediator of that covenant. In the 9th page, re- 
 ferring to Adts 10. 45^ — 48, he fays, " But Feter 
 *' virtually teach, s us, that water baptifm is the 
 *' door of admiffion into the vifible church now, 
 ^' as circumcifion was formerly." 
 
 It may be obferved, that Peter don't pay any 
 regard there to the old admiffion into rhe Jcwijh 
 church, by circumcifion : But fpeaks of the Jews 
 admiffion into the gofpel church-ftate ; and now 
 finding the fame quaUlicattons in rhe Gentiles^ 
 which were required of rhem before baptifm, viz. 
 faith and repentance, he alks, who can forbicj 
 water ? &c. 
 
 I WOULD further remark, If baptifm is a door 
 into the gofpel church, in the fame {^v\^t^ and ta 
 be adminiitred to the like fubjeds ; as circumci- 
 fion was to the Jewijh church ; we mud make the 
 church national ; and children as well as adult s^ 
 and unbelievers as well as believers^ muft have a 
 right to all the privileges of the gofpel church, 
 confequently to the Lord^s fnpper^ that being 
 one of its great privileges. For under the 
 former difpenfation, the paJTover^ with the other 
 privileges of that church, belonged to the mem- 
 bers of it, whether young or old \ unlefs prohibi- 
 ted by reafon of fome ceremonial pollution. And 
 this is carrying matters to the length which they 
 prevailed, when Injant Baptifm fiift took its rife. 
 
SeeRee's upon baptifm,* where he quotes Cyprian^s 
 own v/ords for communicating infants. This Cy- 
 prian is one of the three, whom Mr. P. mentions, 
 to prove the antiquity of Infant Baptifm. Mr. 
 Stennet quotes Sukerus, aflerting the fame, f " It 
 " was thought fit in like manner to give it (viz. 
 " the Lord's fupper) to infants, after the intro- 
 ^' dudion of Infant Baptifm,'" 
 
 Let us now take notice of Mr. P — 's argu- 
 ments for Infant Baptifm. The firft is, " If the 
 '' infants of vifible behevers do alfo belong to the 
 " vifible church themfelves, then they are to be 
 " baptized -, but the infants of vifible believers 
 *' are alfo members of the vifible church them- 
 *' felves : Therefore the infants of vifible believers 
 *' are to be baptized." I thmk this fylogifm would 
 comport much better with fcripture, had it been 
 formed thus : If the mfants of vifible believers do 
 not belong to the vifible church themfelves, then 
 they are not to be baptized ; but the infants 'of 
 vifible believers are not members of the vifible 
 church themfelves : Therefore the infants of vifi- 
 ble believers are not to be baptized. This is ob- 
 vious, both from their not having the badge of 
 memberfhip put upon them ; and their not being 
 fuch in a qualified fenfe \ altho' Mr. P. fays they 
 ^re fo in a qualified fenfe. " As a fon born in the 
 *' army is the King's foldier, or a child born in the 
 '• King's dominions is the King's fubjed, tho' the 
 " former is not adually inlifted, nor the latter 
 " formerly declared to be fo." I defire to know 
 from whence thofe qualifications do arife, which 
 
 make 
 
 f p. no. t P- 86. 
 
( 6 ; 
 
 make the infants of vifible believers, members of 
 the vifible church. Are they from their parents ? 
 No, for we find a profcfiion of faith and repen- 
 tance required, before even the fign of member- 
 fhip, or inirodudlion into the vifible church v^^as to 
 be granted. Ads i. ^S. & 8. 37. Now if they 
 were members in a qualified fenfe, without the 
 prerequifite juft mentioned, then doubtlefs they 
 would have a »'ight to the badge of their member- 
 fliip : But they have no right to the badge of 
 mcmberfhip, without a profefiion of faith & repen- 
 tance, as is evident from the pafi^ages juft quoted : 
 Therefore they are not members in a qualified 
 fenfe. I would enquire, whether they are mem- 
 bers in a qualified lenTe, from their capacity to re- 
 ceive the (ign of memberfhip ? The Heathens are 
 capacitated for the fame ; fo they are from this, as 
 much members of the vifible cliuich in a qualified 
 fenfe, as the infants of vifible believers. Again, 
 does their memberlliip fpring from an inherent 
 principle of holinefs, with which they are born, 
 the impovement of which, would caufe them to 
 grow more and more in grace, until they fhould 
 arrive to a fufHcient degree of holinefs, exclufive 
 ot the work of regeneration ? This is arminian- 
 ilm — bad divinity — iangerous dcclrine — and in- 
 confident wi.h orthodoxy. 
 
 Yet this ftems to be his opinion from the ev= 
 amples produced, if they make any thing to his 
 purpofe : For it mufl be granted that a fon born 
 in the army has all the parts of a man, or is a man 
 compleat as to his m.embers, tho' not perfed in 
 his groi\-th and ft^ength, for the fervice of his 
 
 kine. 
 
{■ 1 ) 
 
 king. And as a child born in the King's dodli- 
 nions is the King's fubjed, by realbn ot his pecu^ 
 liar right in him as belonging to his kingdom ; 
 and having never forfeited his natural right to 
 the privileges thereof; confeqiiently Vvhcn he 
 grows to the ftature of a man, by virtue of his 
 engagement of allegiance, he is put in a capacity 
 of being advanced to, and made partaker of the 
 honours, profits and immunities of the kingdom : 
 And that without any internal change wrought in 
 him, feeing he was born a fubjedt in a qualified 
 fenfe. But furely Mr. P. will not conclude that 
 perfons unrenewed have any right to, or capacity 
 for the enjoyments and employments of Chnft's 
 fpiritual kingdom ; unlefs after all his zeal for the 
 dodlrines of grace, he has a mind to give up the 
 important dodrine of regeneration \ and fubtlitute 
 in its ttead, that which is fo much more ag:eeable 
 to the carnal mind, viz. juftification by the deeds 
 of the law : And fo fubvert the very foundation, 
 tipon which he himfelf profefTed to fettle in New- 
 bury. If Mr. P. does not like thefe hints, he mud 
 blame himfelf for not being more guarded in his 
 comparifons •, or for engaging in a caufe that re- 
 quires fuch methods to fupport it. 
 
 Says Mr. P. what is mainly before me upon 
 this argument, is to prove, " That infants ofvifi- 
 ^' ble believers or church members, are alfo them- 
 " felves members of the vifible church, and there- 
 " fore ought to have the feal of induction put 
 " upon them." 
 
 It may not be amifs to refer the reader to fe- 
 veral pafiages in Mr, P-^'s fermons upon bap- 
 
 tifm i 
 
( 8 ) 
 
 tifin i and then leave him to judge of his meati- 
 ing. In p. 6. he fa:ys, " That baptifm is, by di- 
 vine appointment, the badge of all the difciples 
 of Chnft •, and the intiodu(5lion into the vifible 
 church." — In p. 7. " Baptifm is the feal of in- 
 dudion into the vifible church. '^ — " And hence 
 Chrifl, having received power from the Father, 
 gave a commifTion to his apoftks, and to all his 
 ordinary minifters, to admit his dilciples into 
 the church, by the facred rite of baptifm v^ith 
 water." In p. 9. it is called " the feal of intro- 
 dudion into the chriltian church" — ^and " the door 
 of adrniflion into the vifible church."—" It was 
 inftituted — as the ordinary medium of gather- 
 ing and preferving the church." In p. 11. " O- 
 thers, by their appointment, admitted members 
 into the church, by that folemn riie" — 1. e. bap^ 
 tifm. In p. 13. " The infants of vifible believers 
 are alfo members of the vifible church them- 
 felves : Therefore the infants of vifible believers, 
 are to be baptiied :" In the fame page. " So the 
 children of vifibld believers are members of the 
 vifible church, as foon as they are born into the 
 world, before they have the badge of member- 
 fhip put upon them." In p. 14. " All the ad- 
 miifions we read of (into the vifible church) fince 
 baptifm was a divine inflitution, were by this 
 token or feal of the covenant. — P. 23. " Children 
 come into a vifible church-ftate, in the right of 
 their parents." — P. 42. " It always has been the 
 padtice of the church, to initiate the infants of be- 
 lievers, by baptifm." 
 
 From thefe quotations, with others of the like 
 kind, defignedly omitted, we may fee the difficulty 
 
 of 
 
( 9 ) 
 
 of reconciling what is alTc-'-ted. For according 
 to thefe citations, being members of the vifible 
 church, gives a ri^jhc to bapcifm : And bap;ifm is 
 that, by which perfons are introduced into the vi- 
 fible church, and fo become members. 
 
 From hence I would argue,If being members of 
 the vifible church, gives a right to baptifm ; then 
 none but fuch as are member^ of the vifible church, 
 have a right to baptiim : But fuch as are not mem- 
 bers of the vifible church, have a right to baptifm : 
 Therefore being membe.'S of the vifible church, 
 don't give a right to bautifrii. Again, *' If bap- 
 tifm is an induction into the vifible church, then 
 none but fuch as are bapcized can be members of 
 the vilible church -, but baptifm is an induction 
 into the vifible church :' Therefore none but fuch 
 as are bapcized, can be members of the vifible* 
 church." The confefifion of taith put out by the 
 AfTembly of Divines, in chap 2S' informs us, that 
 " Baptifm is a facrament of the New Teftament, 
 " ordained by JefusChrift, foi the folemn admiflion 
 "of the party baptized into the vifible church." 
 
 Now if thus they are admitted by baptifm, then 
 it can't be as Mr. P afferts, rhat they are in the 
 church before bamifm. In fliort, you fee, as jull 
 obferved, when it fuits him, being in the vifi- 
 ble church gives a right to baptifm ♦, and then a-- 
 gain, when it ferves his turn, '' baptifm brings 
 perfons mto the vifible church." Thus felf^con- 
 tradidlory he fpeaks. 
 
 To gain his point he gives us a defcription of the 
 
 covenant of works, and of the covenant of grace. 
 
 C J 
 
( xo ) 
 
 I am pleafed with his defcription of the cove- 
 nant of works ', but am at a lofs to know what he 
 means by the covenant of grace, as he treats ic. 
 The AfTembly of Divines, in anfwer to thisqiieft- 
 ion, ••' With whom was the covenant of grace 
 made ?" I think fpeak to purpofe, thus -, " The 
 " covenant of grace was made with Chrift, as the 
 " fecond Adam j and in him with all the ele6t, as 
 " his leed." * AndMr. P— 's words are ; " This 
 " covenant of grace was primarily and principally 
 " vvqrh iheLordJerusChriit, as the fecond Adam. — 
 " Yer, In Him, ic is made with believers or with 
 " his feed." 
 
 When he is fpeaking concerning the covenant 
 of v/orks, he tells us, the blelTings offered in that 
 covenant to Adam^ aiid his fetd, would have been 
 fecured to them had he continued in his integrity. 
 Now I would afk. Since Chrift as a public head, 
 has continued in his integrity, and fulfilled all the 
 conditions, properly fo called, of the covenant of 
 grace, fo that he fays, Ihave finijhed the work which 
 then gaveft me to do ; whether the bltflings of the 
 covenant of grace, of which Chrift is the head ; 
 are not as fecure as thofe blcffings of the covenant 
 of works, of which //i^;« was the head ; fuppofing 
 him to have maintained his Integrity ? If the 
 bleffings of the covenant of grace are not, then 
 Chrift, as a public head, muft be inferior to Adani^ 
 as a public head ; which I fuppofe even Mr. P. 
 wo'.iid not choofe to aifert. It they are, then the 
 blcffings of the covenant of grace fliall be granted 
 to Chrift*s feed \ and it is impoffible for Chrift's 
 
 * Larger Catechifm, P. 64. 
 
( JI ) 
 
 feed to break the covenant of grace, fo a*? to be 
 ejefled from it, as Mr. P. infinuates ; where he 
 fays, " Hence they are faid, to enter into cove- 
 " nant ; to keep covenant ; to break the cove- 
 " nant ; and fuch like expreffions ;" quoting Pfal. 
 50. 5. and 25. lo. and Levit. zb. 15. 
 
 I WOULD obferve, by taking thefe texts toge- 
 ther, as here expreffed, ftrangeiy confounds the 
 Covenant of grace, and the covenant of works. By 
 reading the 26th chapter oi Levit. we may readily 
 fee, the covenant mentioned in the J5th ver. is not 
 a covenant of grace, but chiefly refpeds temporal 
 things. — Immediately upon fo quoting this text in 
 Levit. as to make his readers believe the covenant 
 of grace is there meant — he adds^"And parents 
 " that are believers, have their children taken into 
 *' covenant with them." By which it appears that 
 he would have us think, that all the children of 
 believing parents, are with their parents, taken in- 
 to the covenant of grace. But before we can be- 
 lieve that, we miuft be convinced either that IJhiiael 
 was taken into the covenant of grace with Abra- 
 ham \ and Phineas and Hophni with their father 
 Eli ; and Ahfalom and Ammon with David, and fo 
 faved ; and that all the children of believes are 
 better than the children of unbelievers : Or, that 
 perfons may be in the covenant of grace, and en- 
 joy its bieflings, fuch as, effecfluai calling, j unifica- 
 tion, adoption and fan£liflcatian, &c. and after- 
 wards be finally loft by breaking the covenant. 
 
 In p. 17. after telling us what the Antinomians 
 
 will objed and fay (and by his own concefTions ic 
 
 C ^ is 
 
r 12 ; 
 
 is judged be makes himfelf one) he fays. All " be- 
 " long either to the firli or the fe( ond Adam. It 
 *' IS impofiible fdr a perfon to be under both ccve- 
 *' nants at once " I would here afk, how rhofe 
 who belong to the covenant of grace can break it, 
 fo as to be finally eje(ftcd ? For if believer^ have 
 their chikirt n taken jnro this covenant with ihtm, 
 thrn they muft be laved ; or find fome wav to break 
 jt, fj as ro be utt( rly cad out ot it : But we have 
 juli fhevvn that feme were out of it, V'Z IjLmael, 
 J^btneas. Hophni^ . .mmcm and /ihfaiom \ hence they 
 muft triier never have been in it, or have eje6led 
 thcmfeUes. From hence the inconfiftency of 
 this vvn'er is very c vidtnt •, and will ever appear, 
 ijnlefs he rerrads what he has affiimed, that be- 
 lievers children are taktn with them into the co- 
 venant of grac<, by virtue ot the r pareni\s faith ; 
 ond that they are able to break the covenant of 
 grace, &c • — ^uch ii:cc rififtercieF, are no fmall 
 proot, thrt he wanted fcriprure to maintain his 
 Icheme : And a principle which muft be fupport- 
 ed without Icripture for its foundation, ought to 
 be rejcdled by ail the lovers of truth. • 
 
 Vv'e are informed,* " That outward privileges 
 ** avail nothing to fpecial grace, any furthtr than 
 "means ofGod's appon ting " Let it be oblerved, 
 that Infant B^pti'Jm is not appointed by God •, fo 
 is not to be reckoned among the means ot grace. 
 
 We now come to obferve what he fays 
 
 iip^n the yibrahamatical c »venanc. -f "The 
 
 ^b'^aba?}7f.i'cnl covenant, includ rn; the ^ft^d of 
 
 vifible believers, is the covenaiu ci grace." This 
 
 ^ he 
 
 * P. 18. t P. 18. 
 
( .13 ) 
 
 'he endeavours to prove, and concludes " that none 
 who have any tolerable underftanding of the two 
 covenants, and read with unprejudiced attention, 
 can doubt whether it be the covenant of grace.*' 
 Let the unprejudiced reader judge for himielf, 
 after obferving 
 
 T. According to the Aflembly's larger cate- 
 chifm, " The covenant of grace, was made with 
 Chrift, as the fecond Adam ♦, and in him with all 
 the eledt, as his feed. Gal. 3. ib. Rom. 5. 15. to 
 the end. How does this agree with making Abra- 
 ham the head of the covenant ^ 2 None of the de- 
 fcendents of Ada^'i were ever faved out of the co- 
 venant of grace ; but a number of them were be- 
 lievers, who were not included in Abraham's cove- 
 nant : Therefore they could not be faved, accord- 
 ing to Mr. P. becaufe the covenant of grace was 
 made with Abraham. Where then is Adam^ Abel^ 
 Enoch and Noah^ who were before Abraham^s day, 
 with many others ? 3. None can be loft who are 
 included in the covenant of grace : But all Abra- 
 ham^s natural feed were included in the covenant 
 made with Abraham^ which Mr. P. affirms to be 
 a pure covenant of grace -, therefore according to 
 Jiim, none oi Abraham^ s natural feed are loft. This 
 as evidently contradi6ls the fcripture, as to fay 
 none before Abraham's day were faved, becaufe 
 not included in Abraham^ covenant, altho' they 
 were righteous perfons. 
 
 To unlock this riddle we want the fame key 
 which the excellent Mr. Morgan mentions in his 
 firft book againftMr. FinUy j * which he calls Mr, 
 
 Finky^s^ . 
 
 * P. 18. 
 
( H ) 
 
 Finley% and Mr. FlavePs, " They could neither 
 " be jultificd nor condemned in this hfe : Juftifi- 
 " ed they could not be, for they were out oj^ Abra- 
 " ham^s covenant ; condemned they could not be, 
 " for they were righteous perlons. But this is not 
 " all ; in the world to come they could neither go to 
 " heaven nor hell : To heaven they could not go, 
 " becaufe out q{ Abraham! s covenant -, to hell they 
 "could not go, becaufe juflified. But flill it is 
 *'- more wonderful to confider, that they muft be 
 " fully [and perfonally] juftified, and fully con- 
 " demned at the fame time : Fully juftified, be- 
 '' caufe the fcripture fays as much ; fully condemn- 
 *' ed, becaufe out of the covenant made with Ahra- 
 '* ham, — What an odd fhaped covenant of grace 
 *' is this, that fome believers or gracious perfons 
 " muft be left out ; and fome carnal unregenerate 
 " ones taken m !" For Mr. P. affirms, that all 
 church members and their feed, are in the cove- 
 nant of grace. * 
 
 To confirm his aflertion, he produces this 
 paflage •, " 1 will eftablifh my covenant between 
 me and thee, and thy feed after thee, in their ge- 
 nerations, for an everlafting covenant, to be a God 
 unto thee and ihy feed after thee." This prom^ife 
 refpedls either all /Jhraham's natural legitimate 
 feed, or all his fpiritual feed, or both. If all his 
 natural leed are meant, then this covenant muft 
 refpe6t temporal things and external privileges ; 
 for we can't fuppofe all his natural feed were fav- 
 ed; which would have been the care,if the blefilngs 
 of the covenant of grace are pointed out in it for 
 
 all 
 
 * P. i8. 
 
( '5 ) 
 
 all his natural feed. If his fpi ritual feed are meant, 
 then we may readily find out who they are, viz. 
 fiich who have faith in Chrift. ^hey which be of 
 faith are hleffed with faithful Abraham. If ye be, 
 Chrift'* 5^ then are ye Abrahain's feed and heirs accord- 
 ing to the pro7nife. Gal. 3. 9. — 29. — This promife 
 you have in Gen. 12. 3. or 17. 7. — Buc if this co- 
 venant js^Es^nts both his natural & Ipirirual feed, ^^ 
 then it muft be a mixt covenant, conijfling of fpi- 
 ritual and temporal bleffings. 
 
 Now judge, whether it is proper to call the /f- 
 hrahamatical covenant a pure covenant of grace, or 
 not. In the 21ft page we have it, *' The grant 
 in the Abrahamatical covenant, made to his feed, 
 has never been repealed." Upon this in the lan- 
 guage of Mr. Morgan^ I would obferve, " That 
 " law which gave being to infant memberlhip and 
 " circumcifion, is abolifhed by divme authority, as 
 " a part of the former adminillration \ this mull' 
 " be granted, or elfe circumcifion is yet in force. 
 "Now methinks it is a felf-evident truth, that 
 " when a law which gives being to an ordinance 
 " or appointment, is abrogated, that ordinance or 
 '* appomtment is repealed. Again, that very co- 
 " venant adminiflration, whereby the Jewijh na- 
 " tion was taken into a vifible church-ilate, is now 
 " waxed old, and vanifhed, Heb, 8. 8, 9. And 
 " further, that church-ftate wherein infants were 
 " admitted as members and materials, is now a- 
 " boliflied. Since then we make appear from fcrip- 
 " ture, that the fame divine authority, which gave 
 " being to every particular, which you infift upon 
 *' in defence of your principles, the fame divine 
 
 ^' authority 
 
' i6 
 
 " authority hath now difannulled every one of 
 *' them, ic remains therefore, for you to produce 
 " exprcfs fcriptures to prove that infants are the 
 '' fubjeds of baptifm, and members in the New 
 *' Teftament church, otherwife they have no right 
 *' there by- virtue of any former appointment." 
 
 Mr. p. fays, * the reafon why the Abrahamalicat 
 covenant is called everlafting^ is becaufe it was the 
 covenant of grace. For an anfwer to which., fee 
 Jer. 31. 3[, 32, 33. and Heb. 8. 7, 8, 9. For if 
 that fir ft covenant had hem faultlefs^ then JJoould no 
 place hoive been jound for the fecond^ &c. nnd ver. 
 i'^. In that he faith ^ a new covenant he hath made^ 
 the fir 11 old \ now that which decay cth and waxeth 
 old^ is ready to vaniflo away. By thefe facred pafTa- 
 ges it is readily feen, that the ^brahamic-covcndinz 
 in all Its parts was not to be everlafiing^ taking the 
 word everlajiing in its ftri(^t fenfe. — But by the 
 word everlaftiiig there, underftand to the end of 
 the former adminiflration : Thus it was with the 
 Frieft^s office, it fhould be AarorCs and his fon^s for 
 a perpetual or everlafting ftatute^Kxod. 29. 9 : And 
 fo it was with the facrifices, it {\\b\\ he a perpttml 
 fiatute. Lev. 3. 17: And fo with the atonement 
 made once a year, Itfhallbean everlafiingftatuie^ 
 Lev. \6. 34. 
 
 Nay, if that covenant was not abrogated, .then 
 circumcifion would Hill be in force ; but circumci^ 
 Jion is not in force : Therefore that covenant is 
 abrogated. Say fome, baptifm comes in the room 
 of circumcifion. But I deny it ^ for the fcripture 
 
 no 
 
 * P. 20, 
 
( 17 ) 
 
 no where informs us it does. The next remark 
 is upon the olive tree, * alluding to Rem, 
 "l£. 16, 17. For if the firjl-fruit be bclj\ the 
 lump is alfo holy j and if the root he holy, fo are the 
 branches. And tf J erne of the branches he broken 
 offy ^c. There " by firfi fruits the firft 
 *' converts among the Jfws under the gofpel 
 " difpenfation, are meant *, it being ufual 
 " with the apoftle fo to call diem ; fee Kom. ib. 
 " 5. I Cor. 16. 15. And an aliufion is to the offer- 
 *' ing of iht firft fruits to the Lord, and ihe two 
 ^^ wave loaves, lutvk, 23. 4 — 17, whereby the 
 " whole lump was fandtified, for after ufe though- 
 ** out the year following," &c. f Hence thofe 
 perfons who were firll converted among the Jew^ 
 were prefages of the whole body who fhould here- 
 after be called in, when hclinejs Jloould he wriitcn 
 upon the hells of the horfes^ Zech. 14. 20, 21. And 
 the branches broken off were fuch, as were left out 
 of the gofpel church gathered among them ; into 
 which gofpel chuich, ihtGentiles were grafted, and 
 not into the Jtwifh national church. Hence the 
 root and fatnefs which they partook of, are not the 
 privileges of the Jewi/h national church ; but the 
 privileges of the new teftament church, of which 
 Chrift is the root ox foundation fi one : And believ- 
 ers are the materials, or lively fi ones built up a fpi- 
 ritual houfe^ Eph. 2. 20. 1 Pet. 2. 5. Now the 
 materials which formed the new teflament church, 
 were lively ftones, who were fo made by the fpirit 
 of God ; and the preiequifite to any perfon*s be- 
 ing received into this church, was faith, or a pro- 
 felTion of it, Mark 16. 16. and Ads 8. 37. Which 
 D plainly 
 
 * P, 22. t E>r* Gill in Loc. 
 
( iS ) 
 
 plainly (hews us, that infants were not the 
 materials of the new teftament church at firft. 
 And I would ad^, by what connmand they are 
 now brought in:o the church ? By God's com- 
 mand ? No. Hence I muil conclude it to be a 
 mere human invention, without benefit to the child, 
 or command of God. This con fide red /the fallacy 
 of this aflertion is readily feen, * *' That children 
 *' come into the vifibie church-ftate, in the right of 
 *' their parents,&c. — and continue members of the 
 *' vifiole ch'jrch, unlefs by their own adlual fins, 
 *' they cut themfelves oft." Children can't as 
 formerly under the old adminiftration, be brought 
 into the church by their parents, in obedience to 
 a divine command ; becaufe there is no command 
 for it now. A profefTion of faith is required of 
 the fubjedls themfelves, before they are to be ad- 
 mitted into the chrillian church : But it was not 
 fo wiih the Jewijb church, under the former dif- 
 penfation. 
 
 The next thing to be confidered, is, f " The 
 '' infants of vifible believers, or fuch as are mem- 
 " bers of the vifible church, are difciplesotChrift." 
 How does this agree with what Chrifl: fays, J If 
 any ?nan come to me^ and hate not his fat her ^ and 
 mother^ ana wife^ and children^ and brethren, and 
 fflers^ yea^ and his own life alJOy he cannot he my dif 
 ciple. — And whcfoever doth not hear his crofs and 
 ccme after me^ cannot he my difciple. — So likewift^ 
 whofoever he be of you^ that forfaketh not all that he 
 hathy he cannot he my dijcipk ? He grounds his 
 
 aflertion 
 
 ♦ P. 23. t P. 24. t Luke 14. 26, 2^—Zh 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 afTertion upon the commiflion, * and to eftabllfh it, 
 
 quotes Gal. 3. 8, 9. — Upon which quotation I 
 
 woqld obferve, that the apoftle there alludes to 
 
 that covenant in Gen. 12. 3. which was renewed 
 
 in the i7th chap, to underftand which, fee Gal. 
 
 3.16. Now toAbrahayn and his feed were the promifes 
 
 made. He faith not^and to feeds ^ as of many \ hut as 
 
 9f ons^ and to thy feed^ which is Chrifl. — i\nd in 
 
 ver. 9. So then they which be of fait h^ are huffed 
 
 with faithful /ihraham And before we are to be 
 
 reckoned his feed, we mutt be believers in Chrift, 
 
 ver. 29. And if ye he Chrift^s^ then are ye Abraham* s 
 
 feed^ and heirs according to the prcmije. From thefe 
 
 t€xts, we may fee, the promifed blefTings of the 
 
 covenant of grace, were not defi^ned for Abra-' 
 
 ham's natural feed as fuch But for him and all 
 
 hia fpiritual feed ; which feed may be known, by 
 
 their faith on Chrift, in whom all Ipiritual blefTings 
 
 are. Col. i. 19. For it pleafed the Father, that in 
 
 him fhould all fulnefs dwell. — Who is the mediator of 
 
 n better covenant^ which was eflahlifhtd upon better 
 
 promifes, Heb 8. 6. This is the covenant of grace 
 
 which has taken place, and fhines with fuch clear- 
 
 nefs, that it dazzles the eyes of thofe who adhere 
 
 to the old covenant, fpoken of in Heb. 8. 13. 
 
 This new covenant, the minifters of Chrift are 
 to teach all nations, and (hew wherein its fu- 
 perior excellency lies : And when they are fo 
 taught, that they believe on Chrift who is /jbra^ 
 ham*s feed, to whom the promifes are. Gal. 3. \ 6. 
 and who is the head of the covenant ; then they 
 are to be baptized, which is according to the com- 
 D 2 m.ffion, 
 
 * Matth. 28. 19, 20. 
 
C 20 ; 
 
 mifiion, Go and teach all nations^ Sec. " The com- 
 " miffion is, (fays he *j to make all nations dilci- 
 " plcs, rhac were willing to enter into Chriil's 
 " Ichool *' Let it be obltrved, that the dilcples 
 mud be willing to enter into Chnft's fchool. Can 
 this be faid of infanf., who are incapable of in- 
 ftrudtion, or manift-fting aiy willingnefs to enter 
 into Chrift's fchool ? But in the fame page, 1 am 
 forry to find hmi inverting the very order of the 
 fame commifijon, and vntually denying what he 
 juft aiTirmed •, thus, " And the firlt thing the 
 *' apuiVics and miniflcrs of Chrill have in charge, 
 ** is to baptize unJ teach." Thus you fee how he 
 twifts, turns and changes the order of the com- 
 miffion, to mai<.e good his pra(5lice. 'I enets which 
 can only be vindicated by luch unrighteous me- 
 thods as thefe, in my judgment, refled no great 
 honour upon the miniltcrs engaged to fupport 
 thtm. 
 
 I SHALL here take liberty to quote Mr. Stennet, 
 upon Chriirs commifTion to baptize, -f with fome 
 alterations. Mr. P — 's notion on this text feems 
 to be, '' that here is a general command lo difciple 
 '' all nations ; and then the way to execute it, 
 *' particularly expreffed, firft by baptizing, and 
 " then by reaching : So that according to him, 
 '* thofe are difciples who are baptized, tho' they 
 " have never been fa'-ighr, nor are yet capable of 
 " Inltrudion ; and he fecms to lay a great firefs 
 " on this f'jr infant baptifm, therefore I fliall anf- 
 
 '' wer it the more lar^elv. i. I fball deny that 
 
 *' any can be made aifciples without being taught, 
 
 *' till 
 
 * P. 25. t Stennet againft lluflen, p. 16, 17. 
 
( 21 ) 
 
 " till an Inflance from the holy fcriptnre be pro- 
 *' duced of fome difciple made by Chrift, or by 
 " any of his minifters without teaching ; and fuch 
 " teaching or inftru6tion,as implies great and good 
 *' effedt on their fouls, viz. their faith in Chrift, 
 " and fubjedion to his gofpel, or a profeflion of 
 *' it : For who can pretend to make difciples any 
 " other way thin after the primitive manner ? 2. 
 " That none can be a difciple of Chrift without 
 " this, appears by the words of our blefled Saviour 
 " himfelf, already quoted, Luk. 14. 26. 27 — 33. 
 *' Now if Chrift fays no man can be his difciple, 
 " without being fo taught by him, and fo learn- 
 "ingofhim as to take up his crofs and follow 
 *' him ; and Mr. P. fays he may be a difciple 
 " without teaching ; whom are we to believe ? 
 " 3. I would afk, to whom are the minifters of the 
 " gofpel ordered to adminifter baptifm ? Is it to 
 " all men in general in all nations, or to thofe 
 *' only who are made difciples in all nations ? If 
 " all men in general are to be baptized firft, and 
 " then taught ; then all adult perfons as well as 
 " infants, ought to be baptized before they are 
 "taught (which I fuppofe no one will affert) if 
 *' only thofe who are made difciples in [all nations 
 *' are to be baptized, then there is fomething re- 
 " quired to make difc'ples before baptifm ; and 
 " what can this be but teaching ? If there is any 
 " other way, let it be (hewn. 4. Our Saviour's 
 " way,and that of John the baptifi^y?f2is to make dif- 
 " ciples firft, and then to admit them to baptifm ; 
 " for the textexprefly tells u<?, that Jefus made and 
 " baptized more difciples than John, Here feems a 
 " plain diftin(51:ion between making difciples, and 
 
 *' baptizing 
 
( 22 ) 
 
 '* baptizing them : And who gives Mr. P. licenfe 
 " to invert the order of Chrift's words ? — 5. The 
 " commifTion, as expreffed in a parallel text by 
 *' another Evangelift, plainly diredts that teaching 
 " ought to precede baptifm : Preach the go/pel to 
 *' every creature : He that believethy and is baptized, 
 *''■ Jhall be favtd. Which words (hew the exadl 
 *' order that is to be obferved ;> firft there muft 
 *' be preachings then belieiing (for faith comes by 
 *' hearing) and then baptizing. 6. The pradice of 
 *' the apoltles abundantly confirms this ; for we 
 '' find they firll taught the people to whom they 
 *' came, exhorting them to repentance and faith, 
 *' and then to be baptized : And we read of none 
 *' admitted to baptifm, but thofe who made a 
 *' folemn profeflion of repentance and faith.— If 
 ** then the order and method which Chrift has 
 *' eftabiifhed is not to be inverted, why does Mr, 
 *' P. take the liberty to invert it, by telling us, 
 *' that mmifters are firft to baptize, and then to 
 *' teach ; tho' Chrift bids them firft to teach, and 
 " then baptize ?" 
 
 To gain his point, that infants of vifible bfliev^ 
 crs are the difciples of Chrift, he quotes A61:s 15. 
 10. IVhy tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of 
 the difciples ? Scripture is a chain beautifully link- 
 ed together, hence one part can*t crofs or contra- 
 dict another. I have ftiewn already in the fcrip- 
 ture fenfe, that infants can't be difciples. Neither 
 are infants here meant by difciples : But fuch per- 
 fons who had em.braced the truth. To prove 
 which, fee ver. i — «4. — 31. — by which v/e learn 
 they were capable of being f aught ^ fuhverted from 
 
 the 
 
( 23 ) 
 
 the truth, and of rejoycing for the confolation, — 
 Which chiraders don't belong to infants. 
 
 His third argument concerning federal holi- 
 nefs, now comes under notice. * " Thofe chll- 
 " dren, fays he, that are federally holy, are to be 
 " baptlzred ; but the infants of vifible believers, 
 *' are federally holy : Therefore the infants of vi- 
 " fible believers, are to be baptized." In my o- 
 pinion, this fyllogifm would have been confident 
 with truth, had he form'd it thus : None bur thofe 
 children that are federally holy, are to be baptized ; 
 but neither the infants of vifible believers, nor any 
 other infants, as fuch, are federally holy : There- 
 fore no infants are to be baptized. — To his fyllo- 
 gifm he fubjoins, " Perhaps no fedlary, that al- 
 *' lows chriftian facraments, will deny, that federal 
 " holinefs gives a vifible right to baptifm." This 
 is to be denied, and will be, while we find it is not 
 what Mr. P. calls federal holinefs, which is requir- 
 ed in the bible, of perfons to be baptized : But a 
 profefTion of their faith in Chrift. As already ob- 
 ferved, Mark i6. i6. Ads 8. 37. & 1 6. 31, 32, 33. 
 This profeiTion of faith made by the proper fub- 
 jeds of baptifm, is very different from federal ho- 
 linefs, and quite another thing. It may be ob- 
 ferved, that even being in the covenant of grace, 
 don't give a right to an ordinance of God •, but 
 only his divine command : Much lefs then does 
 federal holinefs give a right to any. That a right 
 to an ordinance of God, depends upon God's com- 
 mand, may appear from Melchijedeck^ Lot^ with 
 others, who were ia the covenant of grace, but 
 
 had 
 
 * P. 27* 
 
( «4 ) 
 
 had no right to circnmcifion. Why fo ? becaufe 
 not commanded. — Nay, tho' Abraham was in ihe 
 covenant of grace which was made known to him, 
 twenty four years before he was circumcifed, Gen. 
 
 12. 3. and 17. 1 4. yet he had no right to 
 
 that ordinance till he received it from God by com- 
 mand. 
 
 Now I argue, if being in covenant did give no 
 right to circumcifion, but God's command ; that 
 being in covenant now, don't give a right to bap- 
 tifm, much lefs a federal holinels : But God's com- 
 mand, in which is included every prerequifice to 
 that ordinance. Now no infanrs are commanded 
 to be baptized ; therefore have no right to it. — 
 Under this argument Mr. P. tells us of the cove- 
 nant made with Abraham and his feed, which we 
 have already confidered •, to which I would add, 
 2 Sam. 23. 5. Althd' my houfe be not fo with God ; 
 yet he hath made with yne an everlafting covenant or- 
 dered in all things and Jure, It may be remembred 
 that Amnion^ Abfalom and Adonijah^ are fragrant 
 proofs, that Mr. P — 's way of reafoning will not 
 do. Who fays, " The covenant of grace is made 
 " with parents and their children." 
 
 This federal holinefs, which he thinks gives the 
 children of believing parents, a right to baptifm, 
 I fuppofe he takes from i Cor. 7. 14. For the un- 
 believing hufoand is fan5lified by the wife^ and the 
 unbelieving wife is fan^ified by the hufband : elfe 
 were your children unclean •, but now are they holy. 
 Which holinefs he thinks, is not a principle of 
 grace, nor a matrimgnial, but a federal holinefs. 
 
 Note, 
 
( 25 ) 
 
 Note, he now makes federal holinefs, that, whkll 
 gives a right to baptifm. But a few pages paft, 
 it was perfons being in the church which gave 
 that right ; and what he will pitch upon next, I 
 know not : Unlefs he fhould add to the holyfcrip- 
 tures, which require a profeflion of faith and re- 
 pentance previous to baptifm. * If thou helieveth 
 with all thine hearty thou may ft, -f Repent and he 
 baptized every one of you in the name ofjefus Chrifl, J 
 He that believe thy and is baptized^ fhall be faved. 
 
 I MUST upon this text fall in with Mr. Stennet^ 
 tVilfon^ Jerom^ Ambrofe, Erdfmus^ Camerarius, Muf- 
 culuSy and many others J who judge a matrimonial 
 holinefs to be meant. What I underftand by ma- 
 trimonial holinefs, is legitimacy : And by un- 
 cleannefs there, illegitimacy ; feeing the prophet 
 when fpeaking, againft poligamy, § calls the ifTue 
 of a lawful marriage a godly feed ; in oppofition 
 to a fpurious or illegitimate feed -, which {^td 
 fprang from the Jews cohabitation with other' 
 nations, contrary to God's command : |1 Which 
 wives they were ordered to put away. ^ 
 
 The ad of marriage, in the language of the 
 JewSy is exprelTed by " being fanftified ; many 
 " inftances to confirm this might be produced from 
 " the MifniCy ^almudic and Rabinnic writings, as 
 " well as from Mamonides : Hence it can't be fuch 
 " 2. fan5lification as to communicate internal holi- 
 " nefs,nor federal holinefs \ but that which renders 
 E '-the 
 
 * Aas 8. 37. t Aas 2. 38. X Mar. 16. 16. 
 § Mai. 2. 15. II Deut. 7. 3, 4, !l Ezra, 
 
 10. 3.— ^ft II. 
 
( «6 ) 
 
 " the offspring lawfully begot, and not baflards, 
 *' as thefe were formerly accounted, who fprung 
 •' from the cohabitation of Jews and Gentiles.'*^* 
 Mr. Stennd againfb Rujfen^ ■\ fays, " Seeing the un- 
 *' believing parent is Taid in this text to be fandli- 
 " fied by the believer •, without which, according 
 *' to the apoflle's argument, their children could 
 '* not be holy ; the holinefs of the children here 
 " fpoken of muft be derived, as well from the 
 *' fandification of the unbelieving parent, as that 
 " of ihe believer ; and therefore muft regard the 
 *' lawfulnefs of their conjugal relation. And if 
 ** they are faid to be fandtified in this refpefl:, the 
 " fandity of the children, which is derived from 
 *' it,can rife no higher than the fource from whence 
 *' it flows, and may well be underftood of their le- 
 '' gitimacy. Whatever holinefs is afcribed to the 
 " children, one of whofe parents is a believer ; the 
 " apoftle does not here fuggeft in the leaft that 
 " infants ought to be baptized : Nor can this be 
 '' inferred, for we have proved before, that a credi- 
 '' bleprofeffion of faith and repentance, ought to 
 " be made by all thofe who are admitted to bap- 
 " tifni, before they can juftly be accounted proper 
 '* jlibjcds of that ordinance." 
 
 I WOULD add, if it is a holinefs which gives the 
 children a right to baptifm, upon one of their pa- 
 rents embracing chriftianity ; then all the children 
 of fuch parents muft have a right to it, from the 
 qualification derived from their parents, let them 
 be of any age whatfccver, even fifty years old ; 
 For the text don't fay, or clfe were your infants 
 
 unclean ; 
 
 * P. 24S. t Df» Gill in Loc, 
 
( 2; ) 
 
 unclean •, but elfe were your childreji unclean ; 
 but now are they holy. — And children remain 
 children, thro' every period of life. Again, if 
 children have a right to baptifm, by virtue of this 
 holinefs, then furely the unbelieving parent muft 
 have a right to baptifm too, fince this holinefs 
 which is faid to give a right to it, is derived as 
 much from the unbelieving parent, as the believ- 
 ing parent. — And the fandlity derived, can't excel 
 the fcource from whence it fprings. 
 
 Having fhewn what this holinefs is, we pafs to 
 his fourth argument,* " That dodrine which in- 
 " fers all infants to be in the vifible kingdom of 
 *^ fatan, is certainly falfe do6lrine. But the doft- 
 *^ rine that denies all infants to be members of the 
 *' church, infers them to be members of the vifible 
 ** kingdom of fatan : Therefore it is falfe dodt- 
 *' rine." If Mr. P. means by the vifible kingdom 
 of fatan, all who are not in the fcripture fenfe, 
 members of the gofpel vifible church, then the 
 enquiry is, whether infants are taken into the gof- 
 pel vifible church or not ? This muft be decided, 
 not by one aiTcrting they are, and another they 
 are not : But by the infallible word of God. It 
 has been already prov'd, that in the fcripture fenfe, 
 the meet fubje(tts of the gofpel church are fuch, 
 who are capable of profeffing their faith in Chrift, 
 which infants cannot do. The gofpel churches, 
 mentioned in A6ls i. 14. and 2. 42. and chap. 8- 
 make nothing /^r our opponents-, but rather ^- 
 gainfi them *, feeing they were only men and wo- 
 men, and fuch as were capable of continuing in 
 prayer and the cpoftWs dcdrine. 
 
 E 2 1 CAN 
 
 * P. 34' 
 
( 28 ) 
 
 I CAN find no account of any infants being bapr 
 tized and received into the church, neither in fa- 
 cred or profane hiftory, till the latter end of the 
 fecond, or beginning of the third century. When 
 the man of fin prevailed much, and corruptions 
 crept very fad into the church- — communicating 
 infants, with baptifing bells, meeting houles, and 
 what nor, with infant baptifm, then took place ac- 
 cording to hiftory. It is the fcripture-dodrine 
 then, according to Mr. P. which is falfe ^ becaufe 
 it will not join with him to admit infants as mem- 
 bers of the vifible church : Confequently, in his 
 language, they avc the " members of the vifible 
 kingdom of fatan." For he afferts, there is no 
 medium between the vifible kingdom of Chrift, 
 and the vifible kingdom of fatan. One would have 
 thought a gentleman who adheres to the human 
 device of half-way memberfhip, would have held 
 to a medium between Chrift's vifible kingdom and 
 fatan's •, but it feems he does not. He tells us, 
 *' the only ground of hope that we can have of 
 " their (viz. infants) being the m.embers of Chrift, 
 " by a real and vital union with him, arifes from 
 *^' their vifible memberfhip.*' I am forry to find 
 one, who has violently withflood the torrent of 
 Arminianifn:^ in thefe parts heretofore, now fo pub- 
 lickly to patronize it, and give it fuch a kind re- 
 ception as he does here. 
 
 Here obferve, he makes the ground of our 
 hope, for our children, not to arife from God's 
 electing love ; nor from the covenant of grace, 
 in which all the eledt were included •, nor from 
 Chrift's fatisfadion made for fin, and procuring a 
 
 righteoufnefs 
 
( 29 ) 
 
 righteoufnefs for all that the father gave him : But 
 cither from what they derive from their believing 
 parents, by their birch : For according to him, 
 they are born members of the church ; or, frorn 
 what the parents or fome friend, with the minifter, 
 have done for them. This is excluding free grace 
 to a great degree* and Ilrikes diredlly againft the 
 following texts, l^ot by works of righteoufnefs 
 which zve have done^ but according to his mercy he 
 faved us^ by the wajhing of regeneration^ and reneW' 
 ing of the holy Ghofi,'^ iVhich were born not of 
 bloody nor of the will of the flefh^ nor of the will of 
 man, but of God. f Inflead of embracing fuch 
 pafTagcs of facred writ, this muft be the tenor of 
 his do6lrine ; either by natural defcent from be- 
 lieving parents, or rather by our baptifmal work, 
 all our hopes for our children, dying in infancy, 
 arife. This is not only corrupt, but very danger- 
 ous doflrine, which fuits the arminian tafte, upon 
 which doubtlefs many will feaft : And may caufe 
 them to argue in this fort. If we can do fo 
 much for the falvation of our children, furely we 
 may do fomething for our own, &c. which would 
 be juft reafoning from fuch a tenet. 
 
 To render his argument more plaufible he quotes 
 Matt. 19. 14. Suffer little children and fordid them 
 not to come unto me : for of fuch is the Kingdom, of 
 heaven. This I think will not ferve his end, if we 
 confider the 13 th ver. which informs us, for what 
 end they were brought toChrift, not to be baptized, 
 for Chrifl baptized none. Joh. 4. 2, But that he 
 foould put his hands on them and pray ^ Thefe chil- 
 dren 
 
 * Tit. 3. ^ t Joh, I. jj. 
 
( 30 ) 
 
 dren might have been either dlfeafed, and for that 
 end brought toChrift to be cured •, or, might have 
 been brought to him, as fome great prophet, to be 
 bleffcd by him, according to the antient cuftom. 
 Gen. 4(^ 14, 1 5, 16. By whom- they were brought, 
 is uncertd:) ; whether by their parents or nurles ; 
 whether by moral or immoral prions ; whether 
 by church members or not. I think " This is to 
 *' fhew his ..umility, that he was not above taking 
 *' notice of any ; and to teach his difciples to re- 
 •* gard the weakeft believers, and fuch as were but 
 ** children in knowledge : And to inform them 
 " what all ought to be who expedl the king- 
 ** dom of heaven j for it follows, forbid them not So 
 *' come unto me, for of fuch is the kingdom of heaven : 
 *' Forbid them not, now, or at any other time.** 
 And it is, as if the Lord fhould fay, *' Don't 
 ** drive away thefe children from my perfon or pre- 
 *' fence -, they .are lively emblems of the proper 
 *' fubjedls of a gofpel church-ftatje, and of fuch as 
 *' fhall enter into the kingdom of heaven. By 
 ** thefe I may inftru6l and point out to you, what 
 *^ converted perfons ihould be, who have a place 
 " in my church below, and expe6t to enter into 
 •* my kingdom and glory above j that they are or 
 " ought to be, like fuch children, harmlefs and 
 " inoffenfive ; free from rancor and malice, meek, 
 *' modeft, and humble j without pride, felf-con- 
 " ceit, and ambitious views, and defires of gran- 
 '* deur, and fuperioriry. Chrift's entire filence a- 
 *' bout the baptifm of infants at this time, when 
 " he had fuch an opportunity of fpeaking of it to 
 
 ** his 
 
( 31 ) 
 
 " his difciples, had it been his will, has no favour- 
 *' able afpedt on fuch a pradtice." * 
 
 Let us now remark upon his fifth argument, f 
 " That dodtrine which renders the privileges of 
 " the cbrijlian church, lefs than the privileges of 
 " the Jewijh church, is certainly falfe dodrine :— 
 *' But the doctrine which excludes the infants of 
 " vifible believers from the initiating feal of the 
 *' covenant of grace, viz. baptifm, makes the pri' 
 *' vileges of the cbrijlian church lefs than the pri- 
 ** vileges of the Jewi/h church ; therefore it is 
 " falfe dodrine." Here he makes baptifm to 
 bring infants into, and feal them in the covenant 
 of grace. If it is fo, then all the children of vi- 
 fible believers who are baptized, mud be entitled 
 to the bleflings of that covenant, which are jufti- 
 fication, adoption, fandification, and the gift of 
 the holy Ghofl, &c. But will any one dare to 
 affirm, that every baptized infant has thefe, or arc 
 entitled to them ? No, unlefs he holds that they 
 who were once in the covenant of grace may 
 finally fall from it. In this place he infmuates 
 that baptifm brings the children of believing pa- 
 rents into the covenant of grace -, and before, J 
 that they were taken into the covenant of grace, 
 becaufe they were believers children : " And pa- 
 rents that are believers, have their children taken 
 into covenant with them." The reader may eafily 
 fee, another inconfiftency here j for if they are 
 brought into the covenant of grace on their pa- 
 rents account, then not by baptifm ; or if by bap- 
 tifm, then not on their parents account : For there 
 
 can't 
 
 ♦ Dr. Gill in Loc. t ?♦ 3S* ^ 3^» J P. i6. 
 
( 3Z ) 
 
 ean't be two oppofite ways to bring the fame per- 
 fon or perfons into the covenant of grace. I fup- 
 pofe if he fhould treat upon fome other fubjedt, 
 he would tell us, that the eled: were not taken into 
 the covenant of grace, by parents, nor by baptifrri, 
 nor by any works of their own, but were included 
 in it, when firft made v/ith Chrift from everlafting. 
 
 -As to the privileges of the chriftian church be- 
 ing lefs than the privileges of the Jewifli church, 
 becaufe of the denial of infant baptifm \ is mere 
 noife without any fubftance. For we believe they 
 are by far greater, agreeable to 2 Cor.3. lo. Even 
 that which was made glorious^ had no glory in this 
 refpe^f, by reafon of the glory that excelkth, 
 
 1. Under the prefent difpenfation^the bleflings 
 of the covenant of grace, which were darkly ex- 
 hibited by figures, types and fhadows under the 
 former, fhine in their unbeclouded lufture. 
 
 2. The gofpel church far exxeeds the 'Jewijh 
 church in glory : The Jewiflo church was made up 
 of lively and dead materials, but the gofpel church, 
 of prof e fled lively materials, i Pet. 2. 5. Te alfo 
 as lively fiones are built up a Spiritual houfe, 
 
 3. Infants were circumcifed and fo bound to 
 keep the whole law, from which bondage we are 
 now delivered. Gal. 5. i, — 3. Stand faji therefore 
 in the liberty wherewith Chrifl hath jnade us ftee^ 
 and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 
 For 1 tefiify again to every man that is circumcijedy 
 that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Which 
 yoke fame oi ih^ judaifing teachers had a mind to 
 
 impofe 
 
( ss ) 
 
 fmpofe upon the difclples of Chrifl, as may be feen 
 in Ads 15. I, — 5, — lo. but ibe apoftle withftood 
 them, and afked them why they tempted Gvd to put 
 a yoke upon the neak of the difciples ? Now if infant 
 baptifm did come in the room of circumcifion, is 
 it not likely at fuch a time as this, when there 
 were fuch warm difputes about if, as in 
 the chap, juft quoted, that mention would have 
 been made of it ? It might have readily filenced 
 the judaifing Teachers •, but not a word of this : 
 which is a ftrong argument that it did not come la 
 the room of it. Nay thofe who affirm that bap- 
 tifm come in the room of circumcifion do it with- 
 out any divine warrant, there being no text in the 
 whole bible to prove it. 
 
 4. But the Pedobaptijls fay we lefien the privileges 
 of the gofpel, by not admitting infants into the 
 gofpel churchjfeeing the infants of the Jews^ were 
 admitted into the Jewijh church. — Upon which 
 I would obferve, 1. It was a privilege to the chil- 
 dren of the Jews to be admitted into the Jewijb 
 church, in their infancy, by circurncifion i but it 
 is no privilege to our children to be admitted into 
 the gofpel church in their infancy by baptifm.' 
 
 2. The Jewi/h infants were admitted into their 
 church in confequence of God's command : but 
 there is no command to baptize our infants. 
 
 3. By baptizing our children and taking them in- 
 to the gofpel church, we lefTen the glory of the 
 building, which is to confift of lively Jlones -, but 
 infants, as fuch, are dead materials : Hence have 
 no right there, and do mar the glory of it. 4. 
 The privileges of God's children are lefTened by- 
 admitting improper fubje£ls, to partake of them. 
 5. I can't find that it does infants any good t 
 
 F baptizQ 
 
( 34 ; 
 
 baptize them ; or that fuch have any fuperior privi- 
 lege( which will be of any real fervice to them)to thofe 
 who are not baptized. 6. The partitron wall is now 
 broken down between Jews and Gentiles, andGod's 
 ckurch not confined to one nation as formerly. 
 
 Having thus confidered his fifth argument, 
 the fixth now comes in courfe. " If it was the 
 *' approved practice of the church in the apoflle's 
 *' days, and fo downward, to introduce the children 
 *' of vifible believers into the chri-ftian church, by 
 ^' the feal of baptifm •, then the infants of fuch 
 *' parents ought to be baptized : But it was the 
 ^* approved pradice j'n the time of the apoftles, 
 " and fo downward thro' all periods of the church, 
 ^* therefore the children of fuch parents ought to 
 *' be baptized." This fyMogifm might have been 
 better exprefled, thu3 : If it was not the approved 
 practice of the church in the apoftles days, and fo 
 immediately downward, to introduce the children 
 of vifible believers into the chriftian church, by 
 baptifm •, then the infants of fuch pa^rents ought 
 not to be baptized : But it was not the approved 
 pra6lice in the time of the apoftles, and fo down- 
 ward, therefore the children of fuch parents are 
 not to be baptized — and if not fuch, then no other 
 infants. 
 
 Mr. p. to prove the firft part of his fyllogifm, 
 "^ That it was the approved pra6lice in the time 
 '^ of the apoftles, and fo downward, to introduce 
 *' the children of vifible believers into the chriftian 
 '' church, by the feal of baptifm," tells us of 
 Zacchens : * " By virtue of his intereft in the cove- 
 
 ^^' nanc 
 
 * Luke i^. 9^ 
 
( 35 ) , 
 
 ** nant which God made with Abraham^ Chrift ap- 
 " plied the promife to his houfe, i. e. to his chil- 
 " dren whether young or old." He fhould have 
 firft told us, that Zaccheus was a married man, and 
 had children, and then proved it, before he afTerted 
 the promife was made to his children. This looks 
 much like the argument to maintain infant baptifm, 
 taken from Lydia and her houfhold. The good 
 woman, no one can prove, was ever married or had 
 any children. Poor foundation to maintain a 
 practice of fuch a folemn nature upon ! Again, 
 ^' This day is falvation come to this houfe, for as 
 much as he alfo is the fon of Abraham.'^ Is it noc 
 very common, if but one foul is converted in a 
 family, to fay falvation is come to fuch a houfe ? 
 And from thence we don't conclude, that every 
 individual in fuch a family is converted, or become 
 related to Chrift. I fuppofe by this text we are 
 to underftand either Chrift's perfonally going to 
 Zaccheus^s houfe •, or his fpiritually entering into 
 his heart by his grace. If the firft, the reafon is 
 here given, becaufe he is the fon of Abrahmn by 
 natural defcenr, fo that the Jevjs could not refied: 
 upon him for going to one of another nation, fince 
 he was fent only to the lotl fheep of the houfe of 
 Ifrael^—-\^ \}ci^ fecond, the reafon is, becaufe he is 
 tjie fon of Abraham in a fpiritual fenfe \ vvho is 
 termed x\\t father of the faithful. This, feems ta 
 be the fenfe which Mr. Whitefield puts upon ir, 
 when he fays, * *' The converfion of the perfon 
 ** referred to in the text, I think will be of no fmall 
 «' fervice to us in this matter." 
 
 In this fixth argument, he calls baptifm a feal ; 
 •*.by the feal of baptifm j" as he did in his fifth 
 F 2 argumenit 
 
 ^ His Sermon upon-Xuk, 19.. 9? 10. 
 
( 36 ) 
 
 argument — " Iniriating ftal of the covenant of 
 grace, viz. baprifrr," Mr. Rees may fpeak here : * 
 
 •^ • " However Mr. W. freely and frequently 
 
 " calls it a feal of the covenant of grace : Whereas 
 *' thegofpeiis aftranger, notonly to the phrafe, but 
 " to the idea annexed to it, for baptifm will fecure 
 *' or leal none to eternal life : Such only fhall be 
 *' faved, who thro' grace are interefled in the blood 
 *' of the everlalling covenant. Therefore let not 
 *' parents flatter themfelves, and their children in 
 ^' this point ; nor fuffer themfelves to be deceived 
 *' by the empty appellations, and groundlefs no-. 
 *'• tions, that their teachers may have inftilled into 
 '' them •, for according to the gofpel, the holy 
 *^' Gholt is the only one •, and his grace the only 
 " qualification, that can be faid to feal the cove- 
 ^' nant of grace, to thofe who are faved, Eph. i, 
 *' 13. In whom al/o, after that ye believed ye were 
 ^^ feakd with the holy fpirit of promife. Chap. 4. 30. 
 *' And grieve not the holy fpirit of Gcd^ whereby ye are 
 *■ fealedto the day of redemption, 2 Cor. 1.22. Who 
 " hath alfo fealed us^ and given us the earnejl of the 
 '-'• fpirit in otj^r hearts. Simon Magus had a clearer 
 ^' right to baptifm, in Foro Ecclef^:^ in the account 
 " of the church, than any infants can pretend to. 
 " For he was admitted upon proftfiion of faith, 
 '' and yet his baptifm was far from being a feal of 
 " the coyenant of grace to hitri •, for the man was 
 *' ft ill in the gall of bitternejs^ and bend of iniquity, 
 ^' Ads 8. 13, — 23. And there are too many de- 
 *^' plorable infcances, apong all denominations of 
 " thofe who have been baptized, whether in in- 
 " fancy or when aduU, who teftify by th^ir works, 
 
 '< thai 
 
 *■ In Anfwer to Walkerj P» 66. 
 
( 37 ) 
 
 *' that they are utter ftrangers, to the grace of the 
 *' covenant of faithful Abraham, I fhall only add, 
 " that I am well aware that divers of the fathers 
 *' (tiled baptifm, the feal ; but does the fcripture 
 ** call it fo ? Some of the fathers made it neceflfary 
 '^ to falvation, but does it therefore follow, that it 
 ^' is fo ? The Romijh church is indeed of that o- 
 *' pinion, but very ftw Prot eft ants who have bet-* 
 *' ter ftudied the fcriptures, v/ill offer to maintaia 
 *^ fuch a dodrine. But to clofe this head, a feal 
 ^' was only one of the familiar but arbitrary names, 
 *' which the antients gave to baptifm. And who- 
 *' foever will confult Gregory Nazianzen*% fortieth 
 " oration, will find a catalogue of fuch names, to- 
 " gether with the reafons they thought proper to. 
 *' affign for them, in thofe days ; and the particu- 
 *' lar reafon he gives, why baptifm is called a feal, 
 ^ 13, in his own words, delivered thus : Afeal^ as 
 *^ keeping and denoting dominion. What fignifi-* 
 " cancy there is in thefe expreflions, I muft leave 
 '* for the reader to judge.'' 
 
 I FIND under this argument, Cornelius and thq 
 Jaylor mentioned : Here let the reader take no- 
 tice, that Cornelius and his houfhold, were all ca- 
 pable of hearing, and in hearing, to receive the 
 Holy Ghoft^ ^ndjpeak with tongues and magnify God, 
 Afts lo. 33 — >44. 46. Which charadlers don't a- 
 gree with infants. And as to the jaylor and his 
 houfhold, they were capable of hearing and re- 
 ceiving inilrudion ; which is evident from the a- 
 poftle, fpeaking to him and all his houfe, and their 
 being able to rejoyce and believe in God, A6ls 16. 
 323 — 34. And they ff ah unto him tU word of the 
 
 Lordp 
 
( 38 ; 
 
 Lord^ and to all that were in his houfe. And when 
 he had brought them into his houfe ^ he fet meat before 
 them and rejoyced, believing in God with all his houfe. 
 Which charaders agree not to infants. So from 
 thefe texts there is no ground for infant baptifrn ; 
 But rather to the contrary. After Mr. P — 's quo- 
 ting, " Walk before me, and be thou perfect -, and 
 I will eflablifh my covenant between me and thee, 
 and thy feed after thee, to be a God to thee, and 
 to thy feed after thee.'* He fays, * " The utmofl 
 *' intended by thefe promifes is, that they fhould 
 " enjoy the bkfTmgs of church privileges, and the 
 *' external means of falvation -, and on thefe ac- 
 " counts be diftinguifhed from all others." I 
 don't find that there is one privilege, or any means 
 of falvation, which baptized children, as fuch, have ; 
 that unbaptized children have not : And fhould 
 be glad, if our opponents would inform the world 
 of their fuperior pjivileges and means, if there be 
 any ^ and if they can 5nd none, it's time to drop 
 this trite affertion, jufb to amufe the ignorant. I 
 acknowledge it was an advantage to the Jewifh in- 
 fants, to be circumcifed ; for unlefs tbey were, 
 they were to be cut off from the privilege of per- 
 taking of the Paffover,, and of hearing the law and 
 prophets expounded ; which the apoflle points. 
 out to be the chief profit of circumcifion. -f 
 
 In this our privilege is much enlarged under 
 the prefqni: difpenfatlon ; for the gofpel is to be 
 preached, to every creature, without any previous, 
 qualification in the hearer, and upon hearing and 
 believing they.are to be baptized, MatfA:i6. 15, i6. 
 
 And^ 
 
 * P. 40. t Rom. 3 I, 2> 
 
i 39 ) 
 
 And thofe who believe, are fuch, whom the Lord 
 our God calls -, to whom the promife is. Ads 2. 
 gg. For the promife is unto you and ycur children, 
 and to all that are afar off^ even as many as the Lord 
 our God fJjall call. Hence it is evident, if it fhould 
 be afked, to whom is this promife in A6ls 2. 39 ? 
 The anfwer is ready : To all, both Jews and Gen- 
 tiles^ whom the Lord fhall call. — The promife is 
 the fame to the children, parents, and to them afar 
 off : Hence to argue from this text, that believing 
 parents are to get their children baptized, becaufe 
 the promife is to them, don't appear to be the de- 
 fign of the holy Ghofl in ic. We might as well 
 argue from this text that the promife is to their 
 children, fo thofe who are afar off are to be bap- 
 tized ; or the promife is to them afar off^ and fo 
 the parents are to be baptized ; as to fay, becaufe 
 the promife is to the parents : Therefore the chil- 
 dren are to be baptized. — For the promife is no 
 more, to one than to the other ; and they 
 are brought to pofTefs the promife, by being 
 effedlually called. 
 
 And let it be further obferved, that the perfons 
 here fpoken to, were but now awakened ; in great 
 diftrefs about their fouls, nor as yet were comfort- 
 ed, or had profefled their faith in Chriil : Hence 
 liow very improper is it to draw any argument for 
 the baptifm of believers children from thence ? 
 
 Mr. p. * fays, '' According to the moft authen- 
 ^^ tic church hiflory, infant baptifm was pra6tifed 
 ^^ in the days of the apoftlcs, and in the places and 
 
 f* churches 
 
 ^ Pr 4^. 
 
( 40 ) 
 
 ^* churches to whom Paul wrote his epiftlesj^&c. 
 I would alk, if any church hiftory is as authentic, 
 as the hiftory which we have from God, viz. the 
 bible ? Or, are we to rely upon church hiftory for 
 a divine ordinance, which facred hiftory is filent 
 
 about ? Paul's epiftles fpeak for themfelves.-^-^ 
 
 Whether there is one word in all of them about 
 infant baptifm, I leave the reader to judge. But 
 fince church hiftory is referred to, and great ftrefs 
 laid upon it 5 it may not be amifs to examine 
 the teftimonies of the primitive writers, three of 
 whom are mentioned by Mr. P. and the fynodical 
 decree. 
 
 The firft is Origin, whom he afterts lived about 
 100 years after the apoftle Paul. Mr. Rees^ * 
 fpeaks of two of thefe men as '* teftimonies pro- 
 " duced by Mr. W. and informs us that Origin 
 *' fiouriftied about 230 years after Chrift, and that 
 " the quotations are not Origin's own words, but 
 " a tranflation of him, of which tranflation there 
 " are grievous complaints among learned men, 
 " becaufe his works are fo corrupted- and interpo- 
 " lated, that one fcarcely knows, whether he. reads 
 " him, or fome other officious commentator in his 
 " room ; and that the moft ftridt fearchers into 
 " his own proper works, which remain, are not 
 *' able to produce out of him any thing in favour 
 *' of infant baptifm. And Cyprian., A. D. 250,' 
 " pleaded for infant baptifm, tho' in his day an^^n- 
 " can Biftiop {Fidus by name J was uneafy to know 
 *' the proper time to baptize infants, which was to 
 " be determined by a Synod Cwhich fynodical de- 
 
 *' Cree 
 * Againft Mr, Fowler Walkerc P. 152, 153. 
 
( 41 ) 
 
 *« cree I fuppofe Mr. P. refers to) This is 
 •' fufHcient to give the impartial reader a very 
 *' ftrong fufpicion that this was a novel pradice, 
 *' now to be regulated by a fynodical decree ; 
 " whereas if the pradlice had been handed down 
 *' from the apoftle's days, as many do pretend, 
 •' what need was there for this decree ?'* * 
 
 The writers of the firft century are, Barnaha^y 
 Hermas^ Clemens Romams, Ig-MtiuSy and Polycarp -f 
 The learned Mr. Stennet^ againft RuJJen^ quotes 
 fome expreflions from Barnabas and b'ermas. ;f 
 " They are blefTtd, v/ho fixing their hope on rhe 
 ** crofs, have gone down into the water." — And 
 a little after — " We defcend into the water full of 
 " fins and defilements, and come up our of ic, 
 *' brmging forth fruit, having in our hearts the fear 
 •' and hope which is in Jeius " Hermas^ in his 
 vifion of the building of the church triumphant, 
 reprefented by a tower, has thefe words con- 
 cerning the explication that was made to him : 
 *' What are the reft of the ftones which fall by the 
 " water's fide, and could not be roiled into the 
 *' water ? They are fuch as have heard the word, 
 '* and were willing to be baptized in the name of 
 ** the Lord ; but then they call to mind that ho- 
 *' linefs is required in thofe who profefs the truth, 
 *' withdraw themfelves, and again wali^ according 
 •' to their own wicked inclinations :" And more 
 to the fame purpofe, fiiewing that they ufed thea 
 
 G 10 
 
 * This Quotation varys in Expreflion, in fome Sen* 
 tences, tho' it is the fame in Senfe. 
 
 f Dr. Gill, againft a Pamphlet entitled, Divine Righf 
 oj Infant Bapifm, P. ao. % P. 142, 143. 
 
( 42 ) 
 
 to require a profeflion of holinefs, or faith before 
 they were baptized by immerfion, denoted by the 
 Itones rolled into the water. 
 
 Not one word in all thcfe firfl writers, according 
 to thofe who have carefully read them, is to be found 
 for infant bapcifm. " The chrillian writers of the 
 *' fecond century, which are extant, are Juftin 
 *' Martyr^ dthenagoras^'Theophilus of Antioch^l atian^ 
 *' Minutius Felixt Iremeus^ and Clemens of Alexan- 
 *' dria. * Of all th^fe writers there is not one that 
 *' fays any thing of infant baptifm." There is but 
 one pretended to, by what I can learn, and that is 
 Iren^us, who is reprefented by our opponents as 
 laying. That the church received a tradition from the 
 Apofiles to adminijler baptifm to little children^ or in^ 
 fants. Which •' Dr. Gill charges as a forgery : 
 *' There being no fuch pafiage in all the works of 
 *' Iren^eus ; and defies the whole literary world 
 *' to produce or point out any fuch pafTage 
 *' in him." This Iren^us, with Cyprian and 
 Origen, are the three teftimonies which Mr. P. 
 produces. 
 
 I HAVE read, that in the third century, infant 
 baptifm was fpoken of ; but the firft that men* 
 tions it fpeaks againft it, viz. Tertullian : And that 
 k was then moved for. And in the fourth and 
 fifth centuries, it got much eftablifhed, and fo pre- 
 vailed till the reformation : Tho* thro' the feveral 
 intermediate centuries, there are teftimonies to be 
 found againft the baptifm of infants. — Which may 
 be feen in Crofbf% hiftory of the Englifti-Baptifts, 
 
 ai)d 
 
 * Dr, Gill juft cited, P. 21. 
 
( 43 ) 
 
 and in the writings of Mr. Stennet^ and Dr. GUI. 
 Thus the reader fees, how truth from hiftory pre- 
 ponderates upon the Baptift's fide, and elucidates 
 the point fo much contended for. 
 
 Having thus weighed the arguments, which 
 Mr. P. fays are very imperfedlly handled ; and 
 finding them light, when put in the fcales of the 
 fandluary : — We now proceed to notice the ob- 
 jedlions, which, fays he, are pleaded by our ad^ 
 verfaries. 
 
 Objection i. " Our adverfaries plead, as they 
 ** fay, for believers baptifm ; and they argue to 
 *' this effeft, viz. infants are not capable of faith : 
 *' But there is no warrant to baptize any, but thofe 
 *' that profefs their faith in Chrift, and therefore 
 *' no infants may be baptized." To remove this 
 objection, he thinks the fame might have been 
 faid, " Againft circumcifing children, under the 
 *' legal, as againft baptizing them under the chri- 
 " ftian difpenfation of the covenant of grace." 
 This miftake of his may be eafily feeii by confider- 
 ing I. Under the law a profefTion of faith was not 
 required, as a previous qualification to circumcifi- 
 on' : But under the gofpcl a profelTion of faith, by 
 the fubje(5ls to be baptized, is required, as a pre- 
 vious qualification to bap ifm. 2. God under the 
 former dilpenfation pointed out male infants, as 
 proper fubje^ts of circumcifion : But he no where 
 under the prefent difpenfation points out infants, 
 as being proper fubjedls of baptifm. 3. He makes 
 a grand miftake in quoting Rom. 4. 11. and en- 
 deavours to make out that circumcifion was a feal 
 «f t'le righteoufnefs of faith to all its fubjeCts, and 
 G 2. ' fp 
 
( 44 ) 
 
 fo that baptifm is now to all a feal of the rightc-* 
 oufnefs of faith, upon whom it is adminiftrcd : But 
 it is time for him to learn, that neiiher circumcifi- 
 on, nor baptiJm, is any where in the holy fcrip-. 
 tures called a it^al of the covenant of grace, or of 
 their righfcoufnefs. 
 
 The text juft mentioned, is wrongly quoted 
 by Mr. P. thus ; " they had yet being uncir- 
 cumcifed :" Which is, Ani he received the fign 
 of circiimcifion^ a feal of the right ecu] ne/s of the 
 faith which he had yet being uncircumcifed^ &c. Ic 
 was a feal to Abraham : But not to his pofterity.— 
 
 Our opponent is not quite fatisfied with letting 
 t}\t world know, that the Baptifts are wrong, differ- 
 ing from him : But charges ourSaviour, the apoflle 
 Feter and Paul^ with a miftake ; if his notion is 
 not right in this point, " that parents making pro- 
 fefTion of thtir faith, bring in their children with 
 th:^m into a church memberfhip :" * But we have 
 already proved, that this is repugnant to the word 
 of God. Therefore, according to him, Chrift and 
 his apoftles have miffed it. What will not error 
 Jead perfons into ! Lord enlighten the dark un- 
 derstanding, and caufe the prcfumptuous and ig* 
 norant to fee ! 
 
 The fecond obie(fi:ion which he mentions is, 
 *' There is no expiefs command or example for 
 '^ baptizing infants." To remove this objedion, 
 he firfh puts us upon proving by command or ex- 
 ample, that women have a right to the Lord's fup- 
 
 per 5 
 
 * P. 44. you have it at large. 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 per ; and then the religious obfervance of the 
 Lord's day. That women have a right to the 
 Lord's fupper, fee A6ls i. 13, 14 Chap. 2. 41, — ► 
 47. and Chap. 5. 9, 14. And as to the rehgious 
 obfervance of the Lord's day, we are inchned to 
 it from the refurredlion of Chrift, on that day, and 
 the example of the apoftles and primitive churches 
 meeting to ptrtorm fome of the molt folemn duties 
 and acts of worfhip on that day, /ids 20. 7. 1 Cor, 
 1 6. 2. Nosv let incPedobaptilis give us fuch proof 
 for infant baptifm Again, fays he, '' We have an 
 " exprefs command, which has never been revcr- 
 " fed, to adminUter :he initiating feal of the cove- 
 " nant,to the chilJren of vifible believers." It would 
 have bten well for him to have informed us what 
 he means by the initiating feal ; if by it he means 
 circumcifion, then I would argue that circumcifion 
 has been either reverfed, or it is yet in force : But it 
 is not in force, therefore it has been reverfed or re- 
 pealed, and the fame authority th^- commanded it 
 to be, has remanded it not to be, as we have already 
 (hewn. The initiating feal of the covenant of grace 
 fo often mentioned, is antifcriptural, and I appre- 
 hend ufed by many without any proper meaning. 
 For as to the covenant! of grace, we have (hewn it 
 to be fealed by Chrift's blood ; and as to the pro- 
 mifes contained in it they are fealed to the foul by 
 the holy Ghoft : Hence baptifm can neither feal 
 any fpiritual or temporal bit flings. And were we 
 to grant, which we don't, that baptifm is a feal, 
 then to adminifter it to an infant, would be like 
 puting a feal upon a blank piece of paper. 
 
 Mr; 
 
( 46 ) 
 
 Mr. p. thinks if a miflionary to thelndians fliould 
 write to us that he had baptized fuch anindian &his 
 houfe ; and another Ihould write to us that he had 
 baptized the head of fuch a family and all his, we 
 ihould very readily underftand them. * I believe 
 wc fhould, for if one of our baptift minifters was 
 the miffionaryjwe fhould conclude the families were 
 capable of hearing, receiving and obeying the word, 
 as did Cornelius and his family, Lydia and her houf- 
 hold, and the jaylor and his •, who heard the word, 
 believed and rejoyced in God. Wc are under no 
 necefTity of fuppofing infants, to be included in the 
 idea of a houfhold ; fince we can find many houf- 
 holds, in which there is not one infant. 
 
 We will now pafs on to make fome remarks 
 vipon the application of his difcourfes ; and fhould 
 we find a bitter (pint running thro' it, and now and 
 then fevere refledions upon the bapt fts, we muft 
 conclude, thofe are to ferve for want of arguments ; 
 and is what is common when all other refuge fails; 
 and the pains which are the efte6l of truth, are of- 
 ten difcovered by bitter invedives, agreeable to 
 what one fays, " When arguments drive the oppo- 
 nents into paflions and excefies, like ftrong purges, 
 it is a proof of their opperation, that they caufe 
 griping pains, in the very bowels of the patient." f 
 In his firft ule we find him hoping to be kept from 
 a cenforious fpirit in all that he (liould fay of the 
 baptifts, (wrongly called by him and others Anar 
 haptifls) and I can affure him it would have plea- 
 fed me to have found lefs of that fpirif. running thro' 
 his performance,and more of the fpirit of Chnft,f ' r 
 
 whofe 
 * P. 47. t Bap. Hifl. Vol. 2. P. 376. 
 
( 47 ) 
 
 whofe ordinance we are contending. Under this 
 ufe he blames us for " taking parents into covenant 
 without their children,** and don't hefitate to fay, 
 " that God never made fuch a covenant, and its a 
 human device." I fuppofe he means the covenant 
 of grace. I would afk, was Cain taken into the cove- 
 nant of grace with his facner y^dam ? Was IJkmael 
 taken into the covenant of grace with Abraham his 
 father } Or did Ifaac take with him Efau into the 
 covenant of grace ? Or were all *David's children 
 taken into this covenant with him, when in his lail 
 Words we hear him fay ; Altbo* my houfe be not fo 
 with God -J yet he hath made with me an everlafting 
 covenant y ordered m all things and Jure ? Why 1 judge 
 he means the covenant of grace, is from his alTcrt- 
 ing Eve to be a " covenant mother, as Abraham 
 was the covenant father of us all :"* And he affirms 
 that " the Abrahamatical covenant, including the 
 feed of vifible believers, is the covenant of grace.'* 
 I never before knew that a woman was^of the two 
 parties between whom the covenant of grace was 
 made. I defire to know how many covenants of 
 grace Mr. P. can inform the world of ? He has 
 told us of three, and if he means by NoaFs cove- 
 nant a covenant of grace, which he brings in upon 
 mentioning Eve*s and Abraham^ covenant : then 
 he makes four. i. He fays the covenant of grace 
 was primarily and principally with the Lord Jcfus 
 Chrift, a3 the fecond Adam and with his feed, -f— 
 2. It was with 4braham,\ — 3. It was with Eve, § — - 
 4. WxzhNoah : And yet || he tells us of " two cove- 
 nants reprefented to us in the holy fcriptures.'* 
 The reader may eafily fee the confufed notions he 
 
 has 
 f P. 4S. t P. 16. t P. 18. § P» 4S« II P. 15. 
 
( 48 ) 
 
 has of the covenant, and as fuch needs not, much 
 wonder at his error, in trying to make the world 
 believe, that children are always taken into the 
 covenant of grace with their parents. This opi- 
 nion of his is too repugnant to fciipture, to palm 
 upon the world ; fince all the children of /idam 
 were not taken into the covenant of grace with 
 him ; which covenant was revealed to him foon af- 
 ter his fall ! For if this had been the cafe all his 
 pofterity wou!d have been favtd, (but perhaps ic 
 would have fuired Mr. P. better to have mentioned 
 Eve^ fince he makes her to be the covenant head.) 
 Alfo Abraham had an excluded JJhmael \ Eli had 
 a wicked Phineas and Opbni ; and David an un- 
 godly Ainmon and Ahfalcm : fo that we lee the co- 
 venant of grace which was revealed unto /idam^ 
 Abraham^ Eli and David into which they were ta- 
 ken, and to whom it was confirmed, did not in- 
 clude all their children. Indeed ^David and all 
 Albraham% fpi ritual feed * may well rejoyce, in that 
 theirNanrLes are written in the Lamb's book of life ; 
 but not fo their natural feed, as fuch. 
 
 UzxiaFs offence which Mr. P. mentions, is that 
 which I would earneltly recommend to his confi- 
 deration •, his blinded zeal without a divine war- 
 rant, moved him to touch the ark and try to keep 
 it up, which touch was fatal. 
 
 I MUST deny that " the Abrahamatical covenant 
 i^s the foundation of ordinances," i" for it is God's 
 command which gives being to them, and which 
 muft be the foundation of them, and not Abraham^ 
 covenant, or elfe how can we account iox Abraham's 
 
 having 
 
 ♦ Gal, 3. 29. t P. 50, 
 
( 49 ) 
 
 having the covenant made to him twenty four years be^ 
 fore the ordinance of circumcifion took place * ? Why 
 did he remain fo long after the covenant was made with 
 him, before he and his were circumcifed ? becaufe he 
 had no divine comrnand for itj confequently no right* If 
 ordinances originate from theAbrahamatic covenant, why 
 was not the paiTover fooner obferved ? Yea,why was it fo 
 long before baptifm and the Lord's fupper were pradifed ? 
 
 In p. 50. " He informs us, that it is a great injury 
 done to the children of believing Parents, to deny them 
 the right of baptifm." This injury he makes to confift 
 in their being cut off from the covenant and privileges of 
 it, into which God has grafted them. It would be well 
 to obferve. i. if God has grafted them into the cove- 
 nant, man cannot pluck them from or out of it. 2. If it 
 is God's work to graft them into the covenant, then maa 
 cannot do it, neither by baptifm, nor by virtue of his 
 faith, which in the firft fermon he fo earneftly contends 
 for : Hence we may conclude it to be mere noife with- 
 out any fubflance, refpe6ling our excluding children from 
 the covenant, or not bringing them into it. Mr. P. and 
 all the men in the world cannot cut off one perfon from 
 the covenant of grace, whom God has grafted into it ; 
 God's work is fure, whofe purpofes vain man cannot 
 fruftrate. As to theLegacy which he mentions being left 
 to children in the new teftament, by Chrift the Teftator ; 
 what is it to them as fuch ? Juft nothing. What is it 
 to them as believers children ? Not baptifm nor the Lord's 
 fupper J for the fcripture is filent about any fuch thing. 
 
 In a marginal note f he fpeaks of re-baptizing, and 
 wants to know how often it may be repeated. We don't 
 hold to re-baptizing, fo Mr. P. will excufe me for not 
 anfwering his queftion. The mode of baptifm by dipping 
 then is introduced, which he endeavours to overthrow. 
 Upon the mode let us a little dwell. % " As to the 
 
 H <' lexi- 
 
 * Gen.^12. 3^' and 17. I, ^, ^c. t P. fi' t Dr. Gill 
 againft Dickenfon. 
 
( 5° ) 
 
 ** lexicographers and criticks, upon the greek language?, 
 *' they agree that the word Bapiizo, fignihes in its 
 *' firft and primary fenfe, to dip or plunge j and 
 *' only in a fecondary and confequential fenfe, to wa(h ; 
 *' but never to pour or fprinkle, there being no proper 
 *' wafliing but what is by dipping ; and ior this we appeal 
 
 *' to all the writers of this kind. — Scapula renders 
 
 ** BaptizQ^ by rnergo^ feu immergo^ ut qua tingendi^ aztt 
 *' ahluendi gratia aqua immcrgimuSy to dip or plunge 
 '^ into,as what for the fake of dipping or wafhing we dip 
 '* into water."' Item. *' mergo^ fubmergo^ ahruo aqua^ 
 *' alfo to plwjgey plunge under ^ overwhelm in water, ^^ 
 
 Stephens gives the fame fenfe of the words, and fd 
 " Schrevelius, who renders Baptizo, by bapiizo, fnergo^ 
 *' lavo^ baptize^ plunge^ wajh. Parjor only renders it bap- 
 
 " tizo^ baptize. And Leigh in his critica facra, ob- 
 
 *' ferves, that the nature and proper fignificatron of it, 
 •' is to dip into water, cy- to plunge under water ;'* " and 
 *« refers to Joh. 7,. 2 g^^ Matt. 3. 16. Aas 8. 38. and 
 ^' cites Cafaubon^ Bucanus^ BuHnger and Xanchy^ as agree- 
 " ing and teftifving to this fenfe of it : And baptifma he 
 *' fays is dipping into water. or wafhing with water : Ta 
 *' v/hich I may add the Lexicon compiled by Budausy 
 *' Conjlantine^ and others who render the word Bapiizo, 
 *^ by immergo^ mergo^ &c. plunge^ plunge into^ &c." 
 And other greek criticks might be produced who affirm 
 <he fame tho' thefe at prefent may fuffice. Indeed Mr. 
 P. " fays the words ufed for baptifm fignify afperfion 
 as plainly as immerfion," but quotes no proof for it. 
 His criticifm on baptizo, to form afperfion from thence, 
 gives the world as plain a fpecimen of his accuracy -and 
 knowledge in tht:Greck language, as that does on auton :^ 
 He tells us, it " is a pronoun relative, and fignifie's others 
 that he brought in the light of his own faith." Every 
 frnatterer in the Greek language may know auton is a 
 pronoun relative, and muft relate to fome antecedent, 
 which antecedent in Ads 16. 33 is the Jaybr in perfon, 
 aa)d not in action j fo that the unlearned reader need 
 
 not 
 
 * P. 7' 
 
( 5i ) 
 
 Xiot be dect by his falfe glofs upon it. His critlcifm 
 on the prepofitions app and eis in Matt. 3. 16. and ASts 
 8. 38. is obfolete and of little ferv ice to his caufe, which 
 (fays he) " ought to be rendered from the water, and 
 /<?, or unto^ or towards,'^ I muft confefs this is a pretty 
 way to impofe upon the unlearned, and lead them to 
 an implicit faith, as is xhe cafe with the Roman Catho- 
 Jicks : But I would have the reader know that 
 thofe texts are rightly tranflated, and Mr. P, him- 
 felf muft confefs that apo Si eis fignify into and out of in 
 the following, as well as many other pafTages. Mat. 8. 
 31, 32. Mark. 5. 13. Luk. 4. 35, — 4.1. and 8. 29, — 33. 
 and Matt. 25. 46. Who will dare to fay the unclean 
 fpirits were not in the man, but only by his fide or 
 near to him ; and fo did not go out of hut fro/n him I 
 And who will fay the Devils only went to the fwine, 
 and not into them, and that the fwine run, only down 
 to the water, and not into it ? And— the righteous only 
 go to and not into eternal life ? And the wicked only 
 go to and not into everlafting punifhment ? None but fuch 
 who deny that apo Sc eis fignify cut of and into. 
 
 Is it not evident that Chrift was baptized of John /« 
 the river Jordan, when we here the Evangelifl fay that 
 y^fus — was baptized of jfohn in "Jordan r'' * Many of 
 the Pedobaptijis confefs that immerhon was the primitive 
 mode of baptifm. f " Bifhop Burnet^ upon the com- 
 '' million, in Matt. 28. 19. by the nrfl teaching or 
 '^ making of difciples, tha.t muft go before baptifm, is to 
 *' be meant the convincing of the world that Jtfus is 
 «' the Chrift, the true Mcfiias, anointed of God with a, 
 *'• fulinefs of grace and the holy Spirit v/ithout meafure ; 
 *' and lent 10 be the faviour and redeemer of the v/orld ; 
 *' and when they were brought to acknowlege this, 
 '^ then they were to baptize them, to initiate them to 
 *' this religion, by obliging them to renounce all idola- 
 '' try and ungodlinefs, as well as all fecalar and carnai 
 Hz " lufts 
 
 ^ Mark. I. 9. f In his expofulon upon the 39 hzft 
 Xiclcsj P. 300* 
 
I 52 ) 
 
 *^ lufls, and then they led them into the water ; and with 
 
 *' no other garments but what might covernature, they 
 
 *• at firft laid them down in the water, as a man is laid 
 
 *' in a grave, and then they faid thefe words, 1 baptize 
 
 *' or walh thee in the name of the Father, Son and holy 
 
 " Ghoft : Then they raifed them up again and clean gar- 
 
 " ments were put on them : From whence came the phra- 
 
 *' fes of be'nig baptised into ChriJVs death^ of being buried 
 
 ** with him by baptifm^ into death : Of our being rijen 
 
 ** icith Chrij}^ and of our putting en the Lord Jefus Chrijiy 
 
 ^^ o^ putting rjjf ih£ aid 7?icin.^?ind Tpuiung en the new. Alter 
 
 ^' baptifcn was thus performed, the baptised perfon was to 
 
 ** be further inftruct'd in aH the fpccialties of the chri- 
 
 ** frian religion : And in all the rules of life that Chrifl 
 
 <* had prefcribed." 
 
 Mr. Richard Baxter^ in his paraphrafe on the new 
 tCilament with notes, upon the following texts fpeaks 
 thus, Matt. 3. 5, 6. *' So glad were the people to hear 
 *• that the kirgdom of the MefTiah was at hand, that they 
 ^' all flDck'd to him to be baptized, prci'tfTing repentance, 
 *' ti.at they might be prepared for the kingdom. Note r. 
 *• We grant that baptifm then was by wafbing the whole 
 *' body : and did not the differences of our cold country 
 *• as to that hot one, te^ch us to remember [I will 
 *' have mercy and not facrifice] it fhould be fo here.=~ 
 ** And on Rom. 6. 4. Therefore in our baptifm v/e are 
 '' dipped under the water, as fignifying our covenant pro- 
 *■ feffion, thst as he was buried for fm, v/e are dead and 
 *' buried to fm, that as the glorious power of God raifed 
 ** him from the dead, (b we fliould rife up to live to him 
 •* in newnefs and hoiinefs of life. — Likewife on Cc'cf. 
 " 2. 12. And its more than a circumcifion of your lufts 
 ^' that you have in Chrift ; they are dead and buritd with 
 **• him : for fo ycur baptifm fignineth, in which you are 
 '^ put under the water, to fignitV and profefi that your 
 '• old man, or ricfhsy iuft is dead and buried with him ; 
 "and you rife thence to fignify and profefs that you 
 *' rife to newnefs o\ life, and heavenly ho^es, thro* the 
 •• belief of God's works that jcaifcd Chriil from the dead." 
 
 Mr. 
 
{ 53 ) 
 
 Mr. Burket, on Rom. 6. 4. and the famous Dr. Tf^ttjiuiy 
 with a number mentioned by Mr. Stenmt againft Rujfen^ 
 fonie of whom are, Da'ilh^ Monfieur Mot us y Philippus a 
 Limbrochy Jofeph Mede^ Dr. Taylor ^ Bifhop of Down and 
 Conner, Dr. Barroiu, Archbi&op Tillotfon, Dr. Burnet^ 
 Dr. Fowler Bifhop of Glocefter, Dr. Cave^ Dr. Towerjon^ 
 Dr. Whitby^ all give in that immerfion was the primitive 
 mode of baptifm. And Dr. Floyer in his " Appeal to Dr. 
 *' Addifon the Dean, Dr. Hutchinjon^ Dr. Chaundeler^ and 
 '' Dr. Brinckesy and Mr. Hymberly, Canons Refidentaries 
 <* of th? cathedral church of Litchfield, aflerts that im- 
 *' merfion continued in the church of England 'till about 
 '' the year 1600. And he cites feveral Authors to prove 
 *' that chriftianity was planted iii England by immerfion, 
 *' and that it continued in England after the reformation, 
 *' during the reign of Edward the fixth, and Queen Eli^ 
 <' zabeth -, among others he mentions Bede, who relates in 
 *' his fecond book, that Paulinus baptized King Edwin 
 **^ in York, in the year 627 ; and at the village Rigin, in 
 •' the province of the Bernicii, he baptized a great num- 
 ^' her of people in the river glem, &c." 
 
 I WOULD not omit what the afTembly of divines in their 
 expofition alTure us, " On Matt. 3. 6. were baptized] 
 
 *' wafhed by dipping in Jordan this was by fpecial 
 
 *^ commifiion, Joh. i. 33." They fpeak of the mode of 
 baptifm likevvife as fully in expounding " Rom. 6. 4. 
 *• Are] Gr. were buried with him by baptifm] fee 
 " ColofT. 2. 12. In this phrafe the apoftle feemeth to 
 *' allude to the antient manner of baptifm, which was 
 *' to dip the parties baptized, and as it were to bury 
 " them under the water for a while, and then to draw 
 *' them out of it, and lift them up, to reprefent the burial 
 <« of our old man, and our refurredtion to newnefs of life." 
 
 Mr. lyhitefield's teflimony for the mode fhould not be 
 omitted, in his fermon from Phil. 3. 10. he fays — '' this 
 ** we have fhadowed out by the cuflom of baptizing by 
 
 *' immerfion in the primitive church." Mr. P — 's 
 
 criticifm upon udata pollajtranflated in the Engliih Bible, 
 
 HJttch 
 
c 54 ; 
 
 much water, which he fays ought to be many waters^ 
 makes nothing for his practice j for " the words polla 
 *' udaia^ n any waters, figniiy a large quantity, great 
 ^' abundance, both in the literal and metaphorical fenfe 
 " of tne phrafe, as it is ufed by the evangelift John elfe- 
 *' where. See Rev. i. 15. and 17. i — 15. And by the 
 *' Septuagint interpreters, it is ufed even for the waters 
 *' of the fea. Pfal. 77. 19. and 107. 23. and anfwers to 
 *' Mayim Kahbtm^ in Cant. 8. 7. many waters cannot quench 
 *^ ione : '*-Vhich furely muft refer not to a fmali, but a 
 " large quantity of water ; and which phrafe there the 
 *f Septuagint render by much water, as we do the 
 *' phrafe here." * 
 
 The Ifraelkes paffing thro' the red fea, he thinks makes 
 for fprinkling, and not for dipping, which may be judged 
 by the reader, after he obferves them defcend into the 
 channel, having the waters as walls on both fides of 
 them, and oveifhadowed with a cloud, f Is not this a 
 lively emblem of a burial ? Doubtltfs it is. 
 
 He X charges the Baptijls with that which perhaps 
 he muft confefs the Pedobapti/is to be the procuring caufe 
 of (viz J excommunicating the reformed churches in the 
 world. The Baptijis do not excommunicate them, tho* 
 they do not admit them into their churches, till they 
 have been baptized according to the fcripture mode. It 
 might not be amifs to quote what the excellent Mr. 
 Morgan fays on this point. § " If it be the truth which 
 <« we hold, and if it is by pra6^ifmg it, we unchurch all 
 *' the Prctcjlant world, np matter hov/ foon it is un- 
 «'• churched. If not, it is not pcfnble v/e fiiould do it — 
 *< iinlefs the Frcteftant world unchurch itfelf, by embra- 
 *' cing our principles — and if a number of the Prctrjlant 
 <* world are excluded from the church, it is the principle 
 «' pf infant fprinkling,and not we that excludes them j ier 
 «< if th^re is an exclufion at all in the matter, that is the 
 
 " caufs 
 
 * Dr. Gill agalnft Dickenfon, P. 102. f iLxod. 
 
 14. 22. X P. 55' § Againil F. 2d Vol 
 
( 55 ) 
 
 *^ caufe of it in fa<£l : We can do it only do£lrina]Iy.— *i 
 '' How dreadfully evil then muft that principle of infant 
 
 *' fprinkling be ! Surely that principle cannot be 
 
 *' true, which in fail has fuch ill nature and tendency. 
 
 His fecond ufe now comes under notice, he begins it 
 thus : " Learn hence that it is a plain duty to beware 
 " of thofe zealots who fet themfelves up againft our 
 *' chriftian practice of Infant Baptijm^ to draw away dif- 
 '' ciples after them ; fome in theApoftle's days, and after- 
 '' wards, did pervert and (train feveral fcriptures, to make 
 '* them patronize their errors." If he means the denial 
 of Infant Baptifm^ to be one of thofe errors, then it 
 cannot be an innovation as fome would, with Mr. P. 
 make it. The fpirit and temper which run thro' this 
 iecond ufe, is enough, without any remarks made by me, 
 to convince the unprejudiced reader of the badnefs of his 
 caufe ; a few paflages quoted may ferve as a fpeOimen 
 for the reader to judge the whole by. " Of late Enthu- 
 ^\ftafm and Anahaptifm have joined hands, and threaten 
 *"to fweep away our glory. The Anabaptifis are almoft 
 "everywhere in a fever, or paroxifm of zeal to make 
 '' profelites to their fchifmatical, narrow party. — They 
 " have already fet up the notorious fchifmatical practice 
 ^' of excommunicating all reformed churches, that do not 
 •' run their dangerous lengths : And what further may 
 '• not be feared, when enihufiafm, inftead of real chrifti- 
 <' anity, leads and governs any part whatever ? Would 
 " to God thofe that are feized with this party fever, 
 " might be duly fenfible of the aims and ends that go- 
 " vern them." &c. &c. &c. 
 
 Before I conclude, fince Mr. P. introduces the Ana' 
 baptifls in Germany, to render the Baptifs contemptible 
 now ; I would obfsrve, that the infurreilion there, by 
 what I can learn, was firft began by the Pedobaptifts^ and 
 then fome of the Bapti/is joined them, whofe evil adlions 
 none of us approve of. Mr. Stmn^t againft Rufjen^ * fays, 
 
 *' It 
 
( 56 ) 
 
 i^* It ^eem?5 plain from the hiftory of thofe times, thatth-* 
 
 '\!^' Papijis^?.^ well as Protejianis^ and of thefe the Pedcbap- 
 
 ^^.tljis^ as well as Jnabaptijis^ were concerned in them ; 
 
 '' and that the vindication of their civil liberties was the 
 
 " chief occafion of their rifmg/*' 
 
 I don't at prefent, recolle£l any thing material in Mr» 
 P — 's fermons, but what has been briefly corfidered. 
 And now to all, into whofe hands this piece may come, 
 I wifh much grace and wifdom, ferioully and thoroughly 
 to examine into, and weigh thofe arguments for Believer's 
 Baptifm ; and the invalidity of thofe for Infant Baptifm^* 
 So prayeth him, who was compelled thus publickly to 
 fpeak, and whofe endeavours to promote the caufe of 
 God, are now left to the blefling of the all- wife Jefus, 
 who inftituted this ordinance, and honoured it by paving 
 the way into the liquid grave, wherein his humility and 
 example glorioufly ihine. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 
 n^n 
 
 M-^ 
 
 ^ 
 
i 
 
N'*,--''