M :>.;',, («■: A Cop' %'::^- LAWFULNESS Infant-BAPTISM PROVED FROM S C R I P T U R E; WITH The Right that the I n f a n t s of Chrijlian Farems have to be Baptiz'd* Wherein 2Mb, Mr. Galeh Refleciions on Mr. WalPs Hi/lory of Infant-Baptism, are Examin'd and Re- futed, fo far as they came in the Way of this Di/courfe, And all the Ohjeltiorts and Arguments of other Ami- ftzdobaftiftsy that are of any Weight, are taken off. ^icunque negat parvulos per Baptifmcm Chrifli a perditione liberari^ & falutem percipere fempiter- nam. Anathema fit. Cone. Carthag. 5. ubi prs- fedit D. Auguftinus^ By RICHARD>^WEN, Vicar of Jford, in Sujfex. t N D 1V: Printed for R. Wilkin, at the King's-Heact^ in St.PauPsCburch-tard. MDCCXXI. ^iiSJiiJ4f t ^»„ ' j fe-.^gK4AibJr;iL-JSaj/^ ' a ' WS>iik^. ' «W^f-T-«^ *^^ *^ «V^ *^ *7*' ^*' <7^ *S^ f^** *!^> «^^«» «^ «j* THE ;^:V^'^-, LAWFULNESS Infant-BAPTISM,'^ Proved from SCRIPTURE. PART I. ^^^^?S^^^ T is well known, that we have Two ^^^^^^^ principal Controveriies in Debate ^^G ^r5^x with that Sett of DifTenters, who ^^«^* d?^ call themfelves by the Name of ^^^^.^ Baptijls. One concerns the Law- ^Sd^^^^o^ fiilnefs of Baptizing the Infants of believing Parents ; by whom I always mean Profefs'd Relievers. This we afTert, and they deny, which diftinguifties us into 'P&dobaptifts and Antip^edobap- lifts. The other relates to the Manner of Baptizing; whether it muft be by Immerfion, or Dipping the Perfons under Water, as they maintain ^ or, whether AfFufion, or pouring Water upon the Face, may be fufficient, as we do hold. But why this ftiould be made an irreconcileable Difpute, or at leaft a Ground ef Separation from us, I am not fatisfied ^ unlefs it to The Lawfulnefs of l>e, that they look upon us to be no True Church, nor to have a True Miniftry that can lawfully offi- ciate in the Divine Service. Otherwife, if they v/ould come to us for Baptifm, in this particular, they might be gratified. Becaufe our Church commands Dipping upon Condition, and, confe- quently, prefers it to any other Mode of Admi- niflration. And Mr. Gale affirms, it was in Ufa among us after the Reformation, 'till in Queen Elizabeth''s Days it received a Change. However this be, the fole Province I fhall undertake to ma- nage, is, To juftifie the Lawfulnefs of Baptizing Infants, and the Right they have to that Ordinance; which I fhall endeavour to do by Scripture Eviden- ces ; an Attempt, it feems, that will be ftrange and furprizing to our Adverfaries, For Mr. Gale obferves of Mr. Dornngton •, " That Author affeds " Wonders, and his whole Book is one, in which " he undertakes to prove Infant-Baptifm from " Scripture •, which is as mucli as to fay, the Scrip- " ture pofltively afferts what it does not fpeak " one Word of " And he commends Mr. WaWs Modefl}'", Ingenuity, and Wifdom, for declining the Combat with that Weapon ^ whereas Mr. Dor- r'mgton much expos'd himelf by taking the other Method, liefl^ Let. 7. p- 258. This is fomewhat af- frightning. Neverthelefs, I fliall venture upon it, fince to the Scripture our Antagoniils make their 3aft and fole Appeal •, and if in this Enterprize we can have good Succefs, by Mr. Gale^s Account, it niufl be wonderful. Purfuant to my Defign, the main Argument I intend to infifl upon, ihall be taken from God's Act and Order to admit Infants, by Circumcifion, into the Patriarchal Church and Covenant. And to ground my Argument on a firm Bafe, and clear it of all material Obje6tionSj I fhall i^oceed in the folio v/ing Method. Infan t-Baptism, Eiff. i£ I. I fhall prove, That the Covenant which God made with Abraham and his Seed, was, in Subftance, the very fame Evangelical Covenant which we Chriftians enjoy at prefent -, with this only Differ- ence, That it is now more largely explained. II. That this Covenant continued in Being, and full Force, throughout the Mofaical Oeconomy, down to our Saviour's Time, as a diftind Covenant from the Legal 5 while the "jews, after the giving of the Law, lived equally under Both. III. That Circumcifion was the proper Seal and initiatory Ordinance to the Patriarchal, or Gofpel Covenant, not to the Legal 5 and rather figned the Spiritual Seed of Abraham than his Natural. And, IV. I fhall fhew. How the Right which Infants have to be admitted into the Church and Evangeli- cal Covenant, by the proper Ordinance, refults from the Premifes. I. I am to prove, That the Covenant which Gol made with Abraham and hk Seed, wa^^ in SubftancCy the very fame Evangelical Covenant which we Chri- ftians enjoy at prefent •, with this only Dijference^ That tt ii now more largely explained. A Truth fo mani- feft from the Nature of the Covenant, and fo clear- ly attefted by the Word of God, that none of our Adverfaries, whom I have met with, have the K£- furance to deny in exprefs Terms ; tho' they have endeavour'd to make it appear a Mix'd or Double Covenant. Now Covenants receive their Specific Difference from their Nature and Contents, or from the Terms and Conditions on which they run. And ^here having been in pure Matters of Religion, but Two 12 The Lawfulnefs of Two Divine Covenants made in general with Man- kind, the firft was call'd, The Covenant of Works j becaufe it requir'd a perfedt Obedience in Man to his Maker's Laws, in order to Life and Juftification. And it is ftyled alfo. The Old Covenant^ by reafon It preceded the other \ it being given to Ada^n and his Off-fpring in his innocent State, and is now an- tiquated alfo by the Covenant of Grace, to all that lead true Evangelical Lives. "Wherefore, the Con- ditions of the Firft being broken, the Second and New Covenant fucceeded, which had its Commence- ment foon after the Fall. And it is calPd, The Covenant of Grace^ both becaufe it was an eminent Act of Favour in God to vouch fafe it to an apoftatized' Generation of Men, and becaufe it re- ceives 'etii to Mercy again , upon the moft gracious and equitable Terms that the All-wife Governor pf the World could give, or they, in Reafon, defire to have. This founds the true and elTential Difference between the Two Covenants, and not only fome particular and inferior Promifes they may contain. For in Covenants, Obligations and Duties are to be confidered, as well as the Bleflings and Benefits that are therein flipulated for. And if the promi- fed Bleffmgs are of different Kinds, the Greatefi: muft carry the Precedency from the Leaft, and pre- vail to give Denomination to the Covenant, But if we take Obligations and BlelTmgs together in this Account, we fliall find both, in the Abra- hamical Covenant, to be chiefly Spiritual and Evan- gelical. For the Patriarch and his Seed, were bound thereby to a Spiritual Service, and they had Spiri- tual and Eternal Bleffmgs infur'd unto them for their Reward. On God's Part, Chrifl Jefus, with all Gofpel Grace and Happinefs, were covenanted for j and on Man's Part, Faith and a fincere Obe- dience. To Abraham^ therefore, in that Covenant, it was thus promifed ^ That God would he a God tQ him^ and to hii Seed after him to all Generations ^ Thai Infant-Baptism, Iff r. i^ That hejhould he the Father of many Nations ; and. That in his Seed all the families of the Earth JJwuld. be bJeJfed. Thefe Promifes may be feen in Gen. ivii. and clfewhere; which yet could never be verified, if they ingag'd only for Temporal Blellings, and ex- tended no further than to the fingle Nation of ths Hebrews. But of thefe general Heads the Holy Ghoft is the beft Interpreter •, who teaches us, That by them God did preach the Gojpel unto Abraham j Gal iii. 8. and promifed Chrift unto him, v. ih* and, That this Covenant was confirmed of God in Chnff, V. 17. the Foundation of it being laid, and the Ratification made, in the Shedding of his preci- ous Blood. And that good God, who ingag'd by Covenant to give his Son to die for Abraham and his Seed, how Ihould he not with him alfo freely give them all things neceflary to Salvation ? As Remiliioii of Sin, or Juftification by Faith, Gal. in. ^. Rom.iv, II. the Adoption of Sons, Grace to ferveGod ac- ceptably, and the Inheritance of evcrlafting Life. What more have we Chriftians ? Or are not thefe the Sum and Compendium of Gofpel Mercies ? So the principal Blefilngs promifed in the Patriarchal Co- venant, were purely Spiritual, Evangelical and Eternal. Likewife, the Obligations and Duties to which Abraham and his Seed were bound by Covenant, Were of a Moral and Spiritual Nature, like thofe that are now incumbent on the Church of Chrifl-. For, according to the Tenor of it, not only Abra-* ham was injoyn d to walk before God and be perfeff^ Gen. xvii. i. but all the Circumcifed Seed initiated into this Covenant, were tyed to the Circumcifion of the Heart, whereof the outward Ordinance was fym- bolical. Always did it import to them. That they fhould mortify the carnal Affedtions, and put oft the Body of the Lufts of the Flejh^ Col. ii. 11. and be thereby wrought into true Obedience to the Will of ■""' ^ ~" ~- God. 14 I'he Lawfulnefs of God. And upon the Myftical Signification of this Rite, they are commanded, to circumdfe the Fore- skin of their hearty and to be no more ftiff-necked^ Deut.x. 1 6- Which is repeated Jer.'vf. 4. So that Circumcifion, according to its fpiritual Meaning and Intention, oblig'd all that receiv'd it in their Flefh, to a fpiritual Worfhip and Obedience in their Soul. But, by reafon this could not be performed without the regenerating and fandtifying Grace of God, even this Grace is made fure by Covenant- Promife to the circumcifed Seed oi Abraham, The 'Lord thy God will circumcife thine Hearty and the Heart of thy Seed, to love the Lord thy God with ali thine Hearty and with all thy Soul^ that thou mayefi live, Duet. xxx. 6. Eiadly fo it ever was, and will be, under the gracious Covenant of the .Gofpel. Duty in the Soul and Spirit is commanded, and the Divine Afliftance promis'd, that, by a joynt G)n- currence of both, the Work of Religion may go on liicceSfully. Make ye a new Heart and a new Spirit^ is their Duty, Ezek. xviii. 31. And yet this is what God himfelf undertakes to do in their behalf by his gracious Operations on their Soul, Chap. xi. 1 9, 20. and Chap, xxxvi. 26, 27. Thus the BlelTings and Benefits^ the Duties and Obligations of the Abrahamical Covenant, were Spi- ritual and Evangelical, as they are expounded to our Hands by Mofes, the Prophets, and St. 2aul. And Abraham, tho' he bore not the Name, was, in Reali- lity, as much a Chriftian, as Believers are lince the Incarnation of God's Son. For he faw the Day of Chrift, and rejoyced in the Sight, his Saviour being revealed and infured to him by a Covenant-Pro- mife^ and he embracing the Promife by a firm and obedient Faith. And the fame, in a due Propor- tion, holds true of the other Patriarchs and righ- teous Men cf his Race, Heb. xi. 13. 'WhaS Infant-Baptism, £ifc. 15 what Mr. Icmbs and his Followers have objeded againft this, amounts to no more, than to urge, ** That there are Temporal Bleflings promifed in the " Patriarchal Covenant •, as, The Land of Canaan " tor an Inheritance to Abrahams Pofterity^ The '* Birth of Ifaac •, and Deliverance from Egypt. *' Therefore, the Covenant could not be purely " Spiritual and Evangelical, but was a double Co- " venant, or of a mix'd Nature. " But thefe Tempo- ral Promifes, when ballanc'd againft the Spiritual, can make no manner of Counter-poize, and are of no Moment in the Comparifon. Still, therefore^ the moft worthy and excellent Promifes, or Blef- lings, ought to give Name unto the Covenant. But I anfwer farther. I. If Temporal Promifes contained in the Cove- nant, change its Nature from being purely Spiritual, into Mix'd, then, I think, it may be juftly quefti- on'd. Whether the Church of God has ever enjoy'd a Covenant that was purely Spiritual > I am certain, we Chriftians enjoy it not 5 which fuffices for my purpofe, to fet the Patriarchal on the fame Level with our own. For Temporal Promifes are com- prizM within the Limits of the Gofpel Charter. Such as, Blejfed are the Meek^ for they Jhall inherh the Earthy Matth. v. 5. Seekyefirfi the Kingdom of God and his Right eoufnefs^ and aU thoje Things^ i. e, NeceiTaries for the prefent Life, JhaR be added untt? you^ Matth. vi. 3 ^ . for Godlinefs hath Vrom\Je of the Life that now ps, and of that which to come, i Tim. iv. 8. More may be feen, Mark i. 29, 30. Luke xii. 28, and xxi. 18. Ephef. vi. 2, 3. Heb. xiii. 5, 6. iFet. iii. 10, ii, 13. Either, therefore, this mighty Argument muft be dropp'd, orelfe, that veryGofpel- Covenant which Chrift in Perlbn preached, muft be 00 longer counted purely Spiritual, 3. Ths 1 6 The Lawfulnefs of 2. The Promife of the Land of Canaan made to Abraham in the Covenant, was not to receive its Ac* complilhment in his Time, nor in the Time of his Pofterity, for the full fpace of Four hundred and thirty Years to come. But he and the other Patri- archs confefs'd themfelves to be Strangers and Pil- gr'ms on the Earth, Heb. xi. 15. Or in the pro- mifed Land, where they had no Inheritance, fo much as to Jet their foot upon, Adts vii. 5. except a Spot or two of purchas a Ground, in which their Dead were buried. But in that Interval, they had an En- tail of a contrary Nature to Eafe and Affluence, in a Land that flowed with Milk and Honey. For, in giving the Covenant, God tells Ahram j Know for a furety, that thy Seedp)aU be a Stranger in a Land that is not theirs, and Jhall ferve them -, and they fhall af fli^ them Four hundred Tears^ Gen. xv. 13. So th« Patriarchs with their Families, which were then the Church of God, had, for that Space of Time, no Benefit to expect by Poffeffion from the promifed Land of Canaan \ but their Covenant was as good as ftript of all Temporal Enjoyment. And, therefore, it this Confideration be of any Weight, their Covenant was more purely Spiritual unto them, than it is to us. Yet is it the State of the Church within that Interval, (which we aflert to be purely Evangelical, becaufe it was without Mixture of Legal Appendages, and Mofaic Inftitutions) from whence we take our Pat- tern for the Forming of Church -Memberfhip, and derive the Lawfulnefs, if not the Duty, of initi- ating Infants into the Church and Covenant. 5, In Deut. V. 2, 9. Mofes acquaints the Chil- dren of Ifrael, The Lord our God made a Covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this Covenant zvith our Fathers, but with t/s, even with us, who are aU of us here alive thk Day. He undoubtedly pieans the Legal Covenant, and afTures the Ifraelites, that it was ii^de voith tbm only, viho Ufre there prefent and alive i Infant-Baptism. 17 cHve. Not, therefore, with their Fathers, Abraham^ Ifaac and Jacob: Then niuft the Covenant made with thofe Fathers, be, in its whole Nature, a diftiadand different Covenant from the Legal. Whence it fellows, by the clearefi: Confequence, That fince the Covenant made with Abraham was not the Legal, it muft necefTariiy be the pure Evangelical Covenant, becaufe there were no more than thofe Two. And io^ if M^t/^j- be allowed to underftand the Natu^p and Difference of the Covenants better than Mr. Tombs, he has utterly overthrown his Argument. Grounding my felf on thefe Reafons, 1 conceive, it is fully prov'd, that the Ahrahatnical Covenant was a purely Spiritual and Evangelical Covenant, or the fame in Subftance with that which the Chri- liian Church has always lived under. II. I am next to prove. That thk Covenant con- tinued in Being and full force throughout the Mofai-. cal Oeconomy^ down to our Saviour s Time, as a diflin[i Covenant from the Legal; while the Jews, after the giving of the Law, lived equally under Both. Upon AAarns Fall, the Evangelical Covenant was firft madi^ and publifti'd to Mankind, there being no Room nor Occalion for it in their State of Innocency. To Abraham it was repeated in plainer Terms, ra- tified by an external Seal, and made the Privilege of a peculiar People. Nor had the Church any other Covenant belide this, 'till That of the Law was fuper-induc'd. Then the fews^ with their Pro- felytes of Righteoufnefs, were brought under Two di- ftin£t Covenants, The Evangelical, and the Legal. Neither could thefe Two Covenants ever coalefce and unite in One, becaufe of the irreconcileable Oppofi- tion between their Natures -, nor ought they to be con- founded by Authors, as, I think, they have too com- monly been in t^eir Accounts of the Judaic Church and Difpenfation. Now, that the Evangelical Cove- B nant iS The Lawfulnefs of nant made with Abraham continued in Force, when the Legal commenc'd, and from thence down to our Savi- our's Time, will appear by the following Arguments. For, I. After the Legal Covenant of "Works was pro- claimed and eftablifti'd with the Jews on Mount Si- fiai^ we find Mqfes^ in God's Name, making ano- ther Covenant with them ; which could be nothing but the Renewal, or Continuation, of the Patriar- chal Covenant of Grace. For thus we read Deut. xxix. I. Thefe are the Words of the Covenant, which the Lord commanded Mofes to make with the Children, of Ifrael in the Land of Moab, BESIDE the Cove- nant which he made with them in Horeb (which was one of the Summits of Mount Sinai). Commentators do generally interpret this Covenant in the Land of Moabj to be only a Repetition of the Sinai Covenant. But v/ith what Propriety of Speech, or Probability of Truth, the Contents of the Covenant, and the Letter of the Text, declare, which muft be forcibly ftrained from its Genuine Senfe, and Grammatical Conftruftion, before it can bear with their Interpre-. tation. For if the Covenant in Moab was a Cove- nant Beside that in Horeb, as the Original lai- ports, and all the Verfions I have feen do fo render it, it is then impoffible it Ihould be the Same, be- caufe the Idiom and Manner of Exprelllon, will not admit of that Senle. For the Word Beside, is added and joyn'd to the Covenant itfelf, to fignify its real Difference and Diftindion ; not to the Pro- mulgation of the Covenant, to denote only its Re- petition. To promife, or give a Thing Beside another, fhews the Thing to be quite different from the other ^ whereas, to promife, or convey the fame Thing a thoufand times over, makes no Alteration in the Thing itfelf. Alfo, if we confider the Contents, and particular Exprefiions ufed in this Covenant, that was made in the Land of Moab, they will evince its Diftinftion from Infant-B A p Ti s M, 6ifr. ir; from the Legal. I have prov'd before, from Deut, V. 2, 5. That the Covenant made with the Jews in horeb^ was not the Covenant made with Abraham and the Fathers. But this Covenant made with tha jews in iMoab^ appears to be the fame that was made with the Fathers, Abraham^ Jf'^'it^:> and Jacob. For thus the Terms of it exprefl}'" run there, Dcur. Xiir, 12,13. as Mo/es tells the CoUedtive Body" of the Jews and Strangers : That thou Jhoul deft enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God^ and into hk Oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee thps Day 5 That he may eftablijh thee to Day for a People to him- /e/fi and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath /aid unto thee^ and as he hath /worn unto thy Fathers^ /(? Abraham, toKkac, andto]a.coh. And fo, if this Covenant made with the Jews in Moab^ was the fame which God fware to Abraham and the Fathers, as the "Words import, it could not be the Legal Covenant of Works, but the Evangelical Covenant of Grace and Mercy. Moreover, it contains the lame Spiritual Blefhngs with thofe that were cove- nanted for to Abraham, For here the Lord promiles to be a God to the Jews and their Seed, as he had promifed to Abraham in the Covenant of Grace, and Hgn'd it by Circumcifion, Gen. xvii. 7. When God eipreffes himfelf thus to Men, in the way of Pro- mife and fpecial Favour, it lignifies to them fome eminent Bleffing ; which, in the prefent Cafe, inuft be fpiritual, becaufe, in parallel Places, it is fo in- tended and underftood. In Exod. iii. 6. God from the Bufh declares to Mofes^ I am the God of thy Fa- ther, the God of Abraham, the God ^Ifaac, and the God 0/ Jacob. To which he adds, v. 1$. This is my 'Name for ever^ and this my Memorial to all Generati- ons. From thofe Words to Mofes^ our Saviour de- duces that fpiritual and eternal BlelTing, the Refur- redion from the Dead, in his Refutation of the Sad- ducees, Matt. xxii. ?2. And after him, St. ?aul B 2 teaches io The Lawfiilnefs of teaches, That the the Promife to be their God, im- plied a heavenly Inheritance to the Patriarchs, while in this World they were left deftitute of a PofTeflion. For, ns Strangers and filgritns on Earthy they fought and defired a better Country, that is a heavenly. Where- fore God is not ajhamed to b^ called their God., for he hath provided for them a City, Heb. xi. i6. And that the Phrafe we fpeak of, had a peculiar Relati- on to the Graces and fpiritual Bleiiings of the Evan- gelical Covenant, we learn farther from his own Mouth, Jer. xxxi. 93. where, exprefling the Terms of the Gofpel Covenant, in Oppolition to the Legal, he thus promifes and declares: I will put my Law in their inward Parts, and write it in their Hearts ; and will be their God, and t heyfljall be my People. If poflible it was to miftake their Meaning, St. Paul prevents it by tranfcribing the Words, with thofe ad- joyning, and making them to comprehend the Sum of Spiritual and Evangelical Blefiings, heb. vin. 10. The fame Senfe they muft have Rev. xxi. 3. and in feveral other Places where they occur. How poor and cavilling therefore is the Sophiftry of fome of our Antagonifts, who, ftriving with all their Might to mifreprefent the Abrahamical Covenant, would fain perfuade their Readers, that the Promife, 7 will be a Qod to thee, and thy Seed after thee. Gen. xvii. 7. doth iignify no more of a fpiritual Blefiing, than that Preface does at- the Giving of the fiery Law which produced Wrath, / am the Lord thy God^ Exod. xx. 1 ? Whereas the Difference is plain and palpable. Vox this is no Promife of future Favour and Bene- volence, but a folemn Declaration of God's Sove- reignty and Dominion, which over the Jews he had particularly acquir'd by their Redemption out of Egypt, in order to oblige them to Obedience. To clear this Point farther -, The Covenant made in the Land of Moab, contained an exprefs Promife of Grace unto the Jem ; and fo muft be the Evan- gelical Infa NT-Baptism, ^fff. 21 gellcal Covenant made with Abraham^ not the Le- gal on Mount' Sinai ^ which exprefly ingag'd for no fuch Gift. For the Words and Terms of that Covenant, are continued to the End of Deut. Chap. iix. In the 6th Verfe whereof, Mo/es tells them, in God's Name ^ The Lord thy God will circumcije thine Hearty and the lie art of thy Seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine Heart, and with all thy Soul^ that thou mayeft live. That this can be done only by the inward fandifying Grace of God's Spirit, proper to the Gofpel Covenant, and is the Spiritual Circum- cifion of the Heart intimated by the Carnal, is ac- knowledg'd and maintain'd by all Orthodox Chri- ftians. And whofoever carefully perufes that xxxtb. Chapter, he will fee, That the Obedience to the Laws of God there requir'd, muft proceed from an inter- nal Principle that afFe£ts and converts the Soul, but rauft not be flight and fuperficial. Once more ; In the Covenant made in the Land of Moab, Evangelical Faith is compriz'd ; or the "Word of Faith, and the Preaching of Faith, as it ftands oppolite to the Law of Mo/es. Whence it un- deniably follows, that it cannot be the fame with the Legil Covenant made in Horeb. My Obferva- tion I raife from the Words in Chap. ixx. 10, &c. which thus conclude : The Word is very nigh thee, m thy Mouth, and in thy Heart, (the very fame Expref- lion we found in Jeremiah concerning the Tenor of the Gofpel Covenant) that thou mayeft do it. Of which Paffage let St. Vaul again be the Expofitor; who, quoting that Place in Deuteronomy, and oppo- fing the Words to the Mofaical Law, affirms them to be the Language of the Righteoufne/s which is by Faitb^ Rom. I. 5,6. And rehearfing in particularthofe Ex- prelfions, as the Language of Faith •, The Word ^ nigh thee, even in thy Mouth, and in thy Heart -, he adds his Comment, That is, the Word of Faith which we preach.^ V. 8. Wherefore an Evangelical Covenant of Grace B ^ and 22 The Lawfulnefs of and Faith the Jews had, as given in the Land of Aloah, befide the Legal Covenant on Mount Sinai. 2. If the Evangelical Covenant of Grace was difcontinu'd to the Jews, during the Term of the Legal Covenant of Works, it will be hard, if not impolFible, to account lor their Service and Sal- vation. For, did the Legal Covenant proraife to fupply them with the Divine Affiftance for thefe Ends ? Or could they pray and hope for it with Faith, when they had no Promife ? No Covenant- Right had they to Grace, nor Grounds to expedl: it in this Cafe, except they could fpring alone from Natural Religion. Yet for Grace they faithfully pray'd with good Succefs^ whereof, to name no more, D/2uiif's Prayer is a fignallnftance, Vf. li. lo, II, 12. And by Grace and Faith did righteous Men live in their Church, pleafe God, and obtain the Crown of^ternal Life. But this could never be by virtue of the Legal Covenant. For, as we learn from the New Teftament, The Law wof weak thro the flej})^ and made frothiTig perfect. 'Twas efta- blifli'd upon Promifes inferior to thofe of Grace and everlafting Felicity ♦, the Bleffings it direftly promised, being only Temporal ^ 'twas a kiUmg Letter, not a quickning Spirit, and fubjeded People to a Curfe \ 'twas the Miniflration of Death and Condemnation, becaufe it occaflonally increafed Sins by the Impofltion of heavy Burdens and diffi- cult Duties, where tlieie was not Strength proporti- onable for their Difcharge -, and fo it wrought Wrath, deceiv'd and flew its Subjefts, but fav'd them not. The Spirit came not by the Works of the haw, but by the Hearing of faith ; fuch Gofpel-Faith as Mofes preach'd, wlien he deliver'd the Covenant of Grace in tlie Land oi' Moab. Full was the Law of carnal Ordinances, beggarly Elements and Rudiments of the World ^ which muft be all punctually kept, or there was no Juililicaiion unto Life : So that, ac- cprdin^ Infant-Baptism, i^c. 23 cording to its Tenor, no Man could polTibly ferve ' God in fuch a fpiritual Manner, as was requifite to Acceptance and Salvation. For, by the Deeds of the Law J})aU no flefh be juftified in God's Sight, Wherefore, by the Legal Covenant, conlider'd as fuch only, the Jews were all condemned and dead Men -, becaufe, in its Account, they were all deftitu- ted and abandoned Sinners, without Power from Above to perform their Duty, and gain Approbation with their God. Except, then, we were minded to turn rank Felagians^ we muft of neceflity grant, that throughout the whole Time of their Legal Dif- penfation, they were alio under a better Covenant, that adminiftred unto them fpiritual Succours to ferve God faithfully ^ or elfe were all eter- nally loft. And if fo, their being God's peculiar People, chofen and beloved above other Nations, would have been a moft unhappy and mortify- ing Confideration, and plainly contradictory in itfelf. Better, of the two, had it been for them, to be thrown out of that Relation, and permitted, like the Gentiles , to feel after God in the way of Natural Religion, as he might be found, than be clogg'd with Ceremonies to multiply Sins, and confin'd to a Covenant that muft condemn them. But with many excellent Livers was their Church adorn'd from Time to Time^ who ferv'd God fromi the Soul and Spirit, and were received by him into eternal Glory. From whence I conclude, That they were not under a Covenant of Works and Wrath, of Condemnation and Death, alone ; but alfo under the Evangelical Covenant of Grace, Mercy, and a Spiritual Life, made to the Fathers, and renewed in the Land of Moab, which impos'd prafticable Conditions of Salvation, and afforded Power for acceptable Performance. And as our Chancery is to th&Statute Law^ fo was this Covenant, as a Court of Equity, to relieve the diftreffed J^zcj under the rigid Law of Works. For, B4 3. As 24 T^^^s Lawfulnefs of 3. As by the Gofpel Reprefentations of their State, we find the Jezus^ under the Old Teftament, utterly loft by the Legal Covenant •, fo we find, all righteous and good Livers among them fav'd by the gracious Covenant of their Fathers. Jews thofe holy Men were, not only outwardly in the Flelh and Letter, but inwardly in the Heart and Spi- rit ^ and the true Circunicifion they wtie^ as we Chri- ftians are defcrib'd, to voorjhip God in the Spirit, and. rejoice in Chrift Jefus^ without repoiing their Confi- dence in the flejh, Phil. iii. 3. And what they aftii- ally were, the reft of their Church might have been, as they were bound in Duty •, forafmuch as ftifE- cient Grace was ingag'd unto them by a fure Cove- nant : For the Gofpel was preach'd to them as it is to us, Ueb. iv. 2. not in the Types and Shadows of the Law only, but in plainer Language. St. Vaul thus enumerates their Spiritual Privileges and Condition, Rom. ix. 4. Who are Ifraelites, to whom pertaineth the Adoption, and the Glory, and the Covenants, and the giving of the haw, and the Service of God ', zvho/e are the Fat hers. According to God's Purpofe, fpiritual and true Ifraelites they ought and might have been : The Adoption was theirs, not to be Slaves under tlie Yoke of Bondage, but to be the Regenerate Off'-fpring of their heavenly Father. Theirs was the Glory of God's Prefence in the She- chinah and in the Spirit. Theirs the Law, Moral and Spiritual, as well as Ritual j for Holy and Spiritual, Juft and Good it was, Rotn. vii. 12, 14. as they had it in the Covenant of their Fathers, continued to them in the Land of Moab. Theirs the Service of God ; both exterior, in Ordinances, and interior, in the Heart. Theirs the Fathers, in whom their chief Intereft ftiould have been, by a fpiritual Regeneration, to follow their Pattern, that they might be their True Children, and enjoy their Privilege?^ Infant-Baptism, ^c. 2 5 Privileges. And theirs the Covenants, in the Plu- ral Number, -which are call'd. The Cove ;j ants of From/e^ E]}h. n. 12. The Legal, with its Temporal Promifes, and the Evangelical, with thofe that are Spiritual and Eternal. So Ht. Peter tells them, Affs iii. 25. Te are the Children of the Prophets, and of the Covenant zahich God made zmth our Fathers^ faying unto Abraham, And in thy Seed Jhall all the Kindreds of the Earth be blejjed. If Children of that Covenant they and their PredecefTors were, they were its Subjeds alfo, and in the Right or PofTef- ^on of its Privileges. And, finally, Chrifi: was theirs in a fpecial Manner, as born of their Nation, to be King of the fews^ and the Saviour of his People Ifrael. A Right, therefore, they had to all Graces and fpiritual Bleflings, had they ftrove to make good their Right ^ which fhsws, what Cove- nant they were always under. Clouded, indeed, and cumber'd it was, by the Addition of the Legal, with its numerous Ceremo- nies ; Co that, to vulgar Capacities, it might lie out of Sight, and be, in Appearance, loft. But wife and holy Men had an illuminated Mind, that faw thro' the Clouds to Chrift Jefus, who was the End of the Law^ Rom. x. 4. or the Completion of it, for Righteoufnefs to every one that betieveth. Nor did they forget their Inter efi in that gracioi^ Covenant of their Fathers, which preached Chrifi unto tbem, with all his Benefits. For, living by Faith, they did all eat of the fame fpiritual Meat, and did all drink of the fame fpiritual Drink : For they drank of that fpi- ritual Rock which followed them •, and that Rock wof Chrift^ I Cor. x. ?, 4. And through Faith they allob- tained a good Report, though they received not the Promife -, God having provided for us fome better Things that they without t/s fhould not be made perfeB^ Ueb. xi. 99, 40. To the firft Fathers, the Promifes pf Chrifi and IJe^iven were afar ©ffj ver, 13.5 to the later 26 The Lawfulnefs of later Jews^ they gradually drew nearer : But ac- compli Ih'd they were not, before the Incarnation of our BlefTed Lord •, nor will they fully be, 'till we are all inflated in the Kingdom of Glory. ThefeThings the Old Saints forefaw by Faith in God's Promifes, Ver Chrift was a Minifter of the Circumcifion^ to con- firm the Promifes made unto the fathers, Rom. xv. 8. Becaufe in him alone they are fulfill'd, and receive iheir Confummation. 4. As the Legal Covenant, precifely confider'd, promis'd no fupernatural Affiftaiice to keep the Law, lb it exprcfly promis'd no eternal Reward in Heaven to its exadteft Keepers •, but a profperous Abode in the Land oi Canaan^ was all it directly ingaged for in their Behalf. The Covenant of Grace is eftablifli'd on better Promifes, Heh. viii. 6. ^ fuch are, The Help of God's Spirit to live religioufly. Pardon of Sins, from which they could not he juftijied by the Law ^Mofes, iiif?ixiii.39. and, above all, eternal Bhfs in Heaven, whereby it became an Introdudlion to a better Hope^ Heb. vii. 19. If, therefore, the Jews were under no other Covenant befide the Legal, how could their righteous Men exped, with Faith^ the Inheritance of eternal Life for their Reward > Was it their native Right ? or, Could they claim it, in their lapfed State, by a Covenant of Works ? Surely, they could never believe and hope for it, without a free Promife by the Covenant of Grace made with their Fathers, and perpetuated to them in all Ages. Yet this Hope and Faith they conftantly entertain'd, knowing, that, by the Patriarchal Covenant, God had bound himfelf to be their God, an exceeding great Reward. Purfuant to which Obligation, they trufted he would raife them up. from their Graves to the Fruition of Himfelf in Heaven. Before the Law, Mofes bore the Reproach of Chrift ^ for he had a Re- fpeS to the Recompence of the Reward^ Heb. xi. 26. Under the Law, they ftill retained the fame Expe- dation: Infant-Baptism, fi^c, 27 fiat Ion : ¥or now, fays St. P^///, A3s xxvi. 6, 7. I ft and and am judged for the Hope of the Fromife made to our fathers ,♦ unto which Fromife ourTwehe Tribes'^ injiant/y ferving God Night ^ and Dny^ hope to come. And what was that promifed Hope, but the Refur- redlion to eternal Life, as the next Verfe points it out ? Whyfhould it be thought a Thing incredible with you, that God Jhould raife the Dead ? And for the Hope and Refurre&ion of the Dead was he called in ^eftion^ Chap, xxiii. 6, More plainly ytU Chap. xxiv. 1 5 . I have Hopes towards God, which the Jews themfelvei allow, that there fhall be a Re/urre^ion. both of the Juft and Unjuft. For this was taught hy the Law and the Prophets, Ver. 14, and by Mo/es and the Prophets, Chap. am. 22. Becaufe yW^j-, when he had given the Law, did alfo, in the Land of Moab, preach the Gofpel to the Jews -, and both Covenants, with their refpedtive Bleflings, are con- tained in the fame Code, or Books of the Law. Up- on which Foundation, their holy Men patiently in- dured the moft exquifite Tortures, not accepting De- liverance, that they might obtain a better RefurreBion^ Heb.xi. 7,^. So from i Macch. vii. it appears, that they had a fir-m Relief and Profpe6t into a Future State ; which fofeph//f r\(6 teftifies to be their Faith. And of their principal Sedt, the Fhari/ees, it is re- corded, That they profefTed a Refurredlion from the Dead, A^s XJ-iil 8. Not to mention Dan. xii. 2, 5. Wherefore, this Faith and Hope deriving not from the Spirit of the Law, which gave them no certain Grounds for fuch Dependance •, I conceive, it muft needs derive from the Evangelical Covenant made with Abraham, and continued to the Jews with the Legal. 5. St. Paul, Gal. iii. 17. teaches, That the Cove- nant which was confirm''d before of God in Chrift, the Law (which was Four hundred and thirty Year? ^fter) could not difannul, that it Ihould make the Pro- sS The Lawfulncfs of Promife of none efFedl. That Covenant was the Abrahamical ; which if it neither was, nor could be difanull'd by the Law, it muft, with the Law, re- main in Force. Elfe, to be fufpended, fuperfeded, or removed out of the way for the Ipace of Fifteen or Sixteen Centuries, while the Law continued, was nolefsthan tobe cancell'dj difannull'd, and made of none efted during all that Time^ which the Apoftle denies the Law to have done, or to be in its Power. If thro'out that Interval, the Promife remained in Force, the Covenant mufl:, which grounded the Promife. So the r^ews lived under Two diftindt Covenants while the Legal Difpenfation lafted. And if in this Opinion I am lingular, I muft ftill continue of this Mind, 'till I fee it prov'd erroneous. Then I pro- mife readily to retrad, and fubmit to the better Judgment of the Learned •, who, as far as my Knowledge reaches, have hitherto, with little or no Exception, gone againft me in a Body, and cgft their Schemes in another Model. III. The Third Point to be proved, is, That Or- cutncifion vooi the proper Seal and initiatory Ordinance to the Patriarchal^ or Go/pel Covenant^ not to the 'Legal J and rather fignd the Spiritual Seed of Abra- ham, than his Natural For, 1. "When the Sacrament of Circumcifion was firft inftituted, there was no Covenant with the Church of God in Being, befide the Evangelical ^ no Mofai- callaZW on foot for Four hundred and thirty Years after, neither Signified nor intended, except in God's fecrer Counfel, upon Forefight oiih^Jews untradta- ble Temper. Not a Syllable is mentioned, or hint- ed, concerning the Law and Legal Covenant, when the Gofpel Covenant, ilgn'd by Circumcifion, was given to Abraham^ nor any where elfe before the Jews Rebellions in the Wildernefs : Therefore, Cir- cumcifion, in its proper ^nd primitive Defign, could not Infant. Baptism, ^c, 29 rot be inftitutedj as a Legal Rite, to fign the Cove- nant of Works, which had no Exiftence at that Time, nor above Four Centuries atter, nor was at all known to the Church of God. For it is an ap- proved Maxim in Philofophy, Non Entps, nuMfunt AffeU'iones : What has no Being, has no Qiialities, Properties, or Affedlions. Circumcifion could, therefore, have no relation to a future, unknown Law, given to Pofterity on Mount Sinai, and which God Hinifelf intended not to give, but on Suppoli- tion. For, certainly, He would not ordain a Sa- crament fo long before, to feal a Covenant that was no where extant then in Nature, nor appoint an initiatory Rite to enter Men into it, when he gave them not the leaft Notice or Intimation of it before- hand. Wherefore, Circumcifion muft be a Ceremo- ny that originally fign'd the pure Covenant of Grace, which alone exifted at its Inftitution j as it fign'd to Abraham the Righteoufnefs of Faith, which he had, being yet uncircumcifed. 2. At the giving of the Law on Mount 5/W, the Jqws were not circumcifed, nor initiated by that Ordinance into its Profeflion and Obedience •, but all the People that were circumcifed, were circumcifed before in Egypt (without mention of the Law) to the Evangelical Covenant, which they and their Fa- thers had always lived under from the Days of A- braham. For, at the Promulgation of the Law, no mention was made of that Ceremony as the Cove- nanting Ordinance, neither were the People circum- cifed 'till about Forty Years after, when they had finifh'd their Travels, pafs'd over Jordan, and Jo- fhua, by God's Command, gave Order for the Per- formance of that Rite, Jojh, v. 2, &c. So that it was not done by the proper Legillator of the Legal Cove- nant. And then, alfo, there was not the leaft In- timation given of it, as a Rite that enter'd them in- to that Covenant, and bound them to the Obferva^ tion ^o The Lawfulnefs of tion of Its Precepts i but only, that God thereby r^/- ledfrom them the Reproach of Egypt, Ver. 9. or re- moved the Infamy ot their being uncircumcifed, like other Nations that were out of Covenant, and viH- bly undiftinguilh'd from them by his own Badge and Character, nor appropriated to himfelf by that facred Ordinance, as his Church and peculiar People. Nay, and I dare pofitively affirm. That it is no where implied in the Old Teftament, that Circum- cifion was a Rite intended by God to initiate Perfons into the Legal Covenant, and oblige them to the Obfervance of its Conditions. If this be true, as I am fatisfied it is, what bold Prefumption muft it be in our Adverfaries, to endeavour to face us down withpofitive AfTeveratlons, That Circumcifion was a pure Legal Rite, which lign d the Covenant of Works, when the Scripture makes it God's Ordi- nance to iign the Covenant of Grace alone ; but is perfectly lilent, throughout the whole Judaic Oeco- nomy, of any refpedt it bore to the lAoJakal Law, as a diftindt Covenant from that of Abraham f* They who profefs to believe and admit of nothing about pofitive Ordinances, but what they receive from clear Scripture- Evidences, do herein a£t very par- tially and inconfiftently with their Pretenfions. "What they alledge for their purpofe out of the Nev7 Teflament, fhall be confidered hereafter. Circumcifion did not only fign Abrahams, Natu- ral Seed, that defcended from his Loyns, but Stran- gers alfo, who were thereby marked as Profelytes to his Religion, and made his Spiritual Seed, tho' they never iffued from his Bowels. For this is God's Or- der, Gen. xvii. 12, 13, 14, He that k Eight Days old (hall be circumcifed among you^ every Man Child in your Generations^ he that is horn in the Houfe^ or bought with Money cf any Stranger^ which is not of thy Seed '^ he that is born in thy Houfe, and he that ii bought viiih thy Money ^ tmji needs be circumcifed'^ and Infant-Baptism, ^c^ gi andtny Covenant JI) all be in your fleJJjfor an everlaftifig Covenant. And the uncircumcifed. Man Child^ whoje f'lejh of bis Fore/Ain k not circutrjcifed, that SoulJhaU be cut off from his Feople ^ he hath broken my Cove- nant. Here were more than Abrahms Natural Seed within the Covenant, and intitled to its Privileges hy Circumcifion ; fo that their AiTertion is noto- rioufly falfe, who affirm. That Rite was ordain'd to diftinguilh his Natural Seed from Strangers. No leS falfe and abfurd it is to affirm^ That Circumcilion made thofe Strangers to be Members of Abraham's Family -, which feems to fiiggeft, that it made them not Members of the Church. But did thefe exa<3: Textuaries, who pretend to hold fo clofe to Scriptural Accounts, learn this Doftrine from the Holy Bible ? Where have they leaft Sup- port for their Chimerical Notion in all that Book > Or is it indeed credible, that God's main Concern was to bring Servants into Abraham's Houfe by a Divine Covenant, under the Penalty of Excifion; and that his Providence was more imploy'd to fill up the Families of Men, than his own Church ? But it falls out unluckily for our Adverfaries Caufe, that the Strangers then circumcifed, were already Members of Abraham's Family ^ and how could they be made by Circumcifion what they were before > for in that Quality they were circumcis'd, v, 27. Three hundred and eighteen domeftic Servants had Abraham before that Time,that were born in his Houfe, and could bear Arms, Gen. xiv. 14. And, it is like, their Numbers in the Interim were increased thro' God's Blelling upon the Patriarch. What now did Circumcifion add to their State in a Civil Re- fpe£t, feeing they were already his Servants, and JMembers of his Family ? Did it thenceforth make them Freemen, or adopt them for his Sons and Heirs? This it is to trifle with the Scriptures and God's Ordinances > The 3 2 The Lawfulnefs of The Truth is, The}^ were Men of the fame Reh'glon with himfelf For it is utterly improbable the holy Patriarch, or any of his Race next enfuing, would en- tertain a Set of Infidels, or Idolaters, in their do- meftic Service, without teaching them better things. Particularly, in regard to Abrahdm^ this could never agree with that glorious Character and Teftimon/ which God himfelf gives to his faithful Friend, Ge/i, xviiiv 19. I /c?j(jw Abraham, that he will command his Children, (Iffymael therefore, and the Sons of Ke- turah^ as well as Ifaac ) and hk Houjho/d after him, (the Servants belonging to his Family; and they JhaU keep the Way of the Lord^ to do Jujlice and Judg- ment^ and that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hathfpoken of him : Namely, That aU the Nations of the Earth Jhould be blejfed in him ^ v. 18. This indeed fpeaks of Futurity ^ but who can think Abraham had negleded fuch a necelTary Duty for the Time aforegoing > Iffmae/ then being Thirteen Years old, and pioufly educated, and the Men of Abra- ham's Houfe in adult Age, when they were circum- cifed, had, in kind, the fame Righteoufnefs, or Jufti- fication of Faith, that Abraham had, which was equally feal'd by that Ordinance of Circumcifion to them All ^ as likewife to the fincere Profely tes in the Times following. For thefe Profelytes the Law of God did after- wards make this Provifion, Exod. xii. 48, 49. When a Stranger JhaU foj our n with thee, and will keep the Vaffover oj the herd, let all his Males be circumcifed, and then let him come near and keep it ; and he /hall be Of one that is born in the Land : for no uncircumci- fedVerJon jhaU eat thereof. One Law Jh all he to him that is home-born, and to the Stranger that fojourneth among you. By this Law, both the Adult Perfons that were profelyted, and their Male-Infants, were to be alike circumcifed with the Native Jews, and thereupon admitted into religious Communion. Some- Infant-Baptism, £ffc. 5^ Sometimes vaft multitudes of Profelytes accrew'd to the Church by the Benefit of this Mofakal Law, and that to Abraham. I omit the Shechcmites^ be- caufe the Sons of Jacob, without their Father's Knowledge,, fraudulently intended to make 'em Sa- crifices to their Refentments for the Rape of hinah^ rather then Profelytes to God by Circumcifion. But, probabl}^^, among thefe Profelytes were that mix'd Multitude, who, ilruck with Aflonifliment and Convidlion by the "Wonders they faw in Egypr^ followed the Camp diljrael^ and might joyn them- felves to the People of God, Exod- lii. 38. And fo they, or their Children, might be circumcifed with the Jews in G'llgaL For into the Covenant of Grace thofe Strangers were admitted, "Deut, xxir. II. Of this fort alfo were the Gibeonites, who were made Servants in the Houfe of God, even Hewers of Wood and Drawers of Water for the Altar of the Lard^ in the Vlace which he {houldchufe^ Jofhua ix. 27. To which Offices they had never been promoted, except they had renounc'd Idolatry, and given in their Names to the God of IJraeU as Mafius obferves there on Ver. 22, 2^. For fuch Minifters were included in the Covenant of Grace, as we find the Hewers of Wood and Drawers of Water were, D^«/. xxix. 11. tho' perhaps, thefe laft had no other than Civil Employments. But in the fuccefiive Reigns of David and Solomon^ fb numerous and frequent were the Profelytes, that the Church was backward to receive them, upon Sufpicion, that the vidtorious Arms of the Father, and the magni- ficent Splendor of the Son's Court, were the chief Inducements that brought 'em in, rather than the Convidlions of their Confcience. In the Reign of Ahafuerus we have Authentic Evidence, That many of the Feop/e of his hand became Jews •, for the Fear of the Jews fell upon them^ Efth. viii. 17. I fuppofe, we may fafely take il on the Credit of Jofephus G That.' J 4 The Lawfulnefs of That the whole Nation of the Edomites^ Efaus Polterity, were profelyted to the Church in the Reign of Hyrcani^ ; and the Itureans in the Days of his Son Ariftobuliis. And Mr. Gale from Ganz^ a Rabbinical Hiftorian, quotes this PaiTage: " At *' the Year 3670. many great and powerlul Cities " became the Allies of Alexander^ the Brother of " Ariftobulus^ and were circuincis'd. " Circumcifion was not, therefore, the difcriminating Badge be- tween Abraham s^Titux?^. Seed., and all other Nations in the World \ fince abundance of Perfons, that were none of his Defendants, were circumcifed, and God was not careful by a Sacred Rite to diftinguifh loft and carnal Men, from their Fellow-Reprobates. That Ordinance always accompanied thofe who were Abraham's Spiritual Seed by Calling and ProfelTion. And tho' it can never be made out, that IJhmael^ Efaii, and Keturah\ Sons, were, in Perfon, ab- folutely and eternally reprobated ^ yet, if it could be done, they were by Right and Title within the Limits of the Covenant when circumcis'd, becaufe born of faithful Parents. For Privilege ftiU follows ProfelFion and external Evidence, unlefs it grows fo fcandalous as to come adually under the Cen- fures of the Law. In all this Account, as we find that Circumcifion was not appropriated to the Legal Covenant; lb we find nothing in the Old Teftament importing it to be an Ordinance that entred People into that Covenant, and bound them to the Obfervation of its Precepts. A Condition it was pra requilite to the Keeping of the PafTover, and to religious Com- munion with the Jewilh Church, but no Tie or Ob- ligation to the Legal Ceremonies. Four hundred and thirty Years it fign'd the Covenant of Grace before the other was in Being, or its Futurity fig- nified by the leaft Intimation ; and in the fame Ule it continued, according to God's Intent, throughout the Infant-Baptism, ^c, 3^ the whole ^^^/V^/ Difpenfation. For, Qircitnxijion was not ^Mofes, hut of the Vathers^ Joh. vii. 22. The Law itfelf, in its pofitive Inltitutions, was no Part of the Patriarchal Covenant, nor dei?gr/d at firft to be given as a diftindt Oeconomy of Re- ligion, but was afterwards cccafionally fuper-induc'd to the former Covenant. And for what Reafon? Not to fulfil any previous Promife, or Pr^-engage- nient of God, nor to comply with his own antece- dent Purpofe ; but to chaftife the Sins of a refractory People, to tame their Wantonnefs, and to keep 'em well employed at home, that their roving Spirits might not ramble after ftrange Gods, and ftrange Religions, for want of full and better Work in their own Church. This Reafon St. Vaul alTigns for its Ufa and Origin, Gal. iii. 1 9. Wherefore then fer* veth the Law ? It was added becaufe of Tranjgref- fions : To punifh former Sins, and prevent V/« for the future. And God himfelf declares, Ezek. xr. 25. that becaufe of their Idolatries and grofs Viola- tions of his Moral Precepts, He gave them Statutes that were not good, and Judgments whereby they fhould not live. And it has been the Opinion of feme Learned Men, that if the Jews had not wor- (hippM the Golden Calf, and difcover'd their in- curable Proclivity to other Sins, they had receiv'd no more Precepts than the Ten Commandments. Sacrifices themfelves were not the main original De- fign of God in his Legiflature to thofe People j Jer. vii. 22, 2^. Much lefs other Ritual Ordi- nances of lelTer moment. Yet tho' the Law was an Expedient to keep them from Idolatry and TrangreiTion, in another refpedt it multiplied their Sins, by multiplying their Duties, which they were not able to perform. For the haw entred, that the Offence might abound, Rom. v. 20. "Which is taught more at large, ch. vii. 8, &c. As, therefore, the Law was only 3 temporary and oc- C 2 calional 5 6 The Lawfulnefs of cafional Model of Religion fuper-added to the Co- venant of Grace, fb Circumcilion, which was origi- nally appropriated to that Covenant, became annei'd to the Legal, as a particular Precept, not as an initiating Ordinance to it. For, whatfoever Regard and Ufe it had in the Law, it could bejr no older a Date, than the LawitfeU ^ and fo was ^ut a fccon- dary and pofterior Ufe, brought in upon Emergency. But the Jews in After-times, did, of their own Heads, and without Scripture-Warrant, introduce 2 new Dodrine concerning it into their Church. For they laid a moft extravagant Strefs on their pofitive Ordinances. A folemn Rite of Admiflion into their Church and Legal Oeconomy, and an Obligation to keep its Precepts, they made it to be. And becaufe this was with them a current and prevailing Opinion of fome Standing, St. Pj«/ does but graft upon their Sentiments, when he prelfes the JudaizingChriftians, who entertained ftill the fame Thoughts about this Matter with their unbelieving Countrymen,and fays. Gal. V. 2,5,4. J^^fi^fy ^i^^^ ^^ every one that k arc urn- c'lfed^ that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law:, that Chrift: will prcjit hhn nothing^ and is become to him of none Ejfelt-^-and that he is fallen from Grac\ They among Chrift's Difciples, whom St. Faul does there difpute againft, were of this Perfuafion j That the Law mull all be kept by circumcis'd Perfons, and that both Circumcifion and Obedience to the Law, were indifpenfably neceflary to Salvation, A&s iv. I, 5, 24. and ch, xxi. 20. But if St. Vaul had been himfelf of this Mind, That Circumcifion did, by itsintrinlicUfe and Na- ture, neceffarily bind to keep the Law, he would never have fpoken of Circumcifion as of a thing, in itfelf, fo very indifferent and infignificant, as he does loon after. Gal. v. 6. and vi. 15. For it muft have avail'd and iigniiied as much as Chrift and his faving Grace were worthj if, by God's Defign and its own Inf A NT-Baptism, Eiff. 37 own Nature, it bound to the Obfervance of the whole Law, and cut oflfallcircumcifed Per Ions from Chri ft and Grace. Nor would the Apoftle, in compliance with fome, who^ perhaps, were not fo deeply and irxurahly tindtur d with thofe Opinions, have yield- ed to circumcife Timothy^ if thereby he muft make him fuch a deplorable Debtor to the Law ; when, we know, he refused the circumcifing of Titusy to humour Men that were polTefs'd with thofe Mif^perfuafions. And if Circumciiion muft really have that Meaning and neceflary Confequence, what became of thofe Fifteen Bifhops of Jerufalem^ with their Flocks, who in the firft Centuries were circum- cised, as we are inform'd by Eccleliaftical Hiftory ? All which Ihews, That St. PWs different Gon- du6t and Dodrine in that Affair, depended not on the Nature and true Intent of Circumcifion itfelf, but on the different Opinions, or Tempers, of the Perfons he had to deal with, who were oblig'd to aft according to their prefent Judgments. For, as he fays, Kom. xiv. 14. To him that efteemeth any thifig to be unclean^ to him it is unclean : So to him that efteemeth any thing to be a Truth, or Duty, to him it is a Truth, or Duty, fo long as he remains under thole Convidions. Therefore, he argues againft thofe Ju- daizing Chriftians only upon their own Principles. For, to Men who had throughly imbib'd fuch Notions, as to believe Circumcifion was a Bond, to keep the whole ^(?/"j/V^/ Law, and that both together were ne- cefTary Conditions of Juftification to eternal Life, he juftly affirms, That they became Debtors to do the whole Law by Virtue of their own Aft and Opinions 5 That they were fallen from Grace •, that Chriftwas be- . come of none Eff^ft tothem, and would profit them nothing. Whereas, by God's Appointment, and in its own Nature, Circumcifion had no fuch life and Sig- nification, either under the Old or New Teftament. This, then, is nothing elfe, but what we call, Ar- C 3 gumentum 38 The Lawfulnefs of gumentum ad hominem^ whereby we prefs our Oppo- nents with Abfurdities and Inconveniencies flowing from their own receiv'd, but erroneous Tenets. And fo I hope this Rub is cleared off. Would we imitate the B(ip:ifts Modefty and lau- dable Way of Reafoning, I believe, we might, with greater Probability of Truth from God's Word, infer, That Baptifm was a Legal Rite, which initiated the Jews into the ProfelTion of the Mofaical Lau% and bound 'em to its Obedience, than it is inferred, that Circumcifion was fuch a Rite. For, baptizd the Jews were unto Mofes in the Cloud and in the Sea ; Which is not Rabbinical^ but Apoftolical Dodrine, 1 Cor. x. 2. Faith was then wrought in their Hearts by the Miracle which they faw ^ fo that they believed the Lord^ and his Servant Mofes, Exod.xiv, 31. God's Mouth and Minifler extra- ordinary they thereupon accounted Mofes, and to his Commands and Difcipline they refign'd, Exod. xix. 8. and xi. 19. and xxiv. 3, 7. and Deut. v. 37- With much better Colour of Truth might we, therefore, affirm, that Baptifm obhg'd to the Le- gal Covenant, than our Adverfaries affirm, that Cir- cumcifion did- And thus Circumcifion, tho' it was injoyn'd by a frefli Command of /ll^^i", Lev. xii. 3. and pradifed in the Judaic Church under the Law, as an antece- dent Qualification to the PalTover, and, confequent- ly, to religious Communion, remain'd to our Savi- our's Days a Seal of the Covenant made with Abra- ham, and rather iign'd his Spiritual, than his Natu- ral Seed. For, as the Apoftle fays. That the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, could not dif annul the Covenant ^ fo neither could it deftroy the Seal, nor divert it to a contrary Ufe. Elfe, by taking off the Seal from the proper Covenant, and affixing it to one that was of an oppofite Nature, it muft, by Confequence, have difa«nuird the Co- c ' venant. Infant-Baptism, t^c, ^9 venant, which is of no Force when ftript of its con- firming Seal and Ceremony, any more than a Will or Teftament that is unfign'd. It is now Time to examine Mr. Tombs\ Strong Lines and Unanfwerable Arguments, as his Seconds call them, to prove Circumcifion to be a pure Legal Rite, that fign'd the Covenant of Works, not of Grace. For Numbers they are fomewhat formi- dable, amounting to about half a Score-, but their Strength being already broken, they will be eafily encountred and overthrown. For they are grounded moftly upon the Oppofition lying between the Evan- gelical and Legal Covenant, which St. Yaul infifts on in his Epiftles. Chriji he oppofes to Mofes, the Go/pel to the Ltfty, and the Covenant of Grace to That of Works, ftridly and precifely taken as given to the Jews on Mount 5/W, and as bound upon them by Circumcifion, according to their own Di- vinity. But he makes no Oppofition between Abraham and Chriji, or the Ahrahamical Covenant and the Evangelical ; between which Two there was always a fair Agreement and Correfpondence, or, rather, a Samenefs and Identity. If, therefore, the Circumcifion of the Flefh is by St. Vaul oppos'd to Chrift and Gofpel Grace, the Oppofition cannot be founded on its primitive Ufe in figning the Gracious Covenant made with Abraham, this being purely that of the Gofpel ^ but upon a Secondary Ufe it had a- mong the later Jews in figning the Legal Covenant, according to their Traditional Dodrine. For fince this Ufe of Circumcifion was introduced by them in pofterior Ages, and the Judaizing Chriftians ex- pected Juftification that way, it was necelTary for the Apoftle to argue againft them upon that Foun- dation, and undeceive 'em in their Errors. As this ferves for a Key to open St. FauPs Meaning ; fo the obferving of it, will greatly help to overthrow our Adverfaries Arguments urg'd afgainfl us, which are to this Effea:. G 4 i* They 4© The Lawfulnefs of 1. They tell us; " The Covenant feal'd by Cir- " CLimcilion, was not a Covenant of Grace, but " was made to feparate the Natural Seed of A- '' braham from all other Nations in the "World, and '' to ^nfure to them the PofTelTion of the promifed " Land. " This is refuted before, and needs no farther Anfw^r. 2. " The Covenant of Grace did not belong to (bme " that werecircumcifed •, as, not to IJhmael^Efau^ and " the Sons of Keturah. " Which has been alfo an- fvvered. For they may as well plead, that Baptifm does not initiate into the Covenant of Grace, becaufe it was adminiftred to Judas ^ as they tell us, to Simon Magtfs^ and to abundance of Perfons that prov'd flagitious Sinners, Heretics, Shifmatics, Apoftates and Reprobates, and therefore fell under the Rebukes and Cenfures of Chrift's Apoftles. 9. The next Ai'guinent, as it is call'd, repeats the fame Story •, " That the Covenant of Circum- " cifion u'as not a Covenant of Grace, becaufe it " belonged to the flelhly and ungodly Seed of A" '' hraham ^ as, to IJhmael^ ^c> " After this way of Management, Syllogifms and Arguments, like Abrahams Seed, may become as the Stars in the Sky, and as the Sands on the Sea-{hore for Multitude. Bat all thofe circumcifed Perfons were Children of believing Parents, and, by Prefumption, intitled to the Covenant and its Seal. And this is the juft La- titude we demand for the Application of the new Seal of Baptifm. For if our Antagonifts could prove, there were ever fo many Reprobates admitted into the Ahrahamkal Covenant by Circumcifion, they would not prejudice ours, but their own Caufe. 4. " All that are in the Covenant of Grace, do " know the Lord, from the greateft of them to the " Jeaft, Jer. xiii. 32, 33, 34. But circumcifed In- " fants could not know the Lord ^ Therefore, Cir- !' cumcifion could not be the Covenant of Grace. Neither Inf ant-Bap Tisivi, ^c, 41 " Neither can Infants now know the Lord ; and, " confequently, they are not in the Covenant of " GrJce, nor proper Subjeds for Chriftian Bap- " tifm. " Adieu then to their Salvation. For if they be not fav'd by the Covenant of Grace, in which they never were, nor can be, may they be fav'd by the Covenant ot Works ? So that if this Ar- gument proves any thing, it proves a great deal too much, and cannot polfibly have any Force. But it. is to be noted, that in the fame Quotation from tha Prophet, thefe Words occur, Ani they /hall teach no more every Man his 'Neighbour, and every Man his Brother^ faywg^ Know the Lord. Let the Baptifts put a Conftrudtion upon thefe Words that is agree- able to Their Practice in teaching their baptiz'd Believers, whom they fuppofe to be in the Covenant of Grace, and we will undertake to anfwer for the other Words they alledge againft us. But, 'till thej do that, we are not bound to gratify them in their Cavils, any more than Chrift thought himfelf oblig'd to anfwer the Priefts and Rulers Challenge about his Authority, when he put a Queftion to 'em about Johns Baptifm, and they could not anfwer him. I u(e not this for a Shift to wave the Objedtion, which we can eafily remove when we pleafe, but to eipofe the Folly of the Objedors. 5. Says our Adverfary, '* Circumcifion was a part " of the Covenant of Works, binding to the Obfer- " vation of the Mofakal Law, Gal. v- 3. and fo " could not be the Covenant of Grace. " But this is already proved to be falfe. 6. The next Argument aflerts, " Circumcifion " to be as much the Covenant of Works, as that " made with Adam before the Fall, or the Sinai Co- " venant. " But I utterly defpair to lee the Afler- tion juftified-, and 'till that is done, our Word in the Negative, is as good as the Baptijfs in the Affir- mative. 7- Notable 42 Ths Lawfulnefs of 7. Notable is Mr. Tombs's next Device, for which he deferves an everlafting Monument : For, fays he, " Circumcifion could not be the Covenant of " Grace, becaufe Abraham was not juftified in Cir- " cumcifion, but in Uncircumcifion, Rom. iv. 9, 10. " Strong Lines indeed ! and unanfwerable Arguments ! For does it follow, that hzc3M^Q Abraham^ (and he might have put in Melch'ifedec, Job^ Lot^ and all the Righteous Men that liv'd before) was juftified without the Ufe of a Rite, which was not then or- dain'd, no Man is, or can be juftified in the Ufe of it afterwards > Or.^ That it could not belong to the Covenant 01 Grace, becaufe Grace might be obtained another Way. when that Covenanting Rite was not inftituted? Was Circumcifion really incompatible with Juftifying and Saving Grace ? If fo, what ten- der Heart (hould not ake for the circumcifed He- brewsy who were all deftroyed by that Ordinance? I wifli thefe fhrewd Logicians may not at length un- anfwerably prove, That Baptifui cannot be an Ordinance belonging to the Covenant of Grace, be- caufe Abraham^ and Thoufands more, as we chari- tably hope, were not juftified in Baptifm, but while they were unbaptiz'd. For the Argument does this, as much as the other. 8. " The Law, or Covenant of Circumcifiort, *' being contra-diftinguiflied and oppos'd by the '• Apoftle to the Righteoufnefs of Faith, Rom. iv. " 12, 13. could not be a Covenant oi Faith, or the *' Gofpel Covenant. " Very true. But Circumci- ifion, in Its primary Ufe, at leaft, was an Ordi- nance of the pure Evangelical Covenant made with Abraham-^ and if it came to be annex'd to the Legal Covenant afterwards, as a binding Initiatory Rite, and in that Senfe counted neceffary to Juftification ; it was only in the Opinion of Men, by Virtue of which alone it flood oppofite unto Grace. The Law difannulVd not the gracious Covenant made with Abraham , f Infant-Baptism, £iff. 45 Abraham^ nor took off its Seal; but both continu'din Force 'till our Saviour's Time ^ and had he thought it proper, he might have cancell'd the Law, and re- tairi'd the Seal in its primitive Ufe. Then had it no more oppos'd Evangelical Grace, except in the erro- neous Divinity oijeixjs and Judaizing Chriflians^ than it did before the Law was given. Men, by their Mif-conceptions, may give a wrong Turn to the Di- vine Inftitutions ^ but the Word and Purpofe of God will ftand fail. 9. Upon the fame Thing does the following Argu- ment turn ; " Circumcilion impos'd a Yoke of Bon- " dage, and could not therefore appertain to the '^ Covenant of Grace." In the Senfe of the later Jews it did fo, who thought it oblig'd to the Obfer- vation of the whole Mofaical Law, and that both were neceffary to Salvation ^ but never in its own Nature and original Intent, while it always feal'd the Abrahami(;al Covenant down to Chrift. 10. The laft Argument is imploy'd, " to banifh " Uaiaf\ IJhmael, and the flelhly Seed from Canaan " and the Church of God, as far as Arabia.'''' And thither let them go, fo long as Abraham, with the E- vangehcal Covenant and fpiritual Seed, may ftay behind. For I am no Advocate for the Bondwoman and her flavifh Children, in the Allegorical Explica- tion or Reddition : I mean, Not for the Law oiMo- fes and the fervile Church of the Jews, which were typically fignified by Uagar and ljhmael\ but for the Gofpel Church and Covenant, as they were preach 'd to Abraham, and fign'd with the Seal of Grace call'd Circumciiion. Thefe are the terrible Arguments of our Adverfa- ries, and if they were never yet anfwer'd, as fome fay, I believe the Reafon was not becaufe they could not, but becaufe they were not worth it. However, I have accepted the Challenge, and condefcended to pleafe tliem, tho' it might be needlefs, I? i. I have 44 *J^^^ Lawfuljfiefs of I have fome few Things more to ohferve, before I proceed to the Fourth Head. I. Some of our Antagonifts will by no means al- low Baptilm to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace, bf^caufe it is no where called fo in Scripture ^ but the holy Spirit is with Them the only Seal of that Co- venant. Yet thefe fame Men do ftrenuoufly plead. That Circumcifion was a Seal of the Legal Covenant, and a Sign of giving the Law. My Demand upon them is. Where do they find thofe Terms, or a Tit- tle of that Do6lrine in the Scripture > If the holy Spi- rit be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace, it is a Seal that is inward and invifible. And was he not al- ways the Seal of that Covenant ? For how can Sa- ving Grace be among lapfed Men, where the Spirit ot Grace is not } And how alfo, fince the Fall, could the People of God ever be without that Covenant > But thefe Gentlemen ought to know, that Things are to receive their Names from their Ufe and Na- ture •, or, if pojfitive Rites they be, from the End and Defign of their Inftitution. Now it is granted on all :fides, that Baptifm fo far fucceeds Circumcifion, as to be the initiating Ordinance into the Evangelical Church and Covenant, whereby God and Baptized Perfons ftand mutually engag'd to one another ; and this gives it the Ufe and Nature of a Seal. For by the very Aft of Entrance into the Church and Cove- r^ant folemnly made on the one lide, and by a pre- fum'd Acceptance on the other fide, the Perfons bap- tiz'd do either exprefly in Word, or virtually in Deed, promife Faith and Obedience unto God -, and He, by their Admittance in, afiures them of the Graces and Bleffings of the Covenant^ which he never fails to perform, provided they themfelves do not obftrudt it. So the Covenant is tranfadled by Stipulation and Re-flipulation. Then the external vifible Rite that is us'd to fignify and confirm the mutual Engage- ments, .' .'i.'ii Infant-Baptism, i^c. /^i^ Dients, mufl: be counted the proper Seal of that Co- venant i it being the Ufe and Nature of a Seal to confirm and ratify, as it is the Ufe and Nature of a Sign to lignify» Ever iince God forin'd a vifible and organiz'd Church to himfelf in the Days of Abraham^ the Covenant was not without a Seal : And why it (hould not ftill have fuch an external Seal, to infure the Perfons admitted into it of God's Favour, and diftinguifh them from profelTed Infidels, feems un- accountable •, efpecially, when Chrift has appointed a Sacrament as an Initiatory Rite into his Churct^ which may conveniently ferve for that End. Nor is it any material Objedion againft this V^Qy that Bap- tifm makes no vifible lafting Impreflion on the Body, as Circumcifion did. For among all the Forms and Ceremonies that God us'd to confirm the Promifes of his Covenants 5 as. The Tree of Life, The Rain- bow. Sacrifices, The Oath of Confirmation, and, if there be any more, That.lafl:ing Impreflion on the Flelh, was peculiar only to Circumcifion. Of the fame Weight is another Objedion, which is urg'd to {hew, " That neither Circumcifion, nor *' Baptifm, could be Seals to the Covenant of Grace, " becaufe many gracelefs Perfons have been Parta- " kers of thofe Ordinances, and God cannot affix his " Seal unto a Lye. " What need we obferve here, that Covenants are made upon Conditions, which if one Party breaks, the other is difcharg'd by the very Na- ture and Tenor of the Covenant ? The Default is al- ways on Mens fide. For, let God be true, but every Man a Lyar; and if they deny Him, He is faithful, and cannot deny Himfeli. To fuch Covenant-breakers he declares, Tejhali know my Breach ofFromife, Num. xiv, 94. God's Promifes are no lefs facred and invio- lable, than his Oaths and Seals. Was not that, there- fore, a moft folemn Promife, which he made by Co- venant, oi circumcifing the Heart of the Jews y atjdths heart of their Seed, 8cc> Deut,xiLX.6, Yet, fee the Event 4^ The Lawfulnefs of Event it had thro' their Perverfenefs : AU the Houfe ^ Ifrael are uncircumdjed in the Heart, Jer. 1x^26. Te ftif^-necked and. uncircumc'ifed in Heart and Ears^ ye do always rejiji the Holy Ghoft ^ as your fathers did, fo do ye, Adts vii.51. But if what is here faid, be not fufficient to fatisfy the BaptiJJs, that Baptifm is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace, I defire them to be determin'd hy their own Doftrine, which from our Church they have adopted into their Articles ot the Chri- ftian Faith. Wherein, N". 27. They affirm, " That by Baptifm the Promifes of Forgivenefs of " Sin, and of our Adoption to be the Sons of God by " the Holy Ghoft, are vifibly figned and fealed. " 2. In Abraham it was an antecedent, not a fubfe- quent Fiith, or Righteoufnefs by Faith, that was feaPd by Circumcifion. This fome deny of all other Perfons befide himfelf. But it is highly incredible -, becaufe Ijlvnael being circumcifed at the Age of Thirteen Years, it is not to be fuppos'd that the excellent Father would fufter him all that Time to be educated in Infidelity ^ nor that thofe Hundreds of adult Males he maintained in his Service, were all Unbelievers at their Circumcifion 5 nor all the Profelytes in future Times to be no bet- ter than egregious Hypocrites. Faith in Sincerity many of them had before, and that was iign'd by Circumcifion. And to Infants that Rite fign'd God's faithful Promife of Grace to circumcife the Heart, and work it up into Faith and Obedience, which on his part was very fure -, fince in Stipulations and Contrails the Seals annex'd, oblige all Parties to the Perform- ance of the refpemve Conditions. Abraham is, indeed, the only rVfon mentioned in Scripture, whofe Righteoufnefs of Faith going before, Cir- cumcifion feal'd. And the Reafon is, Becaufe he, in a moft eminent Degree, was the choice Friend and Favourite of God, the Head of his Family, the vifible I N F A N T-B A P T I S M , l^C. 47 vifibk Church at that Time, the Father of the Faithful in fucceeding Generations, and their Ihi- ning Pattern and Exemplar. Alfo the Hiftory of his p.ous Life is particularly recorded in Holy Writ for our Benefit, while tlie Lives of other Believers, that were circumcifed with him, are pafs'd over in Silence, by reafon they were of inferior Note and Quality, except his Steward Eliezer of Da- mafcm '. who, if he was the fame with that eld eft Servant and Steward of his Houfe, Gen. ixiv. 2. (as Menochim and others probably hold) was a very faithful and religious Perfon. 3. Some running upon their wild and groundlefs Notions, affirm, The Patriarchal Covenant, and the Oeconomy of Religion depending on it, which they ftrongly fancy to be the Legal, was all dif- folv'd by Chrifl: at the preaching of the Gofpel. Their Defign herein is to fhew. That we cannot argue from thence for the AdmilTion of Infants into Covenant in the Gofpel-Times, iince that whole Frame and Scheme is now demolilh'd. But this is impolfible to be true, becaufe that Covenant and Oeconomy was not Legal, but Evangelical ^ which Chrift came to confirm and complete, not to deftroy. Enlargements we find made in it by Chrift, adually to take in all Nations, according to the Promife of that Covenant ^ rather than Retrenchments, to bar out thofe that were received in before. 4. The Covenant continuing ftill in full Forced the Change of the Seal could make no Alteration in its Terms, Nature and Contents. Chrift had g6od Reafon to change the Seal, as is obvious to all that will but confider. But no Reafon had he to change the fpiritual and everlafting Covenant of his Father, which he came not to cancei, but fulfil. Nor does the bare Change of the Seal, in its own Nature, or by virtue of the Fa6l, make the leall Change in the Covenant itfelf. For this is common 48 The Lawfulnefs of with Men to do, without invalidating the Deeds, or infringing the Rights and Privileges therein con- tain'd. Sovereign States do change or alter their Seals upon the Union of Kingdoms, Principalities, and the like Emergencies, by Qiiartering their Arms according to thofe Acceflions '• yet if there be Occa- iion to renew Charters and Patents to their Subjeds, the fetting a new Seal to thofe Deeds alters not their Nature, nor retrenches ought of the old Privileges. The fame holds true in ContraSs, Covenants and all Obligations between the Subjeds. They ufe what Seals they pleafe, and that makes no Difference Co long as the Deeds are valid in themfelves, and legally executed . So the Rights remain as they were, not- withftanding the Alteration of the Seals. And why not the fame in God's Covenant, tho' Circumcifion be chang'd for Baptifm ? IV. I come now to {hew. How the Right of Infants to be admitted into the Evangelical Church and Cove- nant by the proper Ordinance, refults from the 'Pro- mifes. For the Abrahamical Covenant, which con- tinu'd in Force from the Patriarchs down to Chrift, throughout the Judaic Difpenfation, being the very fame Evangelical Covenant we have at prefent, only with an Alteration of the Seal, larger Explications of the Contents, and an Overture of it made to all Na- tions-, it follows, That thofe Infants of Profefs'd Believers, who had, by God's Order, a long and un- interrupted PofTeiTion of the Covenant-Rights and Privileges, muft have the fame ftill, unlefsit can be elf arly prov'd that God has iince difpoffefs'd them. It was fettled upon them as a fure Entail by a free Grant or Ad of Grace, which to this Day, does not appear to be annuU'd ^ and confirm'd they always were in their ancient Claim and Right by the proper Seal and foederal Ordinance. And, therefore, tho' the Seal be chang'd, yet thofe Infants having a foede- ral Infa N t-Baptism, ^r. ^g ral Relation unto God their Father, as born of Abra- ham's Spiritual Seed, they hav^e, by God's Law and Appointment, the fame original Right to the cove- nanting Seal, that the Seed of Abraham ever had* Confequently, they ought to be folemnly initiated into their old Covenant of Grace by Chriflian Bap- tifm, which now fucceeds Circumcifion for that Purpofe. For I take it to be a certain Rule, That the fame Covenant will always receive into it the fame Perfons, in the fame Capacities and Qualifica- tions. And this, as the Lawyers and Civilians fpeakj being not an Odious, but a Favourable Cafe, vefting People in iignal Privileges, the largefl: and moft extenfive Conltrudion (hould be put on the Law, or Grant, that the Terms thereof will reafona- bly bear. Whereas, in Odious or Hard Cafes alone, they are for Retrenchments and Limitations. But before I come clofe to this Point, I am oblig'd to confider fome Difficulties and Obftrudlions which our Adverfaries have caft in our Way. Mr. Tombs, Mr. Keach and Mr. Ga/e deny Bap tifm to fucceed Circumcifion. The two firfb will not allow Baptifm al(b to be a covenanting Seal and Ordinance, what- ever the laft does. Circumcifion, as they fay, did not fore-run Baptifm, but was typical of the inward Circumcifion of the Heart ^ nor has Baptifm the fame UCe in the Chrifl:ian Church, that Circumcifion had among the J^ews. Therefore, can we draw no juft Inferences from the one Ordinance to the other, be- caufe they are not Parallels ^ or, if we attempt to do it, they threaten to run us into Abfurdities. And they ground themfelves for this on the Scripture's Silence, which no where calls Bapti fin Circumcifion, nor fays, that it fucceeds unto it. Well may we be amazM at this Doclrine. For what if we have not exprefs Words in Scripture, fo long as Things themfelves are there? If Baptifm cannot fucceed Circumcifion, becaufe it does not D beas ^o "The Lawfulnefs of bear its Name, it follows as well, that one Sovereign cannot fucceed another, unlefs he be his Name-iake, We allow Baptifm to be a different Rite from Cir- cumcifion, and if, in fome Particulars, it has a dif- ferent Ufe, it may ftill fucceed it in other Ufes ; elfe, the Chrifiian Priefthood could not fucceed the Leviti- ca/, nor our Lord's Supper the Jews Faffover, nor any Antitype its proper Type and Figure ; becaufe they have not the fame Names, nor are exadtly pa- rallel in all their Ufes. Yet between Baptifm and Circumcifion is there Agreement enough in their main Ufes, Purpofes, and Significations, to give one a Right to fucceed the other, and prove it to be a covenanting Ceremony. For, 1. As Circumcifion formerly initiated the People of God into his Church, fo it is acknowledged by our Adverfaries, that Baptifm now does. Then, 2. If into the Church of Chriftit admits Baptiz'd Perfons, and makes them vifible Members of his Body, it brings them alfo vifibl/ within the Coi'e- nant of Grace, as Circumcifion did, and intitles them to its Privileges. For as this Covenant was given for the Church's Ben. fit, and not for Infidels j fo Church-Members have an apparent, or Prefump- tive Right unto its Benefits, and none but They. Becaufe the Charter of Grace Idng iflbed out to the Citizens of that holy Corporation, to be within the Church, and within the Covenant, are Terms that have a neceffary Connexion with one another. g. The Nature and Defign of Baptifm befpeak it to be fuch a ftipulating Ceremony, as Circumcifion was. For none can enter hy Baptifm into the Church, without being fuppos'd to undertake the fincere Pro- fefTion of Chriftianity, and to flipulate with God to live accordingly. Dedicated he is by that Aft to the Service of God, and to Faith in the adorable Trinity. God alfo muft be fupposM to accept of the Perfon, to adopt him for his Child, and to ingage himfelf to beflow lNF>iNT. Baptism, ijfc. ^t Leftow upon him the Graces and Bleffings of the Co- venant, according to the Terms prefcribed in the Gofpel. And this whole Affair is folemnly tranf- adled between the appointed Minifter on God's Part, and the Baptized Party on his own, or by thofe that have a Right to adt and covenant in his Name. So there are both Prefentation, and Acceptance, which amount to a mutual Obligation. Not to mention Verbal Stipulations, which are the facred Promifes of God's Word, and the folemn Engagements of Baptized Perfons. Baptifin muft, tlierefore, have the Ufe and Nature of a covenanting Ordinance, and ferve for that End, as an external Seal: Much alike as it was with Sacrifices in ancient Times. The bare Adt of offering them to God, and his Ac- ceptance, ratified the Covenant, and fuffic'd for re- ciprocal Pledges, without any farther Formalities of Expreffions, PfaL 1. 5. Gen. xv. 9, &c. 4. As the Carnal Circumcifion among the Jews lignified the Spiritual, and was an Infurance of Grace for this End -, fo has Baptifm the fame Signi- fication among Chnftians. Our Adverfaries are un- der a grofs Miftake, when they affirm the Outward prcumcifion to be typical of the Inward ; whereas It was, indeed, fymbolical of it. Between both which there is, in Propriety of Speech, great Diffe. rence. For the Types of Scripture reprefented Thmgs that were future, material, and fenfible : But Symbols reprefented Things that were prefent, fpiri- tual, or moral. And this Signification the Carnal Circumcifion always had in the Old Teftament ; as Baptifm has in the New. The Scripture Expref- fions are fufficiently ftrong and clear to make it a loederaJ Rite, or matriculating Ordinance, that ini- tiates into the Church, and, confequently, ir.to the Covenant, and invefts in all the fpiritual Privileges of the Gofpel. For thus we read of Baptifm : D 2 That 5 2 The Lawfulnefs of That in it we put on Chrifl, and are made the Chil- dren of God i are incorporated into hk Body^ the Church j are JanUifed^ cleanfed, and juflified^ by re- ceiving Remijjion oj Sins^ which are there waJlM away-^ are dead and buried unto Sin with Chrift^ and with him rifen again to 'Newnefs of Life ; are regenerated, or born of Water and the Spirit ^ are baptized into the faith and Worjhip oj the holy Trinity, and thereby made Chriji^'s Di/cip/es ^ and, finally, by Bapti/m we arefaved. All this is certainly true, when we take the whole Ordinance together in the outward Sign and the inward Grace. For we depend not on the Ro- vianifls Opus operatmn, nor on the bare internal In- comes of Enthufiafts. God muft work his Will for our Salvation in his own Way, and we muft not di- vide and mangle his holy Ordinances in our Ac- counts. Sincere he always is in his Overtures of Grace to Mankind ; and if the}^ be falfe in their Tranfadions with him, that evacuates not the Sin- cerity of his gracious Intentions, nor puts in any juft Exception to the Efficacy of his Ordinances. But if, after all, our Antagonifls are not fatisiied hy what is here advanced, I hope they will ftand to their own Dofiirine j which they have openly pub- lifhed in thefe Words : " Sacraments ordained of " Chrift, be not only Badges, or Tokens of Chri- " ftian Mens Profefrion •, but rather they be certain " fure WitnefTes, and effedlual Signs of Grace, and " God's goodwill towards us, by the which he doth " work invijfibly in us, and doth not only quicken, '' but alfo ftrengthen and confirm our Faith in '' him. " Article of the Chriftian faith XXV. Are they not then AfTurances of Grace on God's Part, as well as Badges and Tokens of Profeffion on Mens Part } And what Senfe, or Conftruclion, will this Language bear, but that they are mutual Engage- ments and Stipulations between God and Men in the Way of Covenant > Where- Inf AN T-BA P TISM, £iff. 5^ Wherefore, fince there is fo much Agreement between the two Ordinances, in their Ufes and De- iigns, we conclucle, That Baptifm is come in the room of Circumcifion, and is luccedaneous to it, as a covenanting Ceremony. Some of our Adverfaries take much Pains to fhew the Differences between the two Ordinances. And who denies that Point? Otherwife, if they did not differ at all, they muft be the fame. And to what Purpofe > For, cannot Two Ordinances correfpond in any thing, becaufe they do not correfpond in all Things ? Or, may not one fucceed the other in its principal Vies, becaufe in fome Ufes and Refpeds of lefler Note, they difagree ? Then could not Chrift^s Priefthood fucceed Aaron's, nor his Sacrifice the L^- viticdl, nor his Church and Service the Judaical, nor any Antitype its Type and Shadow, becaufe in fome, or in feveral Refpedls, they differ from one another, as was obferv'd before. Again, " Baptifm could not fucceed Circumcifion, " becaufe they co-exiffed for fome Time 5 People be- " ing circumcifed according to the Law, and alfo " BaptizM hyjohn and Cknd'" How then could King William III. fucceed Queen A'lary in the whole Govern- ment, feeing that for fome Years they reign'd toge- ther. Hilfory gives us Inftanccs of Bilhops fitting together in the fame Sees, and of Emperors on the fame Thrones, for a Time, 'till at laft, fome leaving the World, left their Partners that furviv'd, to fuc- ceed them in their whole Power and Offices. This Argument, therefore, proves weak in Civil Polity 5 nor is it ffronger in Divinity : For, Chrilf 's Prieft- hood and Sacrifice fucceeded the Aaronical-j yet they both co-exifted for fome Time. For, after Chrift's Crucifixion, when his Sacrifice was offer'd, and his Prieffhood commenc'd, we find the Apoftles convent - ed before the High-Priefts of the Jews, and anfwer- ing for themfelves without denying or impeaching D 3 their 54 The Lawfalnefs of their Authority •, and St. Faul in Tract of fome Years following, beipeaking Reverence to one of them on the account of his Fundtion, A^s xxiii. 5. So did the Chriftian Church and Service fuceeed that of the Tem- ple. Yet did the Apoftlcs and Difciples, after the Chriftian Church and Service were founded, continue daily to frequent the Temple- Worfhipj to obferve the JewsHouxs of Prayer, and their Feaft o^Pente- coft : to undertake their Religious Vows, fliave their Heads, make their Oblations, and fubmit to other Legal Ceremonies, when they faw convenient. I thiuk, it was the Deftrudlion of the Temple, and the whole Jew'ijh Polity, that put a full End to the Le- gal Oeconomy, which 'till then was tolerated, or counted lawful. Upon that the Chriftian Religion took place alone, and was, in Point of Right, with- out a Rival. Circumcifion, indeed, was ftubborn and reftive enough to quit its Place ^ but at length it jnelded among Chriftians, and gave way to Bap- tifm. But what Nonfenfe and Falftiood is this which fol* lows ! " The Antitype which came in the Room of *■' the Circumcifion of the Flefti, is the Circumci/ion " of the Heart. " Did it come in its Room? Then, according to their own Dodrine, it could have no Room 'till the Carnal Circumcifion was quite re- moved. And poor carnal Jews indeed were they, who knew nothing of the Circumcifion of the Heart ; the Patriarchs, Mofes and the Prophets, who incul- cated fome fuch thing in Words, not excepted ! But the Spiritual Circumcifion is no more an Antitype to the Carnal, than Regeneration is an Antitype unto Baptifm. For neither of the Two Ordinances are to be counted Typical of the inward Circumcifion, but Symbolical. And, if my Judgment fails me not, be- tween Types and their Antitypes, there muft be fome external Refemblance, of which the inward Opera- tions of the Heart are not (Capable. But certain it is. Infant-Baptism, £iff. ^^ is, that the Grace or Vertue fignined hy the Circum- cifion of the Heart, was not only requir'd from the firft Inftitution of the Carnal, but from the Creati- on of the World, in all People that would pleafa God. And if true it was, as it is undoubtedly falfe, that the inward Circumcifion is the Antitype to the outward, then could a Type and its Antitype fub- fift together, not only from Jobfj's Baptifm to our Saviour's Paffion, but from Abraham's Days down to Chrift's. There is a Place we make Ufe of, C^/.ii. ii, 12. which Mr. T^/;;^ J, Mr. G^/^ and others, have vex'd and tortur'd with all their Power. The Words are thefe; I// whom aljo ye are circumdfed vo'ith the Or- cumc'ifton made without Hands ^ in putting off the Body of the Sins of the F/e^, by the Qramajion ofChrift; Buried, or being Buried with him in Baptifm, where- in alfoye are rifen with him thro' the Faith of the 0- perationofGod, who hath railed him from the Dead. The Apoftle fays, That this was done in the Ordi- nance of Baptifm. All, therefore, that I requeft of thofe Gentlemen, is, that they will grant me Baptifm to be S3''mbolical of the Circumcilion of the Heart, as the Carnal Circumcifion was. And if this they will not grant, I can command it from them in fpite of their Hearts. For what is meant by thofe Meta- phorical ExprelTions, Being buried and raifed with Chrift in Baptifm, but Sandlification of the Heart and Life, which we call Regeneration^ Circumcifion of the Heart, or a Dying to Sin, and a Rifing again to a Kew- nefs of Life? And does not the outward Ordinance of Baptifm reprefent and fignify this, according to the Antipddobaptifts own Dodtrine fet down before concerning the Sacraments ? Symbolical, therefore, it is of the Circumcifion made without Hands, as the Carnal Circumcifion was before 5 and, confequently it fucceeds it in that life and fpiritual Signification ; which is all that I contend for. And there I fhall refl-, D ^ 'till 5.6 The Lawful nefs of 'till I find it deny'd and difprov'd. For Mt. Gale's Difcoiirfe does not afFed my Senfe of it in the leaft, nor his Arguments conchide againfi: me. And fo I return to fpeak direftly to the Bufinefs in IianJ, and infer Infant-Baptifm from the former Grounds and Obfervations. I. When God made the Covenant of Grace with 'Abraham^ he did, in EfTentials, give us the Plan and Platform of the Evangelical Church, as he de- ITgn'd it ihould continue in all Ages, the Temporal BleiTings excepted relating to the Land o{ Canaan. But the Spiritual Priv leges were to run down to the Church in an uninterrupted Courfe from thence to our Saviour's Days, and to the Confummation of the World. For as the Covenant was everlafting, fo the Church founded upon it, fhould be alfo everlafting, when confider'd in i:s Militant and Triumphant State. The Chriilian Church is but the Abrahatnical Ciiurch con'inu'd' and inlarg'd. In that Model God com- priz'd the Spiritual Blcilings given by Promife to his peculiar People, forerold their future Communicati- on to all Nations, appointed the Covenanting Seal and Incorporating Ordinance that fhould be us'd 'till Chrifl came, and fpecify'd what Perfons fhould be receiv'd into the Church and Covenant. Thefe were not only the Adult,-but alfo the Infants of all profef- fed Believers :, the Males by Circumcifion,and the Fe- males by a pure A£t of Grace without the Seal, of which they were not capable. In the Males, they might be reckoned ascircumcis'd, while that Atl was imputed to them, that they might avoid the great Reproach of L^ncircumcidon. For, t0ii/'ri7/7<7w'sDefcendents,Male and Female, and to his Spiritual Seed the Prolelytes, and to their Seed's Seed throughout all Generations, did the Covenant extend ^ Gen. xvii. 7. At the Head of whom fliould be that eminent Seed Chrift Jefus^ r^nd under him all profeVd Believers, with their If- ♦ ^ faeo iNf AN T-B APT ISM, Ij'c. i^j fue. And when the Redeemer fhould come out of Sio/7, this alfo is the Tenor of the Covenant 5 My Spirit that is upon thee^ and my Words which I have put in thy Mouth, {hall not depart out of thy Mouthy nor out of the Mouth of thy Seed, nor out of the Mouth of thy Seed's Seed^ faith the hord^from hence- forth and for ever ^ Ifa. lii. 20j 21. The Patriarchal Church was the firft Model of a vi/Ible organized Church we find defcrib'd and cha- radleriz'd in the Scripture ♦, and it being the Foun- dation, Scheme, or Rough-draught of the Evangeli- cal Church, as now perledted, it muft continue, in the main, to be the Model of Chriftianity. What God then contrived and promifed, he would fulfil, and the perfeft Accomplifhment was to be in Chrifl:. For Chrifl cawe to perform the Mercy promifed to our Fathers^ and to remember his holy Covenant ; the Oath which hefware to our Father Abraham, Luke f. 72,7?. A Branch of which Covenant it was, That the GentWesfoou/d be Fellow- Heirs with the old Ilrae- lites, and of the fame Body, and Partakers of the Spi' ritual Promifes, Eph. iii. 6^ ^, 11. But how are they Fellow-Heirs ? How are they incorporated into the fame Body, and made Partakers of the Promifes, if only adtual Believers among them fhall enjoy the covenanted Privileges, and not their Seed, as the Promifes contained, and as the ancient Ifraelites did > This is to be but half Heirs, and half Partakers, and Members of the Body in an incompleted De- gree, fince their Seed, as fuch, are cut off from the ancient Claims and covenanted Rights. If it was then an Inheritance intail'd to Parents and Chil- dren together, it muft be fo now ^ or elfe the Intail is dock'd, the Inheritance maim'd and lelTen'd, the Covenant impair'd, the Promifes are clipp'd, and the Privileges diminifh'd. Surely, Chrift did not thus fulfil the Promifes by halves, but the Gentiles nmft coxe in on the fame Foot and Level with the -- old jS The Lawfulnefs of old Jfraelitesy as the Profelytes always did in Spi- rituals. Mofes waj faithful as a Servant in the Uouje of God, and Chrifi was faithful oi a Son in his own houfey Heb. iii. 2, 5, 6. Mofes, therefore, to ex- prefs his Fidelity, did all Things after the Pattern fhewed him on the Mount, in building the Taberna- cle, and modelling the Church under the legal Co- venant. And, without doubt, Chrift exprefs'd his Fidelity in modelling the Chriftian Church accord- ing to the Evangelical Pattern given to our Father Abraham, without any Alterations but what were necefTary and foretold, and what he himfelf in- form'd us of. No Man was fo well acquainted with his heavenly Father's Will ^ and if it had been his Father's Will, to caft the Infants of believing Pa- rents out of Covenant and Chuch- Communion, or debar them of Entrance thither, after the Days of Chrifl:, when he threw the Doors of Grace wide open to thofe that were not in before, I am perfua- ded, Chrift had been kind and faithful to tell us of it in plain Words, and not put People to the Shifts of deducing it by ftrained Confequences. For it was a material Point, which abridg'd many Millions of Infants of plain, great, and long-enjoy 'd Privi- leges relating to Religion. Things which pious and affedionate Parents, efpecially Jews with whom Chrift convers'd, are apt to be very tender and te- nacious of, in behalf of their beloved Children. I think, this was Part of his Prophetical O^ce to inftrud us in ^ and a Word or two would have fuf- fic'd. As I have obferv'd before, of Improvements, or Inlargements made for the Benefit of Heathen Nations, conformably to the general Promife of the Covenant, we read in our Saviour's Gofpcl ^ but of Retrenchments made to the Prejudice of Infants, con- trary to t-e old Promife, we there read not one Sylla- ble, tho' feme fancy that they do. It Infant-Bapt ISM, Eifr. 5^ It remains therefore, that the Clogs and Clouds of the legal Covenant being clean removed, we are now returned to the pure, primitive. Evangelical Church- Conftitution, laid on the Plan of the Abra- ham'ical Covenant ; and, we hope, our Infants may be permitted to enjoy their ancient Privileges, wherein God has invefted them from the Beginning, to be held intirely to the End, by virtue of his gra- cious Charter. And fo we are bold to enter them into that Church and Covenant by his appointed Ordinance, agreeably to the Right he hath founded for them, and to the Rule and Pattern he hath pre- fcrib'd to us. For we know not a wifer, better, and more authentic Precedent that we can follow. 2. To fupport this Obfervation, let it be farther confider'd, what was the Law of Profelytlfm among the Hebrews. For we being Converts at firft from the Gentiles^ as Profelytes wereof old, do ground our Claims to Church-Privileges on the fame Bottom that they did. In fuch Converfions, the Firft-fruits they were to God, and we are as the Harveft. Abrahams Seed they became thereby, and fo are we become. Embodied they were with God's Church, and Joint -Partakers in its Privileges with the Na- tive Hebrews, and the fame it is with us. Now when they were admitted into the Church and Co- venant by Circumciiion, all their Infants were ad- mitted together with the Parents, and the Males in like manner were circumcifed. And thenceforth, in their Pofterity, they enjoy'd the fame fpiritual Rights with the People of God that were Jews by Birth. For there was one Law to the Home-born, and the converted Strangers. And this ought to be our Pattern for initiating Infants into the Church and Covenant, fince we are introduced and fettled upon the fame Foundation with the Profelytes, and like them become Abrahams Children and the true Ifraelites in the Spirit. For we are the fpiritual Circum- 6o The Lawfulnefs of Circumciiion, Fhil iii. 5. the Children oi Abraham^ and bkfCed with him,i Gal. iii. 7, 9. And being Chrift's, we are Abrahams Seed, and Heirs accord- ing to thePromife, v. 29. 2L%Zaccheus the Publican,' and, probably, a Gentile by Birth, was the Son of Mrciham^ Luke lix. 9. And fo we are now the If- rael ot God, Qal. vi. 16. For upon their Stock we ftand, and are incovenanted into their Rights.' Marry ^ or moft of them being cut off for Unbeliefs •^t are grafted, into their Stem^ and partake in the tie^ai. and Yatnejs of their Olive-Tree .^ Rom. xi. 17. which WIS their Churchy Jer. xi. \6. If, therefore, iSre perfedly fucceed them in their primitive Spiri- tual Rights, the fame Claim that tliey had for tlieir Cliiidren to be incovenanted on the old Foundation, ftands faft for the Infants of Chrillian Parents : Otherwife, we fucceed them only in parf, and enjoy but a Moiety of their Religious Privileges under the full Dirplay of the Covenant of Grace, and its utmofi: Completion inChriff Jefus. And the Olive-- Tree alfo, which was fat and fi-uitful to their, is be-' come lean and barren to our Children ^ who, du- ring their Infancy, fuffer the Efteds of its Leannefs, ' but are abfolutely deprived of its Fatnefs. For n6 Communication have they with i>, and noNoii-' riOiment does it give them. Then are we not trea- ted as the fpirituai Ifrael always were, but as un- converted G(?;?//7^j are, whofe Children come into' Covenant and Church-Communion as foon as ^'^^j give Evidence of actual Faith, and ours, it feems, mafl come ni no fooner -, which is no better than to Bn-church and un-covenant us in our Children. Pretended it is. That Faith alone makes us the Children of Abraham^ and the fpirituai Ifrael \ which Infants wanting, they cannot be AbrahanCs Children, nor that Ifrael. But fuch Qiialifications as Faith and Repentance, are rcquilite only in Per- fons arriv'd Xq the life of Re,ifon, who ffand ingag'd to Infant-Baptism, i^c, 6t, to Pcrfonal Duties and Services in the Church, as they ever flood in all Oeconomies of Religion 5 whereas Infants' were allovvM to enjoy Privileges according to their Capacities, but never tied to Per- fonal Performances in Matters of Duty. When Da- vid defcribes a Citizen of Zio/ij or a Member of the Church of God, by thefe Characters ^ That be walk- eth uprightly^ worketh Righteoufnefs^ Jpeaketb thff Truth jrom hi^ Hearty Sec. Pf. xv. 2, &c. it would be a wrong Inference made from thence. That 110 Infants could be Citizens of Zion^ or were Members of God's Church at that Time, becaufe they could have none of thofe Qiialifications. No lefs incoii- clufive is it to infer, That Infants cannot now he Abrahams Children, nor Members of Chrift's Church, becaufe they want the Faith and other Properties required in adult Perfons, to make 'em really fo. Yet is this a Vein of Weaknefs and Er- ror that runs thro' the Difcourfes of the Antipxdo- haptifts ; and many of Mr. Galeh Obfer vat ions from the Fathers, againft Infant-Baptifm, have no other Bottom. But 'tis farther objefted, " May we not as well " pretend a Title to the Land oi Canaan, on the a- " forefaid Account, as to the Privileges of the Old *' Ifrael, and parti cularl}?- to the covenanting Or- " dinance for little Children > " No, we may not 5 becaufe there is too much Difference in the Cafes, for us to found fuch a foolilh Claim or Title, as is there fuggefted. For one was a Temporal Bleliing, and the other is Spiritual. The earthly Canaan was no Privilege of the Patriarchal Church, in which the Fathers hjd not a Foot of Inheritance, except only to bury their Dead. The Promife of it was never made to profelyted Gentiles^ but to the Na- tion of the Jevbs alone \ and it was t3'pical of ano- ther Canaan^ into which we {hall not enter 'till we die. That Spot of Ground could nev-er contain all the ^^ The Lawfulnefs of 1^/.?K ^f'"^ '"r 'i' ^°'^^ ^ "°' ^^^ ^^ ^"^h Fools as to be fond of Types, when we have the Anti- types and to dwell in the Clouds, when we have a ar?^.S'nK".r''"'^''^'- Frivolous, indeed, areluch Objedhons; yet are we concern'd to take fome Notice of em that they who make W may not feem wife m their own Conceit, nor therewith abufe the Injudicious. ^. li our Warrant and CommifTion for admitting Infants into the Evangelical Church and Covenant hy the proper Ceremony, be required, we can pro- duce one from God s own Mouth, of as old a Date as the Days oi Abraham. For God commanded Abraham, and all Poftenty that were of his Faith fo to initiate their little Children. And his Order' tor It has never fince been countermanded. He on- ly lubftituted another initiating Ordinance in the formers room, but gave no Diredions to exclude Infants. 4. The Command for that Purpofe was very per- emptory, and back'd with the Penalty of Excifion upon Contempt. The Infants themfelves could not be guilty of any culpable Omiffion, it being no Fault of their Will, if they were not initiated after God's Law, which they could neither defire or re- fufe. Yet, upon Negled of fulfilling the Law thofe Infants fhould be cut off from God's People' as Violators of his Covenant, Gen. xvii. 14. Hard Ufage this may feem to Men who give themfelves fuch a Liberty of Thought, that they cannot per- ceive how the Condition of Infants is better or worfe for Things that are not within their Power. Circumcifed or Uncircumcifed, Baptized or Unbap- tized, are equally indifferent, in their Opinion be- caufe nothing is loft or gain'd by either, unto In- fants. Only to baptize them is a flagrant Sin in Chrift's Minil^ers 5 but that it can any-ways better their fpiritual State, is pofitively denied by Anti- p^dobaptifts Infant -Baptism, ^jf^. 6^ p£dobaptifts on their faithful Word, which we muft not qiieftion. For dare v/e affirm, tliat Baptiftn takes off Original Sin, when we fee that Baptized Perfons can be Sinners ? We dare, and do it boldly, in refpeft of the Stain it tranfmits unto the Soul, and the Guilt, or Obligation, to eternal Punilhment. For we firmly adhere to that famous Declaration of our Church in behalf of baptized Infants 5 " It is " certain, from God'si Word, that Children which are " Baptized, dying before they commit adtual Sin, " are undoubtedly faved. And of the fame Per- " fuafion was the 5th Council oiCdrthage^ whereia *' St. Aufl'm prefided ^ ^icuncp^ negat parvulcs, &c " Whofoever denies Infants to be delivered from " Perdition by Chriftian Baptifm, and to ob- '' tain eternal Salvation, let him be Anathe?na. " Then muft the Guilt and Pollution of Original Sin in Infants be removed by that Ordinance. Alfo Grace is there enfur'd to them, to break the Force and reigning Power of Sin, when they grow up, and it will prove an effectual Remedy, if in following Times it be complied with and duly cultivated. But if it be hard tor others to believe, thatCircuoi- cifion could, or Baptifm can, amend the fpiritual State of Infants ^ it is harder yet for us to believe, that God, in eftabliftiing the Covenant of Grace, would eiercife an arbitrary Power to injoin on In- fants, under a fevere Sandion, a painful Rite to be kept precifely on a certain Day, which in the Ac- counts of Religion was good for nothing. Howr ferviceable the Life of Mofes was to the Church of God, is well known ^ yet was that Life indanger'd to be cut off (hort before the Services were done, for negleding to circumcife his Son at the Time pre- fcribed, Exod. iv. 24. Which, I think, Ihould cau- tion Chriftian Parents againft being carelefs and di- latory in baptizing their Children, and entring them betimes into the Church and Covenant. " But ^4 The Lawfulnels of " But why then do we not bind ourfelves to bap- " tize'em pundually on the Eighth Day aftec their *' Birth, as the Command ftriclly ran lor thdr " Circumcifion ?-" I anfwer, 'Tis becaufe we do not hold an exadt Parallel in all Particulars between the Two Ordinances, as Mr. Gale and others, who in- lift on this Objedion, fuppofe we do. What we urge, belongs to the iubftantial Parts of the Ordi- nances, not to the circumftantial •, and in thefe, the Ordinances of the New Teftament do vary from the Old ones. Now Time is but a Circumftance, which is more changeable and difpenfable than the Sacra- ment it felf. Neither has Chrift given fuch pun- £lual Prefcriptions about the Adminiftrationof Bap- tifm, in refpedl oT Gircumftances, as God had given about Gircumcifion. For in fuch Matters the Go- Ipel is a Law of Liberty, and leaves us to the Lati- tude of Difcretion. And for this Liberty there is apparent Reafon •, becaufe an Univerfal Ghurch fpread over the whole World, cannot be tied to fuch Niceties and Pun6tilio's, as a Patriarchal or National Ghurch was. What fuits the one, will not fuit the Gondition of the other Oeconomy. And efpecially, in the prefent Gafe, there is this Differ- ence : Gircumcifion being limitted to a certain Pay, to fulfil the Law, it was allowed other Perfons to circumcife, belide the Priefts and hevites, when thefe were not athand^ or befide the Fathers, when they negleded it. Then, as P. Tragius fays on Deut. 2. 1 6. "A Servant, tho' uncircumcifed himfelf, and ^^ even a Woman, or a Youth, that was not an Eth- '^ nick or Infidel, might circumcife. " And Gro- tius^ on Gen. xvii. 12. fays, "It might be done by *' Women and private Men, provided they were " not fuch as he calls Ex'leges. So Zipporah cir- " cumcifed GerJho?ji^ Exod.'w. 25." For the Truth of this, becaufe I find it queflion'd, my Authors fland accountable.. But the Adminiftration of Bap- tifin Infant-Baptism, ^c, 65 tifm being confin'd to Men in Holy Orders, many times fuch Miiiifters could not be had, in Cafe it was limitted to a precife Day. And i'everal other Inconveniencies might render the Mattef ^ijttreinely hard, if not impra(3:irable. Necellity, therefore, will difpenfe with that Circiimftance. . Let' it be alfo oblerv'd, that Baptifm inverts in Privileges that are highly valuable ; whereas the prefcribing of a fet Day, would impofe a Hardfhip that is now un- fupportable, as Matters ftand. Thefe Privilege^ infants enjoy 'd long before, tho' they were not fied to the fame Duties with adult Perfons. And it is not reafonable they fhould, under the fame Covenant, be thrown out of their old Privileges, for the fake of Hardihips to which they, themfelves in Equity were never obliged, and whicl^ other^ cannot perform in their Behalf. $. Admittance into God's Church and gracious Covenant being a high Privilege, that intitles to many Divine Favours, thofe Infants, who by God's folemn Adt of Grace had the Right of Prefcription to that Privilege from Abraham's Days down to Chrift, mull be continued in it to the World's End, unlefs it plainly appears, that God has lince diveft- ed them of their Right. Polfeffion of the Seal and initiatory Ceremony they had by God's Law, and hy immemorial Cuftom, which in a Matter of Grace or Benefit firmly pleads their Right ftill, and effablifhes their Claim. Kor can any new Demerits be alledg'd againft them, as a Bar to their ancient Rights* The Law for their Invefliture was clear and ftrojig, and fo ought to be the Law for their Difleifure too, in Cafe it had ever pafTed* For the Repeal of Laws, by Implication and far- fetched Confequences, is not allow 'd •, but the Re- .pealtnuft be plain apd pofitive, as the enacting of the Law was, that it may appear to be the Will andlntent of the Legiflator. Where GcJd was plea- E' fed 66 The Lawfulnels of fed to communicate his Favours, Men muft not venture to make Inclofures or Reftridlions •, and, in Matters of that Nature, even a probable Right and Claim, that injures not another Party, ought in Equity to take place. No need was there ol a new Precept to injoin the Duty^ or confirm the Right, when the original Law, under the fame Evangelical Difpenfation, and for the fame cove- nanted privileges, remained in Force, and the Practice of the Church had run on that Side in a long uninterrupted Channel. But if, in after- Ti'mes, God was determined to retrench Infants of their ancient Privileges, there was Need he fhould fignify his Mind in Words that were neither dark nor ambiguous ; fince the Revocation of a Grant or Charter fhould be as evident as the Deed of Gift, and not depend on fuch flrain'd Deductions as are foreign to the Cafe of Infants •, and, therefore, in themfelves, moft unreafonable. So the old Grant, Law and Cuftom, do, to this Day, fland invio- lable. 6. That God's Love to the Infants and little Children of believing Parents, is in the leafi: abated upon our Saviour's coining into the World, we have no Reafon to imagine •, but ^re very certain, it flill continues as it did before. Why then fhould we think he has dif-privileg'd them, or caft them , clean out of his Church and Covenant ? As to what | regards his AfFedion towards them, the Style of the New Teftament runs as much in their Favour, as it did in the Old : and fo do the Adtions of our Sa- viour. Thus the Evangelical' Prom ifes in their Be- half formerly went^ 7 mill eflab/ijh my Covenant he- tween we and thee ^ and. thy Seed after thee^ in aUG(y nerations^ for an everiaj^ing Covenant, to be a God tothee^ and to thy Seed after thee ^ Gen. xvii. 7, Hereby God oblig'd Jiimfelf for ever to be a Bene- fa6lor to Abraham and his Pofterity.-iiirpjritusl, '^- Blef- Infant-Baptismj i^c» 6j jings, and lign'd it to Infants of Eight Days old, that were his natural, or fpiritual ^eed^ by a vifi- ble Seal. And why (hould he refufe to lign it ftill, under the fame gracious Covenant, forafniuch as the Covenant it felf, and his good Will therein confirmed, were to be everlafting ? So when he re- eftabliihed the fame Covenant with the Jews in Moab, he took in the Little Ones with their Parents, and alfo thofe that were unborn at that Time, Deut. xxix. II, 12, 15. And this was to laft as a Law under the Chriftian Oeconomy in our Saviour's Days. For St. ?aul fays, that the Word of Faith which he and the other Apoftles preached, was con- tain'd in that Covenant. Likewife, If a. lix. 21. when the Redeemer Ihould come to Zion^ the fame Covenant was to continue to Chriftians and their Seed, and to their Seed's Seed for ever. And feeing thefe were the old Grants and Promifes of God to . the holy Seed, and to remain ftedfaft thro' all Ge- nerations, in vain fhall we look to find them abo- lilh'd by Jefus Chrift, who came not to annul, but to fulfil the Promifes of the Covenant. For, after the old Style, the Children of Chriftians are ftill holy, 1 Cor. vii. 14. and Rom. xi. 16. becaufe they are born of holy Parents, who are Children of the Covenant, and Heirs of the Vromifes made to the F^- thers^ Afts iii. 25. and Ch, ii. 39. Wherefore, towards the Infants and little Chil- dren of fuch Parents as were in Covenant Relaiion with God, we know what Kindnefs and tender Af- fedion his beloved Son exprefTed. Patterns of Con- verfion, and Emblems of Humility, he makes them to his Difciples, Matt, xviii. 3. And a little lower^ z;. 5, 6. he declares \ Whofo JhaU receive one fuch little Child in my Name^ receiveth me. But whofo fljaU offend any one oj thefe Little Ones, which believe in me^ it were better for him that a Milftone were hanged about hk Ncck^ and that he were drowned in E 2 the 68 The Lawfulncfs of the Depth of the Sea, Alfo, when Infants were brought to Chrift, that he (hould lay his Hands on them and pray, and his Difciples rebuked thole that brought them, he was much difpleafed with their mif-guided Zeal •, but he called the Infants to him, gave a general Command, that they Ihould be fuffer'd to come unto him, took them up in his Arms, gave them his BlelTmg, and pronounced, That ofjuch as them was the Kingdom of God. Thefe Padages Ihew, that God's Love to the Infants and Children of believing Parents, is not at all abated upon Chrift's coming to preach the Gofpel j but that he retains the fame gracious Inclination to them, that he had when he preached the Gofpel un- to Abraham : And, confequently, it cannot be fup- pofed, that he has thrown them out of Covenant, or rejeded them from Fellowfhip and Communion with his Church. His Pattern of Love fhould be followed, and the former Meafures ihould not be changed •, but to God and Chrift we may boldly bring our Infants for Gofpel Grace and BleiTing, and dedicate them to God by the proper Ordinance, iince we know his Willingnefs to receive them. We innovate nothing herein, but obferve the old Rule and Method. Nor do we prefume without Grounds ^ becaufe the Words and Actions of his own Son promife in their Favour all the AfTurance we can defire of a kind Reception. 7. They who exclude fuch Infants from the Co- venant of Grace, and the Society of the Faithful, do their Parts effedlually to difannul the Covenant to thole Infants. For they relcind God's facred and folemn Ad of Grace palTed to the Off-fpring of faithful Parents, as an everlafting Covenant to all Generations. And if for this they have not a fuf- ficient Warrant from God himfelf, let them confi- der how they will anfwer it at his Tribunal. Ri- gor and Severity, ia fuch Cafes, may be of dange- rous Infant-Baptism, ^c, 6g rous Confequence, and highly ofFenfive to the Di- vine Majefty ; whereas to chufe the favourable Side, in Cafe we really err'd, gives us a juft Prefumption of Pardon, becaufe Mercy rejoiceth againfl: Judg- ment. St. Faui fpeaking of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham, ufes Words that deferve our Adverfaries ferious Refledions, Ga/.ii'i.i'). Bre- thren^ I f peak after the manner of Men : Tho' it be a Mans Covenant^ yet^ if it be confirmei^ no Man difannnUeth, or addeth thereto. If human Wills and Covenants be thus inviolable, the Will and Co- venant of God is more inviolable, and muft not be annuird by Men. To the Infants of profefled Be- lievers was his Covenant made, and to endure for ever : Yet, to them is it denied by Antipadobaptifis, who rt^ufe to Infants the Agnition and Confirma- tion of the Covenant. But againft this they may fuggefl: •, ^' We med- " die not with the Will and Covenant of God, but " grant and affirm too, that God freely remits to " Infants Original Sin, and receives them into *' Heaven without the Sacrament of Baptifm. " Wherefore, by allowing them the main Benefits " of the Covenant, we rather confirm, than difan- " nul the Covenant. In return to which, I anfwer. That our Adverfa- ries are liberal in granting to Infants what is clean out of their Power to give or refufe : And, what is worfe for them, they give them what they can never prove to be their Right and Due from God's Word, when in an unbaptized State they allot un- to them Remiflion of Sin and eternal Salvation. In the mean while, they are wonderful fparing of what is in their Power to give and grant ^ namely, Admiflion into the Church and Covenant by Chri- ftian Baptifm. What need we thank them for not cramping the merciful Hands of God, as they do their own 5 and for not abfolutely (hutting the E 3 Gates 7© The Lawfalnefs of Gates of Heaven againft Infants, as they ftiut a- gainft them the Doors of the Church ? And, yet, virtually, and by good Confequence, they do the former alfo. But, to juftify my prefent Charge ^ They really difannul the Covenant to Infants, who deny them the feahng Ordinance. Had it pleafed God in our Da3'^s to leave the Covenant without a vifible Seal, we muft have referred all to his good Pleafure, and been content. But now, as he order'd the Matter o- therwife from Abraham'sTimeJo we muft leave it to ftand in the fame Pofture and Situation that he has p5ac'd it : Elfe it is certain, that when by Law, or Compad, a Seal is made necefTary to a Covenant, he that refufes to feal, does, by Conftrudtion of Law, refufe the Covenant. For fo the Male-Infant was accoimted to break the Covenant, and be efFedu- ally out of it, who was not circumcifed at the Day appointed. When Parents contract for their Chil- dren, and Guardians for their Wards, tho' they bring all to a full Agreement, yet, it they refufe to affix the Seil, or perform the neceflary Rite of Confirmation, they difannul the Contra6t, and de- ny their Children, or Wards, all its Benefits. In like manner, they who rtjed Infants from the Co- venanting Ordinance, and deny them the initiating Ceremony into God's Church, do th:ir Part to de- ny them the Blelhngs of the Covenant, and all the Benefits of Church-Communion. " For the break- ^^ ing off of the Seal (and it is the fame to refufe it) *' cancels the Covenant to which it was prefixed, " as all Men know, f^ys Mr. Be/ij. Keach^ Bel. Bapt. " difplayd. Chap. I. p. I. " And is not this efie- dlually to difannul the Covenant to thofe Children, who were certainly in it once, 'till they arrive to Years of Difcretion, and to fet them to ftand on the fame Level with the Children of Infidels ? How numerous thofe Children are in the Chriftiarj World, 'we I N F A N T-B A P T I S M, £iff, y t we leave to conjedture 5 a nice and exafl Computa- tion being as needlefs as it is impolTible. Too ma- ny by far they certainly are to be wrongM in the leaft of their fpiritnal Interefts. 8. What foe ver Perfons are out of the Covenant of Grace, they are left to the Law of Nature, or to the firft Covenant of Works, which requires a per- fed and finlefs Obedience, in order to Juftification ; by virtue whereof, in our lapfed State, Salvation does therefore become impoffible. For there being but Two Covenants in all, that propofe .Life to Mankind, he that is not within the one, muH: needs remain under the other. Wherefore, if the Infants of Chrlftian Parents be not within the Covenant of Grace, they are ftill under the Covenant of Works ; and if they be not grafted anew into the Second Adam, who faves all that will be faved, they abide in the Stock of the YMAd^im, who deftroyed them all by Sin, and, as it were, tainted their Blood by Treafon and Rebellion againft God's Majefty. Shall we then, while they remain in that State and Covenant, hope for their Salvation, which is only to be had on God's Terms, and not on our own? If we do, we hope without a Promife, and prefume of Grace and Silvation in their behalf, when God is not oblig'd by Covenant to beftow them. Nay, we hope againft the exprefs Declarations of his Word ^ wherein he affirms, That by the Law and Covenant of Works, fjo flejh alive JhaU he juftified. And what a deplorable Foundation is this, to ground the Happinefs of our Children upon ? But if within the Covenant of Grace the}'- be, as undoubtedly they are, if they be in a State of Sal- vation, then let them not be denied God's Seal to confirm and infure his gracious Promifes. Let them not be kept out of his Church, like an unclean and prophane Seed, that ftill lie under the Covenant of Works, and the Guilt of the firft Tranfgreffion, E 4 and 72 Ths Lawfulnefs of and therefore are obnoxious to everlafling Death. Thro' Chrift only they can be faved, and-if His they be by Act ot Redemption, give and confecrate them to him by the Sacrament of Baptifm, who will never refufe his own, nor reje£t thePurchafe of his Blood. For they that are within the Covenant, have, by God's original Order and Charter-Grant, a rightful Claim to its proper Seal. If to the In-; heritance of Eternal Life, they have a Right "by their Saviour's Death, deny them not the external Evidence and Security.' And if Citizens of that glorious Corporation, the Ho/y Zion and 'New Je- ru/alem^ they are by Grace, let them enjoy the Pri- vileges that belpng to Citizens, and are fuitable to their Capacities •, for they cannot be with-held with- out Injuftice. He that has a prefent Right to an Eftate, has the fame Right to the Writings and Conveyances. lu^ deed, if the Inheritance is not in PofTeflion, bat Reverfion, or if the Heir is by Law or Nature un- capable of PofTeflion, the Securities may remain in other Mens Cuf^:od3^ But, if Infants defcending from profefs'd Believers are really and aftuall}" in a fkveable State, they have as much the Right of prefent PofTeflion, as adult Pcrfons ^ and are«in as good a Capacity of receiving the Deeds and Secu- rities, as they were in the Patriarchs Days. Little to be regarded are our Antagonifts, when they didate dogmatically and magifterially, upon their Word, " That if thofe Infants be within the *' Covenant of Grace, they fliall be certainly faved *' without Baptifin, which fignifies nothing to bct- " ter their Condition." This is to cheat us out of our Chriflian Privileges and Securities ; and might as well be faid of Cirrumcifion, as it is of Baptifm. But we have not fo learned Chrifl, as to contemn his Sacraments, and negled our externjl Evidences for Salvation. A Man may be . born' with Infant-Baptism, ^c, j^ with a Title to an Eftate, to Freedom, or other Privileges j and yet be obiig'd to folemn Invefliture or Admittance by tjie appointed Ceremonies, before he can be fettled in the a6lual Enjoyment and Pof^ feflion of his Rights. '''''"-'" ''-"^r^^ 9. Of the unbelieving /(?roV the Apoftlel lays, Rom. li. 28, 29. As concerning the GofpeL they are Enemies for your Jake : hut as touching the Eletfion, they arc beloved for the fathers Jakes. Yor the Gifts and Cal- ling of God are without Repentance. This he fpeaks oi Men that had treated the Son of God and his Ho- ly Gofpel with the higheft Indignities. Still God had fome Kindnefs in Referve for them, for their Fathers fakes : Nor could he finally repent of his gracious Afts in their Behalf ^ but intended, on thofe Accounts, fome Time after, to re-induce them by Converfion into his Church, v. 26. If fuch Reafons as thefe can be pleaded in Favour of flubborn Infi- dels, with greater Strength may they be alledg'd for Infants. For they are equally upon their Side, fuppoling the Cafes of both were equal. But in this Infants have a manifeft Advantage, becaufe they are guilty of no frelh or perfonal Offences againft God, as thofe Jews were. And without Provoca- tions given, the unchangeable God never alters his gracious Meafures towards his People, fb as to ei- prefs Severity where he ufed to fhew Kindnefs. If therefore,* for their Fathers fakes, and for the Sake of his own Gifts and Calling, he intended to re-in- duce thofe undeferving Jews into the Church ^ much more, for the fame Reafons, would he retain Infants within the Church, that never offended him, fince by Grace he firft brought them in. In a fpiritual Account, the Fathers were theirs, and the Gifts and Calling of God were theirs 5 and we believe they^'are without Repentance, Thus 74 ^^^ Lawfulnefs of . Tims fcur,J[ conceive, the Scales are even, and the parallel runs equally on to nuintain our Argument. For the State and Condition of Infants is the fame jiow, as it was in Abraham^ and the Patriarchs Days y as the Church and Covenant are the fame in Sub- jftance. Confequently, we^areperfuaded, they have the fame Right to B.iptifm, that fuch Infants then had to Circamcifion. And if it could he proved, that God hath not commanded them to be baptiz'd ^ yet can it never be proved, th;it he hath command- ed them to be dif-privileg'd ; I mean, to be caft or left out of the Church and Covenant,. If, therefore, any Alteration be ni^de in God's "Will and Condud towards Infants, relating to the Point in Agitation, it could be owing to no other Caufe, but the dignified Nature of Baptifm, and the Deference due unto it upon that Account above Circumcifion. And fuppoling this were true, yet whether it be a fufficient Ground for fuch a di (ad- vantageous Changs to all the Infants of the Chri- ftian World, we dare appeal to impartial Judg- ment. For to Infants, Baptifm m^Lj be admini- ftred with no lefs Conveniency than Circumcifion : Of its blefTcd Privileges they may equally partake. To its Duties and Conditions they may as well be bound. And in the Obfervance of them they m.ay be educated jufl: as they were in ancient Times. But that there is any material Difi^rence in re- fpe£t of Dignity between Baptifm and Circumci- sion, I cannot readily 3ueld, when the Nature, Ends and \J^QS of both are well examined and adjuflcd. The Aft of walhing the Body with Water is not in itfelr more noble, tho' lefs painful, than the Rite of Circumcifion. If Baptifm initiates into the Church of God, and figns the Covenant of Grace, fo did Circumcifion. If Baptifm dedicates to the "Worfhip of God, fo did Circumcifion. If Baptifm ^dqpts to be his Sons, fo did Circumcifion. for Ifra.l Inf ant-Bapti SM, £5fc. y^ Ifrael ?5 my Son, even my Firji-born, faid God, Exod, iv. 22. when Ifrae/ knew no other Covenant bufc that which was feal'd by Circumcifion. If Baptifm configns to Faith in Chrift as come, Circumcilion did the fame to Chrift as future. If Baptifm be the Laver of Regeneration, reprefenting our Death and Burial with Chrift to Sin, and our Refurredlion with him alfo to Newnefs of Life ; and if it ftipu- lates for Grace to perform the fame, fo, in EfFeflr, did Circumcifion. For it fignified and obhged to the inward Circumcifion of the Heart and Spirit, and fb to a Holy Life, which is equivalent to thofe Cnriftian Duties : And God promifed Grace for that Purpofe to circumcifed Perfons, as has been proved before. The ExpreiTions differ, but the Senfe agrees. Wherefore, feeing Baptifm and Circum- ciiion have much the fame Dignity and Ufes in the fame Evangelical Church and Covenant, I know no Reafon refulting from the Nature of Things, why Baptifm may not as well be adminiftred to Infants, 2s Circumciiion was •, nor why the doing of it fliould be counted a Proftitution, or Profanation of one Ordinance more than of the other. Here it will be proper to obviate the main Obje- ^ions raifed by our Adverfaries againft our Do- dtrine, that are hitherto unanfwered. I. "We are fure to be told, ' That Females were '' not circumcifed under the Old Teftament.' We freely grant it. But to what Purpofe is this alledg- ed ? or, How does it make againft the Lawfulnefs of Infant-Baptifm ? If it be produced only to (hew, that neither Circumcifion, nor Baptifm, is abfolute- ]y neceffary to Salvation, which is the moft it can prove ♦, we acknowledge, that Pofitive Ordinances ^re neceffary for no Perfons at all, befide thofe for >vhf^m they are inftituted and defigned. But if this 76 I'he Lawfulncfs of this Megation proves any thing, it proves, that Baptifm is no more neceflary for adult Perfons, than fdr Infants ^ becaufe Females were n»t cir- cumcifed in their riper Years, any more than in their Infancy and Minority. Alfo our Adverfaries ought to know, that many Things in Religion may be lawful and rightful, which, neverthelefs, are not of indifpeniible Neceffity. But if from thence they would infer. That Infant-Baptifm is not lawful ^ this Inference hangs by Geometry, there being no manrier of Connexion between the Premife and the Conclufibn. For how does it follow, Women of old were not circumcifed , therefore. Infants now muft not be baptized ?: It was not the Unlawfulnefs of the A6t that debarred Females from Circumci- Hon, but their natural Incapacity for the Opera- tion : "Which Incapacity cannot be pleaded againfl the baptizing either of them, or Infants. There- fore, the Bar and only Reafon that hindred, being removed, the Practice may follow. But, if they will affirmj That it was unlawful to circumcife Females, as I know fome of them roundly do, I delire to know, by what Rule, or Divine Law, that was in Force at the Inftitution, and fome Centuries after, as the prefent Meafure and Standard of Practice to the Church, they will have this Qiieftion decided, or undertake to juftify that pretended Unlawfulnefs > For we will not be determined by any fubfequent Laws, that were pe- culiar to another Diipsnfation. But if tliey fay, it was always againft the Moral and Natural Law, that Men fhould ufe any pofitive Acts or Ordinan- ces in Religion, v/hich God had not commanded •, then I require them to fhew me a Divine Cotn- mand for AbePs and Noah's Sacrifices •, for Abra- ham^s giving Tythes to Mekhijedec, as God's Prieft; for JacoFs erefting an Altar to God at Salem^ Gen, ixxiii. 20. and for his Vow at Bethel^ to fet up a Stone Infant- Baptism, ^^c. 77 Stone for a Pillar to be God's Houfe, and confeCf a- ting it with Oil, and a Drink-o^ering ; and alfo,; giving the Tenth of all his Stock to God, G^fi, xxviii. 20, &c. and xxxv. 14. About the Piilaxj indeed, an after Command he had to perfqrmj but not to vow. Againft the Moral Law they could not ad in thefe Matters, becaufe God accepted of their Ads. But if it be fuggefted. That a Conimand they had, tho' it be not recorded in holy Wjit^ I retort upon them their own beloved Maxim out of T.ertuUian : Negat Scriptura^ qupd non not at 5 : The Scripture denies what it does not affirm. K\\^ let them make the moil: of it they can to their own Advantage.. II. It is caft in our Teeth at every turn,,^. Th^ *' from the Pradtice of God's Church in giving th« *' Paflbver to Infants, it may as well be inferred, " That Infants Ihould communicate in the Lord s " Supper, as we infer Infant- Baptifm from the Cir* ',' cumciiion of Infants. Alfo, in fome of the pri' " mitive Times, the Lord's Supper was adminiftred " to Infants, with the Approbation of the Fathers "■ of the Church." But, . . , ., -.: ,5lindl I I. I am uncertain, whether Infants in the Jewijb Church did eat the Paflbver. I am fure that Place of Exod. xii. 26, 27. which is quoted for it, does not prove it. For of Age thofe Children were to ask and to underftand Queftions about its Nature and Ufes ; nor is it there faid, that they did eat the Paflbver, but only examined what it meant. And tho', V. 3, 4. the Preparation for that Feaft in the Pafchal Lamb, was to be according to the Houfe- hold, or the Number of Souls contained* in the Fa- mily ; yet, that might be underftood only of fuch Souls as were qualified to eat thereof. 2. If 78 The Lawfulnefs of 2. If Infants did eat of the Pairover, the Infe-' rence will not hold, that ih^y ought now to eat the Lord's Supper, as it holds trom their Circumcifion to their Baptifm. For the PafTover was not a Pa- triarchal Inftitution, nor Part of the Evangelical Covenant made with Abraham •, but a Mofaical Or- dinance, inftituted about Two Months before the giving of the Law on Mount Si?7ai, to commemo- rate a particular Blelling or two vouchfaf d by God' to the Jews alone. And it is not from Mofes^ but from the Fathers, we derive our Evangelical Privi- leges. 3. I am of the Opinion, that the PafTover did not typify the Lord's Supper, but his Paliion : For Chrijl our Fajjover is facnficed for us, i Cor. v. 7, Therefore, as the Correfpondenee does not hold be- tween the Two Ordinances, lo neither will the Ar- gument hold from the one to the other. Efpecially, confidering that the PafTover was not a Patri His patient Toleration of it in other Cafes, (hews^ that he counted it no great Offence, if any at all.. ^ Was our Adverfaries Deduction therefore goodi that upon the fame Ground we baptize Infants^ wq Ihould alfo give them the other Sacrament? What would they gain hereby, but only oblige i;is to give them both: And, for my own Pjrt^ I Ihould be much fooner induc'd to communicate them^ than to leave them unbaptized. For in that I fliould orly dp what was unprofitable and fuper- fluous 5 in this I fhould do what I ajh perfuaded isliighly injurious to heiplefs infants. Aaid if in Confcience I believed, tho' upon wrong Principles, as the Fathers did, that I was bound ^0 give them the Lord's Supper, I trull the Error "\vould be par- donable. The Qualifications of Self-Exaniination difcerning the Lord's Body, &^ I fhould apply only to adult Perfons, as we do the Conditions in Baptifm, and as the Jews did in Circumcifion. IIL Great Account is commonly made of John's irejeding the Pharifees and Sadduces Claim to Bap- tifm 5 We have Abraham to our Father^ Matt. iii. ^. Hence they conclude, the Abrahamical Covenant not to be the Evangelical, becaufe that gave Abraham's Seed a Birth-right to the Seal, which is denied to hold good under the Gofpel Difpenfation. A De^ fcent and Birth from believing Parents, is not therefore a fufficient Title to Baptifm ^ bat they that claim it, mufl be qtherwife qualified. And another Ufe is made of John's Baptifm,; that> con^ cerns the Manner of Adminifbration. Whether John did finally .refufe to baptize thofc fSiarifefs^and l^gdduces, gyjiQt, is tO: oae indifeent : r V; Btit Infant-Baptism, i^c, 8i But I deny the Baptifm of John and ChrlJ}^ to be eflentially the fame. And then no Argument can be rais'd from the one unto the other. For if they dilfer'd in their Nature and EiTence, they might differ in the Mode of Adminiftration and other Circum- ftances. The Proot lies on them who hold the Af- firmative ; but I will gratifie them this one time ia proving a Negative, to prevent all Cavils, and let them fee, that I deny not without Reafon. The Matter, or outward Element, which was Water, was the fame in both Baptifms. But this will not prove an Identity in the Ordinances, or an eflential Agree- ment. For not the Matter, but the Forms, internal or external, give a fpecific Difference or Agreement unto things. Then I fay, that the Baptifms o^ John and Chriji differ'd in both the Forms, and alfo in their Ufes, Ends and Defigns. 1. They differed in their internal Forms, pro- vided Johns had any fuch Form at all. For the internal Form of Chrift's Baptifm, confifl;s in the Operation of the Spirit upon the Soul, to wafh off its Pollution by regenerating Grace, and to feal the Remiffion of Sins. But we do not read, that John in his Baptifm, promis'd thofe EfFeds, only he bound the Perfons baptiz'd to Confellion and Repentance j where- upon their Pardon and Sandification follow'd. So that thefeEfFeds were not annex'd to his Baptifm; but to his Dodrine, and to their Repentance. For John bap- tiz'd with Water, but Chrifl with the Holy Ghoft. 2. They differed in their external Forms: What Form of Words John ufed in his Baptifm, is not re- corded, tho' we may fuppofe he ufed fome. But we are fure he ufed not the fame that Chrift has command- ed us to do in his ; which runs in the Name of the Father; Son, and Holy Ghoft. Of the Holy Ghofl John made no mention in his Baptifm. Otherwife the Difciples baptiz'd by him, could not have an- fwered and faid of themfelves; W^e h(ive not fo much F oi $Q- The Lawfulnefs of €(s yard, whether there he any Hofy Ghoft, A6ls six. 2. Neither did he baptize in the Name of Jefus: Elfe St. Paul would not have orderM thofe Difciples to be baptiz'd again in that Name, v. 5. Whereas John only charg'd in his Doctrine, that they Ihould believe on him that fhould come after him, that is, on Chrift JefuSj v. 4. If foh/i's Baptifm and Chrid's had been fpecificaily the fame, here was an Apo- ftolical Warrant given for Re-Baptization, or re-ite- rating the fame Baptifm, to the fame Perfons, which is never allow'd. For nothing can be plainer, than that thofe Difciples were re-baptiz'd, whom John had baptizM before. 'Tis faid of ApoUos, that he knew only the Baptifm ofjob/i^ A[ts xviii. 2^. Which clearly intimates, that befide that, there was a Baptifm of another Species. 3. The V^Q^ End and Defign of Chrift's Baptifm, was to make Difciples to himfelf of all Nations, Sexes, and Ages too, as we believe, and thereby to' admit them into his Church in general : As the Jews us'd to do their Profelytes by Circumcifion of the Males, and by Baptifin and Sacrifice to all. But the Defign of John's Baptifm, was to make a par- ticular Se6l of Difciples to himfelf, out of the Church and Nation of the Jews alone. Thefe, after his Example, were to lead a Life that confifted in Abfliinence, Rigor and Severity, that they might be the better prepar'd and difciplin'd to entertain the Mejjta^. Members of God's Church Johns Difciples' were before by Circumcilion : Adult Perfons they might only be, becaufe they alone were fitteft for his purpofe ^ and perhaps none but Males. For tho' he might preach openly unto all, yet we do not read of any Females, Infants and little Children, among his feledl Difciples. But herein I will not be pofitive. At that Time the Covenanting and Incorporating Ordinance by God's Law, was not Baptifin, but Circumcifion. So the Fharifees and Saddttcees had been Infant-Baptism, ^ifr. 8> been clrcumcifed before into the Abrahamical Cove- nant in their Infancy, and were acknowledged for Members pfthe true Church of God. And asflagitioufly wicked as they were, their Infant Children had ftill a Right to the iame Privilege's, becaufe born oF Pa- rents that were profefs'd Believers, and vi/Ibly within the Church and Covenant. John therefore denied none of thofe Rights, nor could hedo it with Truth and Ju- ftice. But the Fathers being of Age, and great Sinners^ and yet deflring to be admitted into the Proftillon of a ftrid: Holinefs, it was necefTkry for John to abate their vain Confidences, and oblige them to true Repentance, before they could receive the Benefits they expeded. It was not therefore AdmifHon into the Church and Covenant, (wherein they had been long before bj the proper Ordinance) that they defir'd, and John denied. But he denied their Tiile to true Ho- linefs and Salvation, barely on the Account of their being Abraham^ Children, and the like external Privileges. So did the Prophets, and fo did Chrifl to the circumcifed, but finful Jews. So did the Apoftles, and fo do we to all Baptized Chriitians tha^ are of Age, and live in Sin. May we not rebuke their Vices, and remonftrate the Folly and Vanity of th?ir idle Confidences, without being fuppos'd to Unchurch or Un-covenant them, and abfolutely deny their Claim to the external Privileges of Church Commu- nion, into v/hich they wereBaptiz'd > When, God in If a. I . and elfewhere, heavily tax'd the Jews with their wicked Lives and Hypocritical Devotions, whereof he exprefs'd his utmoft Abhorrence, declaring their Services to be not only fruitlefs, but deteftable, and their Privileges vain j did he thereby quite Un-church them, and place them vifibly in the State of Heathens > No ; but unworthy Citizens will enjoy their exter- nal Rights both Civil and Ecclefiaftical, till they come under Judicial Sentences, and are formally de- pnv'd or fufpended by Authority. F 3 4. Aft §4 The Lawfulncfs of 4. As we teach, there is an Engagement, Vow and Sacred Oath, brought on Infants in their Baptifin : And this without their Confent or Knowledge, and as others fay, without Infurance of Grace to per- form the Engagement ; which does therefore necefTa- rily involve them in the Guilt of Perfidioufnefs, Perjury, and fuch horrid Crimes. This is hotly de- claimed a gainft as a Snare to Souls, and as 3 volun- tary Vow condemned, Mat. v. 34. upon which come - the Tragical Out-cries ; " O perjur'd Nation ! perjur'd ^People! and perjur'd Paftors! For fo are all de- ^^ bauched, drunken, fwearing and unclean Teachers. Are not thefe perjur'd alfo > Have they kept their • Vow and Covenant ? &c. " Keach, Bel. Bapt. dif- pl'iyd^ p. 270. which we had before alfo in his ReSor Reaified. Nor can honeft Daniel Williams, though a difTenting Brother, efcape the Lafli, for his lamentable Dodtrine about that Oath. But to the great Comfort of baptized Infants, the Vow is pronounced void, and they are clean abfolv'd from all Obligations, by a Sentence no lefs decretory and definitive, than if it were Prsetorian or Pontifical. So their charitable Advocate, but our Severe Judge Mr. Benjamin Reach. ' But voluntary Vows and Oblations were approved of under the Law : There alfo ;.^ood Kings brought themfelves and People under the Engagement of fuch Vows to ferve God, and obey his Commandments 5 as David fwore he would keep his righteom Jiidg- ments^ Pfal. cxix. 106. and A^,?^mw& made them en- ter into a Curfe and an Oath for the fame End T^eh, X. 29. * 1 am of Opinion, that Chrifl has not prohibited all voluntary Vows and Oaths, in the fore-cited place of St. Matthew. For I think fuch a Prohibition would infringe the Natural Right and Obligations we have to devote ourfelves to God's Service. Surely, I find in myfelf a natural inherent Power, and tliink it Infant-Baptism, i^c. 85 It alfo my Duty, to difpofe of my felf to God's Worfhip with a willing Mind. Promife and refolve I may to perform my Religious Duties ; and what I can fafely promife, I can vow and fwear, when I think it requifite -, tho' this is a ftri£ler Bond, and the Breach thereof more criminal. Nothing do we in fuch Vows, but ingage ourfelves ftrongly to what is already our indifpenfible Duty upon Pain of Dam- nation. And why may not Infants and little Chil- dren be brought under the fame Engagements, which bind them to no more than what they are abfolute- ly bound to all their Days by the Laws of God ? No Sins of theirs will be counted perfidious Viola- tions of their Vow, but thofe that are wilful, and therefore imputable to themfelves as their free Choice. In Civil Affairs, Parents ait for their young Children, and Truftees for their Pupils. And when thofe Ads are apparently for the Minor's Profit, the Law will juftify them, and oblige to Performance, as is well known, and daily pradtifed. The fame will hold in Matters of Religion, which infinitely make for the Childrens Advantage. Here is no Snare laid, but Salvation projedted for their Souls: Or, if infnar'd they be, it is afterwards thro' the treacherous Confent and free Eledion of their own Will. But after all, what if God himfelf brought them under the fame Vow and Covenant fo long ago as the Days of Abrah^?»^ and by his Command obiig'd them to ftand to it thro' all Generations ? And what if he advanced this Covenant into an Oath, Deut. xxii. 12. wherein the Fathers muft confent and fti- pulate for their Little Ones, and the Living for thofe that were not yet in Being ? v.i'y. This I af^ fert to be the very Truth. Then all the profane Thunder and Lightning that is flafh'd out againft our Practice, flies in the Face of God, whofe Prece- dent we follow, and whofe Precept we obey. Nor F 3 is SA The Lawfulnefs of is It fo hard a Cafe, to bring unconfenting Infants under the eafy Yoke of Chrift's gracious Covenant, as It was to bring them under the onfupportaMe Yoke of Bondage to Mojes his Law, as our Adver- fanes fay Circumcifion did. I will fay nothing of Grace to perform the Covenant, which is always fure on God's fide. 5. In order to deftroy our Birth-Right to the Seal oF the Covenant, upon the old Abrahamical Foun- dation, we are told near a hundred times over 5 7hdt no Man is now to be known ajtcr the Ylefh ^ bus old Things are pajjed awty, and all Things are become TTevj, 2 Cor. V. 16, 17. All I (hall reply to this, is, That the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham^ and the Right which the Infants of believing Pa- rents have in it, will never pjfs away. Thofe Words of the Apoftle are, therefore, grofl^ underftood, or mif applied j but, in their true Senfe, are nothing at all to our Adverfaries Purpofe. To what is already faid upon this Argum.ent, I Ihall add Two Obfervations more, which have been often urged by Vxdobaptifts. I. When we con/ider how difficult the ]^ews were to part with their ancient Privileges and Cuftoms, we (an hardly believe, that upon their Converfion to Chriffianity, they would eafilv part with the old Covenant Privileges for their Children. Every body knows how ftiffly they flood for Circumcifion, and how zealous they were for the Rites of the Law! Now, if by turning Chriftians, they had feen all their Infants qui't? d if- privileged, excluded from the Church and Covenant, and treated as the Children of Heathens in thofe refpefts, who, in their Accounts, were no better than unclean Dogs • we cannot be- lieve they would ever have taken it fo patiently, as not once to open their Mouths on that Occ^iiim. Probably the Difficulty of making them Chriftians, or retaining them in the Church on fiich a Term, had iNFANT-BAPtiSM, i^C. Sj had greatly increafed. In former Times, from Abraham to Chnft, the Children and Infants were profelyted with their. Parents, and admired Mem- bers ot the Church. The Gain of the one, was the others Gain. But now, by becoming Chriftians, their Infants and little Children, who were in the Church of God before, are turned out. And fo the Parents Gain was their Lofs. Strange ! that this ftiould be the Effed of God's Grace, and Chrift's meritorious Palhon, to un- church the )^oung Chil- dren of fo manj Thoufand converted fezos ! And no lefs ftrange, that thofe -Jews, fhould forget their ufual Stifffiefs, Murmurs and Tumults,, and beax it , quietly ! This makes the Account appear highly im- probable, if not incredible. I could not forbear to mention it curforily, tho* others have inlifted on it more at large. 2. It was a Cuftom among the ^evos, in our Sa- viour's Time, and before, to baptize the Converts to their Religion, and with the Parents to baptize their Infants. This Cuftom Chrift is fuppofed to have tranfcribed into his Church, and that the Apo- ftles oblerved it in making Difciples. For they bap- tized feveral whole Families-, among whom, it is mofi; probable, there were fome Infants, or young Children. The Truth and Matter of Fad relating to that Jewifh Baptifm, has been of late denied and oppofed. I think Sir Norton Knatchbitl was the firft that broke the Ice, and ventured upon this Denial. But what he has faid to difprove it, is very weak and incon- iiderable 5 and his firft Argument concludes ffrong- ly againft himfelf. Others have followed him, and efpecially Mr. Gale fpends Two long Letters upon the Subjedt. So confident is he of Succefs, " That " he is inclin'd to venture the Matter upon this " Ilfue, and almofl make a Promife to unite with " the Eftablilh'd Church, if it can be proved, that Fa " the 88 The Lawfulnefs of " the Jews baptized the Infants of their Profelytes *' before and at the Timeof Chrift's fending out his *' Difciples. " For to this EfFed are his Words, Let,yi. p. 222. As I have not laid Infant-Baptifin on this Bafe or Foundation, fo I am not obhg'd to follow our Author Step by Step in a full Anfwer to what he has advanced on this Article. With the Rabbinical WtI- tings I am not much acquainted, nor need I ever delire to be, if his Judgment and Cenfures of them be jufl:. However, his Arguments that Teem to me to have ar.y Strength, 1 Ihall briefly examine, and return wliat I think futhcient to overthrow them, and confirm the Truth of the Jews Baptifm. I. He owns, " 'Tis conhderable, that fo many " Learned Men favour the Opinion -, but it will ap- " pear from the Reafons they give for it, that they *^ were too credulous, and entertained it too eafily ; *' which lefTens their Authority very much, Let, *' IX. p. 325." They did not only favour it, but they afh'rnjed it for a certain Truth, and infifted up- on it. And it is to be fuppofed, that when fo very many of the moft Learned Writers in Europe have confidently afferted and publifhed it before the World, they had well weighed and confidered the Matter. Nor were an^r Men more converfant than fevtral of them, with the Works of the Rabbies. *' Yet were they not only too credulous, but, by " Mr. Gak's Account, guilty of the greateft Folly *' and Madnefs in the World, to believe, ss they " did, thi?, or any thing elfe, upon the fole Au* " thority ofthe Rabhies, p. 334." Fine Compli- ments from a polite and Scholar-like Pen, to no leis Men than Hammond^ Tay/or^ Whitby^ Selden^ Rujfen- dorf^ the admirable Grotius^ the incomparable L/^/r- foor^ as he calls them, and many other Authors of the moft eminent Note, who have given into that Perfuafion upon the fble Authority of the Rabbies ! If Infant-Baptism, l^c, S^ If Mr. Gale's Judgment be right, fach Places as Bed- lam had been JBtteft to entertain thofe diftraded Heads 5 and their Books fhould rather fee the Flames, than be kept in Studies and Libraries for Perufal. 2. He tells us, " That Mr. Wall's Authorities " do not prove the Jews Baptifm to be pradtifed in " Chrift's Time, much lefs before it, p. 925." Do they not, indeed } Will Mr. Gale ftand by this? Yes, he does, and affirms it over and over, p. 528. Again, /?. 333- And again, p. 334. Let us, there- fore, be now tried by Mr. WalTs Authorities, and hear what they Uy-> *° ^^^ ^^ ^r. Gale can poflibly be juftified or excufed. In Mr. WaU\ Quotation, " Maimonides fays of " the Jews Baptifm, It was fo in all Ages ; and " cites Scripture for it as old as Mofes^ Numb, xr, " I ) . As you are, foJl)all the Stranger^ or ?rofelyte^ " be. How are you ? (fpeaking to the native Jews) " By Circumcifion, and Baptifm, and Sacrifice. " So hkewife the Stranger, thro' all Generations, " by Circumcifion, and Baptifm, and bringing of a " Sacrifice. " The Talmud, Tit, Repud. fays, " Je- " thro^ Mofess Father-in-Law, was made a Profe- " lyte by Circumcifion, and Immerfion in Waters." Was not that before Chrift's Time > Alfo, they ground thePradice of that Baptifm uxionExod. lix. 10. as Mr. Gale knows : but how rightly, is not my Bufinefs to inquire. And fo, in their Opinion, it mnft be very ancient, fince they thought the Law was for it. Whereupon Maimonides affirms, " Bap- " tifm was in the Wildernefs juft before the giving *' of the Law. " Again, fays the Talmud^ Tit. Che- rhhoth^ c. 2. " It was the way whereby the Fathers *' were incovenanted. " Meaning the Fathers of the old Times. All which made the incomparable hightfoot ufe thefe Exprelfions of the Times, at and before Chrift j " faedobaptifm in the Jevoijh Church, 90 The I.awfulnefs of *' in the Admiifion of ProfelyteSj was fo knowrr, *' alliail and frequent, that nothing was more known, *^ ufual and frequent, hor. Heh. on Matt. iii. 6." Than whom, and the great Buxtorf^ we have Mr. Ga/es "Word, '^ That none ever better under- *^ flood, nor were more univerfally acquainted ** with the Rabbins and their "Writings, ^. 33:0." Here then is one Inftance of Mr. Gale'^ Cindor and Ingenuity, in reprefenting liis Adverfaries Qiioca- tions and Authorities, on whom he fo often faiartly refleds for the like Management. And, I think, this, and feveral other Inftances of the fame Nature, ihould very much leflen his own Credit and Autho- jity. But, ^. The Rabbins were too late to bear authentic Teftimony to the Baptifm of their Church, wh ch is laid to be in Ufe in and before Chrift's Time. *^ For the Mi/chna, the ancient eft Part of the Ja/- ** mudy was compil'd 15:0 Years after the Deffru- '' 6tion o£ ferufalem -. another Part of it 230 Years, *^ and a third 500 Years after Chrift, p. 526. Al- " fo, Maimomdes and R. Solomon lived in the 1 2th '• Century. " But, certainly, very poor Antiqua- ries muft thofe Talmudifts be, if they knew not what was the common Cuftom of their Church in an ini* tiatory Ordinance, or whether there was any fuch thing in \J{^e^ but 2 or 300 Years before their Days. As now thofe Men would be mean Hiflorians, who among us fhould fet up for Ecclefiaflical Writers ♦, and yet did not know, whether or no Infant-Bap- tifm was pradifed in our Church at the Reforma- tion and before. " But Ma'monides in particular, tho' a great •' Man, has his Evidence excepted againft, as a late ** incompetent Witnefs, who could know no more " than we do, what was the Ufage of his Church in " our Saviour's Days ^ and, therefore, muft not be '* credited on his bare Word, without producing " much Infant-Baptism, i^c, 91 " much older Authority. " And might not he have fuch Authority, tbo' he thought not himfelf obligM to produce it, becaufe the Cafe was uncon- teftable? But here Mr. Gale himfelf is kind to help us out, by acknowledging, That Maimonides had the Authority of the Talmud and Wife Men of old, for his Tradition of the Profelyte Baptifm in DiC- pute, Let.H.p. 390. And, I truft, an older Evi- dence than the Talmud will be produced for it very foon. 4. Mr. Gale^ I think, endeavours rather to infi- nuate than perliiade, that the Jevo'ijh Baptifm was not initiatory, but purgative-, or a bare cleanfing with Water from the Blood of Circumcifion, which was thought polluting ; and the Mifchna may mean no more, Let. IX. p. 328. Right! if the walhing away that Blood was initiatory, and made Profe- lytes. For the Baptifm the Talmud fpeaks of, did fb ; as that Jethro was made a Profelyte by Cir- cumcifion and Immerfion in Waters ; and that it was the way whereby the Fathers were incovenant- ed. And in Mr. WaU^ firft Citation, The Profe- lyte, when circumcifed, was baptized in the Pre- fence of Two Wife Men, &c. And was their Pre- fence required at the Purification from the Blood of Circumcifion > Let Mr. Gale prove that. But ^o the making of Profelytes it was. Nor can he under- hand, how a Perfbn could be wafh'd with Two dif- ferent Wafhings at one and the fame Time. There- fore, there was but one wafhing of the Blood ufed« A knotty Problem, indeed, for a Wife Man to be ftartled at ! For if he could not be twice wafh'd in the fame Inftant of Time, might he not be fo walh'd in the fame Hour, or in the fame Day ? Mr. Gale has with much ado proved. That the/ifroj had another Baptifm or Wafhing at their Circumcifion % Therefore, that mufl be the Initiatory Baptifm mentioned by the Talmud and ^ahVms -, or, there- fore. 9^ The Lawfulnels of fore, they had no foch Initiatory Baptifin for Profelytes. Here is the Confequence 5 for he has proved nothing elfe. 'Tis like our Author may think it impoliible for him to trifle, that being the Monopoly of the Vadobaptifts : Otherwife,here might be fomething like it. 4. But in p. 329, &c. he fays of that Baptifm j *' The Antiquity of the Pradlice is rendred dubious *^ by tile Difagreement of the Rabbins. Some plain- " ly alTert it, and others as plainly intimate, they *' neither knew nor allow'd of fuch an Initiatory " Ceremony." The Ignoramus Jury, and negative Voices, are, for Brevity's fake, reduced to Two ^ and the only One of them that fpeaks fomething to the Purpofe, is moft grievoufly ftigmatiz'd by Mr. Gale himfelf -, which, I fuppofe, is not to raife the Credit of his Teflimony. " For an anonymous '■^ Author he is that wrote the ancienteft Nizza- " chon^ who, with his ufual Gall, would expofe ** Baptifm as abfurd and foolilh." But what is it that he would ezpofe ? Not the Jems, but the Chriftians Baptifm. Againfl: the former he fpeaks not a "Word, that I can fee : But Mr. Gale forces it from him by fuch Deductions as the Author might not think of. But had he fpoken ever fo full and plain to the Point, the Character Mr. Gale gives him, bad Ipoil'd all, and utterly ruin'd his Reputation. For, fince that Author wrote with his ufual Gall, trifled, blafphemed, and was an idle, cavilling, quarrelfome Jew •, Why might he not be an impu- dent Liar too > And fince he wrote with fuch a bitter invenom'd Spirit againft Chriftianity, Why might he not refolve to ftab our Church, tho' it were thro' the Sides or Bowels of his own ? And why might he not malicioufly conceal or deny the Jews Baptifm, that he might have better Room to fpit his Poyfon at thofe of John and Chriji ? Some- Infant-Baptism, i^c, 95 Somewhat oddly it may look in an Author, to give fo much Credit to one fpiteful and infamous Writer among the Rabbies^ as to take his fingle Teftimony againft all the reft of them. Will he upon his Au- thority believe the fewijh Baptifm to be a Sham, or at leaft of no Antiquity > When that virulent Jew liv'd and wrote, I know not : But his Words, if they fignify any thing in Mr. Ga/e's Favour, fpeak as ftrongly againft the controverted Baptifm in his own Time, as in our Saviour's. And io if late he liv'd, it feems there was none at all, notwithftand- ing older Teftimonies of better Men. What does Mr. Ga/e mean, by producing fuch Evidence againft us, unlefs it be to banter us out of that Right we claim to common Senfe, and treat us indeed as Fools and Idiots ? Will he himfelf deny, that there eitlier is or was fuch a Baptifm among the Jezvs in later Ages? I dare engage he will not. Yet if that namelels Au- thor fpeaks Truth, and is on his fide, there was no fuch Baptifm in his Days, any more than in the Days of ourBleffed Lord. Muft he be credited aga inft all the Tribe, when he is owned tobeaftiamelefsWriter? Be the Rabbies as bad as Mr. Git/e reprefents them, yet it is to be hop'd Maimomdes^ that great Man, and fome few more that bear witnefs to the Jews initia- tory Baptifm, were more honeft and reputable Wri- ters than the fcandalous l^izztchon. But if the In- tent of this is to ftiew, that none of all the Rabbies deferves Credit, becaufe one contradicts the reft •, at this Rate no Authors in the World can maintain their Reputation, except thofe that were divinely infpir'd. The other Negative Evidence is R. Jfaac^ who ex- prelTes himfelf againft theChriftians in thefe Words: " They have abrogated Circumcifion, and fubftituted " Baptifm in its ftead; as they have likewife done the *' Sabbath,inftead of which they obferve the firftDay " of the Week. " This, faysMr.G^/f, is exceeding plain •, 94 1"^^^ Lawfulnefs of " plain 5 for as they kept a new Day inftead of the *' ancient one, fb he fays, they have in the like " manner fubftituted a new Ceremony of Initiation *' inftead of the old one. '' Not fo exceeding plain neither ; for R. Ifaac fays nothing of a new Ceremony, but it is Mr. Gale's own Glofs and Comment. It might be old therefore for all this, and the Chriftian Bap- tifm have fucceeded to it, as well as to Circumcifionj which alone the Chriftians, in the Rabbys Expreflions, had abohlh'd. But the Jews Baptifm, he neither affirms nor denies, and his bare Silence is no Argu- ment for or againft it. When two Rites are joint- ly us'd for the fame End, he that abrogates one, and appoints the other to ferve for both, may be truly and properly faid to fubftitute one inftead of two. As he that imploys two Servants in one Bufi- nefs, if afterwards he thinks one fufficient, and dif- charging the other, lays all the Burden on one alone, may be faid to fubftitute him, in liis room, and m his own too, without any Impropriety of Speech at all. For now he has double Duty upon his Hands, which was not fo before. Mr. Gale goes on arguing ^ " R. Ifaac complains, *' The Chriftians have abolifti'd the whole Law, and " all the Divine Precepts which the Law makes necef- " lary, except only fome things in relation to Inceft, *^ ^c»^ Here he enumerates fome of the Moral Pre- " cepts, but does not mention Baptifin at all. " From whence Mr. Gale concludes, that in R. lfaac\ Judg- ment, Baptifm was no Inftitution of Mofes, nor pra6tis'd by the Jews before Chrift, hecaufe he does not except it among the Rites, which the Chriftians had notaboliflied. Very acutely and judicionfly ob- ferved ! R. Ifaac enumerates the Moral Precepts of the Law, which the Chriftians had not abolilh'd^ and what a Fool was he, that he did not place Bap- tifm among thofe Moral Precepts > Or, what great Neceflity was there, he fhould take it for a Divine Infti tution Inf ant-Ba.i>jtism, ^c. 9^ Inftitutlon hy Mofes^ and not a meer Tradition of the Elders ? But if the legal Wafliings and Ablutions, with feveral others invented by tlie Jews, were called BaptiTms, as the Gofpel teaches, and Mr. GaU zi:r Jrnowledges, how in his Opinion fhould R. IJaac aver, t-here was no Baptifm at all in ufe among hi« Gountrymen before Chrifl: ? For his Words conclude againft all, ifagainft one. This is a Queftion foe Mr. Gale to refolve. But fuppofe thefe two Rabbies were in Mr. Gale\ Intereft, will their Evidence alone, render the Jews initiatory Baptifm dubious ? Then I believe it will be hard to prove the Canon of the New Teftament, and juftif)?- all the Parts of it, we now receive to be genuine and authentic-, feeing the Proof of it lies chiefly, if not wholly, upon the Teftimony of the Church and ancient Writers. For Mr. Gale maj know how long it was, before that Canon was per- fedly fettled and completed : And he may know what great Authors among Chriftians, as well An- cient as Modern, havequeftion'd, if not denied, the Authority of fome Pieces in the Canon. If there? fore, his prefent Argument will do Service againli Infant Baptifm, let him take care it does no Service for Deifts and Infidels, againft the Holy Scrip- ture. 5. That we have no Evidence for the 'Jews initia- tory Baptifm, to be in ufe as early as Chrift's Time, is our Adversaries Politionj and if we can prove it, they dare almoft venture to promife Conformity with the Eftablifh'd Church : What I fliall now ob- ferve may call lipon them, to mind that Promife, had they made it without Referve. For we have un-^ queflionable Authority for that, which is much ear- lier than the Mifchna^ and comes up full to the Apo- llolical Age-, nay, and will alTert the Pra<5tice for 3 long time before. The ^6 The Lawfulnefs of The Difputes of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Jojhua about it, are as good a Proof of the Ufage of it, in their Time, and before that, as our prefent Difputes about Infant Baptifm, are a Proof that fuch a Bap- tifm is nov/ in ufe, and has been fo a confiderable time among fome Chriftians, provided that ?£do' baptifts will be allowed the Name. R. Eliezer did no more deny the Ufe and Lawfulnefs ot Baptifm, in initiating Profelytes, as fome pretend he did, than R. Jojhua did that Ufe of Circumcifion : Only the firft would not grant it to be the fole or chief Cere- mony, that made the Profelyte, but afciib'd that EfFed to Circumcifion, which the other denied, and gave to Baptifm. This was the Conteft then ma- nag'd between the two Rabbles; namely, about the Virtue, Efficacy, Dignity and Precedence of the two Rites, as will appear prefent ly from their Words; not about their Being and Lawfulnefs, which both luppofed and allow'd. And fo did the Wifemen, that decided the Controverfy againft them both, and gave their Sentence equally in Favour of the two Ordinances. For, furely, they would not have given it for Baptifm, nor levelf d it with Circumcifion, if Baptifm was not then in common Pradice, or they thought it a very late and novel Invention. Let us therefore, firfl: fettle the Time when thofe two Rabbles liv'd, and then recite the Words of their Diipute, with the Determination of the Judges. Sir N. Knatchbul^ makes them Co- temporaries with Jo- fephus the famous Hiftorian of the Jews. The Learn- ed Author, who wrote the Book call'd, The Judg- ment of the Jewifti Church agalnfi the Unitarians, whom I fuppofe to have been \)x.Alllx^ fays from the MegiUah^ c i. that Onkelos compofed his Targum under the Condud of R. Eliezer and Jofhua^ after the Year of our Lord 70. about which Time Jojephzfs flourifn'd, Ch. vii. p. 86. And the fame Epoche^ does Mr; Stennett fomewhere give them, in his An- fwer Infant-Baptismj i^c. 97 fwer to Mr. Ruffe/7, So I hope the Time wherein they lived will ftand uncontro verted. Here then are Two WitnefFes, befides the Clafs of Judges, for the yews initiatory Baptifm, living in the Apofto* lical Age, about Forty or Fifty Years after Joh/i and Chriji had inftituted their feveral Baptifm s. And, probably, they muft be born at that Time, or thereabout, lince it required in them a coniidera- ble Age to become chief Difputants and Mafters in J/rae/j and Guides to Onkelos in compoling the largum. The Words of thefe Two Rabbies concerning the Profely ting Ordinance, and the Definitive Sentence of the Wife Men, Mr. Wall gives us in his Introdu- Uion^ P- 27. out of the Gemara^ Tit. Jeoa?noth^ c. 4. Of him that was circumcifed, and not baptized, R. E/iezer faid, that he was a Profely te. Be- caufe, faid he, we find of our Fathers (Abraham^ Ifaacj Sec.) that they were circumcifed, but not baptized. And of him that was baptized, and not circumcifed, R. JoJJjua faid, that he was 3 Profely te 5 becaufe, faid he, we find of our Mo- thers, that they were baptized, and not circum- cifed. But the Wife Men pronounced, That 'till he were both baptized and circumcifed, he was not a Profelyte. " This then is a plain Tefi:i- mony of the Two Rabbles., and Decifion of the Wife Men, for the Practice of Initiatory Baptifm among the jews long before our Saviour's Time. Aban* doned of Shame muft our Antagonifts be, when they produce it as an Evidence againfl the Practice. And Mr. Gale himfelf cannot forbear to flur it flight* ly over, by faying, " That both thofe Rabbles do *' controvert the Baptifin of Profelytes, Ler. X« " P' 389." Which is very falfe j for both owned the Baptifm, tho' one difputed its Preference to Circumcifion in making the Profelyte. G Coald 9S The Lawfulnefs of Could R. Jojhua be under flood to mean what he fays oi their own immediate Mothers , thofe Two Women muft have been baptized before John and Chrift had begun their Baptifms. But as it is like they were not Profelytes, and therefore, perhaps, not baptized at all, the J(frw, as is faid, ufing not to baptize Natives -, fo that cannot be R. Jqflma\ Meaning. For who knows not, that the common \5[t of the Word Fathers in Scripture, and the Rab- bles, imports their ancient PredecefTors fo long be- fore, as to run up their Original to Mofes and the Patriarchs ? And fo in Rabbi El'tezers Words, Abra- ham, IJaac^ Sec. are meant, or exprefly mentioned. And to them Mothers are oppofed, in the fame Senfe and Latitude, by his Antagonift. For we cannot think hut R. Jojhua would ftrive to vie with his Adverfary, in fome Degree at leaft, for the Anti- quity of his Ordinance. If this will not fuffice, how eafy and obvious had it been for R. FJiezer, who contended for Circumci- sion againfl: Baptifm, to run down his Opponent into Silence and Confufion, in cafe Baptifm had been a novel Inftitution ? Since you fay, " That '^ Baptifm makes the Profelyte, how can that be *' poflibly true, when we all know it to be an up- *' flart Rite of Yefterday's (landing in the Church, *' and never ufed for this Purpofe, 'till Two Men, ^' John and Je/r/f^ about Forty or Fifty Years ago, *' within the Memory of many now living, abo- " lilh'd Circumcifion, as the Profelyting Ceremony, " and'fubftituted Baptilin in its ftead, among their " Difciples ? No Knowledge had we of it before in " that Senfe, no Ufe 'till now of late. Will you " then afHrm, That all the Converts in former " Times, as the Idumeans in Hyrcanus^s Days, " Aha/uerus's Subjefts in Alordecai's, thofe in the *' Reigns of David and Solomon^ to name no more, '' were not Profelytes, becaufe they were only cir- " cumcifed, Infant-B APT ISM, Isfr. g(^ " cumcifed, and not baptised > If That you dare " not, you cannot do, what Folly and Weaknefs " is it, to maintain Baptifm to be the chief, or ''^ only Profelyting Rite ; when t'other Day, if not " to this very Jundure, there was no fuch a thing " with us in Being ? '' Had this been fo, of all the Fools that ever managed a publick Difpute, R. E/ie- zer had been the greateft, if with this Argument he had not baffled his Adverfary, and ftruck the Wife Men dumb, who determined againft him for Baptifm, as well as Circumcifioni Hereupon I fhould be inclined to flatter ttiyfelf with a good Hiftorical Evidence for the Antiquity of a Profelyting Baptifm, as a Rite of conjfiderable {landing among the Jews before the Time of Chriff^ and Ihould think it unanfwerable j but that I fuf- peel fome brisk critical Head may ftart up, and pertly ask me ; " Pray, Sir, what Authority have " you to believe fuch a Difpute, as you mention^ *^ was ever held by thofe two Rabbles^ and thaC " the Wife Men gave their decifive Voices in it ^ " nay, that there have been fuch Perfons in the *' World ? Have you the Account recorded in Holy " Writ, or the Chriftian Fathers ? Or, do you find " it in the polite and creditable Annals of the " Greeks or Latins ? No, Sir, no 5 but you hav^ *' it only from the defpicable, ignorant and whim- *' fical Writers of the Jews, whom it is the great" *' eft Folly and Madnefs in the World to believe in *' any thing upon their fole Authority. I there* '' fore regard it no more than I do the Chat of " the Beafts and Birds in JEfofs fables. " Should any one thus reply upon me to invalidate my Evi- dence, v/hat could I do but crofs the Cudgels and be quiet ? Or, at moft, refer my Caufe to equitable Judgment, whether this muft pafs for a fair Refu- tation ? Yet, perhaps, fome Perfons might like iC v/ell enough, when it fhould come in their Turn to G 2 jnak« loo The Lawfulnefs of make Reprifals. For an expedite Method it is, to fave Difputes about mufty Authors, and give a quick and nimble Difpatch to feveral Controverfies. For, 6. This is Mr. Galis Method to difpacth the Jewijh Rabbles^ and render their* Teftimony of no moment at all for that controverted Baptifm. Strange Whimfies, Abfurdities, Blafphemies, he lays at their Doors, and proves upon them ! Be thofe true, and abundance more their due in general, yet need they not.be all of the fame Stamp, nor equally Trifiers and Forgers of Lies. When Ep'imenides characterized his Country-men, " The Cretians are " always Liars ^ " out of the Number he muft ex- cept himfelf, if in that Charader he would be cre- dited. It is ftrange, that the Rabbles ihould all agree in a known Lie, and deliver it down unani- moufly thro' fo many Ages to Pofterity, while there was not one honeft Man found that would contra- dict them. And yet, Suppofe they were fo wicked, as to deliver for Truth what they knew to be falfe, how was it polTible at firfl to efcape Difcovery > The Vulgar's Ignorance and Credulity they might ea- fily abufe with ridiculous, profane and impious Narratives about God, their old Rabbies^ and other abftrufe Matters, that were far remote from the Peoples Cognizance, and whereof they were, there- fore, incompetent Judges. But the baptizing of ProfelyteSjWas a plain Matter of Fadt, done in Pub- lick before Witneffes, and continued, as they faid, throughout all Ages. But if it was never pradtifed before, nor at the Time when it was firft delivered for an old Tradition, every Body of common Senfe muft know the Falfhood. Befide, it is an approved Rule, Nemo malus gra- tis: And then let it be fhew'd, what Temptation thofe Rabbles had arifing from Profit, Pleafure, Repu- Infant-Baptism, ^c. loi Reputation, Ambition, or the like corrupt Intereft, to agree in forming a Fidion of their own Brain, that was hardly palfable, if at all, concerning the Initiatory Bapufm now in Queftion. In Stories of another Nature they might propofe to themfelves to be admired, aggrandized, and blindly followed by the filly People, for Men of Wifdom in Myfte- ries, or Ability in Wonders. But, in relation to that Baptifm, I can fee no manner of Motive that ■ could induce them to Prevarication. 7. Mr. Ga/e^ towards the Clole of his 9th Letter, gives the finifliing Stroke in parting for the Time with this Subject. His Words are thefe 5 '' I will " add but one Inftance more, which reaches ex- "■ prefly the Thing in difpute, and proves their " (the Jews) Traditions, concerning Walhings, " made void the Law ; M.ark vii. 8, 9. Laying ajide *^' the Commandment of God, ye hold the Traditions " of Men, as the wajhing of Pots and Cups 5 and *' many other Juch like Things ye do. And he /aid " unto them, tuU well ye rejed the Commandment of " God, that ye may keep your own Traditions, • " making the Word of God of none effe^i through your " Traditions, which ye have delivered. And our " Lord concludes his Cenfure with thefe Words, '^ They are blind Leaders of the Blind, Matt.iv. 14. " All which, if there be any thing facred and aw- " ful, and that deferves our moft ferious Regard, " in our Saviour's Words, muft at leaft fignify, that " they are a dangerous Sort of Men, and rather to be " fhunned than followed. For he exprefly com- " manded us to beware of their heaven. " A little after, Mr. Gale ends, faying, " What is built up- " on this Bafis, is a Rabbinical Tradition, and one "^ of thofe Walhings which our Lord condemns 5 " but not a Chriftian Baptifm." So he had told us before, '' That by thofe Wafliings the Jews had " vacated the Law, Lett. IV. p. 154. G 3 The J 02 The Lawfulneis of The Defign of all this, is, to (hew, That Chrifl: was fo far from approving, imitating, or confirm- ing the Jews Initiatory Baptifm, that he has utter- ly condemned it under the general •Name of IVafh- i^gs, as a human Tradition that evacuated God's Commandment. But, for this Dodrine, I have a pretty large Reckoning with our Author. For, I. Mr. Gale ftrongly denies there was any fuch Initiatory Baptifm in Ufe and Being among the Jews in our Saviour's Time. How then could Chrift condemn it among the other Walhings, when it had no Place at all in that Lift, and no Being among the Jews ^ Or did it tranfgrefs and vacate the Commandment of God in Cbrifl's Time, before it was inftituted by the later Rabb'ies ^ I never knew 'till now, that Non-Entities could have fuch wicked EfFeds, nor deferve fuch heavy Cenfures, For Chrifl: plainly taxes the Jews for what they did in his own Time, and not for what they would do in Times following. But, '2,' If the Baptifm we fpeak of was in Ufe among the Jews in Chnji's Time, how came he to condemn it as a Tradition that vacated God's Command- ment, and withal to retain it in his own Church for the Initiation of Difciples ? No Ufe had it with them, but to admit Profelytes, that I can £nd •, and this Ufe it has in Chrift's Church. If by that Ufe it tranfgrcffed God's Law, muft it not do fo ftill ? And is this confifteflt with our Saviour'^ Ilonour ? 9. How comes Mr. Gale to find Traditions m that PafTage of Scripture, when Chrift had put in but one ? Both in the Greek and Englifp of St. Mat^ thew^s and Alar^\ Gofpels, Chrift has only Tradi- tion in the Singular Number ^ which our Author has changed into Traditions in the PiuraK Is it fair in him to take this Liberty with our Saviour's Words, to mif-reprefent his Meaning, to multiply his Infant-Baptism, i^c» lo^ his Accounts, and bring Plurals into his Text in- ftead of Singulars, in fpite of his Expreflions and Delign ? This is a piece of Art which conceals a fe- cret Myftery that ftiall be deteded prefently. 4. DidChrift fay. That the Jezos Tradition about Waftiings, was the thing that made void the Law ? Not a Syllable, nor any thing that implies it. Only he fays, That the Jews laid afide the Commandment of God, while they held their own Tradition. The plain Englifh of which muft be. That they negleded God's Law, but obferved their own Tradition •, or they were more regardful of their own Tradition than of his Commandment : which all Men muft own to be a great Fault, But, 5. What is really the Tradition of the Jews, which Chrift fays vacated the Commandment of God ? You cannot fee a Tittle of it in Mr. Gale's Qiiotation ^ but, inftead of that, a Chafm drawn over with a Stroke of his Pen. And under it is the Myftery conceal'd I have intimated before. But looking into the Evangelift ^t.Mark, I have learnt how to difclofe and unfold it. For there I clearly fee, what Tradition of the Jews it was that did cailate God's Commandment. 'Twas not that of Waftiing, but of Corban, which differs from it toto ccelo. Let any Body read the 9th Verfe down to the 14th, and he will find it juft as I fay. Now if Chrift did really mean, that the Jews Waftiings did vacate God's Law, Why did he not inftance them, or one fort of them, to prove it, feeing they were moft proper, being then direiftly in Agitation ? Why was he content to charge them after another manner, but go clean off" from the Subjed: in hand, to an Inftance wholly foreign to that Subjed, that he might fhew how they tranf- grefted God's Law, and made it void \>y their Tradition ? This was onl)r in the Matter oiCorbiW, G 4 as J ©4 *The Lawfulnefs of as is plain in St. Mark ^ but ftill, if that could well be, more unexceptionable in St. Matt. xv. 3, ^c, becaufe he fpeaks only of the G^te, but nothing at all of the Jews Wafhings. By this time we may perceive what the Stroke of Mr. Gale's Pen, in the forefaid Gap, lignifies, Was it not to impofe a grofs Fallacy upon us, by hiding fomething from our Knowledge, which was not proper for his Defign ^ but, if known, would utterly defeat and overthrow it ? And was it not to make us believe a quite different thing from what our BlefTed Saviour taught } Was there nothing facred and awful, and that deferves our moft feri- ous Regard, in our Saviour's Words, but they mufi: be thus mangled and fadly mif-reprefented to ferve a Turn ? Is this the Man of Confcience, that fchools Mr. Wall without Mercy, when he thinks him guilty of the like Practice but with human Au- thors ^ (fee an Inftance, het. I. p. 17. about St. Cy- prian) and yet takes hinifelf a much worfe Liberty with the Word of God > If this be his way of Deal- ing, he is no more to be trufted than the Rabbles, Verily, was I guilty of fuch Management, I fhould fear the World would juftly take me to be more throughly Jefuited than Chriftianized. But, I for- bear. The thing is worfe thin Words can fet it forth, nor is it well capable of Aggravation. Mr. Ga/e may dawb it with all his Colours, and try to v/afli it with his utmoft Art, he will never come off with clean Hands. It would be Labour ill beflowM, to trace him on the fame Topic thro' his loth Letter^ where he tries to take ofFfome of Mr. li/''aWs Authorities for the Jews Initiatory Baptifm, produces fome nega- tive Evidences againft it, and touches upon other Arguments, fuch as he could invent, to difproveit ^ all which, as he fays himfelf, amount to a Proba- bility on his fide, p- ^gi* .And fo let them con- front InF AKT-BA.PTI SM, £if^. 105 front and deflroy better Evidence, if they can 5 for I will not lofe nriy Time in fuch an idleChace ^ and I know but one thing in it all that deferves a little Animadverlion. For, apprehenfive he is of an ill Confequence that will attend our Plea from that Baptifm, Ihould it be admitted : " Becaufe it will give our Baptifm " to ^akers^ Socin'tans and htbertines-^ and then, " by proving too much, it will prove nothing at " all, p. 381. For the Jews baptized only Profe- " lytes, and their Children, at their firft coming " over to the Church \ but no Native Jews^ nor *' the later Pofterity of thofe Profelytes. Whence " it follows, that if we keep up to our own Pattern, " the Children of Chriflian Parents muft not be " baptized. We may ^?l^q\y pafs it, that fo was the Pradice of the Jews ; and for all that, be under no Appre- henfions of his Confequence. For the Jews had another initiating Ordinance in Circumciiion, which ferved their Turn for the Admiflion of their Children into the Church and Covenant from Abrahams Days, and under that Precedent we skreen ourfelves in baptizing all our Infants. If our Adverfaries will difclaim that Precedent and Warrant, as they openly do, let them look to their own Confequence. For we are fafe enough, fo long as that ftands good in our Behalf. But to run them a little further into Danger ; Their avowed Principle is. To do nothing in Reli- gion of a politive Nature, except they have a War^ rant for it from Scripture, Precept or Example, Where have they either of the Two for baptizing the Children of Chriftian Parents, fince they rejedt our Argument from Circumcifion ? And where for adminiftring the Lord's Supper unto Females > We have called upon them often enough for Proofs ^ but, bkhertOj, all in vain. Does not, therefore, their own jo6 TA^ Lawfulnefs of, Sic, own Principle clearly betray them into ^akeriftn ^ If, then, they cannot produce the Proofs demanded, they lliould quit their Principle, or their Pradice, left the one flies in the other's Face, and impleads them guilty of Self-Contradiftions. And here I difmifs the Jem% Initiatory Baptifm, with this Declaration j That when I confider Mr. Gale\ Management on That and other Articles ; with how much more of Artifice, than Honefty, he fliuffles and cuts with all Authors, and all Ar- guments, I am a little dubious, whether he might not as foon induce me to turn Fyrrhoniji as Anfir pMobaptij}, THE 07 LAWFULNESS Infant-BAPTISM, Proved from SCRIPTURE. PART II. ~~ ^,^.,HEN I firft undertook this DifTerta- .xXx. I'lQj^^ I intended to do little more than ^ ^ ^x infift on the Argument for Infant-Bap- V^.^^,7^ tifm^ which we raife from the Ahraha- ^v-a..j^w..A/-^ ^if^^l Covenant. For I was not well fatisfied with the Management of fome Piedobaptijis that had handled that Matter. In not diftinguilh- ing, as they ought, between the Patriarchal and Mofaical Covenant, they argued from the latter, to ground our Dodtrine and Pradtice in baptizing In- fants 5 which was but to betray the Argument to our Adverfaries. I therefore thought it needful to put that Affair in a clearer Light, and give it what Advantage I was able. Then I defign'd in a man- ner to defift, and add but little from theJVlfa) Tefta- But io8 The Lawfulnefs of Bat now I find a NecefTity of altering my Pur- pofe, not only becaufe Mr. Gale and his Party tri- umph in the Objections they raife againfl: us from the Gofpel, which they would perfuade the World are unanfwerable ; but alfo left fuch a wrong Con- fi:ru£tion fhould be put on my Proced ure, as Mr. Walts received. His Acknowledgment that the Proofs for Infant-Baptifm are not fo clear and in- conteftable in God's "Word, but that they may be difputed, and that it was expedient to fupport them with the Authority of the Primitive Church, em- boldened his Antagonift to reprefent him fo, as if he granted, that Infant Baptifm could not at all be juflified by the Scripture. This Mr. Gale declares in abundance of Places ; As in Let. VI. p. 221, 223, 226, 227, 231, 255. and Let. VII. p. 258 ^ and again, Let. XI. p» 395. What he meant by this fre- quent Repetition of a Falfhood is plain to every Body. He was afraid the Reader fhould forget, that by declining Scripture-Evidence, we give up our Caufe before all that adhere to this Rule. This is no lefs fpitefully than artfully done, and is ano- ther pregnant Inflance of his unfair Dealing. For no fuch thing can be truly deduced from Mr. WalTs Words or Undertaking. Mr. Gale has peremptorily determined, " That all *' our Objections and Pretences about Circumcifion, " are manifeftly invalid for Infant-Baptifm ; and " is perfuaded, that if the Clergy themfelves would *' confider the Matter more deliberately, they would *' be alhamed of all they have urged from this ^^ Head, Let. XII. p. 474. " I have con^dered the Matter with all the Deliberation I am Mafter of, as appears by my Endeavours on that Head. But what Shame I fhall merit thereby, I am not yet appriz'd. He has no better Opinion of our Proof from Original Sin •, which I fhall now confider of, and Infant-Baptism, 6iff. 109 and deliberately too, before I give it up for defpa- rate. For, I. With this Argument I (hall begin, and lay it at the Foundation of the Gofpel Evidences for In- fant-Baptifm, llnce it v/as the unhappy Occafioji of the Gofpel Oeconomj. For it is my Judgment, that we had never needed a Saviour, Redeemer, or Revelation, but for the miferable Efiedts of that Sin...^ And to frame my Argument on this Ground. and*Plan, 1 (hall accept of the Baptifts Concellions concerning the Truth and Nature of Original Sin. Nor need we thank them for thofe Concellions 5 for if they had not freely made them, we could very well have commanded and forced them from them. In their 9th Article of the Chriftian Faith, they teach Word by Word as our Church doth in the fame Article : " Original Sin ftandeth not in the " following of Adam ( as the Yelagians do vainly " talk) but is the Fault and Corruption of the Na- " ture of every Man, that naturally is ingendred " of the OfPfpring of AAam^ whereby Man is very " far gone from Original Righteoufnels, and is, of " his own Nature, inclin'd to Evil : So that the " Flefh lufteth always contrary to the Spirit ^ and, " therefore, in every Perfon born into this World, " it deferveth God's Wrath and Damnation. " And fb they proceed in our own Language exadly to the End of the Article. Their Confeffton of Faiih^ fubfcribed by near Forty of their Minifters, in the Name of above an Hundred Baptiz'd Congregations in Ef7gland and Wales^ 1689. is full to the fame Purpofe ^ Chap. 6.- Se[i. 2, &c. " Our firfi: Parents, by this Sin, fell *' from their Original Righteoufnefs and Communion " with God, and we in them, whereby Death came *' upon all ; all becoming dead in Sin, and whol- " ly defiled in all the Faculties and Parts of Soul " and no The Lawfulnefs of ** and Body : They being the Root, and, by God*s *' Appointment, ftanding in the Room and Stead of " all Mankmd, the Guilt of the Sin was imputed, " and corrupted Nature conveyed to all their Po- " fterity, defcending from them by ordinary Ge- " Deration, being now conceived in Sin, and, by *' Nature, Children of Wrath, the Servants of Sin, " the Subjedts of Death, and all other Miferies, Spi- " ritual, Temporal and Eternal, unlefs the Lord " Jefus fet them free. " There is more behind in that ConfeJJion 5 but this is fufficient for our Pur- pofe. Alfb their Catechifm fet forth upon this ConfeJJion^ m Anfwer to ^ejl. 22. prefents us with this Do- arine : " All Mankind, by their Fall, loft Com- " munion with God, are under his Wrath and " Curfe, and ^o made liable to all the Miferies of " this Life, to Death it felf, and to the Pains of '• Hell for ever." To which I fhall add Mr, Gales Words : " The modern Antipusdobcipt'ifts do own the *■ Dodrine of Original Sin, as well as the others, " Let. XL p. 405." Likewife, Ld-r. XIIL /?. 535* " It no more follows from that Principle ( of Ori- *' ginal Sin ) that the ancient Church praftifed In- " &nt-Baptifm, than that all the Antipdedohaptijh " do fo now ; for they likewife hold the common " Notion of Original Sin." When he exprelTes himfelf in thefe univerfal Terms, AU the AntipAdo- baptifts, one would think there could be no Excep- tion, but that he himfelf, and every Body elfe of that Denomination, was included 5 tho' I have fome Reafon to fufpedt the contrary in his own Cafe. Original Sin, with its fad EiFe6ls, being thus fully granted, I need not prove it ^ but go on to raife my Argument from it for Infant-Baptifm. In Infant-Baptism, £iff. tit In Original Sin there are Two Branches, which Infants are concerned in equally with Adult Per- fons. One is natural Corruption and Pravity, which ftai'ns and pollutes the Soul. The other is Guilt, which renders them obnoxious unto Punilh- ment. Neither of thofe can be taken off in our lap fed Condition,without the Application of redeem* ing Grace, which is as neceflary for Infants as the Adult. For, the Corruption of Nature, or the Contagion of Original Sin defiling the Soul, is an inherent Evil J which, according to Scripture, does utterly unqualify us for the Kingdom of Heaven. And fo it muft likewife do according to the Baptifls Do- dlrine, which teaches, " That all Adarns Pofl:erity, " by ordinary Generation, are the Servants of Sin, " the Subjefts of Death, and all other Miferies, " Spiritual, Temporal and Eternal, unlefs the " Lord Jefus fet them free. " Of fuch we truly hold with the Word of God, That Corruption doth not inherit Incorruption -, That without Holinejs ne cneJhaU fee the Lord-^ That none that is defiled or unclean^ OoaU enter into the heavenly City ; And, that no one^ except he be born again of Water and of the Spirit, can enter into the Kingdom of God -^ becaufe that which is born of the ¥kfh is FleO). It is cor- rupt, finful, mortal Flelh, like its Principle from which it defcends : " Liable therefore to the ^ew " tence of Death paft upon all Sinners : Forafmuch " as every Sin deferveth God's Wrath and Curfe, *' both in this Life, and in that which is to come,'* fays the Baptifts Catechifm^ Anfw. to ^ieft. 89. If thus the Cafe ftands, all Perfons naturally de- fcended from the Firft Adam, muft be fandified and regenerated, before they can be admitted into Go^'s Kingdom. Infants cannot be excepted, becaufe they are polluted with the Contagion of Sin •, and, as our Adverfaries profefs, " They are fallen off from *' Com- 112 The Lawfulnefs of " Communion with God, are defiled in all the Fa* " culties and Parts of Soul and Body, are Chiidren " of Wrath, do defer ve Damnation, and are ob- *' noxious to the Pains of Hell for ever." Adual Sin they have not 5 but without That they have enough, and too much, for their great Unhappi- nefs. Let Mr. Gale therefore confider, by what Autho- rity he exempts Infants from this NecelFity of Re* generation, and liberally votes them all into Hea- ven without that Method or Expedient, Let. XI. p. 421. Tho' they may not, in the higheft Degree, have the fame Necelfity for a New Birth with adual Sinners j yet, they have that v/hich ap- pears to be abfolute and indifpenfible. For fick they are to Death with Sin, like other Perfons, and the fame Difeafe muft have the fame Cure ; And liable they are to the fame Miferies, which ac- cordingly muft have the fame Remedy j when this Cure or Remedy is but one, as our Saviour fays, there is no other. And, I believe, it is not a little dextrous Management will bring a Man off well for contradi(5ting Chrift ^ and this with very flight and fuperficial Arguments. How then are Infants born again ? Or how are they purified from the Filth of Original Sin, and freed from its Servitude, in order to recover the Favour of God, and to be received into Heaven ? We affert, it is by the Baptifm of Water and of the Spirit joined together, as the ordinary Means, at leaft, for that End. But all Chriftians that are not tindlur'd with Velngianifm, mufi: acknov/ledge. That it is by the Spirit of Sandtification acting on the Soul to cleanfe off its native Impurity, and render it pure and holy in the Sight of God. For is there any other Principle or Source of fandtifying Grace > Any other Fountain of Purification for Sin and Uncleannefs to the polluted Off-fpring oiAdam ? None-, Infant-Baptism, i^c, nj None, certainly, befide the Spirit of God, who commonly works the Ef!edt by the inftituted Ordi- nances and Moral Duties of Religion. Moral Du- ties Infants cannot pradife; but to them the infti- tuted Ordinance of Baptifm may be eallly applied. This therefore let them have, iince they can have no more, and it will be their proper Cure. That Infants may be, and are Regenerated by the Holy Ghoft, is no Abfurdity, nor can it be a Difficulty with the Baptifts. For it is plain enough their own Dodrine, " Eled: Infants dying in Infancy, " are regenerated and faved by Chrift through the " Spirit ; who worketh when, and where, and how " he pleafeth, Confeffion of Faith, Chup. x. §. 3." And for Proofs hereof they direct us to John iii. ?, 5, 6, 8. Nor, as they fay, "are any of the Eledt *^' juftified perfonally, until the Holy Spirit doth in " due Time adually apply Chrift unto them, Chup. " li. ^. 4. " Then if all Infants are in a prefent State of Salvation, as fome of our Adverfaries feem to affirm -, it follows from hence, that they mull: be actually fandified and regenerated. But if this Baptifm of the Spirit they grant to Infants before they can be juftified and faved, they ought not to deny them the Baptifm of Water. For then they will be prefs'd with St. Peter's Quell ion 5 Can any Man Jorbid Water that theje Jhould not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghojl as weU as we ? Ads x. 47. If faved Infants are, the Holy Ghoft they muft receive in his regenerating and fandifying Grace; and if him they have recei- ved, with Water they muft be baptiz'd. But if they have neither the Baptifm of Water, nor of the Spi- rit, what Account can be given for their Salvation > I confefs, the Perfons referred to by St. Peter there, had received an extraordinary Meafure of the Holy Ghoft, as their fpeaking with ftrange Tongues te{\i- lied. But this is alledg'd only as an Evidence of H God's 114 The Lawfulnefs of God's Gift and their Receipt ^ not as tbeReafonand Ground of their Right to Baptifm with the outward Element. Their having the H0I3' Ghoft, alone, found- ed this Right and Title to the Sacrament ^ whereas the higher Degree is made no more a Qualification for it, than a lower. And if any thing could do it, the eminent and miraculous Meafure of the Grace, would go furtheft to fupercede the NecelTitv of the Ceremon)'-. But this would not fuffice ; and there- fore, this is an irrefragable Argument againft the Mr. Gdle^ by a Skilful Improvement of the Dod- rine of all Judicious and Critical Divines •, fuch as Scaliger, Grotir/s^ he Clerc^ Dr. Uamtnond, Sec. has formed to himfelf fuch a precife Notion of being Born of the Spirit, as is utterly inccinpatible with the State of Infants: Let. xi. p. /;.22. "For they '^ that are born of the Spirit, miut mind the Things '* of the Spirit, and obey his Motions by Faith and " Piety. This Infants cannot do, and therefore *^ they cannot be fo born. " But what thofe Divines and Critics fay, they meant only of Adult Perfons, which Mr. Gale, with his ufual Ingenuity, applies to Infants. So he deals with the Scriptures, Fathers, and other Writers, to difprove their Baptifm. After this rate, we may prove Infants not to be rational Creatures, becaufe they have not the Exercife of their rational Faculties, as other Perfons of that Species have •, and that there were no circumcifed Infants in the Jeimjh Church, becaufe they could not love God with all their Hearts, and keep his Command- ments, as God required in circumcifed Jews. Rege- neration, as it ilgnifies Growth in Grace, to which the New-Birth, precifely taken, is but the firll: Step, has various Degrees, which, I think, will not be com- pletely finifh'd till we leai^e the World. Then what Abfurdity is it, in the firft Step and imperfedt Degree, to attribute it unto Infants > Or if, in our Author's Infant -Baptism, ^^c, ii^ Author's Judgment, this cannot be, let him reconcile his Dodrme witU that of his Party juft now quoted out of their ConfeJJion of With. When Chrift urges the NecelTity of Regeneration, he grounds it upon fomething that accompanies our Nativity into this World. For this is the Reafon he immediately gives : That which is horn of the Ylejh, is flefh: To which he oppofes the Birth of the Spirit ^ and that which is born of the Spirit^ is Spirit. Two Birth«are here plainly in oppofition. And when is the Firft, but when we come into the World > And when the Second, but when we come into the Church, or Kingdpm of God > Can Mr. Gale alTign another Time, Seafon, or Jundture for People to be born of the Flefh, befide that of their coming into this "World > If he cannot, fomething comes with us all into this World, that makes it necelTary for us all to be born of Water and of the Spirit 5 vyhich, in Mr. Gale's own Senfe, is to be baptized and regenerated. Infants are certainly born of the Flefh, and come attended with Original Sin into the World* Therefore have they the like need ot Baptifinal Re- generation, that others have. For where the Difeafe is common, let the Cure and Remedy be the fame. The Ground and Realon is in them, which is the Corruption of finful Fleili \ and, confequently, the Regeneration muft be theirs, or they cannot fee the Kingdom of God. Let Mr. Gale make the moft of this he can ^ we may defy hisCriticifms, or little Quibbles, when they come in Competition with plain Gofpel Truth. Or, if a Pelagian he really is in this Article, let him fair- ly throw off the Mask, and take up the Cudgels in that baffled Caufe ^ I truft in God, we fhall never decline the Combat, The other Branch of Original Sin is Guilt, which infers an Obligation to Punilhment. And th'S is at large confefs'd by the Antip^dobaptifts, who own H 2 It ii6 The Lawfulnefs of it due to all People, for Adam's Offence, in theutmoft Extent of God's vindidive Wrath and Juftice. But from this Guilt, which renders all Men obnoxious to eternal Punifhment, there is no pofllble Releafe, but by the Mediation of Chrift Jefus. For as in A- dam all die, fo in Chrift mujl all be made alive, if ever they recover from that Death : A-either is there Salvation in any other ^ for there is no other 'Name under Heaven given among Men whereby we mufi be faved^ Acts iv. 12. 'Nor can any one come to the Father^ but by the Son, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, John xiv. 6, As this is exceeding plajn, fo it is no lefs plain, that every living Soul muft have an Interefl: in Chrift by a Spiritual Fellowlliip and Conjundtion with him, before the Merits of his Death will be applied to him for Grace, Pardon and Salvation. To his Body, the Church, they muft fome way or other be united, as living Members of the fame. For by that means they become united to him, who is the Head of that organized Body. So we read, Chrift is the Head of the Churchy and he is the Saviour of the Body, Eph. v. 2?. Of none elfe can he be the Saviour, becaufe they have no Relation to, nor Com- munion with him. From the Head it is that the animal and vital Spirits flow down into the human Body, to quicken and a6l it in all its Parts -, and no vital or fenfitive Supply can a Member receive from the Head, when once it is fever'd from the Body. So from Chrift, the Head, it is, that all the faving Influences of Grace defcend into the Church, his Bo- dy, to animate and a6l every Member of it in his Spiritual State and Capacity. Therefore is he bound to hold the Head, Jrom which all the Body by Joints and Bands having Nourifiment miniftred, and knit together, increafeth zvith the Increa/e of God, Col. ii. 19. Which is alfo taught in thofe darker Words, Eph, iv. 16. But if any one abide not in him, he ii ct» a InfANT-Ba PTi SM, ^jfr. 117 a Branch parted from the Tree^ dryed up and wither- ed, John XV. 6. ¥or he that hath the Son, hath Life-, and he that hath not the Son, hath not Life, i John V. 12. Matters ftanding in this Pofture, as God was pleafed to order them, it remains for us to enquire. What means he hath appointed to incorporate us in- to the Body of Chrift, that we may thereby com- municate in his Grace and Merits ? And if the Scrip- ture-Account we will take for this, there is but one regular and ordinary Way, fince Chrift died, to be fo incorporated. And that iSjThe Sacrament of Bap- tifm in its full and complete Signification. For (b it comprehends the Water and the Spirit; or the outward Symbol and the inward Grace. In which Senfe it is properly the Lavcr of Regeneration. A lame and imperfeft Idea they give of it, who re- prefent it only by the external Part, without the in- terior Form 5 as if it were as bare and naked a Ce- remony ss any in xh^Jews Religion. They had as good, in the Defcription of a Man, to forget his Soul, as prefent us with that cripplifti Notion of Chrift's Bap- tifm. For he always intended that the Adminiftra- tion of it fhould be accompanied with the regene- rating Grace of his Spirit •, and it always is, where there is no Obftacle and Impediment on Mens Part. Baptifm is therefore the Gate that lets us into the Church, and unites us to the Body of Chrift, as the Church is the Gate of Heaven. By that Ordi- nance Infants are united to their Saviour, and made Members of his Body. So they have vifibly a Co- venant-Relation with him by the outward Ordinance, and invifiblyby the Spirit. For as many of you as have been baptized into Chrift, have put on Chrift, Gal. iii. 27. And by one Spirit loe are all baptized into one Body, 1 Cor. lii. 13. Both the Parts together make the Saying Baptifm in St. Feter. So the Work is made very fure to Infants in God's own Method •, H 3 and ii8 The Lawfulnefs of and certain we are, they may thus be faved -, becaufe they are joyned to Chrift, and both the Guilt and Defilement of Original Sin are taken oft by the Ap- plication of his Merits. The Bdptifts, following Dr. Tay/or^ talk of many "Ways that God has to fave Infants i But can they fpecify any one of thofe Ways befides Baptifm > Or can they juftify it by Revelation and a Covenant Promife > If not, where is their Scripture Warrant for their Doctrine? Will they forfake God's Method, to follow their own Fan- cies ? This is not Faith, but Prefumption j It is not to follow God, but to lead and teach him. 'Tis a Covenant Security v/e defire for the Salvation of Infants, and not the vain Surmifes of Men. For fincethey areborn under the Guilt andTaint of Sin,theife is no Relief for them,but by the Covenant of Grace eftabliflied in the Blood of Chriff j no Infu- rance of that Covenant, but by the Seal of Baptifm with Water and the Spirit •, and without this, there is no Communion with their Saviour. If in their Fir ft Birth they are deftroyed by Sin, the Second Birth alone muft fave them. Regenerated, there- fore, they muft be by the Holy Ghofl, or elfe from God's Word we have no promiimg Profped of their Salvation, tor if any one has not the Spirit of Chrift, he is none ofh/s^ Rom. viii. 9. But that Spirit is the only inward Bond that unites them to their Sa- viour : He that ii joined to the Lord is one Spirit^ I Cor. vi 17. He has one Spirit with Chrift, which is common between him and all the true Members of his Body. This is the Spirit which inlivens and animates them all, is moll properly their Soul as Chriftians, and puts them in a faveable Condition. The Spirit of Chrift Infants muft therefore have, before they can belong to Chrift, and be faveed by his redeeming Grace. For there is no other Princi- ple of a new Life to the Lapfed Sons of Adam^ and no other Bond of real Union with their Saviour. If this quick- Infant-Baptism, Eifc. 119 quickning Spirit they have not, who can promife them Salvation ? But if him they have, who can forbid them Water to be baptized ? But in a State of Salvation the Baptifts fay that Infants are. If fo, they are already, by Grace, the invifible Mem- bers of his Body. Baptize them, then, and make them vifible Members of the fame. For are they his, or are they not ? If not, where is their Salva- tion thro' Chrift ? Or can they be faved, when part- ed from his Body ? that is, without their Head, and withouc their Saviour ? But if his they are, by a gracious Communication of his Spirit, give, pre- fect and dedicate them to him by Chriftian.Bap- tifm, will he difallow your A£t ? Will herejedl and refufe his own, whom he has bought with his preci- ous Blood, and, according to you, has made already invifible Members of his Body ? Agnize their Right and Spiritual Relation to their Head ? Sign them with his proper Mark and Seal ? Give them the Baptifm of Water, if ^''ou give them that of the Spirit j for in that cafe, both or none they ought to have. But if you give them neither, never pretend to give them Salvation. For, tell me. Where and how is Salvation to be had out of the Church, or Chrift's Body? Or, what hope of Heaven can they have, who are neither vi- iible nor invifible Members of th^t Body ? Once this was an Appropriation of the Jews^ becaufe they alone were God's Church. For Salvation is of thf Jews, John iv. 22. Now, for the fame Rea- fon, it is appropriated to the Church of Chrift j for he is the Saviour of his Body, and of that alone. Therefore are they firft added to the Church, who {hall be faved, ^^jii.47. And to the Head they muft all hold. Nor is there Salva- tion in any other, or Life to him that has not Chrift. But in what a defperate Cafe and Condi- tion they all arc, who are out of the Church, the H 4 Holy I20 The Lawfulnels of Holy Ghoft informs us by St. VauVs Mouth, Eph. i\. 11,12. In Tme paft ye were Gentiles in the Ylejh^ tx>ho are called. Vncircumcifion ^ during which Time ye were without Chriji^ being Aliens from the Commonwealth of Ilrael, and Strangers from the Co- venants of Fromife^ having no Hope, and without God in the World. And alfo, i Theff, iv. 13. they are faid to have no Hope* Wherefore, if all the Gentile World, by being Aliens to the Commonwealth of Ifrael^ i. e. out of God's Church, and Strangers to the Covenants of Promife, are in a hopelefs Condition for that Rea- fon, without God and without Chriffc, from whom alone Salvation cometh-, what do thofe Gentlemen mean, who leave their Infants out of the Church and Covenant, without God and without Chriff, in the fame hopelefs State with Gentiles and Infidels, and difpute hotly for it, as for fome lingular Pri- vilge and Adx-'antage? Is this their Concern and Afredtion for the tender Fruit of their own Bowels? Or is this the Right way to infure their Salvation, and intitle them to Heaven, when they place them among the Children ot Unbelievers ? What is incumbent on thofe Gentlemen to fliew, is this: They mufl: prove, that Infants being unfandi- fied out of the Church and Covenant, and laid on the fame Level with thofe of profelTed Heathens, are there in as hopeful Capacity of Salvation, as thofe Infants are, wlio are admitted by Baptifm into Chrift's Church and into the Covenant of Grace, and fo become united to their Head and Saviour, The Scripture Authorities here produced to the con- trary, they mufi: reconcile \yith their own Opinions by true and unconftrained Interpretations. And if tlie Force ofTthefe Authorities they can fairly evade, then they mufl bring other Scripture Evidences, which do more plainly prove the Salvation of Hea- th,ens and Infants, that are out of the Church, in the ^ ' '■ fame Infant-Baptism, Cifr. 121 fame State with Heathens, than our Evidences do the contrary. If thofe Things they cannot do, let them not pretend hereafter to hold and believe with the Holy Scriptures ; but contefs, that their Faith and Pradice are not only un-fcriptural, but very diredtly anti-fcriptural. It is not what they may hope and prefume with- out Promife or Scripture- Authority, that we can fafely rely upon, but what God has declared in his Word to be his Will. Obferve his Rules they ought, and not venture to prefcribe to his Juftice or Mercy what they themfelves do think convenient. When In- fants are left out of the Church and Covenant, and Salvation neverthelefs afTured unto them, his Word and Revealed Methods are forfaken, and we are clearly carryed off into the wild Paths of Deifm and Natural Religion ; by which our Lapfed and Guilty State, we may rather be fure that we Ihall not be faved, then that we (liall. For, take the Baptifts Wslj^ and their Warrant for it, then if ye can be fure that the Children of fews, Turks and Yagans will be faved, you have juft the fame Security for your own. But if by Baptifm you bring them within the Church, and intitle them to Covenanted Grace and Mercy, through Chrift their Saviour, ye make fure Work in God's Way. Where- as to leave them without, is to ramble in a Wilder- nefs of Mazes and Uncertainties, by the bare Light of Natural Reafon ^ which is nothing but to make random Work, and put all to hazards, becaufe there is no Promife. The only pretended Proof for the Salvation of unbaptized Infants, I could yet find in the Baptifts Writings, is in Mark x. 14. Offuch is the Kingdom, of heaven. This is faid by Chrift of unbaptized Infants, for fuch are thofe he fpoke of, fays Mr. Gale^ Let. ir. 421. But, alas! how precarious and impertinent is this Allegation ? I. It 122 7'/6 Or does its Silence prove it, becaufe the Scripture mufi: be underftood to de- ny what it does not record? It this proves his Point, we ran, by the fame Medium, prove Perfons to be baptized by St. Vaul, or his Order, without any previous Profeffion of Faith and Repentance, and without hearing a Syllable of the Gofpel preached. And the Inftance is in Lydia\ Houlliold, A^s xvi. 14, 1 5. She herfelf heard and beh'eved j but neither of the Tv/o is noted or her Family that were at the fame Time baptized. And by that Medium^ we can alfo prove, that none of the Apoftles were baptized in Chrift's Time, becaufe it is not recorded in the Gofpel. Indeed, throughout the whole Courfe of his Miniftration on Earth, there is not a fingle Perfon nominated that was baptized. Only we read in ge- neral, that his Difciples baptized-, and, as we fup- pofe, not without his Order. But how, whom, where, when, and in that precife Age, we are not told. So that, for ought we know, thofe Infants might be baptized, as well as other Difciples. For we have as much Evidence for their Baptifm, as for that of the Adult. 2. It is impertinent ^ becaufe thofe Infants, if Males, were certainly circumcifed, unlefs he can prove them to be lefs tlian Eight Da)''s old, which is highly improbable. Their Parents were not of a Heathenifh Extract and Profeliion ;, for the Chil- drens Bread waf not to be given unto Dogs. Jews thofe Perfons were that brought them unto Chrift. A good Opinion they had of Jefus, ifthey did not alio believe him to be the Meffias ^ therefore they befought his Prayer and BleiUng for the little Children. What then if thofe Infants were not baptized ? Were ^hey not certainly within the Covenant and Church of God ? And this, if Males, by the Right of Cir- cum- InF AN T-BapTISM, 65*^. 12 J cumcifion, which was then tlie Initiatory Ordinance ftill in Force, ^nd ferving for the Ends that Bap- tifin did in Times enfuiiig ? Whereby, I think, Baptifm, in that Jundure, was not fo neceflary a Rite to make Difciples, as afterwards, when Cir- cumcifion was removed. What Reafon^now, is there to put unbaptized In- fants and the Children of Heathens, to ftand on the fame Bottom with thofe of circumcifed fews, who where then God's true Church and peculiar People ? Strange confounding Work, to lay Jews and G Nay, I am perfuaded, he cannot, with a Salvo to his Juftice and Mercy, fo much as threaten, what with the fame Salvo he cannot execute. Let our Adverfaries therefore look to the neceflary Confe- quences of their own Dodrine j they are as much concerned as we. For God, antecedently to his own Decree| and free Promifes, was not obliged to redeem our Lap- fed Race by the Death of Chrift ^ nor is he obliged to apply the Merits of his Death to any, but on his own prefcribed Terms and Conditions ^ which if, through the Fault of Men, they be negleded, their Blood will be imputed to themfelves. When they are out of the Church and ordinary Methods of Sal- vation, they ftand purely to prerogative Grace, and uncovenanted Mercys and how far that v/ill extend to their Relief, there is no one knows but God himfelf. From God's Revealed Will, his holy Word, Salvation can never be proved to be their Lot. Then the Rule holds good to us ^ Idgm eji non effe^ ^ non apparere. Whereas ours is a certain and fafe Way, becaufe it relies upon Promife and Covenant Infurance. k, If God's Ordinances and appointed Means of Sal- vation be defpifed ornegleded, there is a Penalty attending the Ncgledt ^ tho', perhaps, it may not be always inflicted to the utmoft Extent that rigid Law 128 The Lawfulnefs of Law and Juftice require. The Male-Child uncircuinci- fed at eight Days old, had broken the Covenant, and lay obnoxious to Excilion. Adam mufl: abftain from the Tree of Knowledge, and eat of that of Life, if he purpofed to preferve his Immortality. Had the bitten Jews refufed to dired their Eyes to the bra- zen Serpent on the Pole, they had inevitably died of their Plagues. Naaman had flill kept his Lepro- fy, had he not at laft fubmitted to wafli in Jordan. The Blind Man muft have fo continued, if he had difdained the Clay and Spittle which our Saviour's Hand had made medicinal for his Cure. I need add no more ^ but the Refult is. That our own and Chil- drens Souls are fafe enough in God's Hands •, but upon Condition we obferve his Ways and Ordinan- ces. So this Argument from Original Sin for Infant Baptifin, goes on thefe Grounds \ That Infants lofl the Favour of God, and their Right to immortal Life, by Adams TranfgrelTion : In which Privileges there is no Poffibility for them to be re-inftated, but by the Redemption of Chrift Jefus. That they can never injoy the Benefits of his Redemption, nn- lefs they have fuch a Union and Fellowfhip with him, as belongs to the Members of his Body. But that Fellowfhip and Union cannot ordinarily be ob- tained but by the Baptifm of Water, and never without that of the Holy Ghoft. Whence it follows, that they fhould be baptized. II. My next Argument for Infant-Baptifm, fhall be raifed from a Paffage related hy the Three Evan- gelifts •, Matt. xix. i?, Sec. Mark x. 13, &c. Luke xviii. i^, &c. In them we read, that little Chil- dren, who by St. huke are called Infants, were brought to Chrifi to receive his BlefTmg by Prayer andlmpofition of his Hands. Some of his Difciples, more officious then difcreet, interpofed to hinder it with Rebukes. At which Chrifl was much difplea- I N F A N T-B A P T T S M, ^^c, I2g fed, and commanded, faying, Suffer little Children to come unto 7ne, and forbid them not • for of Juch PS the Kingdom of God, or the Kingdom of Heaven. And he took them up in his Arms, put his Hands upon them, and bleffed them. Alfo he propofed them as Patterns to other Perfons for En- trance and Admilfion into the Kingdom of God. This is the Account : But if we fhould mind Mr." Ga/e\ Cenfures, we fhould never be fo hardy as to alledge it in behalf of Infant-Baptifm hereafter. ^^ For (fays he, with his ufual Modefly) what is ^^ there, I befeechyou, in the whole Matter, which ^^ can make ouc Adverfaries faften on this Placed ^^ It can only be the Mention of Children : And thpy ^^ might as well have cited all the Paffages in Scripture where Children are named." Not fo well, I can allure him, for Circumftances are very difFerenf. Afterwards fays he, in the next Page, which is Let. XL p. 431. "Dr. Hammond himielf reckons this among the more imperfed ways of Proving the cc nT^- ^''\ ^'' ^^^'^^^y ^^ 1^^^^^^^ ^o ^"^Prove the Paliage to the utmoft Advantage ;" (though what Advantage for his DeiTgn he could give to many other Places of Scripture where Children are named ' I cannot fee) "and he being in general ^o very fair cc , 1 o fo ^ Writer, and comprehending the ^^ whole Subftance of what can be urged from the Place, I will eiamme what he has faid.'' And y^VJie Dodor, for all his Fairnefs, and ufual Soliditir as Mr. Gale fays of him elfewhere, does by-and-br but diredly beg the Queflion, p. 435. And indeed nothing at all could be urged from the Place be/ide Imprudence and Impertinency, if what our Author had laid juft before, was true. But leaving his Cen- lures and Examination for the prefent, I fhall make thele Remarks on the forefaid Paifages of the Evan° gel 1 its. I. The I JO The Lawfulnefs of I. The A<3^ion of coming to Chrift (3oes frequent- ly fignify, according as it is circumftanced, thff coming unto him as a Di/ciple. So it means, Matr. xl. 28. /^^;7iii. 25. and v. 40. and vi. 35, 44, 6$. and vii. 37. Alfo to come unto God, is to come as a Worfhipper and Believer, Heb. vii. 25. and xi. 6. And in the fame Senfe it is likewife ufed in the Old Teftament, as /if/'.ii. 31. £z^/^. xxxiii. 31. The Word Vrofelyte is derived from a Greek Verb, that lignifies, to come unto. And hence a Scholar, or Dif- ciple, was called 9o/t«t>k, from (pondu, to come unto ox frequent one^s School. We have Reafoii to think Chrift means the fame thing here by the Expreifion, when he fays, Suffer little Children to come unto me. For he received and em- braced them as his own, or as thofe to whom he bore a particular Love and Regard, and that peculiarly be- longed unto him-, and he bleffed them alfo, which certainly imported a Spiritual Bleiling, that appro- priated them to himfeif, as the Children of Grace that were within the Church and Covenant. Alfo he declares, That offiich as them was the Kingdom of Heaven: Which could never be true of them, un- lefs they were his Difciples, and ingrafted in his Bo- dy : For, by the Scripture Account, no others go to Heaven. Regenerated they mufi: be in order to that, and a Spiritual Relation they inuft have to Chrift:. And if Mr. Gale denies this, he deftroys the Neceffity of Chrift's Redemption, and of our Spiritual Union with him, and, confequently, xkt whole Gofpel Oeconomy. If it feems ftrange to fay, that Infants are Chrift's Difciples, I hope to prove undeniably in its proper place, that they may be fo, and are fo called m the New Teftament. Yea, upon Grounds already laid down, if thofe hold good, they muft be fo in one Senfe or other, before they can go to Heaven. But to give more Light and Strength to what is here advanced ; 2. Writers Infant Baptism, Ifff. 1 3 1 2. Writers in the prim itli'e Times underftood this PafTage and Exprelfion of coming to Chrift, to Sig- nify coming as his Difciples, or to be made fo by Baptifm. Dr. Whitby quotes feme of them upon Matt. xix. 13, 14. of which Mr. Gale takes no No* tice. Even lertuUian himfelf, Lib. de Baptifi. Chap, xviii. allows this to be the Senfe, though he was fingular in his Opinion about the Baptiftn of Infants j as he was alfo about that of Batchelors and Virgins, Widowers and Widows of all Ages, 'till they were either married, or confirmed in Continent cy. For the Objedlion made againft him in behalf of baptizing Infants, Suffer little Children to come unto me^ he freely palfes in that Senfe, without Con- tradidlion, but only endeavours to put it hj j Ve* niant dum adolejcunt^ veniant dum difcunt^ 8cc. Let them come to be baptized when they grow up, let them come when they learn. And feeing he allow- ed that to be the Senfe, he did but apparently ar* gue againft Clirift, and in that Cafe prefer his Judg- ment before his Saviour's, when he would have lit-* tie Children detained from Baptifm 'till they, grew up to know Chrift^ while Chrift himfelf was for their coming to him in their prefent Infani State i i.e. for their being then baptized, ^sTertul" Han took the Phrafe. 3. If in this Senfe the Words fhould be underftoo(J, then here is a general Command for bringing In- fants to Chrift, or fuftering them to be brought, and fo to come, that they may receive his BlefT^ ing, and be baptized as his Difciples and Heirs o£ his Kingdom. For the Command is indefinite and univerfalj without Limitation of Time, or Reftric'* tion of Privilege to the prefent Children. No Perfb* nal Favour or Affection was it to them alone who were then on the Spot of A£lion: But it is commu'* nicated to all others that ftiould be brought to him^ as they were. Little Children that fo comej muft: la lbs 1^2 The Lawfulnefs of be permitted to come without Inhibition, under Paia of his Difpleafure. When 1 fay, it was no Perfonal Favour and Af- fedion them more than others, I mean it of others that are in their Quahty and Condition. But dif- tinguilhed they muft be from the Children of Infi- dels, who are out of the Covenant, and will not be trdught to Chrift by the unbelieving Parents: Tho' if others have them in their Power, and bring them to him, the Church refufes not to baptize them up- on the Faith of the Undertakers %vho prefent them, and ingage for their Chriftian Education ^ and who, upon thole Accounts, become their Ghoftly Fathers, or Spiritual Parents. But the Affedion and Treat- ment Chrift Ihewed to thofe Infants, fprang from their being the Children of God's People, and with- in his Churcli and Covenant. And this Reafon holds for the Children of Chriftian Parents to the World's End. In thofe Refpefts they were God's Difciples, Ifa.vWl i6. And no wonder if Chrift Embraced and BlelTed them as his own. And if baptized they were not at that Time, there was no need they (hould be-, becaufe that as the Chriftian Church was not then founded on our Saviour's Death, cor fo clearly diftinguiflied from the 7ewifh', fo Circumciflon'was not aboHflied, nor Baptifm made the Initiatory Ordinance to all Nations in its ftead. 4. The Command being general and unlimitted in refpedt of Times, and all Infants ordered to come unto Chrift that Ihould be brought, they can come to him no otherwife but by Baptifm ever fince he is gone to Heaven. By Prayers the Infants of Chrifti- ans may be recommended to him, and fo may thofe of Heathens too. But here is no local Motion, nor Perfonal Approach of Difciples, which Chrift mean- eth, as included in the Words. But when they are brought to his (aving Ordinance, and prefented to him in the Congregation, where he has ingaged him- Infant Baptism, iSc. i j 5 felf to be ; this is a proper coming unto Chrift, and a Union with him by Church Memberftiip. For they are then joined to him as their Head, by the Medi- ation of his Spirit in that Sacrament. The only way therefore, that they can now come untoChrift, let them come, or let them be brought j elfe we may incur his Difpleafure, by our Prohibitions. For if we refufe to dedicate and devote them to bim after the only manner that is now left us t6 do it in, we hinder their coming, and do them "Wrong. Ready he is to receive, embrace and blefs them, and it is not for us to keep them off, and put a Bar and Obftacle to his Grace. 5. The Blefllng Chrift im.parted to thofe Infants, was of a Spiritual Nature, relating to the Intereft of their Souls. For he confidered them as the Holy Seed that were incorporated in his Church, and for this Reafon they were the fpecial Objeds of his Love and Blefllng. If therefore, the Blelfing he gave them was fpiritual, the Communion of Grace they had with him, whereof Circumcifion was then the Seal. For the fame Grace and BlelRng, the Infants of Chriftian Parents muft ftill come unto him, ac- cording to his general Command •, whereof they re- ceive the Seal in Baptifm. For we need not doubt but treat them he will, as thofe were treated, fince his AfFedion to them is the fame^ fince they are by Defcent in the fame Quality with them, and do come within the Limits of his Command. That he fo confidered, and foblefled thofe Children, I gather from thefe Reafons : I. What thofe that brought them defired and ex- pedted for thofe Infants, the Gofpel fays, was to pray for them, and touch them. Their Defign he approved of, and therefore he anfwered their Ex- pedtation. Impofition of his Hands, anfwered to their delire of having them touched, and his Blefling to Prayer. Chrift never ufed Prayer in healing the I 3 Sick. J ^4 *^^^ Lawfulnefs of Sick. That would have derogated from his Divine Power, as if he wrought his Miracles in fuch a preca- rious and dependent manner, as his Difciples did. And to impart a Bleiling by laying on of Hands, was a Form in ufe as long ago as Jacoh\ Time, Gen, slviii. 14, 17. 2. If he confidered them only in the State of Na- ture, and imparted to them but a Temporal Blef- iing, it had been foreign to his Purpofe, to talk of the Kingdom of Heaven, and to propofe them as Patterns to fuch as would enter thither. For what Affinity is there between thofe Matters? If Heaven belonged to thofe Infants, in a Spiritual Eftate they inult be confidered, and a Spiritual Blefllng they muft receive. For nothing elfe qualified them for it, and could promote their eternal Happinefs. And in no other refpects could they be Patterns to thofe that fliould go to Heaven. To heal their Bodies, and blefs them in Civil or Temporal Matters, had ao Relation to that Affair. 5. Nothing can be alFign'd to which his BlefFmg truly and properly related, unlefs it was Spiritual. Mr. Gj/^ exprefTes himfelf cautioufly, when he fays ^ " It is probable enough the Children were brought " to Chrift to be healed by him, fince it was the '' Lord's Cuftom frequently to heal by laying on ■' his Hands." p. 451. Andfbit might be in other Matters. But his Caution forfook him, when he prefently adds^ "Though 'tis only faid, They *' brought them to have his Hands laid upon them. " For St. M^tihew fays. They brought them alfo that he fhould pray. But Mr. Keuch knowing that Pro- babilities were flender Proofs, had more Spirit and Vivacity, as they fay fome blind Creatures are moft bold, and roundly all'erts^ "No doubt thofe Chil- *^ dren were brought to Chrift to be healed of fbme *' bodily Diftemper. And again, Our Saviour was '• then healing the Sick, '' And yet the Three E^ ** van^ I N F A N T-B A P T I S M, i^C, I ^ ^ vangelifts that relate the PafTage, fay, He was not then healing the Sick, but preaching the Gofpel. Judge now what is to be thought of fuch Men. But I cannot fubfcribe to their Opinion. For, I . It is no where intimated in the Three Gofpels, that thofe Infants were Sick. 2. Chrifl: never pray- ed in healing the Sick; yet Prayer they defired who brought them to Chrift. 3. It is not likely the chari- table Difciples would have rebuked them, had this been the Cafe ^ when they ufed rather to intercede with him in behalf of fuch Miferable Objeds for their Cure, Matt. xv. 23. And, 4. Never in the Gofpel is his healing of the Sick, called, A blelFmg of them ; nor did he ufe to imbrace, or take them up in his Arms for that Parpofe. Since therefore no Civil or Temporal BlefHng can with Reafon be fpecified, as communicated by Chrift in that Bleffing •, it remains, that it muft be Spiri- tual. And certainly it was not fruitlefs and inef- fedliual, but operated according to his Intent. And the like Blefling he has in Referve for our Infants, for which we do bring and prefent them to him in his Church, 6. Of thofe Infants it is not only declared, that of fuch is the Kingdom of God ; but alfo they are made Exemplars of Innocence to every one thait will be a true Member of God's Church, and go to Hea- ven. I do not think they are here made Emblems of the fingle Vertue of Humility ^ but that was at another Time, and on a particular Occafion, to check the Ambition of his Difciples, Matt.zv'iu. 4. But thofe Infants having received the Grace of Cir- cumcifion, and prefently after our Saviour's Bleff- ing, are propofed as Patterns of Innocency in gene- ral to all God's People. For every one that will indeed enter the Church of God, and thereby hope for Salvation, muft, in his Temper and Difpoiition, be fuch a worthy IVfember of it, as thofe Infants '' I 4 were. l^S The Lawfulnefs of /were. This I take to be our Lord's Meaning ; as take Mr. Gale's Reafon to the contrary, to be infuf- iicient. " For though he grants, that the Kingdom of " Heaven does almoft univerfally through the " whole Gofpel mean the Difpenfation of the Meflias, ^' yet it cannot mean fo here^ becaufe in St. Mark " X. 1 51. our Lord fays-, Whofoever fhaU not receive *^ the Kingdom of God as a little Child, he Jhall not " enter therein-^ i.e. into Glory, for into the " Church the greateft Villains may be admitted, " if they conceal their Wickednefs ^ fo that he muft " mean they fnall not enter into his Glorious King- " dom " They may enter indeed with their Bodies, but not with their Souls \ or be Members of the Church in the fight of Men, but not fo in the fight of God. This they can in no wife be, as St. hiike\ Words are, while they are concealed Villains. When our Lord propofed thofe Innocent Members for their Examples, what had he to do but to let them know, what would make them true Members pf the Kingdom of Grace, that they might come thereby to the Kingdom of Glory ? For the one is necelTarily preparative to the other. His Buflnefs was to inftrud them in their Duty on Earth, that they might go to Heaven. Subjects of the Kingdom of Grace he fet before them, to let them know, what fort of Subjects they muft be of the fame Kingdom, if thereby they expeded any real Advantage. This ^night very well be Chrift's Meaning ^ efpecially fince thofe Two Kingdoms in the Main are but One. St. Luke's Words are ftrong and home •, ^fhall in no Wife enter there in^ Chap, xviii. 17. But no flrong- er than the fame Expreltion is to our purpofe, Rev, sxi. 27. And there fhaU in no wife enter into it any thing that defileth^ neither whatfoever worketh Abo- mination^ or maketh a hie. Such Sinners fliall in i\q wife enter into the Uoly City^ the Nem Jsrufakm:^ '■ ■ ' thdf In F A N T-B A P T I S M, £jff. J^j that came down from God out of Heaven, ver. 2. By virtue whereof /^(? Tabernacle of God is with Men, ver. 3. "Which again is called, That great City, the ]Vew Jerufalem, defcending out of Heaven from God, ver. lo. In the Light whereof the Nations of them, which are faved do walk ^ and the Kings of the Earth, and the Nations do bring their Glory and Honour in- to it, ver. 24, 26. Which Defcriptions do necefTari- ly determine it to be the Church of Chrift on Earth, or the Kingdom of Grace, not the Kingdom of Glo- ry. For this laft Kingdom will never defcend and come down from Heaven to Men •, but they will a(^ cend, or be conveyed up into it. Nor will Kings and Nations carry their Glory and Honour thither, but leave ft all behind, as it is Civil or Temporal -, and receive another Glory there, that is Spiritual and Eternal. This Senfe is clearly evinced by Gro- tius in his Annotations on that Chapter j and it juftiiies the Interpretation I have given to our Sa- viour's Words, in Oppofition to Mr. Gale. And (b thofe Infants might belong to the Difpenfation o£ the Meffias, and to the Kingdom of Grace, or be Members of Chrift's Church, notwithftanding Mr. Gale\ Exception. What follows in Mv.Gale of Infants being admit- ted on this Ground to the Lord's Supper, as well as to Baptifin, has been fpoken to before, and thi- ther I ret^r him. Such Objeftions as are made againfl: us to this ef- fedj "If thofe Infants were brought to be bapti- " zed, why did the Difciples rebuke them for it? " Why did not Chrift order them to be baptized? " And why did he not thereby prevent our Errors, ^' when one Word from his Mouth would have done *' it?" I fay, ofthefeand thelikeObjedions, that their Force is enervated by this one Confideration ; Ciixumcifion did to them fupply all the Ends of Bap- ij8 The Lawfulnefs of Baptifm. More might be faid, but this, when duly confidered, is enough. Let Mr. Gale lay all together, and fee whetlier we might as well urge any Place of Scripture where Children are named, for our purpofe, as this before us. Whatever Dv. Whitby has done, I am not fb vain as to think that I my felf have managed this, or indeed any other Argument, to the beft Advan- tage. But yix.Gale muft fometimes magnify his Adverfaries, to magnify his own Victory •, or rather indeed to apprize the World of the deplorable Bad- nefs of our Caufe, iince its beft Cliampions can fay no more for it^ and he can fo ealily baffle them. Having mentioned TertiiUian^ I (hall ftep a lit- tle alide, to fee how, in Mr. Gales Account, it fares with that African Father. Three things are faid of him; I. That he ftrenuoufly oppofed Infant Bap- tifm as unlawful, 2. That his Oppolition of it is no Argument that it was pradiifed in his Time. 3. That he has fome Palfages in him which are incon- liitent with that Baptifm. I. TertuUian ftrenuoufly oppofed Infant-Baptifm ; "Let. XIII. p. 528, as a Thing that ought not to be done, p. 540. nor adminiftred to them : He makes it therefore ufelefs and unlawful to baptize Infants; but does not intimate fo of unmarried Perfons ; on- ly he advifes fuch as are in danger of finning, to de- lay their being baptized. To know if this be a iair Reprefentation oi TertuUian s Mind, we muft have recourfe to his own Words. They are in that fa- mous Place I have already cited, which I Ihall tran- flate into Englijh as exadly as I am able. Thus, therefore, fays he. " According to every body's Condition or Difpofi- " tion, andAgealfo, the Delay of Baptifm is more " profitable ; efpecially in the Cafe of little Children. " For what neceffity is there to run the Sponfors (or ^' Suretiesjinto Danger ? Becaufe both they by Morta- "lity In F AN t-Bap Ti s M, Eiff. 159 " lity may fail in their Promifes, and be deceived " by the Increaie of a bad Temper. The Lord in- " deed faith ; forbid them not to come unto me. Let " them come therefore when they grow up, let them " come when they learn, whither it is they come. '' Let them be made Chriftians when they can know " Chrift. Wherefore (hould that Innocent Age ha- " ften to the Remiffion of Sins? More Caution is " ufed in Secular Matters, fo that an earthly Sub- " fiance, or Inheritance, is not there intrufted, " where the Divine is. Let them know to feek or "■ ask Salvation, that you inay feem to give it to " one that feeketh. AW m'lnore de caufa innupti " quoque procraftinandi, &c. For no lefs Caufe are *' the Unmarried to be deferred (from Baptifm) in '^ whom Temptation is ready as well in Virginity " by Ripenefs of Years, as in "Widower- fhip by '^ Vacation, till they either marry, or are confirm- " ed in Continency. If any underftand the Weight " of Baptifm, they will rather fear the Obtaining *' of it, than the Delay. Faith is intire, and fure " of Salvation. This is the PaiTage at large, and not a Word fpo- ken in it of the Sin and Unlawfulnefs of baptizing little Children; but only of the No-Neceifity of it, and of the Hazards and Inexpediency of it to them, and the Sponfors. And does Mr. Gale know no Difference betiveen unnecefiary and unlawful > Or between Danger and Unfitnefs, and Sin and Guilt > If People may not be in Danger without Sin, there is no living in this World. Infants had not adua! Sins, therefore he thought it needlefs to baptize them for that Reafon ^ and fo it was to have them remit- ted for the prefent. They knew not the Lord, nor the Ends and Weight of Baptifm 5 therefore he judg- ed it improper to baptize them ^ and for all this it might not be unlawful in his Opinion. And what- ever he fays or thought, the fame might as well have I40 The Lawfulnefs of have been urged againfl: the Circumcifion of Iii- i^nts. But be his Reafons ever fo ftrong againfl: the bap- tizing of little Children in their Inl^ancy, he fays Hill, there was no lefs Caufe to defer the baptizing of unmarried Perfons, till they were confirmed in Continency. If he ufes not all the fame Topics here as there, his Judgment was neverthelefs the fame. Or if the Inexpediency was not fo high in one Cafe as in the other, yet there needs be no Un^ lawfulnels in either. Wherefore, if his Judgment was wrong about the Unmarried, as the Antiptedobap- tiffs muft coniefs, it might be wrong about Infants alfo. This weakens his Authority. This is Mr. Galea's way of arguing, to weaken the Father's Authority, and we are to regard him no farther than his Rea- fons compel. Here is One or Two of that Father's Singularities, for which he is commonly noted by Learned Men and the Chrifl:ian Wo.ld. And I take it to be his natural Rigor that betrayed him into fuch Ei- celTes, and induced him, by Anticipation, to favour too much of the Novatian Principles, who made Sin irremiifible after Baptifm. Whereas the Apoftles ufed no fuch Precaution, but baptized Thou- fands together upon the Firft Profelfion of Faith in the Adult, without any Dread or Apprehenfions of future Dangers, that were too poiiible. 2. ^' Had Infant-Baptifm, fays Mr. Gale^ been " the fettled Practice and Judgment of the Church, " and what they thought waS I'upported by the Au- " thority and Tradition of the Apofl:les, &c. It " can't be imagined, that TertnUian Ihould venture " to oppofe iti or if he did, that he fhould imploy " no more pains to excufe what feemed to contra- " did the Doclrine and Practice of the Apoflles and ''^ the Whole Church, p. 5 lo, 5: 1 1 . But the Oppo- *t fition he made, argues only, that forne in his Time "among I N F A K T-B A P T I S M, ij'c, 141 ''■ many other wild Notions did endeavour to in- " troduce it, &c. " But may it not as well be faid, That TertuUianh arguing againft baptizing unmarried Per ions, does not imply that unmarried Perfons were then com- monly baptized, but only that fome endeavoured in his Time to introduce it among many other wild Notions j and that if he had known the Church prac- tifed it, and thought they had the Apoftles Warrant to fupport their Pradice, he had not ven- tured tooppole it^ or if he had, he would have ta- ken more pains to excufe himfelt, and pleaded more ftrenuoufly for his Contradiftion to the Apoftles and the whole Church ? And yet how came he to plead againft Chrift, and make Infmc-Baptifm unlawful, as we are now told, when he underftood Chrift's Words and Command, Suffer little Children, Sec, to concern that Baprifm? Or what moj*e puns need he take, than to prove a Thing unlawful, in order to cry it down ? Did he not know St. P^///'s Dodlrine, thatif aWidoww^rrj, ffjeis no Adultrefs^ Rom.vii. 3. and that To to marry was no uncommon Practice in the Church? How then came he to condemn Se- cond Marriagts, as a Species jiupri ^ Lib. De Exhort. Cdftit, c. 9. And how alfo came Nazianzen to gi^e his Advice for the Delay of Infant-Baptifm, when Mr. Gale cannot deny but it was than fettled and common in the Church •, and they thought they had Scripture Authority to fupport it > Let who will juftify TertuUians Condudt, it is eafy to fee the Weaknefs of Mr. Gale's Pleas. 3. Out of the fame Father he cites fome Para- ges, which annex thofe Conditions to Baptifm and baptized Perfons, that are not pra6licable in an Infant State ^ and from thence concludes, that Ter- tuUian could never allow of Infant-Baptifm. And this, as I obferved before, is his Method with other ancient Writers. But he needed not have ro- 142 *The Lawfulnefs of romaged about for fiich Teftimonies and Authorities. He may find good ftore of the fame kind in the Books of Padobaprifts both Antient and Modern. Will he thence inter they do not commonly pradtife Vadobaptifm > Indeed we fcarce ever Write or Preach about Bap- tifm, but we exprefs what Conditions are requifite for it in the Sufcipients, and what Obligations bap- tized Perfons are under to Faith and Obedience. But we underfland them as binding the Adult to prefent Performance, and Infants to future. Our very Church Catechifm fays. Faith and Repentance are required in Perfons to be baptized. How per- verfe would it be to conclude from hence, that the Church o{ England admits no Infants unto Baptifm, becaufe they have not thofe Conditions ? Yet no bet- ter Conftruftion do fome Antipadobaptifts put upon her Words. And jfince we know they egregioufly pervert her Senfe in this, we do not wonder they deal fo with the Scriptures and the Fathers. Among the Jfvos it was required in Circumcifed Perfons, that they Ihould icve the Lord their God zoith aU their Hearts and Souls^ and keep his Laws : And our Adverfaries contend that Circumcifion obliged them to keep the whole Law of Mofes. Were not In- fants then daily circumcifed, becaufe they could not fo love the Lord, and keep his Laws? Between Mr. Gale and his Antagomfl it is farther difputed, whether TertuUian held fuch a Neceifity of Baptifm for Salvation, as included Infants ^ €o that they muft be baptized for that end, or elfe be counted loft by his Doctrine. I am perfuaded this Neceflity might be made appear from his Words, Lib. De Anima^ Chap, ixxix. 40, But I need not interfere in that Controverfy. III. St. Veter exhorts the Jev^s that were on the Point of Converfion •, Repent and be biiptized every on€ of you in the ISame o§ Jejus Chrift, for the Re- mijfion I N F A N T-B A P T I S M, i^C, 14 j miffioM of Sifis, and yej})aU receive the Gift of the Holy Ghoft I For the Promife is to you, and io your Children^ and to- all that are afar off, even as many a^ the Lord our God ./ball call^ A6ts ii. ?8, 39. For Two Ends were thofe Jews to be baptized upon their Converfion : One End was to have their Sins for- given, and this takes oft the Guilt and Punifhment, The other was to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghofi, Infants being tainted with Orignial Guilt, ftooti in nee4 of Pardon, and being defiled with its Stain, they needed the Sandtification of God's Spirit. For thefe Ends therefore Baptifm was ufeful to them, as well as their Parents. Both thefe Ends and Reafons of Baptifm were common to the Parents and Children together. And one, if not both, the Apoftle exprefly fays, was fo : For the Vroniije is to you, and to your Chil- dren. Which Promife mufl: relate to the Gift ofths Holy Ghoft at leaft, and I think it may include the Kemijjion of Sins, by reafon thefe Two are concomi- tant : He that is fandified, is alfo juftified ; and he that is juftified, muft in fome meafiire be fandified- But be it that the Promife relates only to one of the Ends, this is ftill fufficient to ground the Argument; lince it extends to the Children as well as the Parents, For where the Reafon is common to both, fo muft be the Privilege and the Practice. But the End ox Reafon why the Parents were to be baptized, was, to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghoft. Of this Holy Ghofl the Children had the Promife as well as they ^ therefore muft they be baptized that they might re- ceive the Promifed Gift. Or thus-. To the Benefit of Baptifm, which is RemiJJion of Sins, or at leafi the Gift of the Holy Ghcft, the Children had an equal Right with their Parents and, confequently, they muft have an equal Right to Baptifm. For he that has a Right to the End, or Beneirr, has a Right to the 144- T/;^ Lawfulnefs of the Means whereby it is attained ^ and if he has not this Right, he had as good be without the other. Very much additional Strength this Argument will receive, when we confider who the Per Ions were to to whom the Apoftle addrefTes himfelf in thofe "Words. For Jews they were, who by the Laws of God and the conftant Pradtice of their Church from Abraham's Time to that very Hour, injoyed the Privilege of having their Infants admitted into the Church and Covenant; as likewife did the Profe- lytes to them from the Gentiles. What then could People, who had thofe Laws and that Ufage fo deep- ly riveted in their Minds, underftand by St. Peters Words, (which, in refped: oF Baptifm and its Bene- fits, fet them and their Children on even Ground) but that they were ftill equally to injoy their anci- ent Privileges without Retrenchment ? For his Ad- drefs is unlimitted •, Be baptized every one of you. Men, Women and Children, for a Reafon that is common to you all^ the Fromi/e of the Holy Ghoft being made to you and your Children^ and the Be- nefits of Baptifm lying open to you and them, as thofe of Circumcision did. In what other Senfe than this could the Jews underftand him ? Would the Apoftle then have talked after this unguarded manner in his divine Inftrudlions, to People whofe Tempers he knew to be wonderful tenacious of their old Rights and Cuftoms, if of thofe Rights their Children were now abridged? Had this been the Cafe, an Addrefs fo exaQly formed after the old Fafhion, and fuited to their Laws, Ufages and Hu- mours, imd tended diredly to caft them and the Church of Chrift into a Snare, and to eftablifti Er- ror by a Rule, if my Judgment fails me not. Nor can it be fuppofed thofe obfl^nate Jews had been fo very quiet, if they had feen their Children now to lofe their ancient Rights, and be quite difprivileged, in cafe they had underftood the Apoftle other wife. Dr. Infant-Baptism, i^cl 145 t>t,XVhitby is pleafed freely to give up this Place to the Baptms, '' Becaufe, as he lays, they are the " miraculous Gifts of the Holy Ghoft that are here " meant, which Infants cannot have." But I am not yet inclined to relign to his Judgment in this Matter. For St. Veter makes the Gift he fpeaks of common to all Chriltians throughout the World, and even to the World's End; inafinuch as it be- longs to all that are afar off, even as many oi the 'Lord, our God Jhall call. So the Gift is univerfal^ extending to Chriftians in all Places and in all Times 5 and this cannot be true of Miraculous Gifts, which feveral Chriftians were without in the Apoftolical Age itfelf, as the Dodtor acknowledges, and which con* tinued not for many Ages following, but gradual- ly decreafed, till at laft they quite expired. What NecefTity is there to underftand the Place of Mira- culous Gifts alone? Might not the Apoftle under them comprehend thofe that were ordinary ? And muft he not do fo, if his Words were verified ? He fpoke indeed of extraordinary Gifts before, but his Difcourfe received fome Paufe and Interruption by the Interlocution of the Jews ; upon which he re* aflum'd it^ to give a proper Anfwer to their Queftf» on. Then might he accommodate his Difcourfe to inform them of the ordinary Effeds of Baptifm, which would laft fo long as the World did. Befides, it is not likely he (hould ingage to make them all equal with the Apoftles, and other moft eminent Difciples, in Spiritual Gifts. Or if he hadji it was not anfwered in the Event. And this might have {hocked their Faith, and lelTened his Authori-] ty. For, when the Holy Ghoft fell in an extraordi- nary manner on new Converts, we find it common- ly noted in the Sacred Hiftory. But no fuch Thing is noted of thofe 3000 converted Jezvs after Bap- tifm, nor is it fcarce credible of them all. But, as it were, in Contra-diftindion to them, it is record- K «a 146 The Lawfulnefs of cd of the Apoftles, that many Wonders and S'rgns ufere done by them, ver. 43. Why were the late Converts omitted, if they had the like Gift of doing Wonders > Or if fome very few of them might have the Gift, that was no general Incouragement to be baptized, nor halt an Accomplilhment of the Apoftle's Words. For fuch Reafonsas thefe I mufl beg leave to difTent from the Do6tor's Opinion. Weak and lilly is this Objedion of the Baptids j *' The Promife is to all that are afar off, even 09 " many ai the Lord our God /hall call. But he can " call only Adult Perfons, who are capable of hear- " ing and obeying the Call, which Infants cannot "do. Therefore to the Adult alone belongs the " Promife, and they alone muft be baptized.'* Poor Stuif indeed, and very falfe ! For cannot God call by his A£ts and Ordinances, as well as by his Words ? How elfe did he formerly call the Infants of ^ews and Profe/ytes into his Covenant and the Society of his Church > He gave Command to bring them in, but the Infants themfelves could neither hear nor obey ; therefore others did it for them. Even fo may he call the Infants of Cbriflian Parents. But St.Feters Meaning is none of our Adverfaries. He tells the J^ews there prefent ; The Promife is to you^ and to your Children ^ This comprehends them and their whole Progeny. Then he extends it far- ther to take in others ^ And not only to you wlio are here upon the Spot, and to your OfF-fpring after you •, but even to all whom God (hall call into his Church from remote Places, and in future Times, as he has done long before. They and their Chil- dren have the fa;me Promife and the fime Privilege, the Children being called in the Parents, as was im- ported in the Covenant unto Abraham. This makes it a Rule that is univerfal and perpetual. "But it is farther urged, that by Children we *' muft not underftand Infants, but Pofterity. For rby In faKt-Bapti sM, ^^c. 147 " by Children the Scripture ufually means People *' of Age; as the Children of Jfrael^ &c. " I grant it, that we mnft not underftand Infants alone, but they muft ftill be included in the Account. For in fuch a Latitude as the Apoftle there ufes, there is no Pofterity without Infants. So there were among the Children of Ifraeli, and the fame Senfe we muft give to the Exprefllon here, by taking in the Parents with all their Children, or Pofterity. Then it is the fame as Seed in the Covenant, the Holy privi- leged Seed, whom the Parents Faith intituled ta the Covenant and its Seal, by God's Aft of Grace. And fo this Senfe is not at all to the Difadvantage of our Caufe; unlefs we fhould deal with the Words, as Mr. Gale has dealt with the State of Infants in This Holy Bifhop in a Place that is much con- tefted, teaching, that Chrift came to fandify and fave People of every Age, who by him are born anew unto God, diftributes them into their feveral ClalTes or Periods of Time; Infants, ll,ittle ones. Boys, Youths and Seniors: Than which way or Reckoning nothing could be more accurate to con* line Infants . to the ftrifteft and propereft Senfe* Hereupon Mr. Gale^ as I think, to fliew his Talenfi in Critical Learning, more than any thing elfe, gives a Stretch of Ten Years Space at leaft unto Infancy, before the End of which Infants may believe, efpe- cially through the Help of Mr. Lock^s Method of Education, and be baptized ; and fo triumphs over his trifling Adverfaries. If fo. Infant- Baptifni fhould come into good Repute again, and we ought to be no longer discriminated by the Name of Fado- baptifls and its Oppofite. But he that will underftand lren Neither muft we for the like Reafon debar them from Profelytifm and Baptifm in St. Luke's Narrative. For thofe In- fants could no more fear, than thefe could gladly receive the Word. IV. If in the New-Teftament Infants are called Chrift's Difciples, then are they proper Subjeds of his Baptifm. But fo are they called A^s iv. 10. 'Now therefore^ why tempt ye God^ to put a Toke upon the Neck ef the Difciples^ which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear ? That thefe were Chrift's Difciples, neither is nor can be denied. The Yoke defigned to be impofed on them, was Circumcifion, in the Jews Senfe of a Bond obliging to keep the whole Mofaica/ Law in order to Salvation, as ap- pears by comparing ver. i, 5, 24. togetjher. For they thought that Ordinance and the whole Law muft continue in Force for ever. Every Male Dif- ciple of Jefus Chrift they conceived muft be circum- ciied, and thereby bound to keep the Law y and none but Difciples •, for profefled Infidels and their Children, had no Right. They themfelves and their Children being circumcifed already, the Defign was level'd at the Gentile Converts, who then be- gan to be numerous, and were daily increafing, whereof forae muft have Male Infants. Thefe In- fants therefore, thofe Zealots for the Law would have circumcifed after the Manner f?/ Mofes, ver. i. and as their Law prefcribed, Exod. lii. 48. and alfo as their Church had always pradifed. For doubtlefs they would not break the Law and Cuftom by cir- cumcifing the Fathers, and leaving their Infants un- circumcifed. And fo they would bring upon them all, the Unfupportable Yoke of Circumcifion to keep the Law, as was their Senfe of the Matter. Confe- quently, if the Gentile Profelytes had any Male In- fants, or were like to have to the World's End ; and K 4 if 1^2 The Lawfulncfs of if thofe Zealots for the Law were ftrong for circum- ciling all Male Profelytes, with their Male Infants, fcut none others, then muft thofe Male Infants, of Neceflity, be reckoned among Chrift's Difciples ; which was the Thing to be demonftrated. Then, if fiis Difciples they were, they muft be adlually bapti- zed, or had a prefent Right to be, according to his Law for difcipling all Nations, Matt, xxviii. 1 9. and according to the conflant Pradice of the Church in thofe Days, who never made a Difciple, but they baptized him immediately. Againft this Mr. Ga/e argues ^ " Infants cannot be *' meant nor comprehended there in the Word Dif- " cip/es, becaufe the Brethren on whom the At- *' tempt was made, are faid to be taught, v^r. i. '"■ that without being circumcifed, they could not *' be faved. This can't include Infants. " Strange News indeed ! As if the Circumcifed Jews of Old were not taught in a Body to hve the Lord, ani keep his Commandments •, and yet they had circumci- fed Infants among them. And if after the Manner of Mofes they were taught to do it, that Manner is well known, that the Parents were taught to circumcife their Infants. But Mx.Gale goes on. Let. VIII. p- 295:, 29^, *' The Affair related onty to thofe amdng the Gen- " tiles who were turned to God, according to St. " James's Determination. And fure, none will fay, *^ infants can turn from a Falfe Religion to God.*' Yes, we fay they can, and mod: afTuredly are turn- ed, v/!i<:n their Parents, turning from their former Idolatries and Superfl:itions, bring their Children a- long with them to God, and devote them to his Ser- vice, unlefs they be very carelefs of their Salvation. So it was in the Converfions of old, when they that turntd to the Jews^ turned their Infants alfo, and devoted them to the true God by Circumcifion, who were before devoted to Idols and Diemons by Hea- theiv Infant-Bapt ISM, Efff. 155 thenlfh Rites-, of which we have enough in Tertul- lian. Lib. de Anima, Chap, xxxix. Thefe were proper Profelytifms, Turnings or Converfions of Infants unto God. As Subjefts, removing from one State, and naturalized in another, naturalize their Infants together with themfelves 5 and fo both turn Subjedts to the New State. Mr. Gale proceeds with a Mafculine Courage ; " The whole Scope of the Place, the Injunctions of " that venerable Council of- the Apoftles, their Let- ** ter, all the Circumftances, do very evidently *' conlJDire to (hew their Confultation related not " to Infants, but only to the Adult. Nay, St. Fe- " ter^ in the "Words immediately preceding the *' Verfe our Author cites, fays of the Perfons who '' are the Subje6ts of the Difpute, that God had pu- " rifled their Hearts by Faith ^ from whence 'tis " plain, the Perfons he fpoke of were a6tual Belie- " vers; and confequently, by N(*9«7«v, in thefollow- " ing Words, the Holy Ghoft intends only the Con- " verts, exclufively of their Infants, if they had " any. " Having thus won the Field, he runs out againft PrepofTeflions, Fallacies, &c. and appeals to the Country-man's Judgment for the true Mean- ing of the Word Di/ciple ^ which I believe will fail him here, upon a little Inftrudtion to that Country- man, and do better Service againft his Notion of Infancy in Irenaus. But not too faft; we have a great deal yet to lay for our felves, of which I ftiall give him the Heads, and promife to make them out, with Enlargments and Confirmations, if called upon. For, I. "What if by Faith in that Place be meant 3 ProfefFion of the Gofpel Do6trine and Religion, as it frequently fignifies in the New Teftament > May not Infants be dedicated, or give up their Names, to that Profeffion by Baptifm, as they did to the Worfhip of God by Circumcifion ? It was by that • •■ Pro- 1 54' *^^^ Lawfulnefs of ProfefTion the Hearts of the Gentile Converts were purified-, and not by the fingle A6t of believing alone, which, in fome fenfe, the Devils have, fam.'iu 19. Or, if the Grace and Habit of Faith be meant thereby, why may not Infants have that Grace^ lince the Baptifts allow that they may be, and fome- times are, regenerated by the Spirit ? They have it not in the A6t, but they have it in the Root and Prin- ciple, feeing the Spirit of God is the Principle, not only of Faith, but of all Graces whatfbever in Reli- gion. Surely, the Operations of God's Spirit on their Souls in a New Birth, are not vain and idle, but leave fome ImprelTions and Effects. So Infants have the Principle of Reafon in them, though we fee no more of its vifible Effeds for fome Time, than we fee of the Grace of their Regeneration. In a Word, the Guilt of Original Sin being remitted, its Filth wafhed off, and they themfelves dedicated to the Faith and Religion of Chrift by the Ordinance of Baptifm. and its Grace, their Hearts are then pu- rified by Faith, in the Two Senfes here given. 2. And this Account is confirmed by the Words themfelves which ^X.Veter ufes: God haf piit na Difference between us and the converted Gentiles^ purifying their Hearts by Faith. The Purifica- tion is wholly afcribed unto God. It was not then their adlual Faith did it ^ for though that is princi- pally the Adt of God by Grace, yet it is the A61 of Men alfo in which they co-operate. But the Gofpel Religion, the Word of Faith, is the pure Gift of God, his fole A6t of Grace, to which human Endea- vours have contributed nothing. . When therefore, God inclined the Gentiles Hearts to embrace the Faith and Religion of Chrift, and to bring their Children with them from the Service of Idols, to the Service of God, he purified the Hearts of both by Faith, or by the Profelllon of the Gofpel of Faith. And if this be the True Account of the Place, as I teke Infant-Baptism, l^c, 15^ take it to be, it removes the Maih Rub and Difficul- ty out of our Way. For thiis is accommodated to the State of Infants, as well as the Parents. But Mr. Gale feems to queijlion, whether thofe Gen- tile Converts had any Infants ; for he fays, If they had any, what their Numbers were at that precife Time, we need not enquire. But iurely fuch Con- verts would have Infants before the World's End 5 and upon them all thofe Judaizing Chriftians in- tended to lay the Yoke ol Circumcifion and the Law of Mofes^ becaufe they thought them for ever obhgatory. So this makes no Alteration in the Cafe. The reft of the Objection is very weak, and will be taken off with greater Eafe. For, 5. Difciples are of Two Sorts, initial and incom* plete, and thofe that are finifhed and more perfect. Thefe laft muft have adual Faith and Obedience, in which Senfe we do not pretend Infants can be Difciples. The others are fo only by Profelfion, or at moft by the Seeds and Principle of Grace in their New Birth, while they are feparated from the profane World, and dedicated to the True Religion by God's Ordinance. This was the general Senfe, in which not only the Adult Jews, but all their In- fants, were God's Difciples, Jfa.vm.iS. and bore the Charaders of Saints, holy, faithful, eled, be- loved, peculiar, ^c, becaufe they were all fo by Profeffion, and were fet apart and appropriated to God by the diftinguifhing Marks of hk Feople, "Thus faith the Lord^ I have feparated you from other Veople^ and ye Jhall be Holy unto me •, for I the Lord am Hoiy, and have fevered you from other Veople, that ye Jhould be mine. Lev. xx. 24, 25. And this is the current Language of the New Teftament alfo, to defcribe Chrift's Difciples, as Dr, Whitby and others have made appear. In this incomplete Notion, In- fants are Chrift's Difciples when baptized, and may |)ear the other Titles, So they are reckoned among ■ ^ the 156 The Lawfulnels of the Species of Mankind, are Members of Families, and Subjedts of a Commonwealth. Rights they have here, which, if invaded, the Law will vindicate, and do them Juftice. But to the Service and Duties of Subjedts they are not tied, except only to what may be done by Proxy. Chrift appropriates Infants to himfelf, when he commands they Ihould be brought unto him, and fays, that ofjuch is the Kingdom of Heaven. And fb he does little Children, when he declares j Whofo JhaU receive cnefuch little Child in my Kame^ receiv- eth me. Matt, xviii. 5. To receive them in his Name imports, that he has a peculiar Right in, and Rela- tion to them, as Perfons belonging to himfelf whom he particularly loves. So the Phrafe [/;: his Name~\ fignifies in other Places. Whofoever JhaU ^ive to drink unto one of thofe little ones, a Cup of cold Wa- ter in the 'Name of a Difciple, verily I fay unto you, be [hall in no wife lofe his Reward, Chap. x. 42. Which is thus in St. Mark ix. 41. Whofoever JhaU give you to drink in my Name, hecaufe ye belong to Chrifl. Therefore, to receive little Children in his Name, is to receive them as his Difciples. For if they had no fpccial Relation to him as Difciples and Members of his Body, why ftiould he take to himfelf the KindnefTes that are fhewed to fuch little Children in his Name > Does he ever ufe fuch indearing Lan- guage towards Heathens and Infidels that are out of hisChurch and Fold, and therefore out of his peculiar Care and AfFedtion, while they fo continue ? Aliens and Strangers they are that belong not to him •, yea^ Enemies, Rom, v. 10. For it is only the Spiritual Relation of Fraternity and Brotherhood to him, that grounds fuch Appropriations. Verily I fay unto you, Inafmuch of ye have, or have not, done it unto one of the leaji of thefe my Brethren^ ye have^ or have not, done it unto me. Matt. xxv. 40, 45. To Chrift therefore fuch little Children do belong as his Bre- t^n^eii iNFANT-fiAPTlSMy £ifr. I 5 J thren and Difciples. For, Believers alfo in him they are there called. Matt, xviii. 6. Who/o JhaU offend oneof thefe little Ones that believe in me. Meaning it of, and probably pointing to, that very little Child he had then before him. Such a little One in Age, not only in Temper and Difpofition : Such a littl^ One as that was whom he made a Pattern to his Difciples, and propofed him as an Emblem of Humility and Converfion to all-, whom he gave them Encouragement to receive in his Name; and whom he now fays, that he and fuch like believed in him. So the Subjeft he fpeaks of was not varied. 4. As to the Injundtions, Letter, &c, of that ve- nerable Council i To whom in Civil or Ecclefiafti- cal Bodies, are fuch Ads directed, but to the moft eminent Perfons ? To the Chiefs, Heads, Principals, or Governors, who, as the Body Reprefentative, com- mand and influence the reft, a6t in their Name, and determine them by their Ads? They all ftand incorporated together, and the Ads of the Princi- pals, are the Ads of the whole Body, while thofe that are under Government are not excluded, but always included in the general Accounts. And fb the Difciples in that Hiftory of the AUs^ were Be- lievers, purified by Faith, &c. becaufe the Heads and moft eminent Members were fo. Yet were In- fants ftill of the Body, as in the Je-mijlo Church. Were Mr. Gale to defcribe a Member of the Church of England, it is like he would fay. He was one that held to Epijcopacy as of Divine Right, fer- ved God by the Eflablifh'd Liturgy, and fo oiv Surely, he would be a Wife Man that would conclude from thence, the Church of England acknowledged no Infants for its Members, becaufe they know not what Epifcopacy and Liturgies mean. In fuch Ca- fes, Hiftorians, ftndying Brevity while they relate Paftages and Tranfadions, regard only the Princi- pals or eminent Perfons of the Body^ and are not ^ bound 1^8 The Lawfulnefs of bound to be nice in their Diftindions and Definiti- ons. 5. For this way of Reckoning there is good Reafon, becaufe the Heads influence and over-rule the others. Parents difpofe of theiar Infants and little Children as they pleafe, and bring them into their own Re- ligion. And fo they commonly do their Houfholds. Abraham commanded his Children and Houfhold to ferve God, and by his Order they were circumcifed. Jojhua ingageSjthat his houfe Jhouldjerve the Lord, Jofh. ixiv. 15. And in the Hiftory of the Apoftles AUs^ the Converfions of the Heads converted the whole Families. Never were there any Parents that did not devote and dedicate their little Chil- dren to the Service of the God, or Gods, whom they themfelves worfhipped. Never fince the Church of God was organized into a Regular Body, in Ahra- harr^s Days to Chrift's, were Infants left out of the Church; and before that, we believe the little Chil- dren were always of their Fathers Religion, while in their Power. And never was there a Common- wealth of which Infants were not Members. Mr. Ga/e and his Party may, by their Sophiftical Argu- ments, as well fpurn Infants out of the Human Spe- cies, out of Families, and out of all Civil Commu- nities, as flUt of the Church of God. For it is their Natural Right to be devoted to the Service of their Maker, as it is their Parents Duty to devote them. How upon their Terms the Baptifts will defend the Univerfality of the Chriftian Church, is plainly unaccountable. The Fall in y^dam was univerfal. So, by God's Defign was Redemption, Grace and Sal- vation through Chrift. And fo was the Church of Chrift intended to be, to which Salvation by God's Word and Covenant is now appropriated. Catho- lic, or Univerfal, it is in our Greeds, and in the Baptifts too. Article 8. Then (hould it extend to Perfons of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions. But if Cl^ren, Infant-Baptism^ i^c, n^g Children, till they have adual Faith and Repen- tance, be excluded from the Church, without their Fault, how great a Part of Mankind are they ? How by God's Word do they partake in Chrift's Redemp- tion and faving Grace? And how is his Holy Church Catholic and Univerfal ? Is it not in this refped: more limitted and particular than the He- brew Church was from Abraham to Chrijl? The Hints I have here given may lead the Rea- der into a Train of Thoughts upon this Subjedl, that are agreeable to the Nature of Things, to the Methods of God in modelling his Church, and to the Laws and common Cuftoms of Mankind. If God has made it impolTible for Infants to be Vifi- ble in the Church, it is impoflible for the Vifible Church to be Univerfal. What more common in the later Parts of Scrip- ture, than to call all the Ancient Jews by the Name of Fathers? Had they therefore no Females, Bat- chelors and Infants among them, by reafon thefe cannot be properly called Fathers? Or did none of thefe go under the Cloudy and pafs through the Sea, becaufe they are all called Fathers that did fo > I Cor. 1. 1. Or did none of them eat of the Manna, in the Defart, becaufe they that did lb are ftiled Fathers, /^^'^ vi. 91,49.? And were none of old circumcifcd but Fathers properly fo called with A- poftles and Elders, becaufe in this very controverted Text the Apoftle fays -, A Yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear ? Why are not In- fants excluded from that Yoke, lince they could not properly be Fathers, nor Apoftles and Elders 5 as well as they are excluded from Difciplelhip, be- caufe they could not as properly as fome others, be Believers, have their Hearts purified by Faith, re- ceive Letters and Injunctions? What then is all this but to equivocate and'play upon Words, to cafi St i6o The Lawfulneis of a Mift before our Eyes, and try if we cannot be bubbled out of Common Senfe ? V. Our next Proof for Infanc-Baptlfm fhall be grounded on i Cor. vii. 14. The unbelieving Husband isfan[lified by the Wife^ and the unbelieving Wife is fanUifed by the Husband^ elje were your Children un- clean^ hut now are they holy. The Conftruftion which Dr. Hammond^ Mr. WaU and others have put upon this Text, I leave to thofe that like it beft ; and fhall follow my own Senfe, which has been the moft common , becaufe I think it mofl: agreeable to the Language and Tenor of the Scriptures. And I Ihall briefly give it thus : The Jewijh Converts retaining their old PrepoP leffions, thought themfelves bound by the Law of God to have no Inter-marriages with Infidels ; and if marry they did with them, they thought Con- verfe and Cohabitation with them to be polluting. Then they knew that by the old Law unclean Per- Ibns muft for the Time be feparated from the Con- gregation. How then could they have conftant Matrimonial Society with fuch Conforts, and not be defiled and excluded from the Chriftian Aifem- blies ? This was their Cafe, and the Corinthians wrote to St. Vaul for a Refolution of it. He anfwerSjThat the Unbeliever, in the Account of Chriftianity, was fo far from polluting the Believer, that he was rather fandtified by him, or in him. Elfe \i the Believers became unclean by Cohabitati* pn,and mufl: be barred,like Heathens, from Religious Communion, their Children alfo would be count- ed unclean, but now they are holy. The Believer was holy by ProfefTion, the Unbeliever was only fandified for his Ufe by God's Account, or Ad of Acceptance ; as Meats are held fandified by the Word of God and Prayer, i Tim.iv. $. This is no other than an external Qiiality of Holinefs and San- ftification, not internal or inherent. Grace follows I N F A N T-B A P T I S M, tfc l6l the more favourable fide, and gives the Beh'ever the Advantage over the Infidel. So chiefly for the Believer's fake, their common Children were Holy. For this was an Affection which, by Virtue of God's Covenant, always accompanied profefTed Be lievers, and their Children. A Holy Seed they were, Nehefn. ix. 2. Ifa. vi. 13. and they and their OfF-fpring were the BlelTed of the Lord for Ever, Chap. Ixv. 23. And this Holinefs, with the like Pri- vileges, flill accompanies Chriftians, i Pet. ii. 9. 'Tis commonly called Federal, as depending on God's gracious Covenant^ or Relative, becaufe of their Covenant Relation with God ^ or Radical, For // the Root be holy., fo are the Branches, Rom. xi. \6. -, or Seminal, becaufe it is the Native Pre- rogative of the Holy Seed. A Qiiality therefore that does not inwardly afFcft their Souls, but their out- ward State and Condition by God's Original Char- ter to Abraham. As in Corporations, he that is Born of a Freeman, is Free ; fo was St. Faul born a Roman Citizen, Atfs xxii. 28. or Freeman of R^«?^. And as they and their Children were counted ho- ly J fo Heathens and their uncircumcifed OfFlpring were counted unclean, A&s x. 28. Ifa. ixxv. 8. and lii. I. And in Titm i. 15. the Defiled andUnbe/iev* ing are linked together. This, therefore, is the Current Language of the Holy Ghoft, and our Interpretation is licenled by Divine Authority. And thus we ground our Argu- meht upon it for Fadobaptifm. To the Antient Patriarchal Church of God, we and our Children, as his Holy and Peculiar People, fucceed in all their Spiritual Privileges. Therefore muft we have the fame Treatment. A Federal Ho- linefs they had by Intail for ever, and that intitled them and their Infants to the Covenanting Ordi- nance 5 that admitted them into the Church and So- ciety of the Faithful, Upon the fame Foot and Le- ' L vel i62 !Z7;^ Lawful nefs of vel exadly, do the Infants of Chrifliian Parents ftand with theirs. A Federal Holinefs they ftill have, as theirs had -, therefore have they the fame Title to » the Covenanting Ordinance, and to folemn Admif- iion into the Church. For the Gift and Calling of God are without Repentance. And the Rule is good, Paria parihm conven'mnt. They that are up- on equal Ground, muffc have equal Ufage in Point of Privilege. The fame Badge and Character of Ho- linefs they now wear as they did of old ^ and when we prefent and dedicate them unto God with this Stamp of the Holy Seed, we believe he will kindly receive them, and acknowledge his own Mark and ImpreiTion. The Confequence is found and rational, and runs parallel with another that the Jews drew in a Cafe not much unlike, and it was approved : The Law faid. Every TAale that openeth the Womb pall be Ho- ly unto the Lord. But it no where commanded it Ihould be brought to the Temple, and there be pre- fented anto God. Yet that Inference the Jews made ^ fo was their Praftice, and fo was Chrift pre- fented in Approbation of it, Luke ii. 22,23. There- fore fuch Inferences in pofitive Rights, are not weak and unlawful. Vain then is their Objedion who fay, "It is not " Holinefs that gives a Right to Baptifm, but *' God's Command and Precept. " For it is a Sound Inference from, and Pradice upon his old Com- mand to Abraham. And it is a Claim of Privilege wherein he invefted the Holy Seed for Ever. Others wifely obferve, that if fuch a Holinefs in- titles the Children to Baptifm, it will as well inti- tle the Unbelieving Parents to it, becaufe they alfo are fancrified. Right, if they can prove them de- fcended from the Holy Line 5 and married Perfons, who have Children of their own, to be Infants in Age. Otherwife they ought to know our Dodtrine and I N F A N T-B A P T I S M, i^c, 1 6^ and Pra6tice about the Adult. Mr. Ga/e's Extent of Infancy to 21 Years by the EngUJ^o Laws, may do, but his 10 or 14 Years hardly v/ill. L^/^. XIII. p 5; 1 5. he prelTes our Notion with Abfurdity, and making St. ?aid to utter a Falflioodo " For, fays he, the only Reafon why Infants are to *' be admitted to Baptifm, St. ?aul fays, according " to the Vadobaptifls^ is, that one of the Parents is *^ Chriftian 5 but if fo, then all others, tho' brought '' to be baptized by ever fo good Sureties, are not ^' to be admitted, for they are unclean. This, he " fays, is contrary to God's infinite Goodnefs and *' Juftice, to the Hypothefis of the moft judicious " Fttdobaptifls^ to the JewiJJ) Difpenfation and Prac- tice, and limits the Grace of Chrift to narrower " Bounds." In all which Paragraph there is much to furprize us, but nothing to puzzle or perplex ns. For, do we not plainly lay the Grounds of admitting In- fants into the Church by Baptifm, as God laid them to Abraham by Circumcifion ? Was not this Grace and Privilege thereby limitted to the Children of Believers ? Or was there any Provifion made for cir- cumcifing the Infants of ProfefTed Infidels? One of the Parents, at leaft, muft become a Profelyte before his Male-Infants were circumcifed ^ and I think he muft be the Father ; for Timothy was uncircumci- fed io his Infancy, becaufe his Father was a Greek^ though his Mother was a Jewefs. Unclean they were all^ while they continued Heathens ^ and fo neither Parents nor Infants were circumcifed. Clean they became upon Converfion, and fo they and theirs were circumcifed. Unclean are Infidels, fays St. P<7»/, and therefore not to be baptized : but if both or one Parent turn Chriflian, he and his In- fant Children are Clean or Holy, and fo to be bap- tized. And what more parallel than this in the L 2 Twd 164 The Lawfulnefs of Two Difpenfations? Or did God's Law make an/ other Provision ? The fews^ without any Rule, went farther: For if they found a Heathen Infant expofed, or took him in War, they circumcifed and baptized him too, and brought him up in their own Religion. And fo, according to the moft judicious Padobaptifts^ may Chriftians baptize him ^ for the Faith and A61 of the Sureties that prefent him, and ingage for his Education, and fo become his fpiritual Parents, are fomething equivalent to the Prerogative of a Ho- ly Birth in the Seed of Abraham. But wherefore Ihould thofe Gentlemen talk of limitting the Grace of Chrifl, and our adting contrary to the Goodnels and Juftice of God, in not admlting the Infants of Infidels unto Baptifin, when they themfelves will admit unto it never an Infant of Infidel or Believer? And \{ they fay, God's Grace is common to Infidels with Believers, or that fuch a Limitation of it, as as they fpeak of, is inconliftent with God's Good- nefs and Juftice, do they not talk in the Language ofaD^/7?? Mr. Stennett againfl: Ruffen fays \ " I find not that *' the Apoftle determines his Words to Infants, any " more than to Adult Children 5 therefore if the In- *' fants, one of whofe Parents was a Believer, were " Church-Members, which Mr. Rufien fiippofes " meant hj the Word [Holy] all Adult Children " may be fuppofed to have been Church-Members " too, as foon as one of their Parents became a Be- " liever." But it does not follow-, for to Infants it was the Privilege of their Birth among the 7^:4- j- •, and ov/ing to their Parents Converfion among Profelytes. But the Adult Children of thefe Profelytes muft have the fame perfonal Qualifications with their Parents, before they could be admitted into Church Commu- nion with the Jfwj. And St. Paul underllanding the I N F A N T-B A P T I S M, £5*^. 165 the Laws and Cuftoms of his Countr)'', mufl in this Matter fpeak agreeably to them. Alfo in the next Page, which is 248. he adds; " Seeing the Unbelieving Parent isfaidtobe fan^lifi- " ed by the Believer, the Holinefs of the Children *' muft be derived as well from the Sandification " of the unbelieving Parent, as that of the Believer; *' and therefore muft regard the Lawfulnefs of their " Conjugal Relation. Whereupon he concludes, " that the Sandtity of the Children may well be un- '' derftood of their Legitimacy. And Mr. Ga/e " chimes in with him;" Ler.Xlll. p. $16. This Notion of Conjugal and Legitimate Holi- nefs, fliall be examined prefently. But fuppofe what is faid before is true, though I grant it not; that the Childrens Holinefs derives as well from the Unbelieving, as the Believing Parent ; yet all the Sandification that the Unbeliever had, was from the Believer, or for his fake, and upon his Account. Whatever Holinefs, therefore, the Unbeliever tranf^ ferred unto the Children, it was the Believer's origi- nally, and to his Account it muft all be placed ; which is as much as needs be faid to that Article. But the quaint Notions of a Matrimonial and Legitimate Holinefs, and of a Spurious or Baftard Uncleannefs, fhall in few Words be quite exploded out of Doors. For if the Lawfulnefs of the Marriage and Coha- bitation, fandtifies the State, and the Lawful Iffue, then were all Heathens duly married, and their Iffue fandtified. For, who can deny that their Marriages and Cohabitation were lawful ? If fo, almoft all the Heathen World is fandfified. This Notion, therefore, proves nothing, becaufe it proves abundantly too much, and runs the Abettors into a grofs Abfurdity. Neither can thefe Notions ever be fupported by the Authority of the Sacred Writers, nor of the Profane either, a? I am perfwaded. L 5 I. Fotf 1 66 The Lawfulnefs of 1. For the Matrimonial or Conjugal Holinefs, the only Pretences I can find ailed ged, are i Tbeff, jv. 4. where Chaftity is called San[tification and Ho- nour ; and Heb. xiii. 4. where Marriage is faid to be honourable. But is Chaflity Matrimony, or Honour Sandtity ? Do they not to all Mens Minds, that know any Diftindions between Things and Things, prefent very different Ideas from one ano- ther ? He tliat knows not this, had need go to Mr. iLocIis Book of UunLin Vnderftanding^ as well as to his Methods of Education. But is not Matrimo- ny a State of Chaftity ? Yes, in itfelf ^ but in the V^Q it may, and it may not be fo. So are Cehba- cy, Widdower-lhip, and all lawful States of Life. Therefore Matrimony, in this refpedt, founds no Pri- vilege. But is it not a Remedy againft Fornica- tion and Uncleannefs> Yes, and yet may not be Chaftity in its proper Notion. For fo is Phyfic a Remedy againft Sicknefs, and yet Phyfic is not properly Health, Yet I grant that Matrimony is a Holy Ordi- liance, as it was inftituted by God in Paradife, du- sking the State of Man's Innocency, and as it repre- fents the Myftical Union between Chrift and his Church. But what Claims have lapfed Infidels in behalf of their Marriages from a Paradifiacal State of Innocence, and from the Myftical Reprefentati- bns of the Cliriftian Church ? Thefe are nothing to them, and they muft, in Ipite of their Hearts, go without the Holinefs, as well as the Grace and Sal- vation, which their good Friends, the Antip.edobap- tifts^ have fupplied them with. 2. For the Holinefs of Legitimacy in the Children, the Evidence is as much or more deplor- ably bad. What neceiTary Connexion is there be- tween Holy and Lawful ? And how many Things are the Laft which are not the Firft ? As well may Children be called Wife, Strong, Learned, &c. as Holy^ I N F A N T-B A P T I S M, i^c. l6j Holy, only becaufe they are Legitimate. However, Mr. Stennett, and Tome others, take their Founda- tion from AliiL ii. 15. where he fays, the Prophet is fpeaking againft Polygamy, where he fpeaks in- deed againfl: Divorces. But to pafs tliis by, the Pro- phet's Words are thefe ; For did not he make One ? Tet had he the Reftdue of the Spirit. And wherefore One f* That he might fee k a Godly Seed. Which ob- fcure Place muft refer, either to God's making Adam and Eve one, by Matrimony in Paradife, or ejfe to his making Abraham one, as the Stem of the Church, and Root of the Holy Seed and Branches. But what is either of thefe to the Marriages and Seed of Unbelievers ? Can they pretend an Intereft in Holinefs from Paradife or the Church of God in Abraham^ Family, when they are Sinners of the Gentiles, out of the Church, and out of the Cove- nant ? Spurious therefore and Illegitimate is this Ac- count of a Legitimate Holinefs m the Children of Heathens. 3. As deftitute and abandoned of all good Sup- port, is the Baftard Uncleannefs which next follows. For how come Bafe-born Children to be unclean? Do they contrad it upon themfelves by any Act of their own > Are they accefTary to their Parents Sin ? Or can it be tranfmitted into their Souls by Propa- gation ? Where has God eftablilhed this Law for Infants, as we believe was done in Adam^s TranP grelfion? The Parents Uncleannefs is a Moral Im- purity, and if into their illegitimate Iflue they can tranfmit any Uncleannefs, it muft be fuch as they themfelves have, and are guilty of, when they beget them. This, I fuppofe, will not be affirmed ; elfe the Children may be charged with all the Immora- lities of their immediate Parents, which by this ac- count will defcend from Generation to Generation. Yet the Baptifts themfelves allow, that Pharez, Za- rah^ Jephthahj and man}'' others of an illegitimate L 4 Birth, i6S Ths Lawfulnefs of Birth, uxre holy Perfons, and within the Covenant. Therefore Baftardy is not Uncleannefs in a Moral Senfe, nor was it ever fo reputed in a Legal. Some roundly alTert, it is called Uncleannefs Deut' ixiii. 2. but very f alfly ^ for what we there read is this: A Biiftard ft^aU not enter into the Con- gregation of the Lord: even to his Tenth Generation (i.e. forever, AW;, xiii. \.) /hall he not enter into the Congregation of the Lord. If Uncleannefs was t\\Q Reafon of his Exclufion, then all the Pofterity of a Baftard inufl: be unclean for ever ^ becaufehis Excluflon for that Reafon is for ever. But the Word Badard is not there to be underftood in our common Senfe, provided we may rely on Mr. Seldens Judgment ^ who fays, that Mamzer^ which we render Baftard, is one born of any fuch inceftuous Mixtures as the Law forbad, except only of a Woman in lier Uncleannefs, De Jure Nat. &c. /. 5. c. 16. Andof entring into the Congregation of the Lord, Sv?ieon de Aluis gives this Conftruclion ^ That fuch a one fhall not be ad- mitted for ever to the Political or Ecclefiaftical Go- vernment, nor, by Marriage with a Jewefs., obtain the Privileges of a / (This he urg'd twice or thrice). Owen. Yes, that I will by any Scripture Argu- ments ; efpecially when thofe Types and Figures are applied to my Ule by the Holy Ghoft, made my Enfamples, and I am admonilh'd to follow them, and fulfil them. Did not St. Faul in the Epiftle io the Hebrews^ from the Types and Figures of the Law, prove the Priefthood and Sacrifice of our bleffed Saviour, which are of great- er Importance than Baptifm ? Wood. The Jews are afterwards faid by the Apoltle to be guilty of many wicked Things 5 and muft we follow them as Enfamples in thofe wicked Things ? Owen. O Mr. Wood! you {hall not catch me at that Lock; for there are Enfamples to be avoided, as well as follow'd. The good we mufl follow, and avoid the bad ; and among the good was the Children oUfrael's being baptizd unto Mofes in the Cloud and in the Sea. Smth. You infifl: on the Word All , then were all the Beafts baptiz'd too ? Owen. That Gentleman feems to underfland the Scripture jufi: as St. franch of AJfife did, who finding there this Precept, Go, preach the Gofpel to every Creature^ went and preach'd it to the Mag- pies, becaufe they were Creatures. This Story I took by Tradition, and whether it was St. francis^ or St. Anthony of ?adua, or nei- ther, I am not refponfible -, but it was the fittefl Anfwer I could give to Folly ^ and it put the Com- pany to Laughter, and the Gentleman to the Con- Infant-Baptism, Eif^. 17^ Confufion of a Bliifli, though he appear'd to have an excellent Frontifpiece of his own. There this Argument ended, and who had the beft on it I flibmit to Judgment. M};^ Antagonift Mr. Wood told me lince, he had feen this Account, and had nothing to obje6t againft its Truth. Only he had fomething more to fay to the Argument ; which, by his Intimations, I take to be what I Ihall now obferve. For I have a little wondred with my felf, that they did not at all except againft my Senfe of the Word fathers^ when I made it to fignify and com- prehend all the Children of Ifrael, or the whole collective Body of the Jews. For Infants, furelj'-, could not be calVd Fathers, therefore they were not included in that Baptifm. If fo, then Females Batchelors, and all that had no Children, could not be included for the fame Reafon. But to clear this feeming Difficulty ^ I. This Phrafe, All our Fathers, mufi: bear a Senfe that will comprehend all the Perfons to whom the Adions or Incidents there mentioned, did belong. True it is of Men, Women and Children, that they were all tinder the Cloudy and all pajfed through the Sea ^ that they did all eat of the fame Spiritual Meat, and all drank of that Spiritual Drink. Therefore were they all baptized unto Mofes in the Cloud and in the Sea. And in that Latitude muft the Word fathers be underftood, fince there 39 no Reftridfion ufed here, as in another Cafe is done 5 ver. <;. So the Baptifm being exprefs'd with a Note of Univerfality, extended to every living Soul in Ifrael, as the other Adions did. And to call them Fathers.^ is but a compendious Way of Reckoning, very ufual in the Scriptures, to exprefs the whole Body under the Names of the moft Signified. 2. Doubt- 2 74 ^'^^ Lawfulnefs of 2. Doubtlefs the Apoftle by fathers^ means the ve-' ry fame Perfons the Infpire^ Writers of the Old Teftament meant, when they related the fame Paf- fage in the Hiftorical Account of it. And they fpeaking thereof, call the Perfons therein concerned, fometimes fathers, as in Vjul. Ixxviii. 12,13. and fometimes, The Children c/Ifrael, as in Exod.xiv. 22. and Numb.ix> 17, &c. which fhews thofe Two Expreifions, in this Account, to be equipollent. 3. Fathers, and our Fathers they are called, not in a Natural, but a Spiritual Senfe. In a Natural Senfe, Fathers they could not be termed to all the Church at Corinth ^ among whom were many Gen- tile Converts, who defcended not of JewiJJ? Paren- tage. Fathers then they were in a Spiritual Relati- on, becaufe the Jfrael'ites were all together the Anci- ent Church and People of God, profelfmg his Reli* gion, and admitted into his Covenant. So they were our Anceftors, Predeceffors and Fore-runners in the Faith and Worfhip of the True God, which they handed down to their late Pofterity, and to the Church of Chrift. From the whole Body of them have we received the Benefit, and are equally be- holden for it to Old and Young, Males and Females 5 becaufe they profelTed the Faith and True Religion of God before us, and tranfmitted it down into our Hands. Wherefore, Fathers is but a Name of Dignity and Reverence, toexprefs our Seniors or Pre- deceffors in the Faith ^ and it comprehends all the Holy Seed and Spiritual Children of God, begotten before us in the Church. Thus Commentators un- derfland it in the Text, and it is the Common Ac- ceptation of the Word in Scripture, to denote the Ancient Church and Nation of the Jews. Any one may be fatisfied of it, that will but perufe FfaL Ixxviii, and cvi. John vi. A[ls vii. befide other Scriptures, where the Word frequentjy occurrs in this Senfe. If I N F A N T-B A P T 1 S M, ^C, 1 75 If it be objedted, that Baptifm is but a Rite or Ceremony 5 and to fore-lhadow Ceremonies, there could be no Types and Figures. I anfwer, St. Fe* ter was not of this Mind, when he makes the Wa- ters of NoaFs Flood to fore-lhadow Baptifm, as the Type the Antitype, i Pf/.iii. 20, 21. The Waters in both did correspond, and fo may our Baptifm with that of the fews in the Cloud and in the Sea. The Scriptural Evidences I thought fit to produce for Infant- Baptifm, are now finilhed ; and if any one of them dots prove unanfwerable, that alone is fufficient, and as good as an Hundred. Moreover, the Scriptures being God's infallible Word, cannot contradict themfelves, by making that unlawful in one Place, which they make lawful and dutiful in another. Confequently, the Places cited out of them to difprove Infant-Baptifm, muft of Necellity have a different Senfe and Conftrudion from what our Adverfaries put on them, provided our Arguments for it be good and valid. THE l^6 LAWFULNESS Infant-BAPTISM, Proved from SCRIPTURE PART III. HAT remains of my Tafk unperfor- med, is, to take off the Baptifts Argu- ments and Objections from Scripture againft Infant Baptifm. Strong and plain they ought to be, before they can overthrow our Evidences for it, and by deftroying an ancient Divine Charter, dif- pofTefs fo many Infants of the great Privileges they injoyed ever fince God preached the Gofpel unto Abraham^ and made them Citizens with his Saints, by the Evangelical Covenant. Clear and unconte- ftable was their Inveftiture, long and uninterrupted their PofTeifioni and Disfranchifement being a Hardfhip, and Odious Cafe, fhould be no lefs plain and indifputable •, elfe, the Favourable fide fhould be chofen. Not .by Confequences, but by exprefs Com* I N F A N T-B A P T I S MJ ^C. IJJ Command, they came at firft into that Noble Cor- poration the City of God, and there maintained their Claim and Right; nor (hould it be by Con- fequences, but by exprefs Command, that they fhould now appear excluded. And yet Confequen- ces are all that is urged againft their Right. There are Three or Four Texts to this Purpofe to be ex- amined, and I think in anfwering them, I fliall enervate the whole Strength of our Adverlaries Caufe. 1. 1 Ihall take into Confideration St. P^/^r's "Words, I Epijf. iii. 21. The like Yigure whereunto even Bap-^ t'lfm doth aljo now jave m (not the putting amay the filth of the flefh^ but the Anfwer ^ a good Con- fcience toward God) by the RefurreElion of IFefus Chnft. " Thefe Words of St. Peter, fays Mr.Ga/e^ " Let. XI. p-^i6, 417. are an impregnable For- " trefs of Antipadobapti/m -, and all the Attempts of " our Adverfaries againft them hitherto, have been " unfuccefsful, and will probably ever be fo. Dr. " Hammond trifles upon them moft egregioufly, " &€,"' Tlie Exprelfions of this Gentleman are commonly very terrible, and his Pofitions decre- tory. But I am by this Time fo well acquainted with his Style and Management, that I am not at all ftartled with his big Words and bold Aflevera- tions. For where I fee the moft Flafhing, there I find the leaft Execution* If his Fortrefs be really^ impregnable, why does he fay, our Attempts a- gainft it will be but probably for ever unfuccefsful ? Lie down we mufl: before it, and defpair •, becaufe impregnable Forts can never pojTibly be ftormed and taken. But before I lay clofe Siege to his Bul- wark, I have an Account to make up with him for an Expreflion he has dropped about the Type o£ this Baptifm. lyS The Lawfulnefs of Some Crotchet or other pofTefled Sir AT. Knatch- bufs Head to make Noah's Ark, and~not the Waters of the Floud, to be the Type of St. Feters Baptifm. As others of his Party have done, fo Mr. Ga/e falls in with Sir Norton -, " The Apoftle Feter makes " our Baptifm to be the Antitype of the Ark, Let. " X. p. 572." The Ark then mufl be the Type. By this I perceive that if one great Man ftarts a Notion, though ever fo falfe and abfurd, other great Men and Critics will run away with it un- examined j efpecially if it can make for the Intereft of their Caufe. But where then is the apparent Refemblance between the Ark and Baptifm, that ought to be between the Type and the Antitype > An Ark is an odd Figure to reprefent an Ordinance. And to maintain the Correfpondence between them, are they the Perfons, and not rather the Houfes and Churches wherein Chriftians are,- that ought to be dipped in Water and baptized > For the Ark it was that was properly in the Water, and that was a fit- ter Figure to reprefent material Buildings, than human Perfons. But why (hould not fuch Learned Men as Sir, Norton and Mr. Gale confult the Original, before they venture their ridiculous Notions into the World > For St. Feter in the very beginning of the Verfe has the Relative Article w, which is in the Neuter Gender, and by the Rules of Grammar can by no means agree with itiCcoToi, the Ark, which is of the Feminine -, but with Q<^dij@-, the Water, immediate- ly aforegoing, which is of the fame Gender with «. To the Water therefore Baptifm muft be the An- tit3''pe, and not to the Ark, unlefs they will fix a grofs Solfficifm upon St. Feter, as they endeavour to do a blundring Notion on the World. But that Af" front they cannot polTibly pafs upon the Apoflle, becaufe he under flood bis Rules, as appears hyr his joyn- I N F A N T-B A P T I S M, ^f. i j^ joyning a Participle of the Right Gender with the Ark, in the Verfe before. I Here then the- Correfpondence will eafily appear. For, theWaters oi Noah's Flood drowning that linful Age, as the Red Sea afterwards did the Egyptians^ bore up the Ark upon their Surface ^ which fitly reprefented the Church Militant tofs'd about in the Waves of this troublefome World, but always faved by the Hand of Providence. KoaFs Entrance with his Family into the Ark, upon the Rifing of the Waters, reprefented our Entrance by Baptif^ mal Water into the Church, in which Salvation is to be found. And if, as Waters are ufed to cleanft, they farther fignified the Purification of our Souls from Sin by Sacramental Grace, the Account o£ our Baptifm, as a faving Ordinance, will be fully, compleated in the Figure. Having difpatched this Reckoning with Mr. Ga/e,' I come to attack his main Fort. The Strength of it lies in this ; That it is not the waftiing with Water, but the Anfwer of a good Confcience to- wards God 5 that is, St. Peter's Saving Baptifm.' This Anfwer, Infants can never have in their In- fant-State, wherein we baptize them j therefore, they fhould not be baptized. And then, to give them a Baptifm that is not Saving, is vain. Dr. Whitby^ by a true and judicious Obfervation, lay acrofs his Way, and him he tries to remove. In Anfwer to it, the Doftor obferves on the Place ; " St. Faul alfo faith. That the true Circumcifion " before God, is not the outward Circumcifion of " the Flefli, but the inward Circumcifion of the " Heart and Spirit, Rom. ii. 29. But will any *' one hence argue, That the Jezaijh Infants, for " want of this, were not to be admitted into Cove- " nant with God by Circumcifion ? And yet the " Argument is plainly parallel. " And fo he goes on to demonftrate it. M 2 How i8q The Lawfulnefs of How does Mr. Gale go about to overthrow this ? I muft beg leave to tell him, 'tis by facing us down with two Untruths, in plain Defiance and Contra- diction to St. Vaul. And, firft, he is of Opinion, *' the Cafes are not at all parallel. For the Bap- " tifm which faves, is exprefly defcribed and li- *' mitted to be, i. Not the putting away the Filth *' of the Flefh i But, 2. The Anfwer of a good Con- *' fcience. Whereas St. VauVs "Words do not im- " port, that the only Circumcifion which faved '' was, I. Not the Circumcifion of the Flefti : But, *' 2. The Circumcifion of the Heart and Spirit. " Does he not, indeed ? Let us hear him (peak in his own Terms ^ Kojn, ii. 28, 29. Circumcifion is not that which is outward in the ¥lejh But Circum- cifion is that of the Heart, in the Spirit, Is not this parallel to St. Feter^s Words ? Let any Man com- pare both Places, and be Judge. Nay, are not St. FauPs Words the ftrongeft of the two > For St. Feter does not fay. That the wafhing with Wa- ter is no Baptifm at all, but only that it is not the Saving Baptifm. Whereas if we interpret St. FauPs Words in Mr. Gak^s rigid Way, he fays, the Cir- cumcifion of the Flefti, is not Circumcifion ^ no Circumcifion at all, much lefs faving. Strange it as, that in the Patrons of Error, Affurance fhould arrive to fuch a Height 1 But, this being fuch 3 grofs and palpable Untruth, he feems to miftruft it hy an However^ and flees to another Refuge. " For St. Fau/ does not fpeak of Circumcifion " while it continued in Force, but as quite abo- '* lifhed under the Gofpel." Then, indeed, the out- ward Circumcifion availed nothing, but the in- ward. But this is no truer than the other. For againft whom does St. Faul there difpute ? Does not the whole Chapter manifeftly fhew, it was a- gainfl: the unconverted Jews, who thought the out- Ward Circumcifion was ftill in Force ? Then he ar- gues Infant-Baptism, t^c* i8i gues againft them upon that Suppolition, and ftrives to convince them upon Principles that were always true in their own Religion. That this is true, ap« pears undeniably from ver. 25. Orcumcifion verily profieth, if thou keep the Law, Now, I defire to know of Mr. Gale^ how Circumcifion, or any thing elfe, can verily profit, when it is clean abolilhed and out of Force ? No more, furely, than a dead Man can adt, as he did while he was alive. The j£V3s were really always obliged to the Circumci- fion of the Heart, as much as we Chriftians are to the Anfwer of a good Confcience : They by Cir- cumcifion of the Flefh to the one, and we by the Baptifm of Water to the other. And let Mr. Gale deny it if he can, or dares. And fo the Cafes run flill parallel, and St. Teter^s Words are no ftronger againft Infant-Baptifm, than St. Paul's againft In- fant- Circumcifion. Dr. Whitby^s Anfwer is there- fore fblid and fafe, and Mr. Gale has not touched it in the leaft. That alone is fufficient ^ but I will offer fome farther Obfervations to clear the Matter in St. Peter. I. When he makes the Baptifm which faves, to fee the Antitype to the Waters of the Deluge, he does not afcribe all the Virtue of it to the Anfwer of a good Confcience, but fomewhat to the outward Ordinance. For the Nature of an Antitype, in God's Word, is to be a Figure fet over againft ano- ther, and to anfwer it in that Oppofition. And a material or vifible Thing it muft be, or it can- not be a Figure corr^fpondent to the Type, which is always fo. I hav-^, in my Thoughts, run over, as far as I well could, the Types and Antitypes of the Scripture, and cannot yet think of one In- fiance to the contrary. But the Anfwer of a good Confcience is a Thing immaterial, and invifible to all Eyes but thofe of God, and the Party's inward Senfes. Therefore, it cannot be that Antitypical M 3 Baptifm I §3 The Lawfulnefs of Baptifm to which St. Veter does fully and wholly afcribe a faviag Efficacy, but the viCble Baptifm claims its Ihare. Thefe external Signs which reprefent fpiritual and inviflble Things, are not Types, but Symbols 5 and if Mr. Gale knows no Difference between thefe, it is none of my Fault. Confequently he, and the Authors he follows, who, 'tis like, did not nicely examine thofe Matters, are out in their Accounts, when they fay, the Circumcifion of the Flefh typi- fied that of the Heart, Let, XII. p. 446, 447. For to every circumcifed Jew^ it fymbolically repre* fented the Circumcifion of the Heart, to which he always flood obliged fo long as he lived. Whereas Types pre-iigured Things at a diftance off, which were to be fi:liilled in Times to come. ^ 2. The Apoftle's Parenthefis, {Not the putting 'away the Filrh of the t/ejh^ but the Anfwer of a good Conference toward God) is but a Caution given to his Chriftian Readers, that they fhould not mif- underftand him, and depend upon the outward Baptifm only for Salvation. And it anfwers ex- adly to that of St. Faui to the Jews about Circum- cifion. In it St. Peter does not deny all faving Virtue to the Ordinance of Baptifm in the "Wafh- ing, but he denies the chief and principal ; in Com- parifbn whereof, the other finks down almoft to nothing. That this is a common Phrafeology in the Scripture, I believe, a hundred Places, or more," might be alledged. But if they {hould be inter- preted in Mr. Gale's light and rigid Senfe, as he does the Apoftle's Parenthefis here, to deny all in- tirely to the lefs Principal, and affirm it v/holly of the other, what mad Work fhould we make of the Word of God > For, by his Method, we could prove, that the Jews tranfgrefTed the Will of God, if under the old Difpenfation they ever offer'd any Sacrifices. For God faid, / i^ill havs Mercy, and not Infant-Baptism, i$c. 183 7iot Sacrifice, By his Method we might prove, that Chrift would make a wrong Claim, if he claimed any Propriety in his own Dodlrine ^ be- eaufe he declares, The DoSrine is not mine, hut his thatjent me^ John vii. \S. By the fame Method we could prove, that St. Yaul would have exceeded his Commillion, if at all he had adminiflred Chriftian Baptifm j fince he himfelf profelTes, Chrift fent me not to baptize, but to preach the Go/pel, 1 Cor.i. 17. And abundance more fuch Things we could prove after that Manner. Let our Author there- fore confider, into what Abfurdities he runs him- Xelf by his ^akerly Expofition. -33. But if the Anfwer of a good Confcience to- ward God muft be fully and wholly the faving Baptifm, yet I affirm, that baptized Infants may have this Anfwer to as good Purpofe before God, as any Adult Chriftian upon Earth. For when hy the Grace of God in Baptifm the Guilt and Stain of Original Sin are wafhed off, their Soul and Confcience are as innocent, pure and undefiled in their Maker's Sight) as thofe of the beft Livers in the World. What then if in Infants this Anfwer be not Vocal, fo long as it is True and Real 5 Will it not fo anfwer God's Demands from Infants > And will it not be heard in His Ears who thus hears the Voices and Cries of inanimate Things ? So he heard the Cry of Ahel\ Blood, 0^ Soiom\ Sin, of the Stone and. Beam of Timber in the Wall, Hab. ii. II. of the Martyrs Blo'fed under the Altar, Rev.vu 10. And, to name no more, fo he hears the filent Interceffions of his Son's Merits now in Heaven. 4. Or if Vocal this Anfwer muft needs be, in Infants it may very well ferve the turn by Proxy ; while the Sureties undertake for their good 'Educa- tion and Behaviour j to which Infants on their /ide can put no Bar. So are their Civil Affairs in the World tranfdiaed, and fo they may be tranfacled ^. 4 for 184 Tk Lawfulnefs of - for them in Religion, as the Cuftom of God's Church has been of Old. For fuch Tran factions hold good and valid In their behalf by the Laws of Men 5 and fo they held in Ifrael by the Laws of God and the ChurcL 5, Let us obferve in St. Veter how the Antitypi- cal Baptifm faves. He fays it is by the Refur- reftion of Jefus Chrift. To his Refurreftion great Virtue toward our Salvation, is attributed in God's Word. For without it, our Faith is vain, and lae are yet in our Sins^ i Cor. xv. 17. By it we are juftiiied unto Life, Rom. iv. 2j. And by hk Life, as rifen from the Dead, we are faved. Chap. v. 10. Jt is not necefTary fo diftinguifh in this Cafe be- tween the Merits of his Death, and the Benefits of his Refurreftion. For he that partakes in the laft, partakes moft certainly in the former. Now if by Baptifm Infants are Members of Chrift, and get an Intereft in him by a Spiritual Union and Fel- lowfhip 5 and if by Baptifmal Grace the Benefits of his Death and Refurre£lion are adlually applied to their Souls 5 who can deny this to be a faving Bap- tifm to thofe Infants ? Mind now in how many Particulars we have up- on this Head catched VLx-Gale tripping, i. He 3.fiirms, that St. fan! does not deny the Circumci- sion of the Flefh to be faving, as St. P^r^r does Water-Baptifm j when St. Vaul rather denies more. 2. He faysg St. Vaul fpeaks of Circumcifion, as aboliflied, and not in Force ^ when he fpeaks of it as a Thing which at that Time did verily profit. 5. That Circumcifion of the Flefli was Typical of the Circumcifion of the Heart in Chriftians, when it was evermore Symbolical of it to the J-ews and Hebrews. 4. That Baptifm is the Antitype to the Ark, when it is fo only to the Water. And 5;. That St. Veter denies all faving Virtue whatfoever to the external Ordinance of Baptifm, which is truly Infant-Baptism, t^c 185 truly Antitypical •, when he denies only the prin^ cipal Virtue, and really afcribes to That and the Inward, their refpedive Shares. Not to note, how he pleads and affirms that Infants can, in no found Senfe, (or elfe he does nothing) have the An- fwer of a good Confcience toward God , when, I hope, I have fhewed the contrary. Whether Mr. Gale be a fincere Manager, or no, I have Reafon to queftion. For he has given me Caufe enough to fufped, that his Integrity halts more than his Ability. But if fincere he is, I muft challenge him for a Mean Divine, whatever he is for a Philologer. For, in thofe Parts that I have examined him, I can find but little Soundnefs and Orthodoxy. Wherefore, lince he can put his No- tions no better together, nor fpeak more correftly to fuch Matters, I would advife him friendly, never to write again upon Points of Divinity, for fear of expofing himfelf 5 for they feem to be far remote from his Province. If at this Freedom he takes Offence, he may thank himfelf for his Contempt and Abufes to other People. Let this fuffice for all ', for I fhall ufe no more of fuch Reflexions 5 or, at leaft, be very fparing. 2. We muft now advance to St. Mait. xxviii- 19. Go ye, therafore, and teach all Nations^ baptizi?7g them in the Name of the father^ and oj the Son^ ani of the Holy Ghoft, In St. Peter we lay againft an impregnable Fortrels, and in St. Matthew we muff; inf age with a Mathematical Demonftration. But if the Lines of Proportion be not drawn with grea- ter Exadtnefs here, than thofe of Fortification were done there, we may very boldly make our Ap- proaches. Mr. Ga/e has rallied all his Forces together upon this Topic, exerts his utmofl Strength, and is pro- lix in the Management, becaufe, as he fays, it ihall ferve inflead of all the reil. Therefore mufiE I i86 The Lawfulnefs of I alfo give it the fuller Examination. " For the ** only Coramiffion it is for Baptifm, which to all " Men muft regulate the whole Affair ; and if here *' we do not find Infant-Baptifm, where elfe can '' it be found } " Certainly, any other Place of God's Book may do as well. But before I come to con- iider his Keafons, I fhall obferve fome Things which will lead us to know, how it was moft reafonable lor the Difciples to- underftand their Mailer. I. Whether this be the firft and only Commiflion Chrift gave his Difciples for Baptizing, may bear fome Difpute. For 'tis certain they baptized be- fore J which they did either with, or without his Order. Without his Order, none I fuppofe, will fay; but if with his Order, then that was their Commilfion. For all was then delivered, not in Writing, but by Word of Mouth. An Order therefore they had to baptize Profelytes from a- mong the Jews^ and now it is extended to the uni- verfal World. Nor was Baptifm fo necefTary be- fore to initiate into the Church, becaufe Circum- ciiion for that Ufe remained in its full Force. Neither did it fucceed in its Room as yet for the fame End, becaufe Chrift had not yet died, nor was his Church regularly conflituted on its proper Foundations. Our Saviour's primary Defign in the Commilfion, was the Profely ting or Difcipling of all Nations. For the Command runs exprefly for that, Go^ and teach all Nations. Then having converted them by teach- ing, he fecondly fhews, what they were to do with thofe Converts ; namely, to baptize them in the Name of the ever bleffed Trinity. So the Principal Thing intended, was, to make Profelytes, and the Command is rather a Commiffion for that, than for baptizing. For this comes in only as an Acceffary to the other. No particular Directions are here for the Manner of Performance of either : but the Profelyting part is left Infant-Bapti SM, Eiff. 187 left on the fame Foot it ufed to be before 5 and in the Room of Circumcifion the Baptifm is fubftitu- ted, and made to run in the Name of the Holy Trinity. So the whole Bufinefs ot' Profelytifm is left purely on the old Foundation, and the old Ordinance chang'd for a new. This is all the Alteration, and if more had been intended, more had been fpecified. Why elfe is there an Order for Change in one Part, and not in another? The only Reafon can be, becaufe no more was defign'd than is exprefs'd. Wherefore, Profelytifm continuing in the lame State it was in before , 2. We muft fee, what was the Law and Pradlice in that Affair from Abraham to Chrifl. It is certain the Law brought in all the Infants with their Pa- rents. And Reafon fuggefls, it would never bring in the Parents, or the Adult, like Brute Animals, without any previous Inflrudlion, or Knowledge of the true God and his Religion. Nor could they defire it without a Competency of that Knowledge : For, Jgnoti mtlla cupido. Much lels would they voluntarily embrace fuch a cumberfome Religion, as the Jew'ifh was under the Mojaical Oeconomy, with- out Conviftion of its Truth. And of the Church's Practice in that Cafe, Mr, Se/den^who was an able Judge, gives this Account : " The Jews admonilh'd the Perfon, before he " was initiated into their Religion, of feveral " Things •, viz. Of the Dignity of their Nation, " The Rewards of the Juft and the Punifh- " ments of the Unjufl:, The future World, The " Burthen and Weight of the Divine Precepts, *^ &c. And they required Conditions of them; '' For they muft promife to embrace the whole " Law intirely, not one Ordinance excepted -, " and profels, that they did it out of pure ^^ Love to the Religion. " De Jure Nat. ^ 8cc, I 2. €, 2, Here was catechizing the Adult before- hand ; i88 The Lawfulnefs of hand ^ but no fuch Preliminaries could be ob- ferv'd with Infants, unlefs by the Mediation of WitnefTes or Undertakers : for fuch he fays elfe- where, they had. The Parents Conversion was evermore their Privilege, and under their Wing they enjoy'd the Benefit of Profelytifm and Church- Communion. Then, ?. We ought to confider, who the Perfons were to whom our Saviour at firli gave this Commilfion. All Jews^ by Birth and Education, train'd up from their Cradles in thofa Laws and Ufages, and little acquainted with any others. Know they did the Laws of God and the Cuftoms of their Church about Profelytifm, which were grown inveterate, and very hardly could they be weaned from them. Put thefe Things together, That the Commiflion ranforProfelyufm •, thatthePradiceofthe Church was to iiiitru<^ the Adult before-hand, and bind them to Conditions, from which Infants were ex-- cmpted ; and that the Perfons employed to make the Profelytes, were of Jew'ijh Extraction, ac- cuftomed to thofe Ufages ; then, what can the Refult be, but that they underftood their Lord's Commiflion in the fame Senfe, fince he gave them no Information to remove their old Prejudices and Opinions ? Antecedent Laws and Cuftoms of long Continuance, are the beft Light to new Orders in the like Cafes, when all Things befide are agreeable. Bound, therefore, they thought themfelves to teach the Adult, and initiate Infants without Teaching. And of their Judgment, their Practice is good Evi- dence. For upon Converlion of the Heads, they baptized feveral intire Families after the old way ; in which only Baptifts can believe there was never an Infant nor little Child. To I N F A N T'B A P T I S M, t^C, 18^ To give this fome farther Strength j Tliey knew this Way of Profelytifm was a Law of the Evan- gelical Covenant made with Abraham, which was to laft for ever; No Ordinance theretore oi Mofes\ Law, that fhould be cancell'd. They knew God's Love was as great to converted Gentiles and their Infants, as to Jews ^ and that there was no Reafon given now to abridge thefe Infants of their ancient Privileges. They knew the Qih and Calling of God to be without Repentance in iuch Cafes, and that their Country-Men were mighty fond of their old Rights, Laws and Ufages, to which they ftifflv adhered, notwithftandmg all Endeavours to take lh^. :t i caT. Had they, therefore, upon their own Convci^on, feen their beloved Infants thrown out of their Rehgious Society ^ and fo denied to have God for their Father, the Church for their Mother, the Children of God for their Brethren, and Chrift for their Head and Saviour ^ what a Shock had it been to their Minds, and what a Hindrance to their Conversion ? They knew alfo, what AfFedlion Chrifl, on all Oc- cafions, exprefs'dto the young Children of thofe in Covenant, propofing them as Emblems of Inno- cence and Humility, and Exemplars of Conver- fion i calling them tohimfelf, and rebuking thole that forbad their coming ; embracing, bleiTmg them, and declaring, that oi fuch was the Kingdom of Heaven ; encouraging all to receive them in his Name, or as his Difciples, and imputing it as 3 receiving of himfelf ^ and fearfully threatning thofe that fhould offend fuch young Believers. Thefe Adions they had feen, thefe Words they had heard, and could not, furely, without farther Notice, conffrue them in that Senfe, as that all fuch Infants were to lofe their Covenant Relation with God, and the facred Franchifes they once enjoyed. A Holy Seed they knew them ftiU to be, and the new 190 The Lawfulnefs of new initiating Ordinance to be as well jfitted for their Purpofcj as the old One, and the Borders of the Church to be inJarged . All Nations it would re- ceive into it; and why fhould Infants, who by the Co- venant of Grace had a long uninterrupted Right and PofTeffion there, be caft out, or denied Entrance > To Perfons under all thefe Prepofleflions, did Chrifl: give that very fhort and concife Command for making Profelytes ; and upon what could their Thoughts more naturally run, than on the old Forms and Ufages of their Church, to which they had been brought up and inured for the Regulation of the Matter? If now a great Alteration muft be made, and the old Rules of Profely tifm muft be changed by rejedling Infants, was it not neceffary their Lord ftiould plainly tell them fo, and not put them to gather it by odd and ftrain'd Interpre- tations of his Words ? For, not the leaft Intimation of his Mind does he give them to remove their former FrepofTeffions *, but his Commiflion runs in the fame Strain as it would have done under Circumcifion •, or as we would now give it for profelyting the World by Chriftian Baptifm, in cafe we would be fo Ihort as our Saviour was. For, fuppofe Chrift had been pleafed to retain Circumcifion for the initiating Ordinance, and bid his Mini fters. Go, teach aUNations^ circumcifing them in the Name of the Father^ Son and Uoly-Ghoji-^ how would they, being of Jemfh Defcent and Edu- cation have underftood him, but according to the old Rules and Cuftoms > And how would they have executed their Commiflion, but by teaching the Adult beforehand, and circumcifing Infants without teaching, as was always done in their Church ? Now here is only an Exchange of one Word, that of Baptifm for Circumcifion ^ but this needs not at all infer any Change in the Subjedts of either Ordinance, nor in the Methods of ExecutioOr Or, Infant-Baptism, ^c, 191 Or, fuppofe any Church that taught and pradtifed V&dobaptifm, fhould coiumiiiion a Set of its own Minifters to profelyte feme unconverted Nation, in thefe Words j G^, and teach fuch a certain Nation, baptizing them in the Name^ Sec- "Would thofe Mi- nifters exclude the Infant Children of their Converts from Baptifm, becaufe they could not be taught ? Very ignorant muft they be, if they fo underftood their Commiihon, or very perverfe if they wilfully mif-apply'd it after that manner. For the Dodtrine of their Church fhould guide theft Judgment, and the Rules at Home determine their Pradtice. This is the Conftruftion we give to Chrifts Commiflion ^ and if the Premifes be thus, it is certainly moil: rational in itfelf, mofl: agreeable to the Laws and Cuftoms of the Church which were then in UCe^ and moft congruous to the Sentiments of the Minifters he employed and commiflion'd in that OflSce. And having noted thefe Things for the right Underftanding of the Matter in Hand, I fhall next apply my felf to examine Mr. Ga/e*s Arguments raifed from thence againft Infant Baptifm. I. He argues from human Laws, Commiflfions,'" Warrants, Patents, &c. which bind only in rela- tion to the Particulars fpecify'd in them, and muft neither be exceeded, nor under-acted in the Execution, but ftridtly follow'd and obeyed. And thereof he is particular and tedious enough in giving Inftances. Then the Subftance of his Plea from thence is •, " Juft fo muft it be pradifed in our " Saviour's Law and CommifTion concerning Bap- " tifm. That muft regulate our whole Condud 5 " fo that what we find there fpecified, we muft " obferve, and what is there wanting, we muft not " do ; for there is no Variation allowed from our *' Rule and Warrant. '' Herein, indeed, lies the main Strength 192 The Lawfulnefs of Strength of his Argument, but it is really as weak as we can defire. For, 1. If the Church muft be exadtly modell'd by the Laws and Maxims of Civil Polities, then, I hope, we fhall bring the Infants of Chriftian Parents within the Church, by the only Ordinance appointed for that End. For, let him name me the Kingdom, or Commonwealth from Nb And how often of new Orders and Inftrudions given by Governments, upon feveral Emergencies, to fupply the Defers of the fir ft CommilTions > By Virtue of the New, the CommiOioners ara impowered to ad beyond the Contents of the Old ones. Nay, and in thofe which are moft perfed, there may be feveral Things relating to Circum- ftances and Ceremonials, which are not exprefs'd, but are left to be underftood by common Senfe from the general Laws and current Cuftoms in thefe Cafes. For, the Law or Warrant is never defedive for leaving out needlefs Things, which, in their kind, are neceilary to be obferv'd, though not exprefs'd, fo long as in all Things dubious or un- known, it gives Diredions. But, ^ 4. Our Lord's Commiflion is exceeding fhort, giving Order only for the adminiftring Baptifm in the Name of the Holy Trinity, and for the Appli- cation of it to all Nations that fhould be converted. No doubt but he could exprefs his Mind more fully and accurately than any Man on Earth, and he certainly did it as he intended. But was he bound to infert in a fhort CommifTion, all Things that we have need to know or do ? Much lefs Things needlefs and fuperfluous, which his N Wifdogs 194 27;^ Lawfulnefs of Wifclom would not permit. If he fald enough for his prefent Purpofe, and for the Inftrudion of his Hearers, his Commiirion cannot be counted Defe- ctive or Imperfedt, feeing he exprefs'd all he had then in View. And what was this but to inform his Difciples, That Profelytifm to Gofpel Grace, which before was confin'd unto the Jews, muft thenceforth be extended to all Nations > Therefore they muft be preached unto to mdke them Converts, and then baptized. This was News to them, and needful to be given in Commilfion. But how they were to regulate their Dodrine, and order their Baptifm towards Profelytes, in relation to their refpedtive Ages, Capacities and Qualifi- cations, that they might learn from common Senfe, and indeed knew it already by the Laws and Pradlice of their own Church in making Profelytes, So Chrift did not intend to comprehend the whole Theory of Baptinn, nor all the Rules of its Praftice in one (hort Expref- fion, or two , but what he intended, that he exprefs'd. What a flrange Fancy is it to imagine, that all the Rules about a prime Chriftian Ordinance Ihould be crowded into one fhort Verfe, and that this alone ihould be the only Rule, and only Cora- million to all the World, as Mr. Gtz/^ does? Has Chrift left nothing for Wife Men to underftand be- lides ? No Room for farther Enlargem.ents and Ex- plications } Then are St. FauFs and St. Peter's far- ther Inftruclions about Baptifn^ utterly vain, need- lefs and fuperfluous. As our Saviour (poke not all his Mind at once, John xvi. j 2. fo were not all Parts of Scripture wrote at the fame Time, nor its Doftrines delivered intirely in a Syftem,bnt as Occa- iions and Emergencies did require; And one Part of it makes up the apparent Deficiencies of other Parts. So that all together, it proves a complete Code of Laws Infant-Baptism, ^§c, 195 Laws and Body of Divinity. Not, therefore, by Scraps and Parcels mufl: we ftudy them, but all in- tire, and compare Spiritual Things with Spiritual if we will know the perfett Will of God. For the whole New Teftament, with due Analogies from the Old, is our Warrant and Commillion for Bap- tifm, as it is likewife for all the Dodrines, and Practices we avow. If by any of thofe Mediums wejuftify Infant-Baptifm, we gain our Point, and carry our Caufe. For as former Laws and Cuftoms in the like Cafes, together with frefh Supplements and Inllrudions, are necefTary Helps to regulate and underftand CommilHons among Men •, lo are all the Scripture Evidences concerning the Patri- archal Covenant, together with the Evangelical and Apoftolical Inftruftions, to underftand our Lord's Commillion about Baptifm. Why then do our Adverfaries cry out, We give up our Caufe for ever, if we prove not Infant-Bap- tifm from that Commiifion ? and where will we find it, if we find it not there? For is it not enough for us to find it in any Part of the Scripture that is ftill obli- gatory as our Rule ? Or is it not fufficient if we can Ihew, that the Commiffion does not necelTarily ex- clude it ? For my own part, I have not endeavou- red to prove it from the Commiffion, and yet if the Rules I have given before to underftand the Cora- miflion aright, be good, it is there included. But, %. Is Mr. Gale really refolved to ftand by his own Principle, That the Commiffion is our only Rule, Warrant, or Authority ? Or does he jefl and ban- ter with us ? If the firft, let us try how the Com* milfion will anfwer his own Ends and Purpofes. "Where will he there find Baptifm with Water, /ince the Word Baptize does not neceffarily imply it? For Chrift baptized with another Baptifm of Fire and the Holy Ghoft 5 and fo did the Apoftles, in efFedj when at their laying on of Hands, the Holy N 2 Ghoff 196 The Lawfulnefs of Ghofl was commonly given. And if he cannot find that, how will he find out thofe celebrated Refemblances of Chrift's and our Death, Burial and Refurredtion, fo much infifted upon for a cer- tain End by Baptifis? Or where will they find there the pre-requilite Conditions of Faith and Re- pentance, fince the "Word /y.a9«']fco«, if it iignifies properly Ho teach, does not import them ? For to teach fo, as to perfuade and make Converts, gives it a complex Idea, and is an Improvement on the native Simplicity of its Meaning. And our Lord and his Apoftles taught many whom they could not make Difciples. Where alfo will they there find all the Dodrinals relating to the Benefits and Effeds of Baptifin ? As Regeneration, Illumination, t^c Or were not thefe needful to be known and underftood by Chriflians > Indeed, when People have imbibed thefe Notions from other Parts of Scripture, they may fancy that they fee fome of them at leaft in the CommilTion, and try by Rea- foning to deduce them from it. But if they had not found them beforehand elfewhere, I am perfuaded, they had never found them here, nor have been able to prove them to the World. Or if this will not fatisfy, let us go to the Infti- tution of our Lord's Supper j His Command to ce- lebrate it, is his Commilfion ; and to this we are obliged to keep as clofely as to that for Baptlfm. They were only the College of Apoftles to whom he gave it, and bad them do the Adions that he did. If that then be our only Commilfion for that Sacrament, where in it fhall we find a Warrant for communicating the Laity, Male or Female > No, we will demonftrate the contrary by the Rules in Ufa with the Miithefnaticians. The Commiifion of Chrift muft be punctually followed -, neither more nor lefs muft be done than he commanded. If there then we have not a Warrant to give his Sup- per In F A N T-B A p T T s M, 65"^. 197 per unto Laymen, we have it no where. But they were the Holy Apoftles alone whom he command- ed, Do this in Remembrance of me. At the fame Time he commanded them alfo to take Bread, blefs, break, and give it to one another, as he had done. Shall the Laity do all this > Yet all they muft do, or none, for fo runs the only Warrant and Commiihon. It was a Privilege therefore pe- culiar to the Apoftles and Sacred Order, who alone were dignified therewith by their Lord, and diftin- guilhed from other Chriftians. The Laity are not qualified, becaufe they cannot perform the Condi- tions by doing that which Chrift had done. And this does as fufficiently and unavoidably excluds the Laity, as if it had been faid exprefly, The Laity are not to be communicated : ^oi erat de- monflrandum. I take this to be full as good a De- nionftration as Mr. Gale\ is againft Infant-Baptifm. For it goes upon the fame Grounds, and concludes much in the fame Terms. His Foundation is therefore fapped, and then the whole Superftrudture falls of Courfe. 2. From the Scriptures not warranting Infant- Baptifm, he concludes on the Negative fide againft it, according to Tertull'uins Maxim, l^^egat Scrip- tura quod nan notat. But if by found Confequence we can deduce it from the Scripture, the Thing is there, though not the Words. For the True Senfe and Meaning of the Scripture, is Scripture. Such Confequences are allowed by our own, and other Churches, and in fome Cafes by the Baptifts them- felves^ and it is by Confequences alone that they argue againft baptizing Infants, and exclude them from their ancient Claim to Church Communi- on. Our Method is warranted by the Holy Ghoft in citing Scripture. For how many Places of the Old Teftament hath St. faul quoted, which could prove his Point only by Confequence ? And io our N 3 Saviour 198 Th Lawfulnefs of Saviour proved the Refurredion of the Dead againft the Sadducees. Nothing like the Word was in his Text, and the Senfe lay fo concealed there, that probably to this Day it had beenundifcovered, had he not brought it to Light by his Omnifcience. The Sadducees, it feems, were not fo fagacious as fome Men in our Days, to cavil and make Excep- tions; elfe they had attempted fomething againft his Proof, and not fuffered themfelves to be fhamed and fil need. But tho' they faid nothing, and could fay nothing to the Purpofe, yet had they ftill, like other Men, fome fecret Referves, which detained them in their Heterodoxy, though the Defeat they received, had forfeited their Reputation with the People. Chnji and St. Taul were infallible in their Doftrines ^ but their Adverfaries took them not for fuch, elfe their Word, without Proof, had been fufficient. 'Twas not their Infpiration that was regarded, but their Arguments ^ and to thefe alfo we refer ourfelves without pretending to their Au- thority. 3. Coming clofe to the Point, Mr. Gale exerts Iiis whole Energy, to prove, that Infants muft not be baptized according to the Tenor of the Commif- iion, which is the fole Rule and Authoritj^, " even " to the Holy Apoftles themfelves in this Matter. " Eut it has been fully difproved already. And though he fays. Judges are impovvered and obliged to try and give Sentence in fuch ^and fuch Cafes according to Law ^ yet not only the Statute Law, and the Words of their Commiifion, is their Rule, fcut Common Law, the Cuftoms of their refpedtive Courts, and the Precedents of Ruled Cafes by for- mer Judges, are allowed to be part of their Rule and Law. ' Out of the Commi0ion he forms Two Propofiti- ons-, " I. That the Words of it do neceffarily ob- " lige to teach all whom they intend fhould he . "bap- InFANT-BAPTisM, i^C, ign " baptized. And, 2. That this teaching muft al- " ways as necefTarily precede their being baptized. " Both which Articles do very plainly exclude *' Infants, becaufe they are not capable of being " taught at all, Lett, VII. p. 248, 249. But if I am not greatly deceived, here is a Di-# ftinfl:ion without a Difterence, thefe Two Propofi- tions being co-incident -, and he fays nothing new upon the latter, which he had not faid upon the for- mer. Only Abundance of Words muft be ramafTed together to fpeak the fame Thing over and over, that the Reader may be amufed with Varietjr of Expreffions, and artfully bewildred in a Laby- rinth of Tautology. For the whole Account of the Demonftration ilTues in this j " That all People " mufl: be taught before they are baptized, becaufe " Chrift's Minifters are commanded beforehand to "" teach all that they do baptize. The Phrafe is " comprehenfive, equally and univerfally applied " to all the Subjedls of Baptifin without Diftinition, " or Exception. They muft teach all Nations, and " baptize all Nations. If they do not teach theiti " firff, they muft not baptize them -, both or nei- " ther, all or none. For they are equally com- " manded to do the one as the other, and that to " the fame Perfons indifcriminately. From " whence it inevitably follows, that Infants muft " not be baptized, becaufe they cannot be taught." This, as I conceive, is the Sum and Subftance of all his Argumentation. Sufpecting there might be Tome profound Senfe latent in his Words, which my IhallowUnderftanding could notprefent- ly fathom, I read them over feveral Times : For he lays his whole Strefs upon this Argument, and is profeffedly large, becaufe it muft ferve inftead of all the reft. At laft, I concluded there is no fe- cret Myftery in the Words, and no other Senfe than what they prefent to the Reader's Mind at the N 4 firO 200 The Lawfulnefs of firft View. Let him that defires farther Satis- fadion, look into the Beginning of that Letter, and there, if he reHlbes Verbofity, and loves to fee Identical Sentences diverfified, he may have enough to gratify his Palate ^ but no more to fatisfy his %Judgment, than I have faid. But now to take off its Force : 1. The whole Argument is grounded on a falfe Bottom, and palpable Abfurdity. For it fuppofes, that the Commilfion exprefsly contains the whole Will of our Lord about Baptifm ; when his only- Meaning in it, was to inform his Minifters, that Profelytifm to his Religion is not to be limitted to the Jews^ but extended to all Nations 5 unto whom the Gofpel muft be firil preached, and then Bap- tifm adminiftred in the Name of the Eternal Tri- nity. But Ml. Gale ftakes us down immoveably to the ftricl Words and Limits of the Commiffion, being not content to tell us, that all muil: be done that is therein contained, which we freely grant ^ but alfo, that nothing more muft be done, which }ve ftiffly deny. _ Forwhy Ihould this be the Law in the prefent Injunclion, any more than in others of the like Nature ? The Inftitution of our Lord's Supper ought to be as compleat and finiflied, as this Order concerning Baptifm 5 and the Wealcnefs of arguing after this Manner upon that Topic, I have fhewed before. Nor will it be amifs to profe- cute it a little farther. For if in the Commiffion'for Baptifm St. Matthew muft be taken apart from all the other Scriptures, and be clofely followed exclufively of them ^ we rnay as well follow any one of the Evangelifts, in his Accounts of the Lord's Supper, exclufivel y to the reft. As Sn.Luke reprefents the Lijunction, there i§ no mention made of Eating the Bread, and Drinking the Cup •, Therefore, according to the Mo- dern way of Reafoning, thofe A6tions ought to be omitted, I N F A N T-B A P T I S M, i^C. 201 omitted, becaufe not commanded at the Inftitution. St. Matthew and St. Mark fpeak not a Word of re- ceiving that Sacrament in Remembrance of Chrift, Theretore in that Ordinance ive muft not comme- morate our Saviour's PalTionj becaufe it is not or- dered in the CommiiTion. And even in this prefent Commiflion for Bap- tifm, Water, Faith and Repentance are not exprefc ed, and, as I think, are not neceffariiy underftood by Implication. We muft then lay them afide as uncommanded, unlefs we be allowed to feek for them eifewhere. But if this be the Rule, why fhould not the other Evangelifts be followed, as well as St. Matthew > St. Luke omits the Com- miflion. St. Markj from Chrift's Mouth, makes Faith and Baptifin the Conditions of Salvation, but does not inftrudt us in whofe Name the Baptifin Ihould be adminiftred. From St. John we learn, that Chrift's Difciples did bax:)tize; but he omits the Commiflion, with the Ages, Sexes and Qualifi- cations of the Perfons that were, or fliould be bap- tized. And yet he fays, that he had given us Light enough to form a faving Faith by his facred Hiftory and Inftructions, John xx. 5 1. By thefe Things we underftand, that Chrift's CommiiTions and Commands did not always run in fuch a Stridt and Precife Form of Words, as thofe of Men ul'e to do : Or, at leaft, that the Evan- gelifts wrote not by fettled Precedents, but took the Freedom to exprefs their Saviour's Will in diffe- rent Forms and Words, as-they judged convenient. From all together, and 'from other infpired Wri- ters, muft we form our Notions, and learn the PJeafure ot our God. But if we rigidly infift on the Words of a fingle Writer, or fingle PafTage, in Exclufion to the reft, we mangle the Word of God, and fhall very defervedly for our Pains embrace aad patronize Error inftead of Truth. 2. Mr. 202 57;^ Lawfulnefs of 2. Mr. Gale tells us , " Our Lord does not fay, " Ye fhall baptize the whole Nation, or every " Perfon of every Nation, or all of all Nations, " which would have made the Cafe very different *' from what it is •, but only indefinitely, all ** Nations. Scarce a Youngfter, who has begun *' his Logick, but he is acquainted with the Di- ** ftindion between genera fmgulorum^ and fingula *' generum. So the only Meaning \^^ that the " Gofpel {hould be preachM to all other Nations, *' as before it was to the Jews-^ and that they *' fhould be baptiz'd, if willing and capable. " Why, then, all Nations are taught when the Adult are taught j for that is the genera fingulorum : And fo there is no need of teaching Infants to fulfil cur Saviour's Precept, becaufe they are comprehended in the Genr/s. And fo are all Cities, Towns and Families taught, when the Heads and Adult therein are taught. For Infants and all thofe that cannot adt for themfelves, are included in the Principals, and determined by their Actions. So the Chiefs adling for them, and reprcfenting them, they may, under their Covert, receive the Benefit of being baptiz'd. But then they muft not be bapt'z'd, unlefs they are perfonally taught ; for none befide thofe that are firft taught in Perfon, fliall be baptiz'd. This I deny, becaufe they are accounted as taught and converted in their Heads, as the Species in the Geniis. But they are not fo accounted as baptiz'd, becaufe this muft needs be a Perfonal Act ^ elfe there is no need of baptizing them at all when they come of Age. If this Dodrine feems ffrangs at firft hearing, the Strangenefs may ceafe, when it appears to be the Law and Practice of God and Among Infant-Baptism, i^c. 205 Among Men, if Foreigners be naturallz'd, they are bound to the Duties and Services required of natural Subjedls by the Municipal Laws, as they enjoy their Privileges. The Conditions impos'd at their Admittance they muft actually fubmit unto, and in Perfon too, if that be demanded, before they can receive the Benefit. But not fo their Infants and Minors, becaufe the Law conftrues it as done by their Parents in their Name and Behalf 5 and yet are they Joint-partakers of the Privileges. Suppofe it (hould be one Condition, that thofe who are to be naturalized, mufl:, before their Ad- miffion into the Body Politick, be competently inftrudled in the Laws and Cuftoms of the Nation ^ never would any wife and equitable Judges inter- pret this to the Exclufion of Infants, becaufe they cannot be fo taught ^ except the Cafe had been particularly fpecified to that Purpofe by the Legiflature. For it is a hard Cafe, and contrary to the known and approved Ufages in that Affair. But it would be determined to anfwer the End of the Law, if the Parents were inftrufted, and Engage- ment made for the Infants to be in due Time. Yet, if there was, without Exception, a Sum of Money for every Body to pay down before-hand for his Natu- ralization, the Parents might do it in the Infants Name, and the Law would impute it as their Adt. Or if fbme Ceremony was neceffary to beufed for that End, tliis alfo might be tranfadled by others upon their Perfons, and in their Behalf : And it would receive the fame Conftrudtion. It isneedlefs to exemplify this farther in Matters belonging to Corporations and Charter Afts : For the fame Laws and Cuftoms would hold there. After the fame Manner may Infants be admitted into the Church and its Privileges by Baptifm,which is a necef- fary Rite for that Purpofe ^ for we know no other Door of Entrance,or vifible Rite of Admiffion thither. Againfl 204 "^^^^ Lawfulnefs of Agalnft thefe Methods obferv'd by Men, there is no Room to except, becaufe God hath approv'd and juftified them by his own A£ts. For fo were Infants incorporated into the Church from Abra- ham's Time hj his appointed Ordinance •, which the Apoftles knew very well ^ and therefore in that Senfe it was natural for them to underftand fhe Commifiiou of their Lord. 5. Either Infants are included in the Commiflion for Baptifm, or they are not. Our Adverfaries ftrenuoujQy contend for the Negative, and affirm, that it includes and concerns the Adult only, who can be taught. If fo, this CommilTion makes nothing at all for or againft their Baptifm ofln- fantSj becaufe they are noways concern'd in it- Our Saviour had them not then in his Mind or Thoughts, but fpoke only of Adult Perfons. For, how ihall we know his Thoughts, but by his Words ? And yet his Words do not mention Infants. So their Right to Baptifm may ftill be fafe enough on other Foun- dations. And moft unreafonable are the Bciptifts in applying this Commiifion to them, or interpret- ing it to their Exclufion, when they acknowledge it means them not, but another fort of Perfons that are very different •, and within thefe Bounds it mufl be punctually circumfcrib'd. What is it then but a Particular Propofition, not an Univerfal ? What but a definite and limitted Rule, relating to certain Perfons fo and fo qualified, not an indefinite, relating to all, without Exception > " I'm lure to argue thus " from a Particular, to a General, is an Er- " ror in Logick, fays Mr. Stennett^ Cb. x. p. " 207." Is this Confequence therefore goo J ? All Adult Perfons muft be firft taught, or they fhall not be baptiz'd ^ but Infants cannot be taught, therefore they fhall not be baptizd. No, the Mathematical Demonftration, is a poor Sophifm, which I N F A N T-B A P T I S W, l^C. 2<>5 which there is fcarce a Youngfter in Logic, but can e^iWy detect it. Such a Proportion as this, we demand for our Convidion : No Perfon at all ihall be baptized, unlefs he be taught beforehand, and profefles his Faith and Repentance ; Or thus, "Whofoever will be baptized, he muft be iirft taught to believe, and repent. Of this kind is not the CommifTion, but is wholly reftraincd to the Adult, as our Antagonifts fay. Nor is there any Propo- fition equivalent to it in the whole Gofpel. And therefore, inftead of Logic and Deinonftration, they Ihall not palm upon us manifeft Shams and Fallacies. That Adult Perfons muft have previous Inftruc- tions, and make Profeifion of Faith and Repentance before Baptifm, no confiderate Man, will ever deny. It has been always the Doctrine and Pra- ctice of PieJohaptifts. Againft whom, then, do the Antipcedobaptiih difpute, when they frame Arguments, and alledge Inftances from Scripture and Antiquity, to prove the Point ? They only fight with their own Shadows, but do not at all oppofe their Adverfaries. Could they pro- duce a thoufand Proofs to that purpofe, they fpeak not a "Word in prejudice to our Caufe, but only prove, what we own and affirm, teach and pradife, as well as they. Yet, the Scripture Inftances and Allegations, in which thefe Con- ditions for Baptifm are requir'd, do all confeftedly belong and relate to Adult Perfons. And if io, what Weaknefs or Pcrverfenefs is it to make any Mention of them in this Controverfy ? And of the fame kind are thofe which are fetch'd from Church Antiquity. We may fee a Specimen of it in Mr. Galeh Citation of St. Jerom. " They iirft teach " all the Nations: Then when they are taught, *^' they baptize them with Water ; for it cannot be '' that the Body (hould receive the Sacrament of " Baptifm, 2o6 The Lawfulnefs of *^ Baptifm, unlefs the Soul have before received *' the true Faith. " So fays that Father. But does he not mean it of Adult Perfons ? Or dares Mr. Ga/e challenge him therefore for an Antip£dobapti]i> No queftion but he would, had St. Jero??i liv'd about TertuJliiiTi's Time. Juft fo fome of the Baptifts reprefent our Church, as demanding in her Catechifm adtual Faith and Repentance in ail Perfons, before Baptifm, and make her felonioufly to deftroy her felf, by practifing contrary to her Dodrine in Fcedob^ptifm. 4. Particular Propofitions limitted to certain Perfons, can then only be applied and accommodated to other Perfons, when their Cafe is parallel, or when there is a Parity of Reafon to juftifj'- the Application. But is it fo between the Adult and Infants, that they fhould be equally ty'd to the fame Conditions before they Ihall enjoy their ancient Privilege of Incorporation with God's Church } Who cannot prefently fee the great Difparity of their State? For, I. The Adult are capable of adlual Faith and Repentance, but not to Infants in their pre- fent Condition. 2. If the Adult believe not the Gofpel, when it is propos'd to them in its cleareft Evidences for Convidion, they are ftubborn and contuma- cious in their Infidelity, and therefore hopelefs. A pofitive Act or Habit of Difbelief they have, which is contrary to Faith, and utterly incapa- citates them for Gofpel Grace. Whereas, Infants are purely paffive in the Cafe, and not adtive, like the others, in Unbelief As they do not adtually believe, fb neither do they dilbelieve. Hai'ing therefore no Habit, nor A61 of obftinate Difbelief in their Hearts, there is all juft Prefum^tion on their fide, that they will be educated in Faith and Piety, as the Children of Believers and Pro- felytes I N F A N T-B A P T I S M, ^C, 20J felytes us'dtobe. So their Cafe is widely different from that of Adult Perfons, and tliey ought not, inReafon, be oblig'd to the fame Meafures. Should we Ihew the like Rigors towards them in other Matters, they muft be ftarv'd out of the World, becaufe they cannot work ^ For, he that will not work^ 7ie\t})€r Jl}oiild he eat : And be held irremediably damn'd, becaufe, we read, U^ that believcth not, is damned : And, Except ye repent^ yejhall all likewijc pcrijh. But, as common Equity teaches our Adverfaries to exempt Infants from thefe hard Laws, and reftrain them to the Adult j fo {hould the fame Equity teach them alfo to exempt them from the Conditions required in the Adult for Baptifm. For, in Reafon, they ought no more be retufed their ancient Privilege of Church Com- munion for want of Faith and Repentance, than be counted damned for the fame Want, or be ftarv'd becaufe they do not work ^ iinceit is no lefs neceflary to be a Chriftian, than it is to eat and drink. Equity therefore, and not Rigor, (hould interpret Scripture in Favour to their Claims. After this, Mr. Gale, in a pompous Train of Quotations from all forts of Authors, prepares to demonftra'te, that ^.flnj^uw, iignifies to teach, or to make Difciples by Teaching and Inflruftion ; which is not competible with the State of Infants, who ought not therefore, to be baptized. His Deiign is levelled againft Doctor Hammond, Mr. Wall, and others of our Church, who hold that (iAhliva, may lignify to make Difciples by the Right of Baptifm, without any previous Teaching or Inftrudtion. I think it needlefs to wade into this verbal Contro- verfy, but fhall fatisfy myfelf, and I hope all impartial Judges, with an obvious Remark upon the Matter. There 2o8 The Lawfulnefs of - There have been in the Church of God, at lead from Abraham's Time, two Sorts of Difciples ^ thofe that are initial and incomplete, and thofe that are full and perfe6t. The firft have been al- ways made by an External Rite or Ordinance ; the others not only by that, but by Inflrudions alfo joyned therewith, to which, their inward Qua- lifications were fupposM to anfwer. The firft are no lefs truly and properly to be call'd Difciples, than the others, though not in fuch a complete Senfe : As an Infant is as truly and properly a Rational Creature, though he cannot reafon, as a Man of Years who has the Faculty of Reafoning in Per- fedion. And fo, in the initial Senfe, Infants may alfo be counted Difciples, or iw^-flnl*/, and t^Bidivat adively taken to make them fo, as f^.9«]euof««c/> paflively, to be Difciples. That this Account is true, will appear from the common Senfe andCuftoms of the World in that Af* fair. Scholar and Dijdple are but two Words for the fame Thing. Suppofe a Child be entred into a School by his Parents, and admitted by the Mafter withaDefignoFbeing taught ^ he is, from that very Minute, his Scholar, though he has not as yet learned a Letter of his Book in that School, or from that Mafter. For the bare A6ts of Entrance on the one fide, and of Admittance on the other, give the Name of Scholar efFedually to the Child. The Compadt and Agreement is paft, and that founds the Right and Relation between the Parties concern'd. And the Intention of learning, and being taught, ferves for the Act, till the proper Time for Performance is come. And fo it is with a Scholar in the Univerfity : The Name is entred into the Books, the Tutor is chofen, and all the Formalities are tranfafted ^ he is thenceforth a Scholar of that College where he is entred, and a Member of the Univerfity, though he prefently goes I N F A N T-B A P T I S W, ^C, 209 goes into the Country, and does not come for a while to Rudy there, and, perhaps, never, being hindred by fome Cafualties intervening. I take this to be Matter of Fadt, and therefore undeniable. So it certainly was with circumcis'd Infants in the Church of God before Chrift's Time, and fo it may he fince. Bare Admiflion into his Church by Bap- tifin is fufficient to make and denominate Infants his Difciples. For that alone will ground the;r Rek'ion to him as their Mailer, and brings them . under Engagement to perform Covenants. And if this be the common Senfe and Ufage of Man- kind in fuch Cafes, it iignifies Lttle to ramafs a Heap of Authorities to prove another Notion ot Difciple-fhip, iince the one may be true, and not contradidt ttie other. Many of Mr. G^/^'s Authors may be challenged from him, and the Conftruction he gives them, bs fairly difputed. Nay, and feveral of them muft be, by Reafon they were profefs'd Padobaptifts, both Ancient and Modern. For if they allow of no other Senfe of (MBii%vco, than to make Difciples by teaching, how came they to allow and pracliie Infant Baptifm, which makes Difciples without teaching > Iffo, they mufl contradid themfelves, and their Authority is of no Force. Befide, it mufl: be obferv'd, that Hiftorians, Biographers, and fuch Writers, giving Account of Paffages fully tranfaded, muft take Difciples, in the moft full and perfed Senfe of the "Word, for Perfons that have gone through with their Studies in their refpedive Schools^ and not for bare Begin- ners, that have juft given in their Names to their feveral Mafters. That, therefore, prefents us with the full Idea, or completeft Notion of the Word, whereas had they accounted only for their Entrance and Admilfion into the Schools, I am perfuaded, they had never refufed to give them the Name of O Difciples lid The Lawfulnefs of Dirdples upon that Ad alone. But as they had a quite dift'erent Thing in View, fo they muftgive a different Account. And farther yet^ th's was moll natural and ne- celfary for them to do, unlefs they had a Mind to trifle and play the Fools. For, if Authors intend to give Accounts and Defcriptions, whence fhould they borrow their Characters of Things or Perfons, but from tlie moft perfedt in the kind ? As for Inflance, If a Man were to defcribe a Perfon of the Human Species, would he take his Characters from an Embryo or Infant, becaufe he is of that Spe- cies ? And not rather from a Man, who is perfed in his Kind ? How filly and ridiculous would that fce ? So truly muft Wife Men account for the Name of a Difciple, taking him in the complete Senfe 5 and yet no more deny a baptized Infant to be a Difciple, than th.ey deny an Infant to be of the Human Species, when they defcribe a Man. If thus the Matter ftands, Mr. Gales Travails do frove abortive, and will never conclude his Point, 'or the Thing incumbent on him to Ihew, was not, that Difciple-fhip, in its perfect Notion, includes Learning, or being taught ^ but that there can be 110 fuch a Notion as an initial or incomplete Dif- . ciple ; and that his Authors did really mean to exclude and deny it in their Accounts. Then might he have fpar'd his laborious Pains to prove the other Notion, in which he could meet with no Opponents. We have now feen in what Senfe it was natural for our Lord's Minifters, being of a Jewijh Extradt and Education, to underftand his Commilfion. We have feen, that his Command for Profelftifm and Baptifm in St. Matthew, is not our whole CommiiTion or Warrant for thofe Matters, but the whole Word of Cod that concerns tbe j&vangelical Covenant. We havff InfANT-BapTIS W, 6iff. 21 i have feen, that the Conditions of Baptifm muft be confined only to the Adult, and do not concern Infants. And we have feen that Difciple-fhip ma/ include them in its Notion, as well as the others. But what has Mr. Gale proved ? That Adult Pcr- fons muft be taught before they be baptized, and nothing elfe. Here we agree, and fo tar he Ihall have his Argument, and carry his Caufe. 3. Some alledge Mark xvi. 16. againfl: Infant- Baptifin : He that believer h^ and ii baptized^ JhalL be Javed. "There Faith goes before Baptifm, as " the Condition r<;quifite to receive it. Infants, " therefore, wanting Faith, muft not be baptized^ " becaufe they cannot perform the Condition, But the Scripture is not always fo curious in its Style, as to place thofe Things firft, which muft go firft in the Order of Time 5 elfe this Abfurdity would follow, that People muft repent before they believe, becaufe the Words are fo placed, Mar.u ij. /l If no Reafon can be alfigned for it, we thus juftify the Affumption : Mqfes fpeakmg of the Kohathites^ Num. iii. 28. fa)''s; In the Number of all the Males^ from a Month Old ani i^pwards^ were Eight thoujand and fix hundred keeping the Charge of the San^uary. That Children of a Month Old were Infants, cannot be denied ; nor that the Sanftuary was God's Houfe. There it is exprefly fnid, that they kept a Charge: which was a Minifterial Office impoied on the Kahathites by the Divine Law. If Infants therefore kept that Charge, they were Miniflers in God's Houife, and their Charge and Miniftration lafted about Fifteen or Sixteen Centuries. So the Matter of Faft is proved from the Scripture. Againft this it will be pleaded, " That the In- " fants did not perfonally keep the Charge, becaufe " none were to ofhciate in the Sanftnary before *^ they were 30 Years Old. Others, therefore, did " the whole Dut}'", and their Miniftrations were *' accepted in the Infants Name and Stead." This is true ; but we difpnte not about the Manner, fo long as the Thing itfelf mufi: be allowed. For the Charge was impofed on the whole Family of Males, from a Month old and upwards, and that Charge they kept ; the Service of thofe that were qualified to a6f, being imputed to all, and accepted tor the reft. Even fo, if it had pleafed God to lay the Duties of Faith and Repentance on all Perfons t) at {hould be baptized, the aftual Performance need O 5 not 214 '^^'^ Lawfulnefs of not lie on Infants by reafon of their Incapacity •, but a Vicarious Difcharge of it by Parents and Friends, would feri'e the Turn. Thcfe may ingage for their Chriilian Education in Faith and Piety; 'till they come of Age. And this will juftify our Church in baptizing Infants, upon the Engage- ments of Sponfors and Sureties in their behalf. » But it may be farther pleaded, " That the Levi^ " tical Services about the Sanduary, coniifted in " corporal Acts, which might be conveniently *' done by Deputies and Subftitutes. But Learning " the Will oi God, Faith and Repentance, are Moral ^' and Intellectual Acts, which every one muft dif- " charge in Pcrfon, or they will not be accepted. '' To this i anfwer, That the Sanduary was the moft Holy Place in the Tabernacle, where God dwelFd between the Cherubims, and from whence he gave his Oracles and Re'"ponfes. Therefore, were Awe, Reverence, Fear and inward Adoration due to God from All that officiated in his Prefence. Alio a jufl Proportion of Refpecl and Reverence was payable to the Sandtuary itfelf, v/ith its facred Furniture. The Ccngr.gation that ftood at a greater Diftance off, muft yet reverence God's Sandtuar]'-, Lev. xii. go. Much more thofe Minitters that approached to officiate in his Sight, and to bear their Charge. For, ib great was the Awe and Regard the iC^/;^r/?//fi' mnli bear to the facred Utenfils which they carried covered on their Shoulders, that they muft not touch them^ left they die ^ Nt^m. w.j$. Now thefe inward Adorations and A6ts of Reverence, were no Ixfs Mcral and Intellectual Duties, or Adts of the Mind and Underftanding, than Learning, ^ Faith and Repentance are. And, confequently, if thole Adls belonged to the Charge of Infants, and God accepted of a Vicarious Performance in their Stead, ^he fame he may do in the Conditions of Baptifm. Infant-Baptism, i^c, 215 We know, Chrift accepted of the Faith of Parents for their fick Children, and of Friends for difeafed Perfons, that vyere necelfarily abfent, to vouch- lafe them the Favour of Bodily" Cures. And we truft, that God is not more Merciful to Bodies than to Souls, but paffes the fame gracious Conftrudioa on his Peoples Adtions in both Cafes, where he fees the fame Reafon and Necclfity. No new and un- precedented Dodrine do we here deliver, but whaft has been frequently warranted by God's Procedure with the Jews : And this, in Matters that were more difficult and remote from Grace. For, how often did he pardon the Murmurs and Rebellions of that whole Nation for the fake of Abraham and their Fa- thers, who had been dead long before? And if his Mercy extended fo far to wilful Sinners, upon the iare Motive and Confideration of their PredecefTors Viety 5 it can be no ftrange or groundlefs Divinity, to hold, that he will betriend harmlefs Infants for the fake of their religious Parents, feeing his Mer- cy reaches to a Tboufand Generations in them that love him. This, if polfible, (hould put the Imptti dence of certain Writers to the Blufli, who are not aftianied to publifh it before the World, that In- fants cannot be the better for their Parents Piety% nor receive any Benefit to their Souls on its Ac- count. What more can be urged againft this, I am not aware ^ but be it what it will, I do fuppofe it ca- pable of a fair Reply. And fo have I gone thro' with my Vindication of Infant-Baptifm from God's Word, and have en- deavoured to prove the Lawfulnefs of it, and to take off our Adverfaries Objedlions againfl it, which I thought to be of any Moment and Importance. What Satisfattion it will give the Reader, I know not, but am fure, I have managed it with the ut- moft Fidelity in my Power, and have advanced O 4 no 5i6 The Lawfulneis of nothing bnt what I believe in my Heart to be the Truth. To God's Blelilng I therefore leave the Illue, and Ihall only beg Leave to make a few fur- ther Remarks on Mr. Gales wary Conduct in this Affair, before I conclude. In his Purluits of Mr. Wall, he very prudently flopped his Courfe at St. Cyprian\ Door ^ because he law the Evidences then againft him tor Intant- BaptiTm, were too li:rong and bright to be contra- dicted. From thenceforth he gives up the Caufe, though not without lome iew Exceptions. " For, " as lie imagines, the reft of the Church befide " the Africans, did not fo foon ftrike in with the " grand Innovation, and fubmit to baptize their *' Infants. " But in taking his Leave, he palfes his Compliments on thofe Southern Nations, and gives their Charafter 5 " That the Africans were *' Men generally weak of Underflanding, Let, *' XIII. p- 529. And though their Biftiops were " no wifer than to admit the Error, perhaps, only *' as an indifferent Thing, or in Cafes of Danger, " the Greek Churches feem very plainly to have *' been ftill of another Opinion. " Alfo to fhew that lie can rfiaf^er Paradoxes j he tells us in the Sequel, '' That the Piety and Zeal of the Ancients, was fo " far from being a Security againft this Innova- " tion, that, in Reality, it tended very much to be- " tray them into it." To this Effedt are his Words. But then, I. If Piety and Zeal do really betray into Et*- ror, and this too of that pernicious Confequence, as to leavp to the Chriftian World neither a True Church, Miniffrv, nor Sacraments, what dangerous ■ and tr^iferous Things muift Zeal and Piety be? K'uft we then be Prophane and Cold, that we may be Sifer* Yet was ir Chrift's Judgment, that True Pi ty was the baft Expedient to know the Truth, 'jolrni vii. I7« and Chiip xiv. 21. And fo was Solo- Inf A N t-Baptism, £ifr. 217 won 6^ Prov. xiviii. 7. As St. Vaiil fays, on the othti fitle. That a Plea fu re in Unrighteoufnefs is the Way to bf betrayed into Lies, Itrong Delufions, and (Janmable Errors, 2 Thejj. ii. 10, ^c. Let who will, or can therefore believe Mr. Gale in this Par- ticular. But it by Fieiy and Zeal^ he means YoUy and Superftition^ or (fDme ?iiJfionate Ueats and TranJ- ports or I hat Nature in the Ancients, we mufi crave h s Pardon, i, we diflent from that Account. 2. "U hen he fays, " That Infant-Baptifm was ad- *' mitred at firO, perhaps, only as a Thing indiffe- *^ rent, or in Calcs ol Danger •, " I fnppofe, the P^r- hips was bifttd in to fave the Credit and the Con- fcitiice, lur is inlufhcient to do either. For he knows the contrary very well, and owns, that they made it neceffar}'', by a Miftake of 'johnm.';. as he informs us. St. Cyprians Epiftle to lidf/s would alone iiiftriidt him, that they counted it not as 3 Thing indifferent. Or, if they had done fo, Mr. Gale and his Party, who make fiich a Stir about if, as a iieceffary Caufe of Separation, would never pafs their Accounts. And he knows, that the Cafes of Danger introduced the Afperlion or Perfufion of Clinics^ as St. Cyprian expreffes it, Epifi.. ad I\\ag^ num-^ Not tlie Baptizing of Infants. Either, there- fore, their Admifiion of the Error muft be a Proof of their great Weaknefs, or the Perhaps is an Ar- gument ot our Author's great Warinefs. 3. His characterizing the Africans^ " That they *' were generally Men of weak Underftandings, " and that the Bifhops were no wlfer than to admit " the Error;" falls in with the common Ob fervation and Pradf ice ; That the Evidences againft us muft be difgraced. He thinks Mr. Wall deferved Animadverfion for taking too much Liberty with Tertullian, who, for a well-known Reafon, is a fa- vourite Author with the Aniip&dcbaptids. But he cannot fay, that Mr. Wall wronged him, lince he is, for 21 S The Lawfulnefs of for IbniB Centuries, the mofi: exceptionable Church-Writer of all tne ^jrica>js. Yet was TertHlitan but a lingle Man 3 whereas Mr. (7^/f may, with a good Grace, .jiraduce the whole Body o^x^at Alrlcans in general, as Fools and Fa- thers of Falfhoods, which is the true Engli(h of his Words, becaufe they patronized a Practice that he diflikes. And this we muii: take for Candor and Impartiality ! But whether the Africans in general had fuch weak Heads, and the Bi/Iiops no more Wifdom, than to corrupt the Church with mifchievous Errors, let their Writings, which are ftill extant, tertify. They fhine much too brightly iuEccle/tafiicalHi/}ory, and in the Eye of the Learn-, cd World, for to need an Apolog3\ Tnat Conference alone, which was managed between the Catholics and the Donitifts under MarceUwm^ vindicates them iufficiently irom this Reproach, and fhews, that the Africans want- ed not for Subtlety and Acutenefs. And while the Old Romans were ingaged in Wars with thole Na- tions, whatever Caule they had to complain of the Punie Faith, they found no Caufe to infult over the Punic Folly. Or, if fbme Errors may be proved on the Africans in thofe Days, 1 hope this does not quite deftroy their Credit, and place them in the fame Clafs with the Fabulous Rabbies. Elfe. how can other Bi/hops and Churches efcape ? And, particularly, how can the beloved Tcrtnllian maintain hii Credit, and come otf with flying Colours? 4. When our Author lays, *' That the Gree\ Churche*^ *^ ^eem plainly to have been flill of another Opinion, " he cites Tjionyfim^ the illulirious Bifhop of Alexandria^ oir "his fide, in this Paflage concerning Novatian: " He ut-^ ** terly difa'lows of Holy Baptilin, and liibrerts the Faith' *' and Profeflion which goes before it. " Then he adds a little after ; *' It is impoffible a Man who never ** dreamed of Infant Baptifin, fliould fpeak more plainly* *' aga:nf} it : Nor can we expe6l to find any Paflages more. " inconfi lent with that Praflice, than this is. " Low WAter indeed it muft then be with the Antipado' haftlffs, for liich Teftimonies and Authorities. For, can he nor find a plainer PaCfaf^e to his Purpofe in our Church. Catechi'm, not to fpeak of our bett Divines, and yet we are not againd: Infant-Baptiim ? I do not believe that illullrious Bilhop dreamed at all while he was Writing ; yet living not very far from Africa^ where St. Cypriany with 66 Bilhops, had in a Synod eftabliflied Infant Bap- tilin, I N F A N T-B A P T I S M , i§C, 2 1 9 tifnij he mufl be rather ignorant than illuftrious, if he knew nothing of that Matter. Or if the News at laft reached his Ears, he and others could not but be ilrangely lurprized at the Boldnels of thofe few Bifliops, in Compa- rifcn, who without confulting foreign Churches, ventured to fettle a wicked Innovation, contrary to the Doftrineand Praftice of the Catholic Church, to our Lord's Conimiffion, and to the Laws and Ufage of the Apoitles. According to Mi\ Gaie, the 'RiieofFadck^ptt'fm in Africay muft be fixed about the Beginning of the Third Century. For an Attempt was made by fbmeto introduce itin7^rf»/- lians Time, againft which he made a Vigorous Stand, but was not able to Rem the Tide. He, indeed, ftrenu- oufly oppo'ed it with \\\s'ZJtilior efl^ which, in our Au- thor's Sen{e, we mu{t render Unlawful. But notwithflan- ding the Strenuous Oppofition, it broke in upon the Afri- can Church before St. Cyprians Time, and under him got Synodical Eflablifhment. Other Churches, and efpecially xh&Greek'> werenotyet infected with the Error. But, how- ever, as Errors are contagious, it crept in gradually among them alfb, 'till at length it over ran the Chriftian World, to the incredible Detriment of Religion. For the Wife Afiatics and Europeans had yet no more either of Wifdom or Honefly, than to imitate the Foolifli Africans, and permit them to impofe their novel and pernicious Error on their Underftandings 5 and that too under the Pretext of Apo- flolical Antiquity and Tradition. For it had no more Modefly than to make this impudent Claim in St. Apij}in& Time, and before that, if the interpolated Origen might be heeded. Nor had any Chriftian in the whole Church, Orthodox or Heretic, Catholic or Schifmatic the Courage and Integrity to make the leaft Opposition to its Encroach- ments, except the brave Tertullian, who, bearing a ir.ortal Hatred to all Errors and Innovations, endeavoured, though without Succefs, to flifle it in its Cradle. For NaK.ian- z.ens fneaking Advice for Three or Four Years Delay, and this with Exception alfb, came in too late, the Error having then flruclc too flrong a Root for fuch a feeble Hand to pluck it up. This is my Defcant on Mr. Gale's Account, concerning the Rife and Progrefs of Padohaptlfm. But let our Adverfaries fay what they pleafe, neither Tertulllan nor Naz.ianz.en attempted to extirpate it with that mafculine Vigor which became the Champions of the Truth, by drefllng it out in the proper Colours of Sin 220 The Lawfulnefs of Sin and Unlawftilnefs j but they relied in the bare Plea of inexpediency. A Cnminai A^t againii Ciirut 6 Uommil- iion, and a Mcck-Baptilin, u-nici, if it h.id its Coarie, would loon unciiurcn the Chrutian vV^orlu, c.ie^ ihould have called it, in cale they had been ib wiie and zealous as our prefent rjntii^£dohai>iij:s. An Jna.hemax.uty fhuuld. have pronounced againit its Abettors 5 ami, n the)( would not be reformed, they fhould uave ut erl) oroke otf Com- jnunion with them. But lenuliUnfi Jjrican Wit ami Sniartnels in expoling the 'leuetsne did hut like, and J^az,ianzeM's florid Vein oi Ovanry, intirely faiicd them here. Thus dodging and dallying waeie tue.r main Energy fhould have becen exerted, tney only iiruck at the Branches to trim it a little, but left tt.e Root a.id item jn the Ground untouch'd, which, in ipite ot their taint At- tempts, fhot forth and liuonfli'd like the Stump of the Tree in Nebachadnez^aars Vilion. All this while the uni- verfal Church beiide, were in a Lethargic Sleep, tamely admitting the corrupt Praflice as an indifferent thing, and little dreaming, tnat it would unchurch Polierity, and fo prove fatal to their Religion. P or, in the Fourtn Cen- tury, at fartheft, it grew up to be an Epidemical Dileafe, that overlpreaded the Church ^ and the Cariilian World might groan to fee itfelf fo liiddenly turn'd into Putbobaptifl. Other Errors and Innovations of lelter Note they could ftrenuoufly oppofe with a becoming Zeal and Piety j but here, their Zeal and Piety themfelves play'd the Traytors with them, and help'd to fafcinate them into Dclufion ! This Account is incredible enough in itfelf 5 but if, not- withfianding that, true it mud be with our Antagonids, I would gladly be refblv'd in one Difficulty, which leems to me unfurmountable 5 and which Mr. Gale^ for a Reafon he knows beft, and we may guefs at, has left altogether unat- tempted. For, it is well known, that St. /iu(im.> towards the End of the Fourth Century, afhrm'd. That the univer- fal Church had always held and rerain'd Infant Baptifin, as a Thing that was deliver'd and handed down unto it by Apoftolical Authority, De Bapt cont. Donat. /. 4. ad fin. Again, after the Beginning ot the next Century, in his Book De Nat, & Grat. c. 6. he fliys 5 " That to his *' Remembrance, he never heard any other thing from any *' Chriftian that believed the Scriptures, whether he were , " Catholic, Heretic, or Schifinatic ; but they all held, " that in Chrifl's Church, from the Time it was founded, « In- I N F A N T-B A. P T I S M, i^C. 221 •• Infants were baptized for the Remiffion of Sin. And *' hebei eves St. jercm^ with all his Reading and Learning, *' couid find no o.hervtiie. And, as St. jiujtin has record- <* edit, iV%/«4 himieif affirms, that he never had heard, «' even any nnj-ious Heretic or Schil'matic, that would fay» *' Infants mould not be baptiz'd in order to Salvation 5 and. »♦ none lo ignorant of the Scripiure, that he would in the »' leali: think \t. Heie is a bold Appeal made to the Chriftian World for the Apoitol ..al Antiquity and Univerfal Practice of In- fant! a^tilm. St. iultin, St.Jerom^ Pelagim -^ Catholicf:, J^ere ics2a'^ Schijmaiici^vjcxt all agreed, and iubfcribed to that as true. i>id it then begin in Africa, St. Jufiins Country, but Two hundred Years before, at mcit, and not in other Places, 'till ibme conliderabie Time after that? If this be lo, how could St. Auftin and all Chrilien- dom be ignorant ot its Original? Could he not look Two Centuries backward, into the Hiilory of his own Church and Kat'on, to infuim himfelf better about Matter of Fad j and not take th.e L berty to write in the Dark, and talk. at Random, to the Shame of his Face, if he published a Fal/hood and provoke the World to prove him a Lyar? But that be w,as noK'ovice in 6'rrf;^and Latin Antiquities, his Learned Book /V Chujre Dei, is alone fiifficient Evi- dence. And that he was competently Ikill'd in Church Hiiiory, his Traft 6t Herefies bears Witneis. Among which He'-efies, neither he nor EpipLwin^, nor Theoiioret, nor Phi aftrin-'i nor any Ecclefiaftical Writers of thofe Times, could meet with the ancient, univerfal and long- liv'd Herefy of the y4n'ipadohap. 4?. /• ii- for Thing, »•• Hinge, p. $7.1.29 r incomplete, p. 64 /. 2 y. r. P. Fagius. p. S6. /. 17. V. mif under ftood. p.91./. 7. r Proftlyting. p97.l.is- r J Vimoth, f.\i\,l.lo. r. Births p. 116. /. 18. /c th.y, r. all Perfons /». 119. / 14. <^rtrBaptifin,p«f -iFullSrop. p.m. In. r in our. /. 129. /. jj.r Impudence^ f. Ij2. /•4- »■• to them. p,Ti6.i.2. r. I take, \is.l. 6. after any, pta a'Ba)]. Stop. p. IJ7- '-28. r. WasMr.Gd/«. f. 158. /. 17. r. frcm ^iri. I '6. r Word. ». 174./. 8