m 
 
 

« "•♦, 
 
 \ 
 

\^^ 
 
 s\ 
 
A 
 
 DEFENCE 
 
 O F 
 
 The Divine Right 
 Of Infant -Baptism. 
 
 Wherein are confider'd, 
 
 The Confequences of embracing 
 
 Anti-pedobaptifm, 
 The Antiquity of the Praftlce of 
 
 baptifmg Infants. 
 ^\i^Co^enant'lntereji of thelnfant- 
 
 Children of Believers ; and the 
 
 i'irgument grounded on this for 
 
 their Title to Baptifm. 
 
 The Texti of Scripture^ alledg'd 
 
 as confirming Evidences of 
 
 their Title. 
 And 
 The Lanvfuln-fs of the Mode of 
 
 adminiftringBaptifm by Affufion 
 
 or Sprinklings 
 
 BEING 
 
 In Reply to Dr. John Gill's Book, intitled, 
 The Divine Right of Infarit-Baptifm 
 examined and difproved. 
 
 AND 
 
 In Vindication of the late Mr. Jonathan Dickinson's 
 Brief Illujiration and Confirmation of the Divine Right 
 of Infant -Bapifm, 
 
 By Peter Clark, A. M- 
 
 Pallor of a Church in Salem, 
 
 BOSTON, NEfT-ENGLAND: 
 Friijted and Sold by S, K H « e i a w p, in ^etn-Strget, i 7 S «.; 
 

 I NrR O DJ/criON. 
 
 II^I^Here having been a fmall Pamphlet 
 ^g' ^ds- printed among us, a few Years ago, 
 
 written on the Subjed inControverfy 
 between us 2inAxh^AntipedobaptiJisymY^2CY 
 oi Dialogue^ compos'd (it is faid) by the late 
 Reverend Mr. Dickinfoir^ of Elifabeth-Town 
 in New-Jerfey ; This was tho't fo confide- 
 rable, by fome of the Party (it feems) as that 
 it was fent over to Dr John Gilloi London^ 
 for an Anfv^er to it.- In Compliance with 
 which Motion, that Gentleman has tho't fit, 
 in a labour'd Piece lately publifh'd, to give 
 the World a Tafte of his Abilities in an At- 
 tempt to defend the novel Opinions of his 
 A 2 Sed, 
 
ii Introduction. 
 
 StS:. And a confiderable Number of his 
 Books being bro't ofer,and difpers'd in thefe 
 Parts ; tending to unhinge the Minds of Peo- 
 ple with Refpecl to fome important Truths 
 of the Gofpeljas well as to infufe Scruples in- 
 to them about the Validity of theirBaptifm 
 in Infancy ; I can't but concur in Opinion 
 withfeveralof my Friends, that fome Notice 
 ought to be taken of that Performance, in 
 Way of Reply : And at their Requeft^fhall 
 endeavour to beftow fome Remarks upon it, 
 to undeceive the vulgar Reader, by pointing 
 out the many Miftakes that occur in it, with 
 a Refutation of them. 
 
 MyDifinclination toControverfy in gene- 
 ral, and to this in particular ; and the Hope 
 I had, that fome other, and abler Hand, 
 might be engaged in it, muft be pleaded in 
 Excufe of my Dilatorinefs in this Undertak- 
 ing. 
 
 I am very fenfible, " that to attempt an 
 Anfwcr, at this Day, to the Objedions and 
 Cavils of the A7ttitedohaptiJls^ is h\\ta8lu7n 
 agere^X.Q a6l over again that which hatli been 
 
 done 
 
Introduction. iii 
 
 done more than an Hundred Times already^ 
 and that upon fuch foHdGrounds of Reafoiij 
 and Scripture, as might abundantly fufficc 
 to determine thePoint with all unprejudic'd 
 Inquirers, and to fiilence Gainfayers. But 
 fome Men, when they have once attached 
 themfelves to the Caufe of a Party, think 
 themfelves obliged in Point of Flonour to 
 perfift, and boldly to advance in the Defence 
 of it, tho' it be in Oppofition to the cleareft 
 Convidion. Whether this be the Cafe with 
 Dn Gilly I iliall not take upon me to deter- 
 mine ; but confidering his dogmatical Pofi.- 
 tivenefs in his Affertions, together with the 
 Slendernefs of his Proofs, and the Weaknefs 
 and Abfurdity of feveral of his Arguments 
 and Objc£i:ions, one might be almofi: temp- 
 ted to conclude, the Gentleman was fcarce 
 in Earneft in what he has written. 
 
 But when the Truth is impugned, by 
 whomfoever, or in what Manner foever, and 
 Scruples call: into the Minds of common 
 People by the fophiftical Reafonings of its 
 Adverfaries, to unfettle their Judgment and 
 Pradicc in Reference to thisChriftian Ordi- 
 nance 
 
iv Introduction. 
 
 nance of Baptirm^aDefence appears necefla- 
 ry ; and this being the prefent Cafe, how 
 little foever I am incHned toControverfy,yet 
 as a Friend to theCaufe of Truth, andOrder 
 in theChurches, I fhall not grudge my Time 
 andPains employed in the Vindication of it, 
 againft the Errors of Antipedobaptifm. 
 
 Wherefore my chief Aim and Endeavour 
 in this Undertaking fhall be to vindicate The 
 Divine Right of Infant-Baptifm^ which this 
 Author makes fo light of, & to clear up the 
 Arguments, from Scriptiire that fupport it, 
 from theDuft & Rubbifh he has thrown out 
 upon them, to breed Confufion & Perplexity 
 in the Minds of People of lefs Difcerning, 
 and lefs exercis'd in this Controverfy. And 
 I doubt not to make it appear, that the Ar- 
 guments in the Dialogue from Scripture, to 
 prove the Right of Chriftian Infants to Bap- 
 tifm, ftand in their full Force and Strength, 
 notwithflanding all that Dr. G/V/has offer'd 
 to invalidate them. I propofe to deted the 
 Errors and Fallacies, whereby he has endea- 
 voured to darken and perplex the Subjcd: ; 
 and to fctdetheDoc%ineof Iniant-Baptifm 
 
 on 
 
Introduct I O N. V 
 
 on right fcriptural Grounds, to the general 
 Satisfadion (I truft) of the Confciences of 
 humble & impartial Inquirers into theMind 
 and Will of God in his Word. 
 
 As I have nothing to fay againft the Me^ 
 thod Dr. Gill has chofen in the Diviiion 
 he has made of his Work into feveral Chap- 
 ters, I fhall attend him with my Remarks on 
 eachChapterdiftinftly. His two orthree firft 
 are taken up withDebates, chiejfly,about the 
 Confequences of denying Infant-Baptifm : 
 The Merits of the Caufe inControverfy come 
 not into View, till we come to his fourth 
 Chapter. I tho't to have pafs'd over his 
 formerChaptersjwith fome lighterTouches : 
 but feveral Things, I find, occur therein, 
 which will require more large Animadver- 
 lions, efpecially in his Third, wherein (from 
 a flender Occafion oiffer'd him in the Dia-- 
 logue] he has led his Reader into the hifto- 
 rical Part of the Controverfy, and multipli- 
 ed Authorities to make good his Pretenfions 
 inFavour of Adult-Baptifm ; the particular 
 Examination whereof, in Order to diicover 
 the Difingenuity, and Unfairnefs of his Re- 
 
 prefentation 
 
VI Introduction. 
 
 prefentation of Fads, and the Vanity & Im- 
 pertinency of his laborious Searches/or that 
 Defign, will not, I fear, be bro't within fo 
 narrow aGompafs, as I could wi£h. But the 
 main Difpute about Infants Right to Bap- 
 tifm will turn upon the Arguments produced 
 and controverted in his 4.th and 5th Chap- 
 ters. Wherefore I fhall begin, and proceed 
 with him in the Method, and Order he has 
 propofed. 
 
 •T«» 4^rv» «i^ t/V^ .TrU *Tr>» »/v^ JV^ J9<» Jyti* ^r» »fw^ .ttU »!*« «/W» »/v\t t/T» 
 
 •iu» p\fL/» *^/* *\A/* *sjL* "v^* "ju* '^jv* ^&* *Mw •^/' ^Sr* 'wv •^J^ %v* ^B** "yv* 
 
^^l^?cMSi 
 
 D E F E N C^E 
 
 Of the Divine Right o£ 
 I N F A N T-B A P T I S M. 
 
 Chap. I. 
 
 Containing Remarks on Dr, GilPs Intro- 
 dudion to his Performance. 
 
 ?S?1|^HE firilChapter our Author fpends wholly 
 in giving us an Account of the Occafion 
 of hisWhting, and in defcanting on the 
 'Title Page of the Dialogue. In declaring 
 the Occafion that moved him to draw 
 his Pen in this Controverfy, he begins 
 thus ; " Many being converted under the Minlftry of 
 " the Word in New- England^ and enhghten'd into the 
 *' Ordinance of Believers Baptifm, whereby the Chur- 
 ^' chcs of the Baptift Perfwafion in Bojlon and in the 
 *' Country, have been much increafed, has alarmed the 
 *' Pasdobaptift Miniflers of that Colony j who have 
 •* applied to one Mr. Dickinson, a Country Minifter 
 *• — to write in Favour of Infant -Sprinkling ; which 
 " Application he tho't fit to attend unto &c." In this 
 Introdudory Paflage, there arefeveral grofs Miflakes ia 
 Facl, or manife'a IJntruchs : But before I take Notice 
 of thefe, I can't but obferve, in what Terms of Diftin- 
 
 '^^S^ 
 
2 'A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. I. 
 
 6lIon Dr. Gill (in common with all otherAntipsedobap- 
 tifts^ fpeaks ot the Baptifm adminiftred in their Com- 
 munion, calling it Believers Baplifm^^nd in whatTerms 
 ot Diminution 5cContempt,he fpeaks of theBaptifm ad- 
 mi niiler'd in all other reformedChurches,who areCasthey 
 are plcafed to term them) P^dobaptifts, calling it /«- 
 fani'Sfrinklino., The former Way of fpeaking feems 
 very aifuming, and contemptuous enough to their Fel- 
 lovv-C iififtians, as if theAntipsedobaptifts were the only 
 People in Cbrijtendojn, who are in the Pradtice of bap- 
 tizing Believers,and as if all others baptiz'd out of their 
 Communion were Infidels, and theBaptifm among them 
 not worthy of the Name of Chriftian Baptifm ; whereas 
 there is no other Baptifm adminiflred in our Churches 
 but theBaptifm of Believers,or thofe who are accounted 
 fuch, either upon their perfonal Profeflion, or in the 
 Repute of the Church, andGod's gracious Acceptation. 
 As to adult Perfons unbaptized, they are no otherwife 
 admitted to Baptifm among us, it is known, than upon 
 a perfonal Profeflion of their Faith. And as to the In- 
 fants of fuch profefling Believers, being confider'd as 
 Parts of their Parents, and being admitted by God into 
 his Covenant with their believing Parents, they arc 
 juftly reckoned by the Church in the Number of Be- 
 lievers, and as fuch baptiz'd into the Faith & Religion 
 of their Parents. This ought not to appear ftrange to 
 any, who confider, that among all Nations, Children 
 being in their Non-age, but as Parts of their Parents, 
 hav<i ever been reckoned of the Religion of their Pa- 
 rents •, the Child ot a Mahometan Parent,being reputed 
 a Mahometan •, the Child of a Jewilh Parent, a Jew, 
 by Religion, as well as Birth, a Difciple of Mofes •, and 
 why not the Chikl of a Chriftian Parent, a Chriftian, a 
 Bchever, a Difciple of Chrift, a Saint, or holy ? All 
 which are Terms equipollent, as ufed in theNew-Tefta- 
 ment *, and the two laft exprefly applied to the Infants, 
 o: the Faithful, (A7. 15. 10. i Cor. j. 14..) And if this 
 diftinguifliingTerm, they are fo fond of in fpeaking of 
 
 the 
 
Chap, 1. ^/ Infant-Baptifm; b 
 
 theBaptifmpradifed in theirCommunlon, offend againfi: 
 Charity, the other Term, whereby they would expofe 
 the Baptifm of other Churches to Derifion, offends no 
 lefs againftPiety ; when they call it in Way of Contempt 
 and Mockery (as the Quakers do) Infant -Sprinkling. 
 But fince the far greateft Part of Men of Learning and 
 Piety, and thofe as little liable to Miftakes & Prejudice 
 (to fay the leaft) as any among our Antipasdobaptifts, 
 have been, and are fully perfwaded of the divine Infti- 
 ftution of Infant Baptifm, as alfo of the Lawfulnefs of 
 the Mode of Adminiftration by Pcrfufion, or Sprink- 
 ling, •, and fmce fo very greatNumbers of theirChrillian 
 Br.ethren (if they will allow them to be Chriftian Bre- 
 thren) efteem the Baptifm of theChildren of theChurch 
 among the moft facred Parts of their Religion, it is con-- 
 trary to all Modefty, and to the Reverence due to Re- 
 ligion, and facred Inftitutions, in fuch a Manner to de- 
 ride their Pradice •, and 'tis but adling a friendly Part 
 to Dr. G/7/, and thofe of his Stamp, to advife them to 
 be cautious here, left, if Infant Baptifm lliould prove to 
 be a divine Inftiturion, (as we are verily perfwaded it is, 
 and God has own'd it by his BlefTing in very numerous 
 Inftances) they be found among the Scoffers at a facred 
 Ordinance of Jefus Chrift. Why can't the^e Men be 
 content with their own TranfgrefTion, in negledling to 
 dedicate their Children to God in this Ordinance, (tho* 
 they plead, they are not convinc'd that it is their Duty ; 
 and fo far as this can be truly pleaded,! hope theMercy 
 of God will not impute it to them ; but then,l fay,why 
 Ihould not their own Negled furnce them) unlefs they 
 revile the Pradice of thofe who have no Scruples about 
 it, but are fully perfwaded, not only of it's Lawfulnefs, 
 put of their Obligations to it, as a Chriftian Duty ? 
 
 But the main Reafon of my quoting this PafTage at 
 large,was to point out the feveral Miftakes in Fad, con- 
 tained in it. As I. " That the Churches of thcBaptift 
 •' Perfwafion at Bojlon and in the Country, have been 
 V much inceafedj many being enlighten'd into the Or- 
 B 2 " dinancc 
 
4 ^A Defence vf the Divine Right Chap. L 
 
 " dinance of BelieversBaptlfm," That this is aMiftake 
 is evident to all that know anyThingof the State of the 
 Baptifts (as they call themfclvesj in our Country : I 
 have very good Information, that the Baptift Church in 
 Bofton under theCare of the Rev. Mr. C<?w^,has been ra- 
 ther declining for feveralYears pail, byReafon of aDifFe- 
 rence that has rifen among them about fome religious 
 Opinions, which has occafion'd a Number of the Bre- 
 thren to withdraw from theCommunion of that Church; 
 who have formed themfelves into a fcparate Society, 
 over which they have fet up an illiterate Teacher. To 
 this feparate Society, there have been,indeed, fome few 
 Enthufiafts & Separatifts from fome Churches inBoflon, 
 and from the adjacent Parts of the Country, who have 
 join'd themfelves. And they that can glory in fuch an 
 Increafe as this, fhew themfelves better pleafed inNum- 
 bers added to their Party,than anyCreditto theirCaufe. 
 Whenas all other underftanding ferious Chriftians, who 
 are concerned for the Truth and Order of the Gofpel, 
 inflead of envying them fuchAdditions,will rather think 
 it their Duty to pity 'em, and pray for 'em. Further 
 to magnify this Account of the Increafe of the Baptifts 
 am.ong us, he fpeaksof " the Churches of the Baptift 
 Perfwafion in Bofton and in the Country.'^ Whereas be- 
 fides the foremention'd Baptift Church inBoftcn^l know 
 of no other Baptift Church in the Country within forty 
 Miles of Bofton. Several Perfons of that Perfwafion 
 are fcattercd up and down in the Country, and in fome 
 Places may have their Meetings -, but no Churchy that 
 I can hear of, except at the Out-Hcirts of the Province 
 towards Rhode-JJland and Providence. Where, I am 
 informed, there are two,or threeSocietieSjthat call them- 
 felves Baptift Chiirches^but none of them ("it is faidj have 
 any Perfon of a liberal Education for their Paftor. 
 
 2. ' Pis added further, that the increafe of the Chur- 
 ches of the Baptift Perfwafion was fo great, as that 
 " ^t alarmed thePa:dobaptiftMlnifters of that Colony" 
 (rather it fliould be laid ohhat Province) And alarmed 
 
 they 
 
GhAp. I. of Infant-Baptlfm.- 5 
 
 they muft be to a high Degree fas if their All were at 
 StakeJ that they fhould beforc'd to fend for foreign Aid, 
 to fo great aDiftancc as to the Jerfeys (three Hundred 
 Miles from Bo§ion) where the Reverend Mr. Bickinfon 
 rcfided(the late learned & faithfulPaftor of thcChurch in 
 Elifahetb-Town^'^htrt he deceafcd a fewYears fince) and 
 not in the Country of New-England^ or in theProvince 
 of the Majfacbufetts^ as this Author's Words infinuate. 
 It is indeed to be acknowleged to the Praife of divine 
 Grace, that in the late Times of Awakening in New- 
 England^ many^ we hope, were converted under the Mini^ 
 Jlry of the Vl^ord \ not to a particular Se(5t (as Dr. Gill 
 fondly imagines, making their Converfion, ar lead the 
 Effect of it, to confift in their being enUghtned into the 
 Ordinance of Believers Baptifm, whereby the Churches of 
 the Baptift Ferfwafton have been much increafed) but to 
 real Religion and Godlincfs. But the Truth is, that 
 tho' the late Excefles of many others at the fameTime 
 under enthufiaftick Imprefiions, and the Errors, Difor- 
 ders, and Separations, that many ran into, in feveral 
 Parts of the Land, were Matter of juft Concern & Grief 
 to the Minifters of the Province •, yet,I believe,it may be 
 faid with a generalConcurrence,that thefurmifedlncreafc 
 of theBaptift Churches was a Thing that gave them the 
 Icaft Pain or Uneafinefs of anyThing that has occur'd ia 
 the late religious Commotions. But 
 
 3. The moll egregious Miftake of all is, that " the 
 «' Minifters of the Colony applied to Mr. Bickinfon^ a 
 " Country Minifter,to write inFavour of InfantSprink- 
 " ling." This I can certainly teftify to be a falfe Re- 
 prefentation, having upon Enquiry been well afTured, 
 that not one of the Minifters in Bofton ever made Ap- 
 plication to that Gentleman to write againft the Bap-^ 
 tifts ; And I am perfwaded, fand ir is the Perfwafion of 
 all whom 1 have converfed with) that it was not at the 
 Motion of any Minifter mNew-Englandy that he wrote 
 his Dialogue, but (moft probably) of his own mecr. 
 Motion,aad with a View (for Reafons more peculiar to 
 
 B 3 hi^ 
 
6 A Defence of the Divine Right ] Chap. L 
 
 his Station & Circumftances) * to guard his own People 
 and others againft the Sedlaries (and their Errors) who 
 are faid to fwarm in fome of thofeParts of America^^a- 
 kersy Anahaptifts^ Arminians and Antinomians^zg2\n^ all, 
 or mofl of whom he has written, and publifhcd feveral 
 Tra6ls,to very good Purpofe. And therefore Dr. G/7/'s 
 Correfpondent (whoever he wasj furely was too hafty 
 in taking up his Account in fo bungling a Manner, 
 which he has tranfmitted to him, with the Dialogue,for 
 a Reply to it, who feems therefore to have been alarmed 
 in good Earneft at theExecution xh^Bialogue had done, 
 and was likely to do by the quick & large Spread, and 
 general Acceptance of it. And whether,or how far his 
 Champion hath fucceedcd in his Defence of the Caufe, 
 which he has fo readily and refolutely undertaken, muft 
 be left to the Reader's Judgment, when he has impar- 
 tially weigh'd the Confiderations ofFer'd in Way of Ani- 
 madverfion on his Performance. And thus much for 
 the Occafion of his Undertaking. 
 
 Let us proceed now to his Remarks on the ^itlePage. 
 And here it is very obvious to every fenfible unbias'd 
 Reader, how this AntipcTedobaptift Writer difcovers 
 the Spirit of his Party at his fiiil: fetting out. For hav- 
 ing obferv'd, " the running Title of the Pamphlet he 
 *' has undertaken to reply to, is, The Divine Right of 
 *^ Infant Baptifm -," he adds upon it, " But if it is of 
 '' divine Right,it is of God,&if it is of God — it mufl be 
 *' notified fomewhere or other in his Word -, wherefore 
 *' the Scripture muft be fearch'd into — and upon the 
 *' moft diligent Searchjit will be found that there is not 
 *' the leaft mention of it in it -, that there is noPrecept 
 *' enjoining it, or direBing to the Obfervationofity nor 
 *' any Inflance, Example or Precedent, encouraging 
 *' fuch a Practice ; nor any Thing there faid or done,that 
 •' gives anj Reafon to believe^ that it is the Will of God 
 
 ■ " that 
 
 * I am fince Informed by a worthy Gentleman in thofe Parts, that 
 it was at the Requell and Perfwafion ot fome Mmifter in his 
 Neighbourhood, that he wrote that Piece. 
 
Chap. I> <?/ Infant-Baptifm. 7 
 
 <« that fuch a RiteJhouJd he ohferved % wherefore it will 
 «' appear to be entirely an humane Invention ^2iv\6. as fuch, 
 «' to be rejedled." This is faid with an Air of Aflli- 
 ranee peculiar to warm and zealous Bigots,and to none 
 more, 'tis obferv'djthan to thofe of thisSed:. I am loth 
 to think, this is the Refult of Dr.GiWs cool Judgment, 
 fincehe has vented it fo indifcreetly : If he could, for a 
 whilCjhave reftrain'd the overflowing of his Zeal, 'till he 
 had finifhed his Arguments andObjedlions, this PafTagc 
 might with averylittleAlteration,have flood with abetter 
 Grace at the End of his Book — for it carries in it the 
 Sound of a ^od erat demonjirandum at the Conclufion 
 of an Argument. And for my Part, I nnufl confefs, 
 that I was not much difappointed, when upon reading 
 thefe flrong Lines, I concluded, that I had already met 
 with the main Strength of his Pertormance. For this 
 is the Method of thofe who endeavour to carry their 
 Point by Confidence, Hear, and vigorous AfTertions, 
 rather than by the tedious and dull Way of calm and 
 clofe Reafoning. And let me alfo obferve, that the 
 Conclufion, which this Gentleman has here drawn up, 
 feems not only to go beyond the Force of all his Argu- 
 ments (which,it is the Defign of thefe Remarks to make 
 evident) but even beyond what he himfelf intended by 
 them. For perhaps it may be faid without offering any 
 Violence to his Expreffions, if it be true, that theBap- 
 tifm of Infants " is entirely an humane Invention," and 
 that it is not theWill of God, '' that fuch a Rite fhould 
 be obferved," as he has confidently afferted, then Bap- 
 tifm itfelf mufl be rejedled as an humane Invention, as 
 well as the Application of it to Infants •, for if it be 
 abfolutely and entirely of human Invention^ then it is in 
 no Refpedl to be regarded as a divine Inftitution, no 
 more in P^efpedl of its general Nature, as Baptifm, than 
 in Refped of it's particular Application, as Infant Bap- 
 iifm. For to fay, that it is entirely an humane Inven- 
 tion, and a Rite that it is not the Will . of God fliould 
 be obferv'd, is as much as to fay, that the Rite of Bap- 
 
 B 4 t;fm 
 
$ ^A Dejtnu of tie Divine Right Chap. I, 
 
 tifm adminiftred to Infants, is in its whole Eflence of 
 human Invention. And what could si^aker fay more ? 
 Thus it many Times happens, that Men in the Abun- 
 dance of their Zeal, are prompted to fay morCjthan they 
 are capable of proving, or aim at proving. We fhall 
 fee in the Sequel, whether the Pradice of Infant-Baptifm 
 be not to be found inScripture,or founded on Scripture, 
 or whether there be not anyTbing there /aid or done^ihat 
 Hgnifies it to be a divine Inftitution. In the mean 
 Time, Let not him that girdetb on his Harnefs^boajt him- 
 felf^ as he that putteth it off. 
 
 But Dr. Gill feems to have managed here very pre- 
 pofteroufly: for (if I may be allowed in myTurn to cri- 
 ticize a little upon the Title-Page of his Work, which 
 runs thus, ne Divine Right of Infant Baptifm examined^ 
 end difproved) he pretends to examine the Proofs for 
 Infant-Baptifm, before he gives Judgment againft it ; 
 but in his Entrance on his Work, he has plainly fore- 
 warned his Readers (in the Paflage I have cited^ what 
 Sort of Examination he is to expedl, how impartial and 
 fair •, after he hath pre-judged the Caufc, by a pofitive 
 Decifion againft the faid Divine Right.and fo has pafTed 
 Sentence before Trial. And if, after this,theEvidences 
 on which he grounds the Condemnation of Infant-Bap- 
 tifm appear light, to an impartial Mind, we muft caft 
 Prejudice into the Scale, and that will give them their 
 full Weight But fays he, " If there be no fuch Thing 
 ('as the Divine Right of Infant Baptifm J " theAuthor" 
 (of the Dialogue) " muft have a very difficult Tafk to 
 " illuftrate and confirm it" — tis granted : But if there 
 be fuch a Thing (as we make no Doubt but {here is, 
 and ihall prove there is,as confident as Dr. Gill is of the 
 contrary) then thofe muft venture a fad Chance, who 
 take upon them to deny and deride it. 
 
 Iq the next Place our Author has fomething to fay 
 to the Method & Porm of the Pamphlet he is writing 
 againft j the Writer of it having chofen to caft his 
 Subject into *^ the Form of a Dialogue between a Mini- 
 
 fter 
 
Chap. I. •f Infant-Baptlfm.' 9 
 
 fter and one of his ParifWoners, or Neighbours." To 
 this he fays, "That a By-ftander" (befiire he means a 
 zealous Antipasdobaptift) " will be ready to conclude, 
 " that fuch a Way of writing is chofe,that he might have 
 " the Opportunity of making his Antagonift fpeak 
 " what he pleafes •," and that " he would have adeda 
 <* very unwife Part, had he put Arguments and Ob- 
 " jedions into his Mouth which he tho'c he could not 
 " give any tolerable Anfwer to." Pag. 3. And again, 
 *^ He has taken care not to fuffer him to fay fuch 
 *' Things, that he was not able to anfwer." Pag. 4. ' 
 Anf, I am morally fure, that the Author of the Dia- 
 logue did not chufe thatWay of writing,for the Reafons 
 that Dr. Gill has invented for him, to caftReproach and 
 Difparagement on his Performance •, and that he never 
 purpofely declined the putting any Objedion orArgu- 
 ment into the Mouth of his Antagoniit, from a Senfe 
 of his Inability to anfwer it. His faying, he took Care 
 not to put fuch Arguments and Objections into the Mouth 
 of his Antagonift, as he was not able to anfwer^ 01 which 
 he thd't he could not give any tolerable Anfwer /^,fuppofes 
 thofe Arguments and Objedlions he did put into his 
 Mouth, he tho't he was able to anfwer. Now all the 
 Queftion is, whether the Anfwers he has given, be folid, 
 and fufficient, and this alone is contefted by Dr. Gill 
 in his Reply. But if it be granted that he has given 
 not only tolerable, but folid and fatisfadory Anfwers 
 to the Qiieries & Objedlions in the Dialogue, then the 
 Caufe of the Antipaedobaptift muft beyond all Difpute 
 fall to the Ground without Remedy •, for I defy the 
 moft zealous, learned, and fubtleof the Antipjedobap- 
 tifts to produce any other Arguments or Objections 
 againft Infant-Baptifm,for Matter or Subftance different 
 from, or of greater Weight than thofe produced, (tho* 
 but briefly infifted on) in the Dialogue. And if the 
 Caufe of Antipasdobaptifm mull ftand or fall according 
 to the Strength or Weaknefs ot thofe Arguments and 
 pbjedionsj then it is evident that the Author of the 
 
 Dialogue 
 
I a ^A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. I. 
 
 Dialogue did not induilrioufly forbear, to put into the 
 Mouth of his Antagonifts the ftrongeft and mod mate- 
 rial Arguments he could think of, for the Support of 
 his Caufe, from a Confcioufnefs of his being unable to 
 anfwer them. And does not Dr. Gill implicitly confefs 
 as much ? For what elfe is the chief Scope of his Reply, 
 but to Ihew the Strength of theParilhioner's Objedions 
 andArgumentsCtho' he thinks them but poorly manag'd 
 in the Dialogue J and the Weaknefs of the Minifter's 
 Anfwers. He complains, that theParifhioner is made 
 to defend the Principles he was about to embrace, " in 
 a mean, and trifling Manner."P^^.3, Be this fo,or not, 
 yet he is miflaken in the Caufe ; the true Reafons 
 undoubtedly were, i. Becaufe all Errors & Objedlions 
 againft the Truth, when flrip'd of their Varnifh and 
 Sophiftry, and exprefs'd in plain Langu3gfe,will appear 
 mean and trifling. 2. Becaufe it is evident,the Author 
 of that Pamphlet defigned Brevity (as appears from its 
 TitJej and not to enlarge either on the Objedions or 
 Replies, but to reprefent in a few plain Words,the mofl 
 material Objedions againft Infant-Baptifm, with the 
 proper Anfwers to them ; and not to fet forth the one 
 or the other in all the Light and Force that Language 
 could poflTibly give them, which had been inconfiftent 
 with his Defign. We know, that a great deal more has 
 been faidby theAntip3edobaptifts,and a great deal more 
 has been faid in Anfwer to them ; But cofifidering the 
 Succindlnefs and Brevity, which that Author defign'd 
 in compofing his Trad, fo far as that would admit, he 
 has colieded and fet in order the main Strength of his 
 Adverfary'sObjcdions, with pertinent Replies to them, 
 nor has he wav'dtheConfideration ot anyThing material 
 on their Part. 
 
 But fincc Dr.G/7/ allows, *' Every Man that engages 
 *' in a Controverfy, may [write ia what Form and 
 * Method he will j" I hope there is no harm done, in 
 chufing the Form of a Dialogue ; which is a Way of 
 writing that iomc of the moll celebrated Polemical 
 
 Divines 
 
Chap. I. tif Infant-Baptifm; 1 1 
 
 Divines have chofen, in a more lively and familiar 
 Manner to difcufs Points in Controverfy, and which 
 has fomething in it peculiarly agreable to Mankind,and 
 is more proper to engage the Reader's Attention ^ nor 
 has it been imputed to them as a Fault ; tho* it had 
 been eafy tor their Adverfaries to reproach them, as 
 Dr. Gill docs the Author of the Dialogue,by faying,that 
 they chofe that Way to make their Antagonifts fpeak 
 what they pleafe, and to put juft fo much, and no more 
 into their Mouths than they thought they were able to 
 anfwer. Perhaps, Dr. Gill had better confulted his 
 .Credit, if he had acquiefced in theArguments produced 
 in theDialogue, as lighdy as he efteems them -, unlefs he 
 had drop'd fome Things in his Reply,rather more mean 
 and triEing, in Point of Reafoning, than any Thing 
 which occurs in that Tradb. 
 
 But that which fecms the chief Matter of his Com- 
 plaint, is, that the Author he is writing againft, " has 
 not made his Friend to a6t in Charader" &cc. having 
 reprefented him as a Man of Ingenuity as well as Piety. 
 Anfw. If Dr. Gill takes it for granted, that it is theCha- 
 radler of a young Antipsedobaptift, or of one that has a 
 flrong Inclination to thatPerfwafion,to be haughty and 
 alTuming, bold, and talkative, confident ot his own 
 Opinion, impatient of Contradidion, apt to cenfure 
 others that differ from him, and to condemn them as 
 being in an Error, which is obferv'd to be too often the 
 Cafe •, then it muft be confefs'd, that theAuthor of the 
 Dialogue has made his Friend (who had begun to imx- 
 bibe the Principles of Antipsedobaptifrn J to ad a little 
 out of Character, in reprefenting him, as humble, and 
 teachable, open toConvi6lion,propounding his Scruples 
 and Objedlions with Modefty, difpofed to weigh, with- 
 out Prejudice, the Arguments on the other Side, and 
 ready to receive Light and Satisfaction, when offered, 
 and to change his Sentiments on the propofal of clear 
 convincing Evidence -, which is the Character, the Pa- 
 riihioner appears all along in the Dialogue to fuftain ; 
 
12 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. \, 
 
 yet all this agrees perfedtly well with aMan of Ingenuity, 
 yea,is a rcquifite Ingredient in fuch aCharafter. I know 
 not what Idea Dr.Gill has form'd of Ingenuityyhut with- 
 out thefe Dilpofitions & Qualifications laft mcntion'd, 
 noMan fhall ever deferve with me,theChara6lerof aMan 
 of Ingenuity. So that on this Account I apprehend, there 
 is no Reafon to complain of the want of a juftDecorum 
 in theDialogue. But I have dwelt long enough already, 
 if not too long, on thefe Impertinences, which are quite 
 foreign to the main Subjedt. Wherefore, leaving our 
 Author to pleafe himfelf in his Conjeftures about the 
 fecret Views and Defigns of the Author of theDialogue, 
 in contriving the Method of it, which I am perfwaded, 
 no Body clfe would have thought of, or fufpedled, had 
 not this acute Gentleman by his deep Penetration into 
 the Secrets of the Heart pretended ,to difcover them ; 
 I fhall pafs on to his fecond Chapter, with this only 
 Remark, that tho' Dr. G/7/, I am perfwaded, would take 
 it ill to be denied the Charader of " a Man of confide- 
 rable Reading," yet the Confutation of his Arguments 
 and Objections, I am fure, would give a Man no great 
 Caufe to value himfelf upon " doing a very great Ex- 
 ploit," tho' at the fame Time, he might fee Reafon 
 enough from the Spirit that appears in his Writings, to 
 defpair of being able " to convince and filence him.'* 
 
 r^K^^C^ 
 
 CHAP. 
 
.:; cf InFant-Baptifm.' ^i j 
 
 G H A P. IL 
 
 TheConfequences of embracing Antipcedo^ 
 baptifm by fuch as have been baptiz'd in 
 Infancy, examined. 
 
 jN this Chapter, our Author proceeds to difcufs 
 the Confequences of embracing Antip^dobap- 
 tifm. And here he tells us, that "thelvlinifter 
 *' in order to frighten his Parifhioner out of his Prin- 
 ** ciple of adult Baptifm, he was inclined to fuggeil 
 " terrible Confequences, that would follow upon it.'* 
 Whereas, on the Minifler's Part, there appears nothing 
 but a calm, and ferious Addrelsto the Reafon andCon- 
 fcience of his Parifhioner : but it feems that to offer 
 Matter of Convidlion to an Antip^dobaptifl^to reclaim 
 him from his Error, is to frighten him ^ it being Matter 
 of Dread to fuch a P erf on to have the Confequences of his 
 beloved Error fet in a true Light . But Dr. Gill may be 
 told, it is not the Way of the P^dohaptijis^ to alarm or 
 frighten Men out of their religiousOpinions j they have 
 no Need of fuch Artifices, efpecially in managing the 
 Controverfy with the Antipa:dohaptihs^ having Reafon 
 and Scripture on their Side j and if at any Time they 
 meet with Perfons of fuch an unhappy Turn of Mind, 
 or under fuch ftrong PrepofTelTions, as not to be con- 
 vinced by thofe rational Methods, they are content to 
 leave them to fland or fall to their own Mafler. The 
 Confequences of a Man's efpoufing'the Principle and 
 Pradicc of the Antip^dobaptifts, as colleded from the 
 Dialogue, he has reduced to thefe five Heads, viz, 
 " I. His renouncing his Baptifm in Infancy. 2. His 
 ** vacating the Covenant betv/een God &: him, he v/as 
 " brought into thereby. 3. Renouncing all ocherOr- 
 *' dinances of the Gofpel, as the Minitlry of the Word, 
 *' and the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. 4. 1 hat 
 
 '' Chrift 
 
'14; A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IL 
 
 " Chrift muft have forfaken hisChurch,for many Ages, 
 ** and not made good the Promife of his Prefence in 
 « this Ordinance. 5. That there could be no fuch 
 *' Thing as Baptifm in the World now, neither among 
 " T^dobaftifts^ nor Antip^dobaptifts.''' Pag. 5. 
 
 The two firft of thefe Confequences more nearly af- 
 fe6i:ing the Subjedt in Debate, I Ihali for that Reafon 
 more particularly confider, and examine, and then at- 
 tend to what he has to fay to the Reft. 
 
 I. As to the firft, viz. A MarCs renouncing his Bap « 
 tijm in Infancy \ it is not di redly denied by Dr. G/7/, 
 that a Man who has been baptized in Infancy, by ef- 
 poufing the Principles of the Antipadobaptifts^ and re- 
 ceiving Baptifm in theirWay, does by juH Conftrudion 
 renounce hisBaptifm in Infancy, wherein he was folemn- 
 ]y dedicated to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft. 
 But I fhall undertake to fhew, that the embracing An- 
 tipjedobaptifm^ by one baptiz'd in Infancy, is a virtual 
 renouncing of a true Chriftian Baptifm, and there being 
 therein a Dedication, in Fa6l, of the Party baptized 
 unto God, (whatever Miftakes may be fappos'd either 
 in the one, or the other, ) it is unlawful to renounce 
 cither. This is denied and contradided by our Au- 
 thor •, his Words are (ibid.) " He cannot be faid to re- 
 •'• jed & renounce the Ordinance of Baptifm, for when 
 *' he embraces the Principle of Adult Baptifm, and 
 *' adts up to it, he receives tl^e true Baptifm which the 
 *' Word of God warrsfhts. — -. — But it feems it is a 
 " Renunciation of his Baptifm in Infancy -, and what 
 *' of that ? it fhould be prov'd firft, that that is Bap- 
 *' tifm, and that it is good, and valid, before it can be 
 *' charged as an Evil to renounce it," &c. The Mean- 
 ing of all this is, tho' it be granted that a Man renoun- 
 ces his Baptifm in Infancy, yet he cannot be faid to re- 
 nounce any Baptifm which Chrift has inftitutcd, or the 
 Word of God warrants ; ; His Baptifm received in his 
 infant Age, being for that Reafon a meer Nullity : Nor 
 is he to be blamedj but rather commended for renounc- 
 ing; 
 
Chap. 11: of Infanc-Baptlfm; f 3 
 
 ing fuch Baptifm, as his following Words import. 
 Then he muft intend to fay, that the Age of a Perfon, 
 or Time of receiving Baptifm, is eflential to the Ordi- 
 nance. So that if it be not receiv'd at a proper Age^ 
 it is null and void ; for the Mode comes not into Dif- 
 pute here, (tho' even that is but a Circumftance and 
 not of the EfTence of the Ordinance, as fhall be iliewed.) 
 But he lays the Nullity, or Invalidity of Baptifm chief.y 
 on its being adminiftred in the infant Age ; which he 
 could not do, unlefs he made the Age to be of the Ef- 
 fence of the Inftltution ; for the Abfence or Want of 
 nothing but what is EfTential to the Ordinance, can be 
 faid to deftroy its EfTence, or render it a Nullity. 
 
 What he has here advanc'd upon the Suppofition of 
 his Principle {that adult Baptifm is the only true Baptifm 
 warranted by the Word of God) might bring on the main 
 Difpute, but I purpof<.ly wave it, in this Place, and fhall 
 only {2L'^^nat it is a manifest Error^to fay,that theTime, 
 or Age of a Man's Life is efiential to the Ordinance of 
 Baptifm, fo far as that the Want of a proper Regard 
 thereto Ihould render the whole Ordinance invalid. 
 For there is nothing of this mention'd in the Inftitution, 
 we take theOrdinance,as Chrift has inflituted it,to con- 
 fift in the v/alhing with Water in the Name of the Sa- 
 cred Trinity, pcrform'd by an authoriz'd Adminiflrator 
 to a Subjedl capable. This is the Subltance of the Or- 
 dinance, this Chrift has inftituted, and this we inviola- 
 bly obferve ; and Baptifm thus adminiftred, is a true 
 Chriftian Baptifm ; but the Age or Time wherein it is 
 to be adminiftred, whether in Infancy, or at adult Age, 
 is but a Circumftance, and not of the Eftence of the 
 Ordinance, and aCircumftance not exprefsly determin*d 
 in the Inftitution, but we are left for Diredion in this 
 Matter to other general Rules of Scripture : which, I 
 fhall Ihew hereafter, fufhciently warrant theAdminiftra- 
 tion of this Ordinance to fome Infants. In the mean 
 Time, our Adverfaries can't with the leaft Shadow of 
 
 Reafon 
 
\6 ^ Defence of the Divine Right Gh ap, II, 
 
 Reafon charge us with Will-Worfhip in baptizing In- 
 fants ; for the Ordinance is not our Invention, nor a 
 Rite of Man's Devifingjbut an Inftitution of Chrift, and 
 ve receive and obferve it according to his Inftitution, 
 without any eflential Failure in the Adminiftration, 
 fuppofing the recipient Subjedl capable ; tho' they may 
 think we fail in the Circumftance of Age. 
 
 I am aware, that Dr. G/7/, or fome Antipaiohapifi 
 may take me up fhort here, and fay, But Infants are 
 not Subjects capable of the Ordinance : they can't be 
 taught, can't believe, &c. For Anfwer hereunto, I af- 
 firm, and will prove, that Infants are capable of the 
 Ordinance of Baptifm ; whether they ought to be bap- 
 tiz'd is another Queftion \ but that they are capable of 
 it, and that it ought not therefore to be denied them, 
 by Reafon of any Incapacity on their Part of receiving 
 it, is evident \ for they are capable of the Thing figni- 
 fied in Baptifm, and of the outward Sign, or Seal. 
 
 I. Infants are capable of cleanfing by the Blood of 
 Chrift, and of Regeneration by the Spirit, which is the 
 Thing fignified in Baptifm : according to the Import 
 of thofe Words of our Saviour, Job, 3. 5. Except a Man 
 (Gr. ean mee tis^ except any one, whether aMan grown, 
 or an Infant j be born of fVater^and of theSpirit^he cannot 
 enter into the Kmgdom of God. And thofe of the Apoftle, 
 Tit. 3.5. Hefaved us by the wafJoing of Regeneration Mz, 
 Whence it follows, that if Infants be incapable of 
 the regenerating Mercy of God, fignified in Baptifm, 
 they are incapable of Salvation, dying in the Age of 
 Infancy. But if they are capable ot the Malady of na- 
 turalCorruption, tranfmitced to them from fallen Adam^ 
 (whereby they are become obnoxious to Death) without 
 their explicit Knowledge and Confent, in a Way and 
 Manner beyond our Comprehenfion, as all muft grant 
 that believe the original Defilement of Man's Nature ; 
 and as our Saviour's following Words import, i', 6. 
 That which is born of thcFlefh is Flefh — Who can doubt 
 but that they are in the like inconceivable Manner ca* 
 
 pable 
 
Chap. II. ef Infant-Baptifm. t<j 
 
 pable of the Remedy from the fccond Aiam^ by the re- 
 generating Grace of his Spirit, without, or betore any 
 cxphcit Knowledge of him, or Confent to his Covenant ? 
 Efpecialiy fince the Apoftle puts ^nuch more into the 
 Merit and Grace of Chrift to fave, than was in the Sin 
 of Adam to condemn and deftroy Rom. 5. 15, 17. 
 Moreover, God has promifed his Spirit to regenerate 
 the Infants of his People. Deut. 30. 6. "The Lord thy 
 God will circumcife thineHeart^i^ the Heart of thy Seed^Scc. 
 To circumcife the Hearty is to regenerate the Heart, 
 naturally depraved -, Regeneration being the fpiritual 
 Part of that initiating Riie of Cit-cumcifion, under the 
 Old Teftament, as it is of Baptifm under the New. 
 And the Phrafe — thine Hearty and th: Heart of thy Seedy 
 leads us to underftand the Promife here, m the fame 
 Extent with the Covenant, Gen. 17. 7. — to be a God 
 to thee^ and to thy Seed Which, we are fure, extends to 
 the- infant Seed. /. 12. And the Spirit is exprefsly pro- 
 mifed to fuch, fo the End mention' J,in Terms more fui- 
 table to the Gofpel Sacrament of Initiation, being figni- 
 fied therein. Ifai. 44. 3. I will pour JVater on him that 
 is thirsty y and Floods upon the dry Ground ; / will pour my 
 Spirit upon thy Seed, and my Bleffing upon thine Off 'spring. 
 Which is alio to be underflood, in analogy to the Cove- 
 nant,to include, at leail, their infant Seed ; which proves 
 them not only capable of the Grace of God, but that 
 many of them are made adlual Partakers of it : How 
 clfe can the divine Veracity in the i^romife be falv'd ? 
 And oi Jeremiah, and John the Baptift, we read, that the 
 one yftM ftn^ifedyh'^ other filled with the Holy Ghor^^ fror/t 
 his Mother's IVomb, Jer. i. 5, Luk. i. 15. If thole were 
 extiaordinary Perfons (as I grant, rhsfe ExprelTions may 
 denoce fomcthing peculiar & extraordinary in the Work 
 of the Spirit in them, beyond whac is ordi.iarily nccefTary 
 to the Salvation of Infants,) yet thefe Examples fhew 
 >vhat Infants are capable of. 
 
 2. They are capable of being entred into Covenant 
 ^i'lih, God. For 'tis paftDifpute, the Children of the Jews 
 
 C were 
 
i8f A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. II.- 
 
 were thus initiated. God took them into federal Relatioa 
 to himfelf, together with their Parents, in his Covenant 
 yN\l\-\ Abraham: Gei^. 17. 7. And afterwards in that fo- 
 lemn Renewal of the Covenant in the Land of Moab by 
 the Miniftry of Mofes^ the whole Body of the Nation, 
 Men, Women and Children, entred into Covenant with 
 God, even their little Ones^ for which we have the exprefs 
 Words of M(?/^j. Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12. Tefland thisDay 
 all of you before the Lord your Gcd^ your Captains of your 
 Tribes^ your Elders^ and your Officers^ with all the Men of 
 Ifrael^ your little Ones^ your PFives^ &c. 'That thou fhouldfi 
 enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his 
 Oathy which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this Day. 
 If any deny the Covenant with Abraham, and the fubfe- 
 quent Covenants, in ''vhich Children, and little Ones, are 
 evidently comprehended, to be the Covenant of Grace, 
 (the Affirmative fhall be vindicated in its proper Place, 
 here I am only Ihewing, Infants are capable of being Co- 
 venanters, and treated as fuch) yet no Reafon can- be 
 given why Infants may be admitted into any other divine 
 Covenant with Men, and not into the Covenant of Grace 
 and Salvation •, their Incapacity in the latter Cafe, can 
 be no more pleaded, than in the former. 
 
 3. Infants are capable of the Seal of the Covenant, and 
 had it adminifter'd to them under the Old Teftament. 
 It cannot be doubted either that Circumcifion was a Seal 
 or Token of the Covenant, for God hath exprefsly declar- 
 ed it to be fo. Gen. 17. 11. It (i. e. Circumcifion)/??^// 
 he a Token of the Covenant betwixt me, and you, ^ Or that 
 it was to be adminiftred to infant Children, foi' God ex-- 
 prefsly commanded it to be fo. /. 12. He that is Eight- 
 Days Old, fhall he circumcifed. And who can deny 't^^t 
 Infants are as capable now of the initiating Seal of the 
 Covenant, as they were then } Whether it be tllis Will of 
 God that it fliould be applied to them in thefe Days of 
 rhe Gofpei, is difputed by our Antagonills ; yet none^' 
 iljrely, can rcalbn-ably make a QueftioD; whether they are 
 
 now 
 
Chap. II.. cf Infant-Bap tifm." "19 
 
 now capable of it, fince it was formerly to be applied to 
 them by the divine Inflitution and Command. 
 
 4. Infants are capable of all, or the principal Ends of 
 Baptifm. Firft^ Is Baptifm defign'd to be a Symbol of 
 AdmiiTion into the vifible Church, and a Badge of difcri- 
 mination from Infidels and Aliens, as Circumcifion was 
 of old ? And was nor Baptifm inftituted to be the facred 
 Livery of Chnft'sDifciples ? Math. 2^. 19 And are not 
 Infants as capable of this, as they are of being entred into 
 Covenant with God, whereby they ?re conflituted Mem- 
 bers of his vifible Church ? Secondly. Is Baptifm defign'd 
 to be a Ratification of the Covenant between God and 
 us •, of Privileges to be confer'd on God's Part, and of 
 Duties to be perform'd on ours ? And are not Infants 
 capable of both thefe ? i. There are peculiar Mercies, 
 Promifes, Providences and fpiritual^ Privileges, fecured 
 on God's Part to his Church and People, which belong 
 not to the Heathen World. Hence Baptifm is repre- 
 fented as the Antitype of Noah's Ark ("which faved Noah . 
 and his Family from the Deluge, i Pei. 3. 20, 21.) as 
 it diilinguifhes a People entitled to fpecial divine Prefer - 
 vation. It alfo qualifies for the Privilege of Accefs to 
 God in the facred Ordinances of the vifible Church. 
 Heb. 10. 22. Let us draw near — having our Bodies wajhed 
 with pure Water. And for an Inheritance in theKingdom 
 of Glory. Hq faves us by the wafloing of Regeneration. 
 ^it. ^. ^. See Joh. ^. ^.. Eph. 5. 26, 27. — 2. There are 
 Obligations to Duties of Obedience on our Part, folemn- 
 ly confirmed by Baptifm. Math. 28. 20. teaching them 
 (the baptized) to obferve alll^hings whatfoever I have com- 
 manded. See alfo, Rom. 6. 3, 4. Gal. 3. 27. i Pet. 3 21. 
 Now, what is there in either of thefe, that Infants are 
 incapable of; are not Infants capable of havingPrivileges 
 fettled and confirm'd to them without their Knowiege 
 or Confent ? Have they not Need, or are they incapa- 
 ble of Pardon and cleanfing in the Blood of Chrift from 
 original Defilement, and of the Inheritance of Life ? Or 
 of the Grace and Merit of the Redeemer in their Salva- 
 
 C 2 ^ tioa 
 
20 At)efence cf the DhlHe Right Chap. II. 
 
 tioDi from Sin and Death ? To pronounce this of Infants, 
 is to pafs a Judgment contrary to Scripture, Rcafon and 
 Experience, and even Humanity itfelf, contrary to the 
 common Meihods of Mankind. Is it notMatter of daily 
 Obfervation among Men, that an Infant may have an 
 earthly Inheritance fettled upon him, by an Inftrument 
 drawn up, fign'd and feal'djcven while he is ignorant of 
 the whole Tranfa<5lion ? 
 
 Again, are not Infants capable of being laid under Ob- 
 ligations of Duty to God, which as they grow up, they 
 may be able to perform j tho' at prefent they Idc not ? 
 W as not Circumcifion a Bond upon Infants to obey the 
 Law of Mofes ? Gal. 5. 3. 1 tejlify to every Man that is 
 cJrctimcifedy that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law, And 
 why are not Chrillian Infants as capable of the baptifmal 
 Obligation to obferve the Law of Chrift,whether theyun- 
 derftand& confent,or no ? For asDr. Lightfoot obferves,"!' 
 " The Equity of theObligation lies not in theParty's un- 
 *' derftanding the Thing,but in the Equity of the Thing 
 *' itfelf. How come allMen liable toJdam'sSin ? TheE- 
 *' quity of imputing it to them makes 'em Uable,as they are 
 *' in//^^;;;'sLoins&Covenant. — Children atBaptifm may 
 ** comeunderObligation,not becaufe they are able to per- 
 *' form theirDuty,or to know it ; but the Equity of the 
 " Thing laies it on them ; they have this natural Bond 
 *' upon them, as Creatures to homage God -, and if the 
 *' Sacramental Bond be added, they are bound as Chrif- 
 *' tians to homage Chrift. Why Ihould this be fo mon- 
 *' flrous, fince they are as much capable to know one, as 
 *' the other ?" Thefe Things confider'd, there can be no 
 rcaf-nabie Doubt of the Capacity of Infants for Baptifm : 
 Since they are evidently capable of the Thing fignified 
 therein, of the outward Sign, and of the great and main 
 Ends of the Ordinance. 
 
 Hence ail Objedtions againft the Baptifm of Infants, 
 from their Incapacity of the Covenant and Sign or Seal 
 
 of 
 
 I S.Y hi3 Works ;W» II, r^g, uzf. 
 
Chap.il ^ Infant-Baptifm; 2r 
 
 of it, are wholly taken off: yet in fuchKind of Objedions 
 lies a confiderable Part, if not the principal, of our Ad- 
 vcrfaries Strength ; '^Infants are not Subjedls capable of 
 Baptifm, but only adult Believers." The old worn out 
 Cavil,that has been often anfwcr'd, is, that Infants can'c 
 be taught, nor learn, they can't repent,nor believe (v/hich 
 Things, 'tis confeis'd, are prerequired unto Baptifm of 
 Perfons f adult Age) therefore Infants ought not to be 
 baptized ; which is as much as to fey, that becaufe In- 
 fants are incapable of the Qualificatioas required of the 
 Adult, therefore they may on no other Account or Con- 
 fideration wharfoever, be admitted to Bap:ifm. This is 
 the whole of what that Plea amounts to, and how weak 
 and inconclufive this Way of Reafoning is, appears to 
 every Man of common Senfe. But this will come to be 
 confider'd and difcufs*d hereafter. In the mean Time it 
 can't be fairly de; ied, that in baptizing Infants, we ad- 
 minifter the true Baptifm which Chrift has inftituted, and 
 that to a capable Subject:, without omitting or adding 
 any Thing elTential to the Infbitution. The Age of the 
 Perfon co be baptiz'd being but a Circumftacce not ex- 
 prefsly decermined, it there be any Error in that (as our 
 Adverfaries fuppofe) it is but a circumflantial Error, that 
 does not invalidate the Ordinance. God did indeed m the 
 Inftitution of Circumcifion (into the Room whereof wc 
 afTert, and fhall afterward prove againll our Author,that 
 Baptifm hath now fucceeded) diredt to, and command 
 this Circumftance relating to the Subje6l, an Infant eight 
 Days old, (Gen. 17. 12.) But in Chrift's Inftitution of 
 Baptifm, there is nothing exprcfs either for Infancy or 
 adukAge : If Chrift had but mentioned the Adult, with- 
 out adding any exclufive Particle to debar Infants -, if he 
 had faidjGi?, teach^ or Difciple,and baftife Men & Women 
 grown : There had been a better Pretence for holding 
 precifely to the Words of theCommifilon, in adminiftring 
 Baptifm only to grown Perfons, becaufe then it would 
 appear, that our Saviour defign'd to point out the Age 
 requifite to the Subjects qualified to receive his Baptifm : 
 
 C 3 Bue 
 
22 A Defence of the 'Divine Right Chap. II. 
 
 But there is no Appearance of any fuch Defign in the 
 Words of the Inflitution (refpeding the Age of the Re- 
 ceiver) as they ftand in the Gofpeh But our Lord has 
 left his Minifters and Churches to be guided in Relation 
 thereto, by the general Difcoveries of God's Will, whe- 
 ther by the Light of Nature or Scripture- Revelation. 
 And hence we might colled an irrefragable Argument 
 for the divine Inftitution of Infant-Baptifm. For fince 
 Infants are no more included, nor excluded in the Words 
 of Iniiitution, than the Adult, no mention being made 
 either of the one or the other, and no exprefs Diredlion 
 given to adminifter Baptifm to the one, exclufive of the 
 other •, if we can gather it (tho' by ScriptureConfequence, 
 or general Intimations in facred Writ) that it is theW^ill 
 of God, thac the Infants of Believers fhould be admitted 
 to this initiating Ordinance of the New Teftament ( as 
 we are fure,we may and can) Infant-Baptifm Hands on as 
 good and fure a Foundation in the Inftitution of Chrift, 
 as that of the Adult. But this is not the proper Place 
 for profecuting and enforcing this Argument. 
 
 I have the more enlarged on this Head, to fhew 
 -how unreafonable a Thing it is, how unchriftian and un- 
 .charitable in the Antip.^dobaptifts^ to tax our Baptifm of 
 Infants as a Nullity, and to let our Author fee what little 
 Reafon he had for his infulting contemptuous Language, 
 when (taking for granted the Subjed in Difpute) he 
 teaches his, youngProfelyte to vilify & rejed his Baptifm 
 in Infancy, as if it were no divine Inftitution, and com- 
 incnds him for his Renunciation of it, as having fioJVar- 
 rant in the Word of God. I have fhewn his Hypthefis 
 to be built on a manifeft Error, viz. That a IVjiftake in 
 a Circumftance quite overthrows and difannuls the Infti^ 
 tution. He can't cliarge us with anyDeviation from the 
 Inftitution in any of the efTentialParts of it,in givingBap- 
 tifm to the Infants of Believers, but only in the Circum- 
 itance of Time or Age of the Party baptized, which (as 
 has been ftiewed) is left undetermined in the Inftitution. 
 If it be faid^ tho' this be not exprefsly deternuned in the 
 
 Words 
 
Chap. II.. ^/ Infant-Baptifmv 2-3 
 
 ..Words of Inflitution, yet confequentially it is, for the 
 Apoftles were to teach thofe whom they were to baptize, 
 and none but Perfons of adult Age are capable of being 
 taught. I anfwer, Admitting theWordT'^^^:^, in the Ori- 
 ginal to fignify, make DifcipleSy as is confefs'd by ourAu- 
 thor.Pag.8o, All that can be proved hencejbyConfequence 
 Perfons mull be lirfl madeDifciples,in order to their being 
 baptized ; and fo we prove by Confequence that Infants 
 are capable of this Qualification, being made Difciples 
 together with their believing Parents, and bro't into the 
 -School of Chrift in order to their being taught his Doc- 
 trine ; as will be feen in the Sequel. But fuppofing we 
 are in the Wrong, as our Adverfaries pretend, in baptiz^ 
 ing Infants, the utmofl they can charge upon us, is a 
 JVlifapplication of the Ordinance to a S.ubjedl (tho' capa- 
 ble of receiving it, yet) of an unfit Age. A Mifiake ij^ 
 fuch a Circumilance^ were it real, can by; no Means be 
 tho't to render the Ordinance null and void, or infer a 
 Neceflity of being baptized again. If fuch a Principle 
 as this were admitted and purfued in its genuine Conle- 
 quences, what Confufion would it introduca into the 
 Churches ? What endlefs Doubts and perplexingUncer- 
 tainties would it involve theMinds of Chriftians in ? Who 
 could be fure,that they ever receiv'd one divine Ordinance 
 b/ a valid Adminiftration ? For who v/ould afTure them, 
 there was no Miilake in fome Circumftance or other of 
 ,.the Adminiftration ? W^herefore, rejeding thisPrinciple, 
 :as a plain Abfurdity, we may fairly conclude, that even 
 on Suppofition,; there might be a Miilake in giving, or 
 receiving Baptifm in an Age too early, yet fuch Baptifm 
 once confer'd (in Regard, at lead, of the Subflapce 
 of the Inftitution) is to be efteemed good and valid , 
 and that the Repetition of it is unlawful, having no 
 Warrant or Foundation in the Word of God : And 
 that Baptifm repeated at adult Age, after one has receiv- 
 ed it in Infancy, is fo far from being the true Baptifm of 
 Chrift, as our Author pretends, that it is to be charged 
 
 C 4 with 
 
24 ^ Defence of the Divine Right Chap. II, 
 
 with the Guilt and Blame of Will-Worfhip^ht\v\g deftitutc 
 of all divine Warrant. 
 
 When, there! ore, any Perfon at adult Age begins to 
 have Scruples in his Mind about his Baptifm in Infancy, 
 he ought, indeed, to ufe all properMeans to get his Scru- 
 ples removed, and his Mind well informed and fatisfied ; 
 and nor immediately to take upon him another Baptifm, 
 which he cannot do, without a criminal Rafhnefs in re- 
 nouncing the Baptifm folemnly confer'd upon him in his 
 infant Age, whereby he was dedicated to God in the fa- 
 cred Affembly, and entred a Member of the vifibleChurch 
 of Chrift •, ai.d chat not only a Baptifm inName, but the 
 true Baptifm which Chrift has inftituted. Nor will his 
 Suppofition, that there might be an Error, or Dcfcd in 
 the Circumllance of Time, in h's being bro*t to Baptifm 
 too early before the Age ot Confent (were it well ground- 
 ed) warrant his fo doing. But the great Concern that 
 now lies before fuch a Perfon, for the fettling of hisCon- 
 fcience, (whilft under fuch Scruples) is to redify that 
 fu| pofed Error, and to fupply that imagin'd Yidtd:^ by 
 doing that now, which he conceives fhould be dt)ne before 
 Baptifm, and which by the Grace of God he has now the 
 Opportunity of doing, that is, to yield a prefent hearty 
 Confent to theCovenant of theGof[,el ; and ferioufly and 
 deliberately to dedicate himfelf to God according to the 
 Tenor of it, in the Exercifc of an i.nteigned Faith in our 
 Lord Jefus Chrift, & Repentance towards God ; and fo 
 to make that his own Choice, and his own A61 & Deed 
 (by a ptrfonal and publickProfefllon) which was done for 
 him by his pious Parents or Guardians in his infant Age, 
 (which is indeed the Duty of all baptized in Infancy^ 
 when grown to Years ot Difcretion, to which they arc 
 obliged. in Obedience to thelnftitution of Chrift, Matth. 
 28. 20.) And to improve his Baptifm, and purfue the 
 proper Ends of it, in the mortitication of Sm, and a ftridl 
 Objbrvance ot the Commands of the Gofpel, that he may 
 be iurnifli'd M'irh the Anfwer of a good Ccnfcience towards 
 €cd. And if he might be perl waded to uke this Courfe, 
 
 he 
 
Chap. II. cf Infant- Baptlfm. 25 
 
 he would certainly find it the mofl effeflual Method to 
 fettle his Mind in aPerfwafion of the Validity and faving 
 Efficacy of his Baptifm. i Pet. 3. 2T. Baptifin doth now 
 fave us, not the putting away of the Filth of the Flejlj^ hut 
 the Anfwer of a good Confcience towards God. T^his is the 
 great Concern ot the baptized, and 'tis by Means of this 
 principally, that Baptifm (at whatever Age of a Man's 
 Life it be received) becomes effectual to his Salvation. 
 But if inftead of this moftfafe and fureMethGd,he fuffers 
 hisScruples to pufh him on to repeat hisBaptifm, (^where- 
 by he virtually renounces his Chridian Baptifm once re- 
 ceiv'd) he ought to be aware of the Temptation and Share 
 of Satan herein, defigning to unfettle him in hs religious 
 Concerns, or fecretly perfwading him that by fubmitting 
 to Baptifm in the Mode of the Antip^^dobaptifts, under 
 the Notion of an Ordinance more contormable to divine 
 Inftitution, he may be faved from his Sins, and get io 
 Heaven at an eafier Rate, than by the painful Exercifeof 
 Mortification, Self-denial, and ftrid Watchfuinefs in the 
 Duties of the Christian Lite j which is certainly a dange- 
 rous Pelufion. 
 
 Let me here put the Cafe, (which I fear, is not un- 
 common in theChriflian World,) a Man takes upon him 
 the Chriilian ProfefTion, and receives Baptifm, wich no 
 other than carnal Views, aiming at fome worldly Advan- 
 tage or Credit, without any inward Senfe of the Impor- 
 tance of that Ordinance, or any Regard to the Duties of 
 Privileges of Chriftianity. I'll fuppofe this Man after- 
 wards to be touch'dwith a Senfe of his great and heinous 
 Sins, and among the ^fl, of his wretched Prevarication 
 in receiving Chriilian Baptifm. Now the Queflion is. 
 Whether fuch a Man under his Convidlions is to be di- 
 reded to be baptized over again ? This, 1 believe, will 
 not be afTerted by the Antip^edohapifls in general : No, 
 he is baptized upon the Principle of adult Baptifm, and fo 
 receives the true Raptifm which the PFord of God warrants 
 and dire^s to. Yet this Man, in the Cafe fuppofed, is 
 certainly more criminally defective in his Qualificatioa 
 
 for 
 
26 A Defence of the Divine Right Ch a p, IL 
 
 for Baptifm, than an Infant can be pretended to be ; he 
 is under a moral Incapacity, highly difpleafing to God ; 
 which cannot be faid of an Intant, who (if he hath not 
 Faithj befure is not an unbelieving Hypocrite or DifTem- 
 bler. But as Simon Magus (who was fuch another graccr 
 lefs Wretch, as 1 have here fuppofed, and had been bap- 
 tized by Philip) when he had made a Difcovery of his 
 vile Hypocrify, was diredled by the Apoftle Peter ^ not to 
 be baptized anew, but to repent^ (^ pray, &c. Ait.. 8 22; 
 So that the proper Advice or DirecStion to be given the 
 Man in the Cafe mention'd, is to repent of his Wicked- 
 nefs and change his Life, and to pray to God to pardon 
 his pall Sins, and by his Grace to ftudy with greaterCarc 
 to anfwer the Defign of his Baptifm once receiv'd, and to 
 live up to the Bonds of it •, and fo to corred as much as 
 in him lies, what was amifs in his firft receiving it, & not 
 to receive it a fccond Time. I have put the Cafe, to 
 fhew, that even tho' it be fuppofed an Error to admini- 
 fler Baptifm toPerfons in their infantAge, (which I deny) 
 yet it is fuch an Error, as is capable, of being rectified 
 in the Way and Manner before declared, without the Re- 
 petition of the Ordinance, which is unwarrantable, (all 
 the Eficntial Requifites of it having been duly obferv'd 
 before) even as fand one would think, much more than) 
 what is more criminally amifs, in a Man's receivingBap- 
 tifm, not being duly qualified, as it is/requifite Per-fons of 
 adukAge l>.ou]d be, may be redified by his afterCondud^ 
 The main Thing in Baptifm is the folemn Dedication 
 of the Perfon baptized to God the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghoft, and Infants in their Baptifm come under this facred 
 Dedication. Therefore the Miniiler in the Dialogui ]w^\y 
 urges thisConlideration on the Confcience of his Parifldio- 
 tier, to aggravate the Blame and Guilt he would incur by 
 renouncing his Baptifm in infancy, that in fo doing he 
 virtually renounces his folemn Dedication to God in that 
 Ordinance"-, which, furely, no ferious Perfon will reckon 
 a trifling Matter : Yet even here our Author carries on 
 theVein of infuking, ^ den:iands " By whom is the Per- 
 
 '' ion 
 
Chap. II. • of Infant-Baptifm. 27 
 
 *' Ton in his Infancy dedicated to. God, when Baptifm is 
 " laid to be adminiller'd to him ? Not by himfelf, for he 
 " is Ignorant of the wholeTranfadlion." This is granted, 
 but then he adds, " It mud be either by the Minifter or 
 *' his Parents \ the Parents indeed defu'e the Child may 
 *' be baptized, and the Minifter ufes fuch a Form of 
 , *' Words, / baptize thee in the Natne of the Father^ of the 
 ..//; .Scn^ and of the HolyGhoft'' And then aiks in a difdain- 
 fful Manner, "WhatDedication is here made by the one 
 .,V or by the other" ? and denies that fuch Dedication of 
 .Children has any more Warrant from the Word of God^ 
 than their Baptifm. Pag. 5. 6. I hope, in Charity to the 
 generality of the Antipadobaptifis (many of whom arePer- 
 fons of a ferious and pious Temper^ that this Pleader oi 
 their Caufe has not the Concurrence of many of thatPer- 
 fwafion, in this Determination, fo contrary to Chriflian 
 Piety and Charity, nor in the Shght he cads on parental 
 Dedication of Children toGod. For tho' they difapprove 
 of the AppHcation of the Rite of Baptifm to infants, yet 
 they have a good Efteem of the pious Pradice of Parents 
 in dedicating their Children to God •, and I hope, in their 
 Way, they pradife accordingly. Thofe of this Perfv/a- 
 fion, efpeciaily in the lafl Age, Bp. 'Patrick reprefents, as 
 being of this Mind, in not denying, that // is very fit that 
 Parents fhotdd devote and conf cerate their Children to God. 
 The whoieParagraph or that excellent Author deferves to 
 be tranfcrib'd, as what is pertinent to the prefent Purpofe. 
 f " Children" (faith he) '' are in the Power of their 
 " Parents, and they have a Jus or Right unto them, fo 
 " as they have to any otherThings that are their proper 
 *' Goods. They may therefore make an Offering of them 
 " to God, and dedicate them to his Ufes, as well asLand 
 •' or Money : And there is no Queftion but God will as ' 
 " well accept of them, as of any Thing elfe that they 
 " confecrate to him, and take them to his Portion ; fo 
 " that it ihall be a facrilcs-ious A6t for thefe Infants here- 
 
 " after 
 
 t In his J^ua Cctii talis, at the End of Mcu/a Myjiica. P. 449, 
 
28 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IL 
 
 " after to alienate themfelves from him, or to convert 
 " themfelves to the Ufe and Service of any other. This 
 (faith he^ " the Deniers of Infant-Baptifm cannot deny, 
 ** that it is very fit that Par entsjhould byfolemn Prayers and 
 " Profejjion devote and confe crate their Children to Gody 
 «* and make an open Oblation of them before all to his Ser- 
 ** vice, only they would not have it done by wafhing with 
 *^ Water : Which is as much as to grant,they would have 
 *' theThing done5but not the Ceremony or Rite ufed,and 
 «< that they are capable of the Thing fignified but not of 
 « the Sign, of the Greater Matter, but not of the Lefs ; 
 ** and as it feems to me, they make a Controverfy, where 
 *' there need be none -, for if they are to be devoted to 
 *' God, Baptifm being the Way wherein we devote our 
 " felves to him, and being fo fignificant of our Duty, it 
 *' is the fitteft Way wherein to devote our Children to 
 " his Ufe " Whether Dr. Gill allows of any fuch Thing 
 as perfonal Dedication, or that any Man has Power or 
 Warrant to dedicate himfelf to God in Covenant, I think 
 is juftly queftionable,by divers PafTages in his Book, par- 
 ticularly, Pag. 8. and 47. I fhall not be fo uncharitable 
 to the Reader as to fuppofe him to needProof from Scrip- 
 ture, that perfonal Covenanting, or perfonal Dedication 
 jto God, is a Duty incumbent on every one to whom the 
 Covenant of Grace is publifh'd and ofFer'd ; thofe that 
 dcTire it, I fhall refer to theTexts cited at.the Foot of the 
 Page. * This, therefore, beijig admitted, how contrary is 
 it to Reafon and Scripture, to deny that Parents have any 
 Warrant from the Word of God to dedicate their Chil- 
 dren to him ? For, 
 
 I . If Parents have good Warrant from the Word of 
 God, and from the Covenant of God, to dedicate them- 
 felves to him, they have fufficient Warrant thence to de- 
 dicate their Children to him alfo. For they that give up 
 themfelves to God as their fupream Owner, Ruler and 
 Benefador, according to the Tenor of his Covenant, are 
 
 fuppofed 
 
 • z.Chron. 30. 8. ?fal. 5O. <;. IfiL 44. 5. ,^-Chap. 56. 6. Jer, 50. 5. 
 /J<?w. 6. 1 3. & Chap. 12. I. 2 Gr. 8. 5. 
 
Chap. II. ^/ Infant-Baptifm* 29 
 
 fuppofed to devote all that they are and have to him, 
 without Referve, all their Powers, Capacities, Relations, 
 Interefts & PoflefTions, to be improved in fuch Ways 
 as he requires for his Service and Glory : otherwife their 
 Dedication of themfelvcs is not entire and unreferved ; 
 and their Children being more their own, than any other 
 outward Interefts, being Parts of themfelves, as their 
 Goods are not, they don't give up themfelveSjtheir whole 
 felves to God, unlefs they alfo dedicate their Children to 
 him. They have equalWarrant for the one and the other. 
 
 2. God claims a fpecialPropriety in theChildren of the 
 Church, by Virtue of his Covenant with them. He faith, 
 ^hey are my Servants, Lev. 25.42. My Children^ Ezek. 
 16. 21. Children whom thou haft born unto me, Ver. 20, 
 And if God hath a Propriety in theChildren of the faith- 
 ful, not only as his Creatures in common with others, but 
 as his Children and Servants, as his Heritage ( as they are 
 called. Pfal. 127. 3. Lo, Children are the Heritage of the 
 Lord,) have they not a good Scripture Warrant to dedi- 
 cate them to him ? Doth not the Scripture fay. Render 
 unto God the things that are God's F Matth. 22. 21. 
 I may add, 
 
 3. It is warranted by the Example of pious Parents in 
 Scripture. That the People of Ifrael thus dedicated their 
 Children toGod, needs no other Proof than the Circum- 
 cifion of their Children, which was the federal Rite of 
 Initiation, and Dedication toGod under thatDifpenfation. 
 On which Occafion a folemn Form of Words f and cer- 
 tain 
 
 f So the learned Mr. MeJe underftands thofe Words of Zipporah in 
 circumcifmg her Child (Exod. 4 25. A bloody Hujh and art thou to 
 Me) not as Ipoken to Mofes, but (as the folemn Form then in Ufe) 
 to her Child, whom fiie circumclfed ; And obferves, that the Be^ 
 hre-w Word Chatham, rendered Hvjbandy properly fignifes a Son-in- 
 La^\ and a Spou/e or Hvjband only by Way of Equivalence or Co- 
 incidence, and gives the Meaning to this Purpofe, AVxu thou arty or 
 he thou TnySon in La-iVy being rfpoujed to Circumcifion. Or thus, By me 
 thou art made God's Son in LaiAj by the Blood of Circumnfwn. In gene^ 
 ral, fignifying the initiating her Child into the Covenant by the 
 blppdy Ri;e of Circum^Aon. ^es his Works f ol. Book 2 Pag. 52. 
 
20 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. II; 
 
 tain Prayers were ufed, defigning this Initiation' of the 
 Child into the Covenant of Abraham. \\ And did notGod 
 ordain, that all the Firft-born of the Children of Ifrael 
 fhould be fan5fified to him ? fExod. 13. 2.) In Confor- 
 mity to which Law the holy Child Jefus was prefented 
 to theLord in theXemple. (Luk,2,22^2^.) Tho' this In- 
 ftitution was founded on aReafon peculiar to i\\^lfraelitijh 
 Nation, yet the moral Equity of it extends to theChriftian 
 Church, which is term'd . /^^ C^^rfi? of the Firft-born, 
 (Heb. 12. 23) Not to mention particular Examples, as 
 that of Hannah the pious Mother of Samuel^ confecrating 
 him to the fpecial Service of God in his Infancy, accord- 
 ing to herVow before, his Birth. ( i Sam. i . 1 1 ,2 8 . j And 
 the Mother of King Lemuel^ who is bro't in thus befpeak- 
 ing her Son, Prov. 31. 2. What., my Son I and what ^ the 
 Son of my Womb ! and what., the Son of my Vows ! Being 
 the Son of her Womby he was the Son of her Vows., much 
 in the fame Senfe, we may fuppofe, as Samuel might be 
 called the Son of his Mother's Vows -, i. e. devoted and 
 confccrated toGod •, it is hence evident, thatParents have 
 a Right to dedicate their Children to God, and his Ser- 
 vice. Which may be further argued, 
 
 4. From all thofe Precepts, Diredions, and Exhorta- 
 tion in Scripture, which oblige Parents to bring up their 
 Children in the Knowlege and Fear of God, in the very 
 beginning of their learning Age, and which prcfuppofe 
 and require a previous Dedication of them to him. As 
 Deut. 6. 7. & Chap. 31. 13. Pfal. yS. 5, 6. Prov. 22.6. 
 Eph. 6. 4. and many others. But what Need I infill on 
 Scripture Proof for a Thing, which the very Law of Na- 
 ture dilates and warrants ; for if God had not faid in 
 Scripture, A/l Souls are mine., as the Soul of the Father y 
 fo alfo the Soul of the Son is mine {Ezck. 18. 4. ) Yet he 
 . had fufficiently taught us by natural Reafon to acknow- 
 ledge it. And what elfe is the Dedication we are fpeak- 
 ing of, but a recognizing God's fuprcam abfglute Right, 
 
 and 
 
 !! Vid BttXt. Sy^ia^o^ Judnig. Chap. II, 
 
Chap. 11/ c/ Infant-Baptifm^ 31 
 
 and Dominion in and over us, and our Children ? What 
 Reafon then had our Author to allert fo • confidently, 
 "Inhere is no Warrant from the Word of God^either for fuch 
 Baptifm or Dedication ? Unlefs he thinks that tho' the 
 Dedication of our Children to God be lawful and warran- 
 table, yet its being accompanied with the Rite of Baptifm 
 (andfo tranfadled with Solemnity) renders it unlawful 
 and unwarrantable. Whereas, the contrary Way of Rea- 
 foning is much more juft and proper, and more conclu- 
 five, that fince we have good Warrant from the Law of 
 Nature, and from divineRevelation,to dedicate ourfelves, 
 and our Children to God,who is the fovereign ProprijMK^r 
 both of us, and them ^ and fince Baptifm is the only ini- 
 tiating Rite under the Gofpel, the inftituted Symbol of 
 Dedication to God the Father, Son and Holy Ghoft : 
 We may hence fairly Conclude, that the baptifmal Dedi- 
 cation of our Children to him is agreable to his Mind and 
 W^ill ; at leaft, the prefentConfideration, in Conjun6lion 
 with what has been before afTerted & proved, that Infants 
 are capable of receiving the Baptifm which Chrift hath 
 inftituted, goes far towards a Proof of the Divine Right 
 of Infant Baptifm. 
 
 The Parent offers up his Child to God in the fame 
 inftituted Way,in which he requires him to offer up him« 
 felf to him, (and by Confequence his Child as Part of 
 himfelf) and the Minifter as the lawful Adminiftrator of 
 the Ordinance, ufes the inftituted Form of Dedication, 
 baptizing the Child in theName of the Father^ the Son, and 
 the Holy Ghoft : Here is certainly a Dedication made of 
 the Child, in Fa6l, both by the one and the other, the 
 Renunciation whereof is unlawful, for it is in EfFed: 
 a-difowning God's Propriety \ however the Right be dif» 
 puted, (yea tho' it were granted (as it is not) there was 
 Ibmething amifs in the Manner and Circumfiance of the 
 A6lion) yet the Child being dedicated inFa6f, I am fure, 
 it has afterwards, when arrived to adult Age, no War- 
 rant from theWord of God to renounce its Infant-Dedi- 
 cMion, nor can he do it, as Bp. Patrick obftrves, without 
 
 incuring 
 
32 A Defence of the Divine Right [Chap. II. 
 
 incurring the Guilt of a facrilegious Alienation of himfelf 
 from God. Our Author might know that fundry Things 
 are faid in Scripture to be accounted and owned by God, 
 as facred to him ; which were firft offered to him in a 
 Manner much more fcandaloufly erronious, than any 
 Thing our Adverfaries can with any Pretence charge oa 
 the baptifmal Dedication of Infants. Were not the Cen- 
 fers ot the Korahites efteem'd holy by God, and com- 
 manded to be regarded as Things dedicated, tho' they 
 offer'd them in a State of Rebellion and mutinous Com- 
 petition with yf^r<3« for thePriefthood ? Num. i6. '^jy^^, 
 Sppk unto Eieazer the Son of Aaron the Priejiy that he 
 take up the Cenfers — out of the burning. — For they are 
 hallowed — for they offered them before the Lord, therefore 
 they are hallowed. And why were the Altars \n Samaria^ 
 and among the tenTribes, in Ahah\ Time, called God's 
 Altars, ( when Elijah making Interceffion againft Ifrael, 
 faith — They have thrown down thine Altars, i King. 19.10.) 
 And that, after God had appointed but one Altar at Je* 
 rufalem, Thofe Altar i^ therefore, feem'd to have beea 
 Schifmatical, yet being ereded to the Service & Honour 
 of Jehovah the God of Ifrael, and attended by the pious 
 Ifraelites who could not go up to Jerufalem, God owns 
 them as hts Altars, and the feeming Irregularity is dif- 
 pens'd with ; and the throwing them down is charged 011 
 the apoftate Ifraelites as a very heinous Sin. Let our Ad- 
 verfaries make the Application,and confider whether the 
 Dodlrine they teach their Profelytcs, that it is no Sin to 
 renounce their folemn Dedication toGod in Infancy (fup-^ 
 pofing, as they do, there is an Errour in the Baptifm of 
 Jntants) be jullifiable by any Reafons from Scripture, 
 which will acquit them from Guilt in the Sight of God. 
 Dr. Gill could not deny, that a Man, by efpoufing the 
 Principle of adult Baptifm, and adting up to ir, after he 
 has been baptized in Infancy, does renounce his folema 
 Dedication to God the. Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft % 
 but he takes a fhorter Way of anfwering f tho' lefs jufti- 
 fiablc} in denying^ U^^rc is any f ouadatijpa or Warianc 
 
Chap. IL <?/ Infant-Baptifm. ^j 
 
 in the Word of God for fuch Dedication. His Caufe, it 
 feems, required it -, -but withal, it muft be own'd to be a 
 bad Caufe, that makes fuch a Conclufion neceiTary for its 
 Defence. And I am perfwaded, there is no Perfon of a 
 ferious Thought, who well underflands and confiders the 
 moral Grounds and Reafons of any Dedication to God, 
 whether perfonal, or parental, and feriouQy defires, and 
 purpofes to make a Dedication of himfelf to him in the 
 Covenant of the Gofpel, but will be fo far from being of- 
 fended at the Ad of his Parents in his early Confecration 
 to God, that he will ftudy to make it his own by the Re- 
 newal of it in his own perfonalConfent thereunto,and will 
 rather blefs God, and be thankful to his Parents (what- 
 ever his Thoughts be of Infant- Baptifm) for their pious 
 Care & Intention towards him therein •, and will be very 
 cautious of doing any Thing to fruftrate the goodDefigti 
 and Purpofe of it. But if he underftands and confiders 
 withal, that the Confequence of embracing the Principles 
 o^ xh^Antipcedobaptifts^mu^ be hisDenial and renouncing 
 of his earlyDedication,this muft appear to him fuch an In- 
 ftance of Impiecy, f as, to a conliderate Man (one would 
 think) were enough to put a Stop to hisProceedings, how 
 inclinable foever he might be to thofe Principles on other 
 Accounts. For can that Principle or Pradice be of God, 
 which requires Men to renounce their Dedication to him, 
 which appears to be founded in theLaw of Nature,as well 
 as holy Scripture ? This muft needs ftick in Men's Con- 
 fciences, as a Scruple not eafily to be removed by fair and 
 impartial Reafoning. But now, left this fhould be a Bar 
 toProfelytes, here comes Dr. G/7/, and fooths their Con- 
 fciences, celling them, ii they will believe him on his bare 
 Word, that " a Renunciation of it need not give any Un- 
 " eafinefs to any Perfon fo baptized & dedicated." P. 6. 
 
 D But 
 
 f It is reported of Witches, and thofe that hold unlawful Commerce 
 with evil Spirits, that in Order to their entring into Confederacy 
 with them, they are folicitcd by thofe malicious apoftate Spirits, firft 
 to renouuce their Baptifm, even tho' receiv'd in Infancy ; which 
 fhews, that fuch a Renunciation of Baptifm, which Dr. Gill pleads 
 for and commends, is iMau^r gf r<^a| Impiety. 
 
54- A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IL 
 
 But is not this to dauh with untempered Mortar^ and too 
 pearly to refemble thefalfe Prophets inlfrael, v^hofeduced 
 God'sPeople, fayrftg.Peace.zvben there was noPcace. Ezek, 
 13.10. I leave it to hisfeiious Confideration. 
 
 This may fuffice to be obferv'd on the firftConfequence 
 pf a Fcrlbn's crpoufing the Principle of adult Baptifm, 
 viz. his renouncing hisChriftian Baptifm ^Dedication to 
 God in Infancy : On which I have the more largely in- 
 filled, to Ihew, inOppofition to Dr. Gill fwho admitting 
 the Confequcnce, yet denies that fuch Baptifm or Dedi- 
 cation has any Foundation in the Word of God) that fup- 
 pcfing(but not granting) there are fomeErrors in the bap- 
 tifniai Dedication of our Children to God, yet (allowing 
 the utmoit that can, with any Shadow of Reafon, be ob- 
 jected by our Adverfaries) they can amount to no more 
 than circumllantial Errors, which do by noMeans deflroy 
 or nuHiiy the Ordinance. And that therefore the Repe- 
 tition of it is a Thing utterly unwarrantable, and an Ar- 
 gument of a linful Raflmefs in any adult Pcrfon,who has 
 rcceiv'd the trueBaptifm of Chriil in Infancy ; by the Re- 
 petition whereof at adult Age, 'tis acknowledged he re- 
 nounces his former Baptifm, andDedication to the facred 
 Trinity therein. Winch I wifh were well confidered by 
 thofe that lie under a ilrong Temptation to go over to 
 the Ptrfwafion of the Jntipccdobaptifts, * 
 
 2. I 
 
 ♦ It may be proper here to obfervCjthat the fzmousMr. Whiflon having 
 Jeft the Communion of the Church of Englmid, or being forc'dfrom 
 it, bccaufe jic could no \id\\^tv]o\n\r\.xS\c\x horrible Athannftan Creed 
 
 - (as he terms it; law meet, among all iheDiflbnters from the cftablifh'd 
 Church, to join himfelf to the Conimunion of the People called Bap- 
 
 , //V/j, and yet would never fubniit to be Re-baptiz'd in Order to his 
 Acimiliion thereunto. And tho' upon the Change of his Perfwafion 
 in c his Particular, he appear'd as vehement and peremptory, as any 
 of the mo/l warm and zealous of that Se6l, in pronouncing the Bap- 
 tifm of Infants, before ]nftru(ftion,and performed by Sprinkling, en- 
 tiniy^vfong, cjid irregular ; yet he acknowledges, and declares them 
 to be *'/o/<:ir real Baptijms.that they ought net to be repeated.''' And 
 o>,ers fcvcral Rcalbns for it. At the fame Time, he acquaints us, that 
 iherc aic fomc that^o by the Name of Gmr(il-Baptij?s,y(\\o are not 
 
 id 
 
Chap. II. ef Infant-Baptifm. 35 
 
 2. I proceed to take Notice of our Author's Excep- 
 tions againft the next Confequence of a Perfon's embrac- 
 ing Antipasdobaptifm, who has been baptized in Infancy, 
 viz. his " vacating the Covenant between God & him, 
 *« by difowning that Relation to the glorious God which 
 *' he was brought into by Baptifm," as it is exprefs'd in 
 the Dialogue, P. 4. This fcems necefTarily implied in his 
 renouncing his baptifmal Dedication to God, which is not 
 difputed •, which Dedication is warranted by that Claufe 
 of the Covenant, / will he the God of thy Seed. The Con- 
 firmation of this Confequence depends chiefly on the Re- 
 folution of the Queftion, Whether the Infants of Chrif- 
 tians are taken into Covenant-Reladon to God with their 
 
 D 2 Parents 
 
 fo rigid in their Principles, but will readily admit thofe who defire ft, 
 to their Communion,without infifting upon a Re-baptization, parti- 
 cularly Dr.FoJiert to whofeCommunion,he tells us, he join'd himfelf 
 with a great Deal of Satisfadlion. See Memoirs of the Life of Mr. 
 Whifton, ^uoritten by himfelf Part II. P. 485, Sec. What a Pity is it 
 that this Spirit of Moderation is fo rare a Thing among the People 
 of that Denomination, as Mr. Whifion has reprefented it to be ! If 
 all were a£led by fo catholick a Spirit, this Controvcrfy might be 
 buried; and there would be noNeed of dividing Communions upon 
 the different Perfwafions relating thereto. In the mean Time, it ia 
 indeed furprizing,thatMr./^/^//?&/?(who is known,for aCourfe of many 
 years,to have openly avouched it as his Opinion, that the ApofioUcal 
 Conjlitutions are Part of the facred Canon of the NenAj-TeJiament, and 
 of equal Authority with the Writings of the £<utf/7g-^///yj themfelves) 
 fhou'd chufe to join himfelf to the Bapiijis, fmce there is, in thofe 
 Conftitutions,this exprefsInjun6lion,quoted by Mx.Whiflon [Memoirs 
 Part I, P. 205.) BaptHze your IrfantSy and bring them up in theNurture 
 and Admonition ofGcd; for he fays, Suffer the little Children to come 
 untome,and forbid them not. Confitut. Lib. 6. Cap. 15. Jt is in vain 
 pretended, that the Infants required to be baptized are infruBcd In- 
 fants : for befides that no Infants, in a proper Senfe, are capable of 
 fuch Inftru6lions as are requifite to qualify for adult Baptifm, and be- 
 lides that the Inj unftion is indefinite,including all Infants ; It is,more- 
 over, to be obfen^*d,that the Rule here given prefcribes thislnltruc- 
 tion of Infants after their Baptifm. Baptize your Infants, and bring 
 them up, &c. And the Reafon alledg'd in the Conftitutions, is taken 
 from thofe Words of our Saviour, Suffer little Children to come unto 
 meyhz. which, we learn from the Gofpel Hiftory,were Infants inAge, 
 Luk. 18. 15. So that there feems fomethin^ unaccQuntabk in the 
 Condu^ of this learned Cemkmaa. 
 
36 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. II., 
 
 Parents •, which I own, is the main Ground of theirRight ^ 
 to Baptifm. The Affirmative I fhall endeavour to prove * 
 and vindicate, beyond all reafonable Exception, in a fol- 
 lowing C/^^;>/^r. In the mean Time, let me obferve,that 
 if the Negative be true, that is to fay, if the Children of 
 Chriftians be excluded from all Right,orIntereft inGod's 
 Covenant with their Parents, how unhappy & comfortlefs 
 is the Condition of ChriftianParents,compared with that 
 of confederate Parents in the Church of Ifrael^ who had 
 the Covenant feal'd to their Children in their Infancy ? 
 Whereby God mark'd them out for his Children and 
 Heritage, and cngag'd himfelf byPromife to be theirGod. 
 But Chriftian Parents muft be in a worfe, and more dif- 
 confolate State, if their Children be cut off from this Pri- 
 vilege, and no Difference be made in Regard of the Co- 
 venant-Mercies of God, between them, and the Children 
 of Infidels and Aliens, Turks and Pagans. The Scrip- 
 ture reprefents theComing ofChrillasdefign'd to improve 
 and perfedt the former Difpenfation the Jezvs were under, 
 and not to diminifh any of the Privileges of it. And the 
 Covenant under the Evangelical Difpenfation, as a better 
 Covenant^ eflabliflfd upon better Promlfes. Heb. 8. 6. But 
 if this be the Cafe of the Infants of Chriftians,it is in that 
 Refpecl a worfe Covenant, more curtail'd & contraded, 
 feeing it hath not the fame Extent to Parents and their 
 Children. 
 
 But if the Affirmative be true, as fliall be fully proved 
 hereatter (and as it can't be denied without contradiding 
 the cxprefs Teftimony of Scripture, that little Childrea 
 were once taken into Covenant with God together with 
 their Parents ; fo there Is not the leaft Hint in Scripture 
 fignifying that they ever were, or ever ffiould bedepriv'd 
 ol thisPrivilege) how ungrateful then ViXtihtAntip^dobap- 
 tifts ! and how injurious their Principles, to the Honour 
 of God's Grace in extending his Covenant Favour to the 
 Infant-Children of his confederate People ? How injuri- 
 ous to the Church of God, in robbing it ot a vifible Sttd^ 
 and hindring, as much as lies in their Pov/er, its Increafe 
 
 and 
 
Chap.it. • (?/ Infant-Baptifm,- 5>r 
 
 and Propagation by the natural Branches ? How uncom- 
 fortable to themfelves, in cutting off all Hope of che Co- 
 venant-Mercies of God from their Children, by throwino- 
 away the only Ground of that Hope, which is their In- 
 tereft in the Covenant ? And how cruel to their poor 
 Children, in renouncing their vifibleRelation to God and 
 Chrift, his Church and Kingdom, calling them out, in 
 this Refped, into the v/ide Wildernefs of the World, yea, 
 and leaving them to the Kingdom of the Devil ? This is 
 not exaggerating the Matter, but the undifguifcd Truth 
 of the Cafe -, for fmce theDevil by God's PermifTion has 
 the chief Rule and Influence over this degenerateWorld, 
 (as the Scriptures teftify, Job. 12.31. Eph,i. 2.&Ch. 
 6. 12. I Job. 5. 19.) And fince the Kingdom of Chrift, 
 and of Satan divide the whole World, Children born in 
 this State of Apoflacy muft be bro't forth to the Devil, 
 unlefs theMercies of God's Covenant extend to them, or 
 (which is the fameThing) unlefs they belong to theKing- 
 dom of the Mediator. An Opinion, which a good and 
 charitable Soul can take fo little Pleafure, or Comfort in, 
 I cannot but wonder fhould be the Matter of any One's 
 Choice •, efpecially fince it relies on no pofitive Grounds 
 in the Word of God, whileft it can't be denied, there arg 
 very plain Intimations therein that make for the contrary 
 Opinion. And therefore, how ungrateful are they, and 
 profane too, who having by the divine Favour, upon the 
 Warrant of the Covenant,come under a fealedDedi cation 
 to God in their Infancy, do afterwards when grown up 
 to theAge of Discretion, not only withhold their Confent 
 to the pious Act of their Parents, but deny & difown it, 
 and tear off the Seal by renouncing their Baptifm, and fo 
 render the whole Tranfadlion void, and of noneEfFe6l as 
 to ihemfelves ? and what is this but a vacating of the 
 Covenant on their Part ? For he that tears off the Seal 
 from a Bond or IndenturCjdoth what in him lies to make 
 void the whole Inilrumcnt. 
 
 Let us now fee what our Author has to objed againfl 
 this Confequence. He that had granted the tormer, viz* 
 
 D 3 A 
 
^S A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. II. 
 
 A Man's renouncing his Baptifm and Dedication to God 
 in Infancy, could have but Httle Reafon to deny the lat- 
 ter, viz. his renouncing and making void the Covenant 
 in which he was dedicated to God : which feems necef- 
 farily to follow from his former Conceflion. Yet fome- 
 thing he has to fay, but fo indiftindly, and confufedly, 
 upon a peculiar Scheme of Notions he has taken up in 
 Reference to the Covenant of Grace, that it ferves only 
 to amufe the Simple and Undifcerning. A Diflindlion 
 or two might eafily difcover the Fallacy of all his Rea- 
 fonings, as will appear in the Progrcfs of thefeRemarks; 
 He denies, 
 
 I . ThatPerfons unbaptiz'd are vifibly out of Covenant 
 with God, or " as to their external and vifible Relation, 
 Strangers to theCovenants ofFromife^^ as the Author of the 
 Dialogue had afTerted. Dial, Pag.4. InOppofition to this, 
 
 Firfi^ Our Author affirms, *' that the Covenant of 
 *' Grace was made from Evcrlafting, and all interefted 
 '' in it were in Covenant with God as early, and fo pre- 
 *' vious to their Baptifm, as to their fecret RelationGod- 
 •' wards." Pag.6. — If they were in Covenant with God 
 fo early as from Everlafting, then, befure, before their 
 Baptifm, whether in Infancy or at adult Age. — This odd 
 Conceit of the Covenant of Grace being made with Men 
 from Everlafting, our Author feems very fond of, by his 
 frequent Repetition of it, and frequent Recourfe to it, to 
 evade the Force of the Argument from the Covenant, to 
 the Right of Infants to Baptifm.. Pag. io,46.C5?f. Whence 
 I perceive it to be aPart of fome favourite Scheme he has 
 fallen in with, and if I judge aright, it is entirely Antino- 
 mian. And this Opinion having a clofe Connexion with 
 other Antinomian Errors, is of dangerous Confequence, 
 tending to enervate the main Arguments and Motives to 
 Faith and Obedience in the Word of God. I fhall there- 
 fore, here, fpend a few Words in Confutation of it ; de- 
 figning more fully to clear up the Dodtrine of theCove- 
 Jiant, fo iar as it relates to the prefent Controverfy, from 
 the ConfufiOQ and Perplexity his Way of Reafoning ha^ 
 
 involved 
 
Chap. II. of Infant-Baptifm; ^^ 
 
 involved it in, when I come to his IVth Chapter. This 
 Notion of Men's being inCovenant with God from Ever- 
 laftin^, I fhall fhew is unfcriprural, irrational, and con- 
 trary to Scripture. And fince Dr. Gill produces no Proof 
 of this ftrange AfTertion, it is enough to fay, 
 
 I. It is unfcriptural ; there being no mention of fuch 
 a Covenant made wichMen fromEverlafting, in the Word 
 of God. The Covenant of Grace is in Scripture often 
 Hi led an everlafting Covenant ? But this is to be under- 
 ftood of its immutable Tenor, and perpetual Duration, 
 (in Contradiftindlion from the iirft Covenant of Works, 
 which was violated, and fuperfeded to make Way for the 
 fccond, which everlaftingly ftands in Force) and in Re- 
 fped of the blelTed EffeSs and Confequences of it,which 
 remain to everlafting; and not of its being from Everlaft- 
 ing, otherwifc than m the Council & gracious Intention 
 of God. We gather alfo from fundry PafTages in Scrip- 
 ture,that the Method of Man's Redemption was concert- 
 ed in the Way of a Covenant betv/een God the Father, 
 and the Son, before the World began : called by Divines 
 the Covenant of Redemption ; tho I find it no where in 
 Scripture exprefsly fo term'd. Nor does it appear that 
 the Term Covenant is in Scripture ever applied to that 
 Tranfadlion, tho' theThing intended thereby is evidently 
 contained in it. And if this Covenant of Redemption be 
 from Everlafting, it is becaufe it was made with a Per- 
 fon exiftent from Everlafting. f Yet it is altogether im- 
 
 D 4 pertinent 
 
 f This Covenant with the Mediator, called the Co'venanf §f Redemption^ 
 is commonly fpoken of as an eternal Con) enant^ or a Covenant made 
 from Everlafting : but how to conceive of a Covenant tranfafted be- 
 tween divinePerlons from Everlafting (wherein the Father's propofal 
 of his Will and Decree, is reprefented as prior to the Confent of the 
 Son, who is bro't in fpeaking, Lo ! I come to do thy Will, O God. 
 Heb. 10. 7. I fay, that to conceive of fuch aCovenant as being co- 
 eternal with the divine Effence) tranfcends all human Capacity. 
 X)r. Oiven exprefTes it by a «fxy habitude of Wilh in the Father and 
 Son to-wards each other ^ that is not in themEJfentially. Vind. Evangel. 
 Chap. 27. But I confefs, it is beyond me to form a correfpondent 
 Idea of fuch a new habitude of Will in the Father and Son from 
 
 Eternity 
 
40 'A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IL 
 
 pertinent to the prefcnt Pu'-pofcjas being a Covenant en- 
 tirely diftin6l from the Covenant of Grace,which is feal- 
 ed in Baptifm, of which we are now fpeaking \ concern- 
 ing which there is not a Tittle in Scripture fignifying it 
 to be made with any Man,or Number of Men fromEter- 
 nity. And no wonder, for 
 
 2. The Opinion itfelf is irrational ; fince every proper 
 ■Covenant fuppofes two Parties, at lealt, concern'd in the 
 Tranfadion :' but to imagine a Covenant made, v/hilc 
 one of the Parties, is neither perfonally, nor naturally 
 exiftentjis contrary to Reafon. How then is it pofTible 
 that the Covenant of Grace could be made with Men 
 from EverlaftingjUnlefs they had an Exigence fromEver- 
 lafting ? If Men maybe inCovenant before theirExiftence, 
 never more let the Adverfaries of Infant- Baptifm objed 
 againll Infants being comprehended in the Covenant (as 
 they are accuilom'd to do) the Abfurdity of being in Co- 
 venant 
 
 ' Eternity. But I except not againft the common Opinion, or Doc- 
 trine of the Covenant of Redemption, its being from Eternity. But 
 if it be founded in Scripture, it muft be acknowledg'd among the 
 incomprehenfible Things of God. Yet it is obfervable, that tho' the 
 Scripture fpeaks of it as a Tranfa6lion before the World began, or be- 
 fore the Foundation of the World ; yet it does not cxprefly fay, it was 
 fromEverlafting. Obj. But was not that which was before theWorld 
 began, from Everlafting ? Anf-w. Not by neceflary Conlequence; 
 fuppofe the bcripture iilent about the Time of the Creation of the 
 Angels (and it is fo indeed as to a particular & exprefsDetermination 
 concerning it) it were no Contradidiion to any Principle of Reafon,to 
 fuppofe them created long before the World began. And if we fup- 
 pole the Soul of \kizMcfftas to be the firft,and moil excellent of pro- 
 duced Beings, moft intimately and inconceivably united to God, by 
 whom the divine Power was put forth in Creation, &c. as Dr. Watts 
 and divers other late learned Divines have been of Opinion ; the 
 Difficulties in the Dodlrine of the Covenant of Redemption, and 
 other ChfiftianDodlrines might be eafily folv'd. But I aflert nothing 
 • here dogmatically ; knowing that both the Name and Nature of the 
 ', Son of God is above our Comprehenfion, which forbids our too bold 
 Enquiries &: Determinations, fro'v. 30. 4, Matth.ii. 27. Ren;. 1^.12. 
 Enough is revealed of the Son of God, that is clear and plain, and 
 which lays a fureFoundatior. of our Faith, Hope, Love, Obedience, 
 andCommunion withGod in this World : Butyet he hath aNumenvri,' 
 ttn, ivhich no Man kno%^ith bat hmfelf i WliJch^ther^fore we are hot 
 ^uriouily 10 pry into. 
 
Chap. IL of Infant-Baptifm. '41 
 
 venant before they are capable ofyielding their Confent; 
 for it feems by this Antip^dobaptiji Writer, they may be 
 in the Covenant of Grace before their Birth^orExiftence. 
 Bat the Abfurdity of Men's being in the Covenant of 
 Grace fromEverlafling, I might demonflrate by a meta- 
 phyfical Argument, from the Impoffibihty of any Ads 
 pairing into EfFe6t from Eternity ; all fuch eternal A6ls 
 being immanent in the divineEffence. The tranfient A6ls 
 of the Deity are fuch as relate to, and terminate upon the 
 Creature, and have their proper Effe6ts which mufl: be- 
 gin in Time \ for a beginning of Exiilence is neceffarily 
 implied in every EffeSi. But God's bringing Men into 
 the Covenant of Grace is, furely, fuch a tranfient Acl, as 
 produces a real Effed in the Change of their State <and 
 Relation. And therefore it is impoirible,it fhould be from 
 Everlafting, without all Beginning. The mofl that can 
 be faid confiftently with Reafon, is that God purpofcd in 
 his eternal Counfel and Decree to bring Men inta a Co- 
 venant of Grace in Time. But to make this Purpofe or 
 Decree of God, the fame Thing with his Covenant with 
 them, is fjch a Confufion, andAbufe of Language, as no 
 Perfon who pretends to theCharaderof aManof Senfeand 
 Learning ought to be guilty of. But I add further, 
 
 3. That this Notion is not only unfcriptural and irra- 
 tional, but contrary to Scripture % and may be plainly 
 confuted by Arguments from Scripture. For 
 
 I . The Covenant of Grace is called a new Covenant^ 
 zxidi fecond Covenant^ Heb. 8. 7, 8. which fuppofes a for- 
 mer Covenant. And fo, according to this Opinion, there 
 mull be a Covenant prior to that which is from Everlaft- 
 ing. If it be faid, it is called a new^ ov fecond Covenant 
 in Reference to, and in Way of Diftindion from the old 
 legal Adminiftration of the Covenant, and fo it intends 
 only a new Difpenfuion of the Covenant of Grace, which 
 fubfiftcd before ; Be it fo, yet it plainly prefuppofes a 
 formerLaw or Covenant, by theViolation whereof Man- 
 kind are fallen under a iuft Condemnation •, without 
 which Suppofition, a Covenant of Mercy could have had 
 
 no 
 
42 A T^e fence of the Divine Right Chap. II. 
 
 no Place among Men. For it appears evident from 
 the Nature and Conftitution of it, to be a remedial 
 Covenant,defign'd to relieve finful Men againft the Curfe 
 and Condemnation of the firft broken Covenant upon 
 merciful and gracious Terms. And as this Law, or Co- 
 venant, had its Beginning inTime,aRd can't be pretend- 
 ed to be from Eternity -, fo neceflarily mud the Cove- 
 nant of Grace which is fuccedaneous to it, have its Be- 
 ginning in Time alfo. 
 
 2. God often fpeaks of the Covenant of Grace, or his 
 making a Covenant with his People, as a future Thing, 
 being Matter of Promife. Ifai. ^^. 3. Jer. 31. 31, 33. 
 Ezek. 34.25. I will make with them a Covenant of Peace^ 
 &c. Why does he fay, he will do it, if it was done al- 
 ready, and fo early as from Everlailing ? Yea, the very 
 PafTage that Dr. Gill allcdges to prove it is an Adl of 
 the fovereign Grace of God toputMen into hisCovenant, 
 Pag. 8. might ferve to confute him : which isEzek.20.37. 
 / will caufe you to pafs under the Rod, and will bring you 
 into the Bond of the Covenant, Were Men bro'c under 
 the Bond of God's Covenant from Eternity ? Why then 
 does he fpeak of it as a future Thing, and not as that 
 which is paft and done ? Yea,he fpeaks of fomething to 
 be done before they were put into Covenant, they were 
 to pafs under the Rod : and whatever is meant by that 
 Expreffion of ^^;?g- under the Rod,pYcv\ous to their being 
 brought into the Bond of the Covenant, can any Man con- 
 ceive of fuch a Thing done before that which is from 
 Everlafting r He mull have a flrange Way of conceiv* 
 ing Things. 
 
 3. Thofe whom God admits into the Covenant of 
 Grace, have an Intereft in the Benefits of that Covenant 
 (Pardon of Sin, the Gift of the Spirit, Reconciliation, A- 
 doption, &c.) For it is a Sort of Contradidion, to fay, 
 that any one is admitted into the Covenant, and yet de- 
 barred from an Intereft in the Privileges ot theCovenant ; 
 but it is contrary to Scripture to fay, that any, even the 
 Ele6l themfelves have an Intereft in thefe Benefits and 
 Privileges before Faith & Converfion. 4. 
 
Chap. II. ef Infant-Baptifm. 45 
 
 •4. This Opinion vacates the Efficacy and Influence of 
 the Word and Spirit of God for theConverfion and Sal- 
 vation of Sinners : for what is the Converfion of Sinners, 
 but the cfFecftual calling them into Covenant with God 
 thro' Jefus Chriil ? And does not the Miniflry of the 
 Word, and the Influences of the Spirit for this Purpofe, 
 prefuppofe them as yet out of Covenant withGod, at leaft 
 inRcfped of its fpiritualEfiicacy ? But if they be already, 
 and from Everlafting,in the Covenant of Grace, the Mi- 
 niflry of the Word, and the Operation of the Spirit, for 
 this End, is render'd needlefs and fuperfluous. 
 
 5. The unconverted State, even of theEled , theScrip- 
 ture declares to be a State of Wrath,of Alienation from, 
 and Enmity to God. Eph. 2. 3. JVe (the Eled) were by 
 Nature the Children of Wrath. Col. 1.21. Tou who were 
 fometime alienated^ and. Enemies in your Minds hy wicked 
 Works \ yet now hath he reconciled. But how is this Def- 
 cription of their former unconvertedState, confiftent with 
 their being in Covenant with God ? as our Author muft 
 fuppofe them to be. Can a Man be in the Covenant of 
 Grace, and not in a State ot Grace, and Reconciliation, 
 at the fame Time, either really, or viflbly at leaft \ but 
 in a State mofl oppofitc, a State of Wrath, of Diflance 
 and Alienation from God ? 
 
 6. The Scripture in plain Terms declares, that there 
 IS a Time, when the Ele6l themfelves are out of Cove- 
 nant, or Strangers from the Covenant, even during the 
 whole Time of their Unregeneracy. Thus the Apoflle 
 writing to xhtEpheJian Believers, who were chofen inChriJi 
 (he tells them, Eph. 1.4.) before the Foundation of the 
 World ; Yet goes on to declare to the fame Perfons,C/&^^. 
 2. 12. (fpeaking of their former heathenifh, unconverted 
 State) that at that 'Time ye were without Chrijt^ Aliens 
 from the common Wealth <?/Ifrael, Strangers from the Co- 
 venants ofPromife. The veryPhrafe ufed in theDialogue, 
 of Perfons unbaptiz'd, as to their vifible State ; which is 
 true of allPerfons unconverted, as to their real State. And 
 to the famePurpofe he adds in the followingWords. >^. 1 5. 
 
 But 
 
;44 -^ Defence of the Divine Right Chap. II. 
 
 But now^ in Chrift Jefus^ ye who fometimes were afar off^ 
 (not in Refped of local Diftance, but of their fpiritual 
 State ; which in ScriptureLanguage,is as much as to fay, 
 ye who were fometimes out of Covenant) are made nigh by the 
 Blood of Chrift, I e. are bro't into a Covenant of Grace 
 andReconciliation by theBlood of Chrift. Now, if it may 
 be faid of thofe who are in Covenant with God,that they 
 were fometime afar off, or out of Covenant, without 
 Chriil, Aliens, and Foreigners, Strangers from the Cove- 
 nant, all which is faid of the Ephefian Believers in this 
 Chapter, then it is impoflible, that they Ihould be in the 
 Covenant froniEverlafting -, for what is fromEverl ailing 
 is immutable, and can never be otherwife than it ever 
 •was : and if this ftrange Pofition could be made evident, 
 that all who are inter eft ed in the Covenant^ were in it from 
 Everlafting^our Author's Inference were good,that " thofe 
 " that are once in Covenant, can never be put out of it." 
 Pag. 9. But on the other Hand, it is as certain,that thofe 
 of whom it is faid, that they were fometime out of Cove- 
 nant, or Strangers from the Covenant of Promife, were 
 not, could not be in the Covenant from Everlafting. So 
 that the Argument whereby he defign'd to oppofe the 
 foremention'd Affertion in the Dialogue, is confuted by 
 this very Text, in the Language and Senfe whereof that 
 Affertion was delivered. And divers otherTexts I might 
 produce which fpeakto the fame Purpofe. So theApoffle 
 Peter writing to thofe Chriftians, whom he falutes as 
 Ele^t according to the Fore -knowledge of God the Father 
 (i Pet. 1.2.) Yet afterwards tells them, fC^^^. 2, 10.) 
 that in Times paffy they were not >a People^ but now are the 
 People of God. In the fame Senfe fpeaks the Apoftle Paul^ 
 and in the fame Kind of Phrafe, in a Citation from the 
 Prophet. Rom. 9. 23,24, 25. That he might make known 
 the Riches of bis Glory on the Veffels of Mercy, whom he had 
 afore prepared unto Glory \ even us whom he hath called^ 
 not of the Jews only, hut alfo of the Gentiles. As he faith 
 alfo in Ofee, / will call them myPeople, which were not my 
 Peopky and her Beloved^ which was not beloved,- Here alfo 
 
 we 
 
Chap. II. of Infant-Baptlfrn. . /^^ 
 
 we have the Stile of the Covenant, I. will call them my 
 People. Now, it is undoubted, that in the fame Senfe, ia 
 which they are called God's People^ it n^uft be underftood, 
 thatthey are denied to hMsPeople inTimes pafl; otherwife 
 there would be an Equivocation in the Words, which is 
 not to be admitted. But it is certain,they are calledGod*s 
 People in the Covenant of Grace. For, i. The Perfons 
 of whom this is fpoken are termed VeJ[els of Mercy, ii.2^. 
 Such among Jews and Gentiles, on whom God had pur- 
 pofed from Eternity to glorify his rich Mercy. 2. Pur- 
 fuant to this Purpofe,he had called them to his Grace in 
 the Gofpel-Covenant. f. 24. And 3. By this their effec- 
 tual Calling he defign'd to prepare them for the future 
 Glory. ;^. 23. So that noDoubt can remain,but they were 
 bis People in the Covenant of Grace, when called by the 
 Gofpel i and if in the fame Senfe they were net his People 
 all the Time before, as the Apoftle declares, how could 
 they poffibly be in the Covenant of Grace from Everlaft- 
 ing, or indeed any Time before theirCalling and Conver- 
 fion ? But the Abfurdity of this Opinion may appear to 
 an intelligent Reader too open and manifeft to need fo 
 many Words in Confutation of it -, which, therefore, I 
 fhould have fpared,had not our Author laid fo muchStrefs 
 upon it, in difputing againfl the Covenant Right of In- 
 fants to Baptifm : but how weakly will be feen hereafter. 
 The Reafon of Dr, Gill's Miilake, I apprehend to be, his 
 not diftinguifhing as he ought, between the Covenant of 
 Redemption, or the federal Tranfa6lion between zh^ Fa- 
 ther & the Son the defigned Mediator, in which the Plan 
 of Man's Redemption was laid before the Foundation of 
 theWorld,and the Covenaitt of Grace made withBelievers, 
 or with the Church and People of God in Time : and 
 becaufe the former was fromEverlafting, he imagines the 
 latter was fo likewife, or, he confounds the latter with the 
 former ; whereas thefe are twoCovenants entirej^ diftin<5t 
 from each other •, as I fhall fully prove in its proper 
 Place. But whatever may be in this Notion of Dr. 
 C////, his Impertinence is vifible tQ every one in ailedging 
 i.: iC 
 
45 ^A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. II. 
 
 it as anObjedlion againft the Suppofition in theDialogue^ 
 that Pcrfons unbaptized are out ot Covenant, becaufe of 
 theLimitation with which it was guarded in thefe Words, 
 *' as to external and vifible Relation;" when this Notion 
 he has advanced,by his own Confeflion regards only their 
 fecret RelationGod-wards.Bcmgconkious^therd'or^^to him- 
 felf of thelnfufficiencyof thisReply,he proceeds to anfwer, 
 
 Secondly, By ieveral Interrogatories. He aflcs, Pag. 7. 
 «' Are not all truly penitent Perfons, all true Believers in 
 *« Chrift, tho' not as yet baptiz'd, in Covenant withGod 
 •* as to their external, and vifibleRelation to him, which 
 *' Faith makes manifeft ? Were not the threeThoufand 
 *' in Covenant with God vifiblyjwhen they were pricked 
 " to the Heart, & repented of their Sins, and gladly re- 
 *' ceived the Word of the Goipel — tho' not as yet bap- 
 " tized ?" And he goes on to put the fame Quellion 
 concerning the Eunuch, Lydia, & the Jailor, and the Be- 
 lievers in Samaria,?indi at Coj'inth,who were baptiz'd upon 
 a Profeffion of their Faith &c Repentance. There is no 
 returning a diredl: Anfwer to fuch ambiguous Enquiries, 
 without aDiftindion ; forWant of which, Sophiilry often 
 pafles with many People for found Reafoning, and Error 
 wears the Guile of Truth. The Diflindion I mean is 
 that of a Man's being in Covenant either in Refped of 
 the fpiritual Difpenfation of the Grace of the Covenant 
 on God's Part,or in Refpedt of the outward Adminiftra- 
 tion and Reception of the Covenant on Man's Part : 
 Which DiilinCtion will be more fully clear'd up & elta- 
 blifh'd in the Fourth Chapter. 
 
 Now,agreeably to this Diftin6tion, I anfwer, i. That 
 in Regard of the fpiritual Difpenfation of the Covenant 
 of Grace on God's Part, it is not to be doubted but all 
 truly penitent Perfons, all true Believers in Chrift are ad- 
 mitted into Covenant with God,: But I deny they are in 
 Coven anu<7j to their external ^ vifible Relation meerly on 
 the Account of the Covenant of Grace inwardly receiv'd, 
 which being in itfelf a fecret Thing, and while it is fo, 
 can be no Guide to Minifters and Churches in admitting ' 
 
 Perfons i 
 
Chap. II. . of Infant-Baptifm. 47 
 
 Perfons to the Ordinances. But this Relation muft be 
 fomeWay made vifibkjto the Satisfadion of a charitable 
 Judgment, before they can be Foro Ecclefta in Covenant 
 with God, fo as to have a Right to theOrdinances of the 
 Covenant. He fays, "Faith makes it manifeft :" He muft 
 mean a vifible Manifeltation of it. But this alfo I deny, 
 for Faith, as it is an inward Reception of the Covenant 
 of Grace,or an hearty aflent and confcnt to the conditio- 
 nal Propofition of Chrift and his faving Benefits in the 
 GofpeJ,is the veryThing that needs to be made manifeft : 
 it is a Secret in the Heart,known only to God, till it be 
 manifefted by an outward Profeflion according to the di- 
 vine Inftitution, and by the proper and genuine Fruits of 
 it in Works of Obedience to the Gofpel. Rom. 10. 10. 
 With the Heart Man helieveth unto Right eoufnefs^and with 
 the Mouth Confejfion is made unto Salvation, Faith in the 
 Fleart is one Thing, and ConfelTion with theMouth ano- 
 ther. It is the Latter, on which depends the Vifibility of 
 a Perfon's Intereft in theCovenant,and Right to the Or- 
 dinances. Yea further, it may be faid, that Faith is fo far 
 from manifefting a Covenant-Intereft to others (or an In- 
 tereft in the faving Grace of the Covenant) that many 
 Times it doth not manifeft it to thePerfon himfelf believ- 
 ing ; tor tho' he that believes, knows that he believes, yec 
 fince there are divers Kinds of Faith befides that which 
 is faving, he cannot certainly know that he has a fpecial 
 Intereft in the Covenant of Grace,unlefs he finds in him- 
 felf the diftindive Evidences of a favingFaith. But this, 
 it feems, is agreablc to his Jntinomian Scheme, thatFaith 
 has no Intereft, or Influence ( as a Means appointed by 
 God) in a Sinner's Juftification, but is only a Sign, or 
 Manifeftation of his having an Intereft in the Covenant 
 of Grace,and being in a juftifiedState long ago,even from 
 Eternity •, contrary to the plain Dodrine of Scripture. 
 
 But, 2. In Refped of the external Adminiftration and 
 Reception of the Covenant of Grace,it may be truly faid, 
 that no Perfon is inCovenant with God under theGofpcl 
 before Baptifm, or the Profeffion made in Baptifra ; but 
 
 that 
 
4S A Befence cf the Divine R'ight Chap, il.' 
 
 that all unbaptized Perfons are, as to their external and 
 vi/ihle Rel at ion ^Sir^v\gQr% to i\\tQowtnd.v\t : Therefore Dr. 
 Gill has not diftindly and fairly ftated the Cafe, when 
 he afks concerning thofe who were baptized upon a Pro- 
 fefllonof their Faith, or Repentance ; Were they not in 
 Covenant previous to theirBaptifm ? It may be anfwer'd. 
 Not compleatlyjas to their external vifible Relation. For 
 tho' fome good Evidence be previoufly necefiary to fatisfy 
 a charitable Judgment, that the Perfons to be baptiz'd 
 have receiv'd the Covenant of Grace, or have an Interefl 
 in it, yet their Covenant-State is not compleatly vifible, 
 'till they have taken upon them the Symbol of iheirPro- 
 felTion, and come under the Seal of the Covenant in be- 
 ing baptized. But the right State of the Cafe,according 
 to the Senfe of the Dialogue^ is, WhetherPerfons unbap- 
 tiz'd, or previous to a baptifmal Profeflion & Dedication 
 to Godjmay be faid to be, as to their vifible State, in Co- 
 venant with him ? For Baptifm,in the prefentCafe, is not 
 to be confidered abftradly from the necelTaryPre-requi- 
 fites thereunto,or from the fpiritualPart of theOrdinance; 
 not barely the waihing the Body with Water, but a Co- 
 venant-Dedication to God, Faith & Repentance folemn-^ 
 ly declared and ratified by thatexternalRite ; theThing 
 fignified, and outward Sign confider'd together, as one 
 complex A61 under theName of Baptifm. And the Cafe 
 thus ftated is plainly to be refolved in the Negative, that 
 noFerfon,previous toBaptifm in this comprehenfiveSenfe, 
 can be faid to be, as to his vifible Relation, in Covenant 
 with God, but all unbaptized Perfons are in this Refped 
 Strangers to the Covenant. And therefore, our Author's 
 Queries are nothing to his Purpofe,as they proceed upon 
 a wrong Hypothefis^ putting afunder what Gor^ has join'd 
 together. Hence, 1 need notdefcend to a more particu- 
 lar Anfwer to them ieveraliy ; every common Reader, I 
 truft, by theHelp of theDiftin6rion laid downsmay eafily 
 difcern the Fallacy in all his Ob edtions under this Flead. 
 Only as to thofe converted and bapcizcd at Pentecoft^xhz 
 Cafe was foniewhat peculiar •, iorbvin^Jcivs ^ frojylites^ 
 
 it 
 
Chap. II. of Infant-Baptifm. '49 
 
 it is unqueflionable, they were in vifible Covenant with 
 God, as Members of the Jewijh Church,not only before 
 their Baptifm, but before their Converfion to the Faith 
 of Jefus. For God had not as yet difcovenanted them, 
 but they were treated with at firll,by the Preachers of the 
 Gofpel, as a People in Covenant withGod : For thisRea- 
 fon, they were privileged with the firft Offer of Chrift 
 and Golpel-Grace. See A^. 3. 25, 26.. But they could 
 not be laid to be vifibly in Covenant under the Chriftian 
 Form of Adminiftration, before they were baptiz'd in the 
 Name of Jefus Chrift. 
 
 But among all hisQueries there is one he has forgotten, 
 
 or defignediy overlook'd : And that is the Inftance of 
 
 Simon Magus^ of whom the facred Hiftorian thus fpeaks. 
 
 Ad. 8. 13. Simon himfelf believed alfo^ and when he was 
 
 baptized^ he continued with Philip. Now let me put the 
 
 Queftion after his Manner, fince he has omitted it. Was 
 
 not Simon in vifibleCovenant with God, when he believed 
 
 thePreaching of Chrilt by i^M/?, previous to hisBaptifm ? 
 
 And let him anfwer which Way he will, it may ferve tor 
 
 his Convidtion. If he fays, he was not in Covenant,then 
 
 all his otherQuerics are infignificant to his Purpole : tor 
 
 no more is laid of moft of the Inftances refer'd to, than 
 
 what is here exprefly faid of Simon, that he believed before 
 
 he was baptiz'd. If he fays, that he was inCovenant,then 
 
 he mufl admit fome fuchDiftinclion as I have laid down, 
 
 of the Covenant of Grace, in Refped either of its being 
 
 fpiritually difpens'd & apphed, or inRefpeclof its being 
 
 outwardly adminifler'd, and profeifedly confented to,and 
 
 received. And 'tis evidentjthar it is in this latterRefped 
 
 only, that Simon Magus could be faid to be in Covenant 
 
 upon his ProfelTion fealed in Baptifm •, for he had no Part 
 
 or Lot in the fpiritual Bleilings of the Covenant, f. 21. 
 
 And in this InflanceDr. Gi//may fee how the Covenant 
 
 once entredinto,;;2^jy be made void by aPerfon'sApoitacy or 
 
 Renunciation of the federal Relation ♦, for thisDiftindion 
 
 admitted may afford an eafy Solution to all hisObjedions 
 
 under this He^d. And tho' there may be *' fome Per- 
 
 E " " itns 
 
50 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IL 
 
 « fons that have never been baptized, of whom we have 
 " Reafon to beheve, they have an Intereil in the Cove- 
 *' nant of Grace," as he fuppofes, Pag. 7. Yet what is 
 that to their being vifibly in Covenant according to the 
 divine Ordinance .? But if they negle6l & refufe this Or- 
 dinance of Baptiim, while they have the Opportunity to 
 receive it,this cannot but weaken our charitable Belief of 
 any Interefl they are fuppofed to have in theCovenant. 
 
 But nothing can be more idle and impertinent, than to 
 object, as our Author does, the Examples of the Old- 
 Teilament Saints being in the Covenant of Grace before 
 the Inftitution of Chriitian Baptifm. I tho't we had been 
 fpeaking of the Chriftian Difpenfation of the Covenant, 
 and not inquiring how the Old-Teilament Saints v/ere 
 initiated into it. However, it is not fo hard a Matter to 
 prove, as he infmuates, that Circumciiion, from theTime 
 of the Inftitution of it, was then^ v;hat Baptifm is ncw^ a 
 vifibly Symbol of Initiation into Covenant, and a Badge 
 of Diftindion to the Church of Ifrael as the only Cove- 
 nant-People of God. But diis is not the prefentBufinefs. 
 
 2. Pie denies, that " a Man is brought into Covenant 
 " by Baptifm," and pronounces it afalfe Allertion. P. 8. 
 But for what Reafon ? Becaufe, faith he, " the Covenant 
 '' of Grace is from Everlafting, and thofe that are put 
 " into it, vv^ere put into it fo foon, and that byGod him- 
 '' fell." How ialfc& dangerous this Opinion is, I have 
 fufhcientjy (hewed already from Scripture. But he has 
 forgotten, that he has already given up this Reafon, as 
 iafufhcient to prove what he aim'd at under the former 
 Plead. — So here, if he means to objedl: any Thing againfl 
 that Suppofition in tlie Dialogue, that Men are bro't into 
 ^•//'/Z'/V Covenant withGod in Baptifm5his Notion of Men's 
 being put into the Covenant of dace from Everlafting (were 
 it true) mufl: be fet afide as an inlignificantProof : for by 
 his own tacit Confeffion, it concludes nothing as to their 
 vifible Covenant-State, but only determines '' their fe- 
 crctRelationGod-ward," as hefpeaks. But that nov/ under 
 the Gofpel Difpenf^^ioD; Men are enter'd into vifibic Cc- 
 
 venant 
 
Chap. II. of Infant -Baptifm. r^\ 
 
 vcnant no otherwlfe than by the initiating "Rite of Bap- 
 tifm, is fufficiently manifeft by what has been offer'd un- 
 der the foregoing Head. A previous Coiifent to,and pro- 
 feffed Acceptance of the Covenant ot Grace.is indeed re- 
 quired of adult Perfons as a neceffary Qualification, but 
 Baptifm is their Iblemn Inveftiture. What elfe is xhz 
 Meaning of the Order Chrift gave his Apoicles in ' their 
 Commifrion,to^^/?/i2:^ thole whom they fliould bring ovec 
 to his Religion, in theName {o^c into the Name) of the Fa- 
 ther^ the Son and the Holy Ghoft^ but that they Hiould by 
 this folemnRite initiate them into hisGofpelCovenant, by 
 a vifible Dedication of them to God the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghcft ? He fays (^ibid) " Parents cannot enter their 
 *' Children into Covenant, norChildren themfelves,^^." 
 But this has been prov'd to be contrary toScripture, which 
 plainly warrants and requires Parents to dedicate them- 
 lelves and their Children to God according to the Tenor 
 of his Covenant. He fays, moregver, in Confirmation of 
 the foregoing AfTertion, that " it is an Ad of God's fo- 
 <c vereignGrace" fto putMen intoCovenant) " who fays, 
 '• I will be their Gcd^ and theyfJoall be my People" True, 
 it is an A61 of the fovereign Grace of God, i. To con- 
 ftitute & propound a newCovenant ofiJercy,rardon,and 
 Life,by theMediation of his SonJefusChrifijUntoiVlen un- 
 done by the Violation of the firn; Covenant. In this Con- 
 ftitution, there is admirable richGrace difcovcr'd. 2. To 
 draw and incline their Heart &: Will to accept the Pro- 
 pofals, and fubmit to the Term.s of this gracious Confli- 
 tution : And fo to bring them^ intoCovenant. — ^Buc if he 
 means, that it is an AtJ of the fovereign Grace of God ex- 
 clufiveof humanEndeavO'.irs, or the fubordinate Agency 
 of Man, v/hich feem.s to be his Meaning, by his faying 
 " It is God's folePrerogative," and that inOppofition to 
 the Aft of Parents in entring themifelves or their Chil- 
 dren into Covenant, aiid of theMinifcry of the Ordinance 
 of Baptifm •, it is contrary to found Reafon & Divinity.- ~ 
 Or if this be not his Meaning, how weak & impertinent 
 is his Arguing r Men cannot ent^r themfdvcs or their 
 E 2 Children 
 
52 A Defence of the Divine Right C h a p . II. 
 
 Children intoCovenant,for it is anAft of God's fovereign 
 Grace ! Whereas, the contrary ought to be concluded, 
 that becaufe it is an Act of the fovereignGrace of God to 
 bring Men into Covenant, who fays, I will he their God 
 &c. therefore Men as fubordinate Agents can and may 
 do it by the Influence & Afliftance of divineGrace. This 
 Method of Reafoning is warranted and confirmed by that 
 of theApodlc, Phil. 2 . 12, 13. JVork out your own Salva- 
 tion^ — for it is God which worketh in you both to will and 
 to do of his good T lea fur e. It is the fovereign Grace of 
 God which brings Sinners into a State of Salvation, and 
 Grace works in them for that End : ye unlefs there be 
 the Concurrence of Men's Endeavours in working out 
 their own Salvation, they never will be faved. So it is an 
 Adl of fovereign Grace, to convert a Sinner : but unlefs 
 Converfion, in the Rcfult of all, be the Sinner's own A6t 
 under the Influence of divine Grace,he will never be con- 
 verted. To deny, that Men as fubordinate Agents can 
 or may enter themfelves into Covenant, is to deny the 
 Grace of God to be effectual in its Operations : for the 
 Efficacy of it is manifefted in making Men willing, on 
 their Part,to yield an hearty Confent to the Tenders and 
 Terms of the Covenant. 
 
 Our Author further obfcrvc^that " thePhrafe oihring- 
 " hig into the Bonds of the Covefmnt^ is but once ufed in 
 *' Scnpture,and then it is afcribed to God, and not to the 
 *' Creature. — Ezek. 20. ^y." A tacit Acknowledgment, 
 thatMen are bro't underBonds in the Covenant of Grace j 
 elfe to what Purpofe is this Text alledg'd ^ Yet there 
 fcems a manifefllnconriilency between thisConceflionjand 
 his otherReafonings upon this Subjedl , as hereafter may 
 appear. But if he can find no other Text in Scripture to 
 ]jrove,that it is an A6t of divine Grace to bring Men into 
 Covenant, I fear this will fail him : for according to the 
 Judgment of good Interpreters, thofe Words of the Pro- 
 phet, / will caujc you to pafs under the Rod^and will bring 
 you intotbeBond of iheCovenaut ^im^oxi aThreatning,rather 
 than a Prornifc s being of like Tenor with the preceed- 
 
 ing 
 
Chap. II. of Infant-Baptlfm; 50 
 
 ingVerfes, which contain Comminations of dlvineWrath. 
 ^he Bond or Obligation of the Covenant is primarily to 
 Obedience, and fecondarily, inCafe of Tranfgrefrion,unto 
 Punifhment : and eitherWay the Honour of God's rec- 
 toral Authority is fecured. I'he apoftate Ifraelites being 
 expeli'd their ownLand^were apt to imagine,that as they 
 feem'd call out of the Care of the God of Ifrael^ fo now 
 they were out of the Reach of his Vengeance, tho' they 
 fhould ftill break his Covenant,and join in the idolatrous 
 Cuftoms of the Heathen Nations, among whom they were 
 difpers'd ♦, therefore God threatens, that (as a Shepherd 
 caules his Flock to pafs under the Rod, when he would 
 take an exad Account of them, fo) he would reckon with 
 them particularly, and let them know that he was flill 
 their Ruler, and would proceed to execute the Bond of 
 his Covenant, by infliding the Penalty denounc'd againft 
 the Violators of it. To this Purpofe Cahin^ who fpent 
 his laft Breath (in his Comments on Scripture) on this 
 very Chapter in Ezekiel^ gives the Senfe •, underflanding 
 by the Bond of the Covenant^ the Confiancy of God's Cove- 
 nant^on his Part^ i. e. as to the certain Execution of the 
 Promifes and Threatnings of it, as his People's Faithful- 
 nefs or Perfidioufnefs Ihould require ; by Virtue of which 
 Bond, he would at Length gather them all to him, not to 
 rule over them as a Father, but to infli^ a more heavy Pu- 
 nijhment upon them for their Apoftacy. * But if any chufe 
 rather to underftand it as aPromife of the newCovenant, 
 as fome Interpreters carry it, I am well content, and do 
 moft willingly grant (as that which is apparent from the 
 whole Tenor of divine Revelation) andconilantly aifert, 
 that it is an Ad: of fovereign free Grace in God to take 
 any of the apoftate Race ot Men into aCovenant of Grace 
 thro' a Mediator. And I hope,Dr. Gill will agree to the 
 Confequence in Proof of theCovenant-Intereil of.the Seed 
 of theFaithful. For if God's faying, I will he theirGod^^z. 
 be a good Proof or Evidence of his fovereign Grace in 
 E 3 bringing 
 
 5 Vinculum fa:dens nominat Conftantiam fui foederis, (quantum adibi- 
 
^4- A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IL 
 
 bringingMen intoCovenant with himfcif, (as he confeffes) 
 what keafon can be given, why the Promife bf God to 
 the confederate ParentjinTerms ot the fame Import, Evi- 
 dence, and Force, / iviU be the God of thy Seed, fliould not 
 as firongly conclude for theReception oi the Infant-Chii- 
 dren of iiehevers into Covenant ? 'Tis confefs'd to be an 
 Ait of the fovereign Grace oi God, to extend thePromife 
 of hisCovenant to the infant Seed of his confederatePeo- 
 ple. And if Dr. Gill hath hisMind fo caft, as not to be 
 able to conceive of any otherCovenant of Grace,but what 
 is from Everlafting, then it may be faid, that God hath 
 fromEveriafting put Children into theCovenantofGrace ; 
 or to fpcal: more intelligibly, God hath fromEveriafting 
 decreed & appointed to receive the infantChildren of his 
 People into his Covenant : for he hath in his Word de- 
 clared his Acceptance of them intoCovenant-, and we may- 
 be fure, there is nothing in his declared Will, repugnant 
 to his eternal fecret Will. And if God hath taken them 
 in, how daring and prefumptuous are i\\tAnti'pd:dobaptifts 
 m thrufting them out ? When God hath once of old, in- 
 flating the Method of the Difpenfation of his Grace to- 
 v/ards his Church and faithful People, undeniably declar- 
 ed hisVv^ill to receive their InfantsintokderalRelationto 
 him with themfelves, to be a God to the?n , and has given 
 lis the ftrongeit Intimations in hisWord,thathe defign'd 
 his Covenant fliould abide in the fame invariable Tenor 
 tlirough all Generations, even under theGofpel-Admini- 
 ftration, (as fhall be fully prov'd hereafter) how rafliand 
 impious a Thing muft it be, to deny, or flight thisCove- 
 narit- Privilege ? But tho' the Promife thus extended to 
 the Infants of the Faithful be the Foundation of their Co- 
 venant-Intereft, yet their folcmn vifible Initiation intoCo* 
 venant is by Baptifm, as it was by Circumcifion of old ; 
 which is.the Thing fuppofed m i\\Q. Dialogue : againft: 
 which, we have feen, there is nothing, in the Reafonings 
 of our Author of any Force. 
 
 ' 3. He denies, than '' this Covenant can be vacatccl,or 
 ^' made null and void, by renouncing Infant-Baptifm.'* 
 
 This 
 
Chap. II. cf Infant-Baptifm. ^^ 
 
 This is the mainThing he flionld have proved. But v/hat 
 are hisReafons ? " TheCovenant of Grace," farh he, " is 
 " order'd in all Things, and lure ; its PromifesareYea 
 " and Amen in Chriil, its Bleflings are the fureMercies 
 " of David ; God will not break it, and Men cannot 
 '' make it void ; thofe that are once in it, can never be 
 *' put out of it, nor can it be vacated by anyThino- done 
 " by them." All which amounts to no more than ftron^?- 
 AlTertions of the fame Thing. And fuppofing theTruth 
 of thefe Allegations, they are all befide the Purpofe. His 
 Fallacy (if he means in all this to argue or object) is ea- 
 fily detected, by reflecling on what has been already ob- 
 ferv'd. 'Tis granted, the Covenant of Grace cannot be 
 jnade void, 
 
 I. In Refpedl of its divine Conftitution. So it is per- 
 manent & immutable, and everiaftingly inForce. And in 
 this Refpecl David calls it an everlajiing Covenajit^ being 
 by divine Wifdom& Grace ordered in aimings and fare, 
 ^ Sam. 2^. 5. 
 
 v- 2. In Regard of the Immutability of the Promife on 
 God's Part, to all that are taken under the fpiritual Dif- 
 penfation of it.being by an uniting Faith in theMediator 
 entitled to the promifed Bleding. In this Refpedl, I al- 
 ]ow,there can be noFailure of the Covenant, but thePro - 
 mife is fure to all the believino;Seed.— -Butwhat is all this 
 to thofe that are vifibly in Covenant with God, or in Re- 
 fpecl of external and vifihle Relation ? for of fuch only the 
 Dialogue fpeaks. Now of thefe there are two Sorts. 
 I. Some that befides a vifible Dedication to God, have 
 a real Participation of the favingGrace of the Covenant, 
 the Spirit of Regeneration & Sandihcation, Pardon and 
 Adoption, &c. And it is with Refpecl to thefe, that J ad- 
 mit theTruth of what has been faid of the Indefediblenef^s 
 of the Covenant of Grace. Tho' even thele are oitea 
 guilty of grievous Backflidings & Violations of the Arti- 
 cles of theCovenant on theirPart ; and that a tinalBreach - 
 andDilTolution of theCovenant doc3 not enUie thereupon, 
 1% owing meerly to . the fuperabounding Grace of Goa. 
 
 E 4 -• There 
 
'56 A Defence of the "Divine R\ght Chap. II 
 
 2. There are others (and the greateft Part of thofe who 
 are called by the Gofpel into Covenant with God j who 
 enter into this Relation only by vifible Profeffion, or vi- 
 fibleDedication •, being at prefent deftitute of the fandli- 
 fyingGrace of the Covenant : who neverthelefs are under 
 the Bonds of it, by Virtue of their folemn Dedication to 
 God, whereby they are obliged to perform theDuties and 
 ConditionSjUpon whichGod haspromifed Pardon &Salva- 
 tion. And who can Doubt, that Perfons of thisCharadter 
 may be & often are guilty of violating thofe facred Ob- 
 ligations, & vacating the Covenant fas we have obfcrv'd 
 in the Cafe of Simon Magus) by reverting to the Idols of 
 the World, and pradlically denying the trueGod,as their 
 fuprcam Lord and Benefadlor, or by difowning the fede- 
 ral Relation they have been brought into by their baptif- 
 mal Dedication ? which is the Cafe under Confideration. 
 For thelnfant-Childrenof theChurch,who on thisGround 
 of the Covenant are offer'd up toGod inBaptifm,may be 
 reckon'd of thefe twoSorts I have mention'd. Some who 
 are early fealon'd with the Grace of God, and religioufly 
 difpofed from their Childhood, and as to thofe who die 
 in the Age of Infancy or Childhood before they have done 
 any Thing to forfeit the promiled Blefling, there is no 
 Room to Doubt, butGod will make good his Promife in 
 their eternal Salvation. Others,who (as they grow up to a 
 Capacity of Difcerning, of chufing the Good & refufing 
 the Evil) do negled and violate the Bonds of their Bap- 
 tifm, and forfake the God of their Fathers and their God 
 (for theCovenant-Intereft of Children is no more than the 
 vifibleProfeffion of the Adult an abfolute Security againfl 
 Apoflacy) and ib may truly & juftly be faid to make void 
 theQovenant betweenGod & them. And this feems evi- 
 dently theCafe of thofe who having been devoted toGod 
 byBaptifm in their early Infancy,do afterwards when they 
 arrive to adultAge,renounce their baptifmal Dedication, 
 and difclaim all Intcred in, and Relation to the bleffed 
 God, which they had by Virtue of his Covenant & Pro- 
 mife to their Parents to be their God and the God of their 
 
 Seed, 
 
Chap. II. of Infanc-Baptifm. '57 
 
 to^, folemnly ratified by theNew-TeftUment Seal of In- 
 itiation. And what is this but to vacate the Covenant, 
 and render it wholly void,and of none EfFed,as to them- 
 felves ? Which is the Thing aflerted in the Dialogue. 
 And it is a Confideration proper to be urg'd on theCon- 
 fciences of thofe who are inconfiderately rufhing into the 
 Errors o'i Jntipadobaptifm. There is nothing in ail the 
 Exceptions of Dr. Gill that makes againll: thisAflertion. 
 All that can be concluded from his Arguments is, that 
 the Covenant on God's Part cannot be vacated, but as to 
 all that are the Subjedls of its internal fpirituai Difpenfa- 
 tion (all regenerateBelievers) it is made fure by the invio- 
 lable Promife of God : about which, I fuppofe, he will 
 have few or none to contend with him. But he feems ig- 
 norant (tho' fufHcient Intimations were given in the Dia- 
 logue^ which he himfelf has taken Notice of) that theCo- 
 venant in the prefent Debate is to be coniider'd withRe- 
 fpedl to its external Adminiftration, by the Ordinances 
 in the vifible Church, according to which only we can 
 judge, of any Man's Right in the Covenanr,or of hisFor- 
 feiture of it. Had Dr. Giil well itudied the ScriptureDoc- 
 trine of the Covenant, before he had attach'd himfelf to 
 certain Schemes, perhaps the Notion, which the Yv^riter 
 of the Dialogue had of the Covenant of Grace, would not 
 have appear'd (ojlrange a Notion to him, as heTerms it, 
 and feems to wonder that upon his Principles (which, by 
 the Way, he has miftaken) he could write with any Sue- 
 cefs againft the A'aninians (as it feems he had heard, that 
 he had) and for my Part, I Ihould wonder to hear of any 
 Man's writing againft Arminians with Succefs upon Anti- 
 nomian? rwxi^lts : 'tis doing too muchHonour to the Ar- 
 minians^^ giving toomuchAdvantage to them, to confefs, 
 that they cannot be confuted but upon thefe Principles. 
 
 But what is there to be found amifs or defedive in the 
 Principles of the foremention'd Wri.er, that hinders his 
 writing with Propriety, Strength & Succefs againft the 
 Arminians ? Becaufe (I imagine) he don't hold with our 
 Author, i\\'}X the Covenant of Grace was made oply with 
 
 the 
 
'gS A Defence cf the Divine Right Chap. II. 
 
 the Elec5l,& that asEleft fromEverlafting,before they had 
 a Being ; on which Principle only, he fuppofes, theSta- 
 biHty ot the Covenant, the Perfeverance of the Saints,and 
 the infalhble Certainty ot the Salvation of the Eledl can 
 be detended. But the Principle itfelf, I have fliewed in 
 Part, and fhall do it more fully hereafter, is unfcriptural 
 and abfurd. God's Covenant with his People, which he 
 has reveal'd to us in his Wordjis not only theRule of his 
 own A6i:s and Difpenfations,which is ftridly & properly 
 nothing elfe but the eternal Counfel of his own Will ; but 
 the flatedRule of Commerce between himfelf and his vi- 
 fible Church, (hewing us what it is he requires of us in 
 order to our pleafing him, and what Mercies & Bleffings 
 we may expe(51: from him upon our Compliance with his 
 Terms. And fo the Covenant,in the conditional Propo- 
 fition and Difpenfation of it to Men, is in the Hand of a 
 Mediator^ a wife & gracious Rule of moral Government 
 over them in a State of Degeneracy,' who are hereby put 
 into a State of Probation, being taken under theGovern- 
 ment andDifcipline of a Mediator in order to their being 
 recover'd unto Holinefs 6c Happinefs j by which Means 
 the Eled are infallibly bro't Home to God,and ail others 
 left inexcufabie. And what is there in this divineEfta- 
 rbliHiment prejudicial to the Sovereignty and Efficacy of 
 divine Grace in the Calling and Converfion of the Eied:, 
 and making their Salvation fure and infallible, tho' the 
 gracious Defign of it may be defeated by the Impiety of 
 others, and theCovenant made of noneEffedl as to them- 
 fclves ? Can't we fuppofethe blefled God to be a free fo- 
 vereign Benefactor, without laying afide his legiflative 
 Authority, and ccafmg to be a wife and jufh Governour ? 
 Are thefe inconliftent ? If this were the Cafe, one would 
 think the latter Relation, of a righteousGovernor, which 
 is natural and neceffary, muPc take Place of the former, 
 that of a fovereign Benefaftor, which is more voluntary 
 and free ; but indeed there is no Manner of Inconiiftency 
 between thefe two Relations in the Difpenfation of the 
 Covenant oi Grace. -Tho' Faith, Repentance, San6lifica- 
 
 tion 
 
Chap. IL cf Infant-Baptifm. '59, 
 
 tion, and final Perfeverance too, be the Eflfe6t of God's 
 Grace, no lefs than Pardon of Sin,and everlafting Salva- 
 tion -, yet the Wifdom of God in the Adminiflration of 
 the Covenant has fix'd this Order & Connection between 
 thefe Benefits,thac the former fhould oe theCondition of 
 the latter, and the latter, Motives and Encouragements 
 to Men's Compliance with thofe Conditions : that is to 
 fay, that Faith & Repentance (which, tho' the Effects of 
 divine Grace, are yet injoin'd asMan's indifpenfableDuty) 
 fliould be the Condition or Means of obcaining Pardon 
 of Sin and Reconciliation to God -, and that final Perfe^- 
 verance in Grace (v/hich is alfo Man's Duty,as well as the 
 Gift of Grace) fnould be the Condition or Means of ob- 
 taining eternal Salvation ; as is evident from the whole 
 Tenor of the Scripture, as w^ell as from the Reafon of the 
 Thing. In this Method of Difpenfation, the Almighty 
 keeps up his governing Authority, in the Injundtion of 
 Man's Duty, in a full Confiflence with the Liberty and 
 Pov/er of his Grace. So that there is no Need of fetting 
 afide a conditionaiCovenant,in Order to maintain the fo- 
 vereignEfficacy of God's Grace in Oppofition toArmiyiian 
 Tenets. 
 
 Now let the intelligent Reader judge from thefe brief 
 Hints, whether the conditionalPropofition of theCovenant 
 in the Adminiffration of it to Men (which is all that need 
 be fuppofed in the Dialogue, to found the Charge of 
 making void the Covenant on Man's Part) be fo very 
 friendly to Arminian/fm, that a Man cannot confidently 
 therewith write with anyKope of Succefs againft the Er- 
 rors of the Arminians. 
 
 But I have nov/ finifn'd what I mainly defigned upon 
 his fecond Chapter, which was to (hew, that Men by re- 
 nouncing their Baptifm in Infancy, and embracing the 
 Principles of Antipc^dohaptifm^ do virtually and in Effeft 
 renounce the trueBaptifm of Chriil, and their folemn De- 
 dication to God therein. Whence it follov/s, That the 
 Baptifm which, they receive at adult Age, under the No- 
 tion of it's being the only true Baptifm which tiie Word^ 
 
 of 
 
^o A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. II. 
 
 ofGodwarrants,is really but anOrdinance of Men's ownln- 
 vention,and not of divine Appointment •, forGod has no 
 where appointed a fecondBaptifm,where thatOrdinancehas 
 been once adminiftred : and I have alfo fhewed, they are 
 juftly chargeable with vacating the Covenant,or of mak- 
 incT void the Covenant-Relation to the blefledGod, which 
 by their early Baptifm they were vifibly entred into ♦, and 
 have fully fhewed, there is nothing of any Force or Per- 
 tinency in Dr. G/7/'s Exceptions under thefe two Heads. 
 
 As to the other Confequences of denying the Validity 
 of Infant-Baptifm, which he has gather'd from the Dia- 
 logue, (mentioned in the beginning of this Chapter) fince 
 they are but of little Concernment to theSubjedin 
 Difpute, I fliall pafs them over with fome brief Remarks. 
 Here then let me fay in general ; 
 
 Firft^ It may be gran ted, without any Prejudice or Ad- 
 vantage on either Side, that thefe feveral Confequences 
 are not all alike clear. For no Man is able to determine 
 how far theMercy of God may overlook theCorruptions 
 of Men in the Matters of his Worfhip & Ordinances, fo 
 as, notwithftanding, to continue his Prefence with his 
 Church,even though we fuppofe thofeCorruptions to pro- 
 ceed to fuch aDegree as in human Conftrudion to nullify 
 fome of theOrdinances of Jefus Chrift •, nor what Allow- 
 ance he may be pleas'd to make forMen's Ignorance, In- 
 firmities, Miftakes& Prejudices, by Means whereof fuch 
 Corruptions may have crept into the Church. Nor do I 
 think it reafonable, to admit, that the Corruptions of the 
 preceedingGenc rations fliould put it out of the Power of 
 the prefent Generation, \[ better enlightned, to obferve 
 any of the Laws, or Ordinances of Jefus Chrifl. Yer, 
 
 Secondly^ ThefeConfcquences prefs much harder on the 
 Jntip^dobaptifts, and by their Principles they lie under 
 greater Difadvantages for denying them, than the P^do- 
 baptifts. For they make a Dcfedt in a Circumftance to. 
 nullify the whole Inflitution in theCafe of Infant-Baptifm; 
 for if Baptifm adminiibed to Infants be a Nullity (as they 
 fay) tho' all the other eilcntial Requifites of Baptifm be 
 
 obfcrv'd. 
 
Chap. II. cf Infant-Baptifm. 6t 
 
 obferv'd, then theNullity of Infant-Baptifm muft be ow- 
 ing to a Failure in theAge of the Perfon baptized, which 
 is but circumflantial,as I before proved ; and if the want 
 of a proper and fit Age in the Perfon to be baptiz'd be 
 of fo great Moment, as to nullify the whole Ordinance fo 
 adminiftred, much more muil the Want of Baptifm and 
 Authority to baptize,in the Adminiflrator, do it : for an 
 authorized Adminiflrator is more efTential to the Ordi- 
 nance, than the fitnefs of the Age of the Party to whom 
 it is adminiflred. ForChrifl has determined nothing of the 
 latter in the Inflitution, but he has ordained the former 
 in the CommifTion given to his Apoflles and Minifters to 
 teach and baptize. Math. 28.19. A CommifTion given 
 to fome for any fpecial Service, or Miniftry, is a virtual 
 Exclufion or Prohibition to all others from engaging in 
 it. In the civil State, lawful Authority is requifite to the 
 Adminiflration of the Affairs of Government, and it is 
 agreable to the Will of God that it fhould be fo (for he is 
 the Author of Magiflracy, and has appointed Order and 
 Subjedion in civil Governments) and Ads of Office done 
 byPerfons out ofOffice,or thofe who have noCommiflion, 
 are efleemedUfurpations in theAgent, and null & invalid 
 in the Effed. And can any Man perfwade me to believe, 
 that God is the God of Order in Political Governments, 
 and not in the Government of the Church ^. Ye?, much 
 more of the Church (in the well ordering whereof his 
 Glory is more nearly interefted) if we will believe the 
 Apoille, I Cor. 1 4. 33. For God is 7iot the Author of Con- 
 fujion^ hut of Peace^ as iji all the Churches of the Saints, 
 If then a lawful CommifTion be necefTary to the Validity 
 of Baptifm, how inconfiftent is it with the Principles of 
 the Antipa:dobaptifis^ to plead (as our Author does) that 
 Baptifm may in fome Cafes be good, and valid, that is 
 adminiflred by an unbaptized Perfon, who has no Com- 
 mifTion •, while in no Cafe they will allow the Validity of 
 the Baptifm of Infants ? Tho' in the former Cafe there is 
 an efTentialDefecl in theAdminillrationof theOrdinance, 
 and if there be a Dtf^ft in the latter, as they fuppofe, ic 
 
 mgft 
 
61 A Defence of the 'Divine Right Chap. II. 
 
 muft be but in the Circumftance of Time, or Age, and 
 that undetermined in the Inftitution. Wherefore to have 
 been felf-confiltent & impartial, they mull (by theirPrin- 
 ciple,that a Defetl in theAdminiitration of the Ordinance 
 nulhfies the whole Action) have at leafl: equally rejeded 
 Baptifm in both Cafes as unlawful and invalid. 'Tis then 
 unreafonablc StifFnefs in denying the Validity of Infant- 
 Eaptifm, that has put them on this Inconvenience. For 
 fince it appears (and it cannot fairly be deny'd by our 
 Adverfaries) that no other than Padobaptifm obtain'd in 
 the Univerfal Church for feveral Ages, the Antip.-edobap- 
 tifts therefore, at their firft Rife, mud receive their Bap- 
 tifm at the Hands of thofe whom they efteem unbaptized 
 Perfons. But if this iiril Baptifm fo receiv'd be invalid, 
 all the fubfequent Baptifms thence to this Day muft be 
 rejected as invalid too. Therefore (it feems) it muft be 
 afHrmed, that in ibme Cafes (of the Fitnefs and Neceility 
 whereof every one will be a Judge) Baptifm may be good, 
 that is adminiftred by one who is himfelf unbaptiz'd,and 
 unauthoriz'd. Wherea£,if they could have mollified their 
 Opinion of Infant-Baptifm,and own'd it to have been for 
 the Subftance valid, tho' in fomeThings defedlive -, how- 
 ever miftaken herein, yet they might have avoided this 
 Inconvenience and Ablurdity. 
 
 Thirdly, The Prefence of Chrift is fo neceflary to his 
 Church on Earth, that the very Being of it depends on 
 hisPrefence with us inWay of fpiritual Communion ; fo 
 that if he has totally withdrawn his Prefence, it will fol- 
 low,that he has no more any Church in theWorld at this 
 Day. And fince there is fuch a Connexion fas the Scrip- 
 ture declares) between thePrefence of Chrift with hisPeo- 
 ple, and the due Adminillration and Obfervation of his 
 Laws and Inftitutions in his Church, as the outward and 
 ordinary Means of Communion with them, they that 
 admit the Suppofition that thefe have failed in any Age, 
 will have a hard Tafk to prove, confiftently therewith, 
 that Chrift has made good the Promife of his Prefence 
 with his Church and Minifters ; or that there has been 
 
 a 
 
Chap. IL of Infant-Baptilm. 6^ 
 
 a continued SuccefTion of theChurch of Chrift to thisDay, 
 Therefore let me add. 
 
 Fourthly^ This Suppofition is upon noTerms to be ad- 
 mitted, that any of theLaws or Inftitutions of Chrift have 
 ceafed, or been annull'd' For it is an abfolute Contra- 
 didion to what is fo plainly and fully aflerted in Scrip- 
 ture concerning thePerpetuity of the Friefthood, & King- 
 dom of Jefus Chrift, and of the Laws and Ordinances of 
 the New-Teftament : and whatever Opinion makes this' 
 Suppofition neceftary for its Support, that any of theOr- 
 dinances of JefusChrift havefailed in theUniverfalChurch 
 for any one Age, much more for feveral Ages together ; 
 in that veryThing it gives Ground of juft Prejudice to all 
 Chriftians againft thatOpinion,and it ought to be rejedled 
 as abfurd, and inconfiftent with the Scripture-Dodrine of 
 the immutable and perpetual Exercife & Adminiftration 
 of the Priefthood & Government of Chrift by the Laws 
 and Inftitutions which he has enaded in the Gofpel, and 
 with the Promife of his continued Prefence with his Mi- 
 nifters and Churches in the Obfervance of them 'till his 
 fecond Coming. And whether this may not be juftly faid 
 of the Opinion of our Anti-pa dob apifts^ we fhall fee in the 
 Sequel. In the mean Time, I ihall briefly confider what 
 our Author has to fay upon thofe feveral Heads of the 
 three laft Confequences referred to. 
 . Under the third Head ho, fays, Pag. lo. " that upon the 
 " Principle of adult Baptifm, as necelTary to the Com- 
 ".. munion of ChurcheSjit foliows,that no unbaptiz'dPer- 
 " fon is regularly called to the Preaching of the Word 
 '"^ and Adminiftration of Ordinances,or can be a regular 
 ''Communicant :" yet in the lamePage he fays, " thac 
 ".;theWord may be truly preached, and the Ordinance of 
 '^ the Lord's- Sapper duly adminiftred by an irregular 
 " Man" (i. e. a Man unbaptiz'd,whoias noCall orConi- 
 miffionj " and may be made ufeful for Converfion, and 
 *' C omfort." What .is this but to fay,that tho' intheCom- 
 munion of the vifiUe Church, it is, upon the Principle of 
 adult Btrptifni; unwarramable,, aud.unlawful for any un- 
 
 birptized 
 
^4 'A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. II, 
 
 baptized Perfon to preach the Word, or adminifter the 
 Ordinances, yet out of the vifible Church it may be done 
 by Perfons fo unquahlied, and that to faving Advantage ? 
 And fo that which has been hitherto maintained by allPr^- 
 /^^«/j,againft the Romanijls^to be the Note, or Mark of 
 a true vifible Church, namely, the found Preaching of the 
 Word, and dueAdminiftration of the Sacraments, accord- 
 ing to our Author, is not proper or pecuUar to it ; for it 
 may belong to other Societies without the Church. But 
 how can the Lord's-Supper be faid to be duly adminiflred 
 ly an irregular Man^ i. e. by an unbaptizedMan,and chat 
 to unbaptiz'd Receivers ? And that this is his Meaning, 
 is evident from the Tenor of his Reafoning againft the 
 Dialogue. And if that may be called a dueAdminiftration 
 of the Lord's Supper, where both the Adminiftrator and 
 Receivers are irregular, being unbaptiz'd, I know not 
 when it may be faid to be unduly and irregularly admi- 
 niftred. I grant, that " theUfe andEfficacy of the Word 
 " and Ordinances do not depend on the Minifter, but 
 *' uponGod himfelf," and therefore not upon the internal 
 Charader of the Adminiftrator, who may be at Heart 
 a wicked Man, but upon the BlefQng of God on his own 
 Ordinances ; but then he muft have a Call and Ordina- 
 tion from God to thatMiniftration ; otherwife the Sacra- 
 ments can't be properly called the Ordinances of God, in 
 the Hands of one who takes upon him to be theAdmini- 
 flrator of them, who is himfelf unordained, and uncalled 
 of God •, nor can his Bleffing be rationally expeded to 
 attend them. 
 
 He fays, ibid. " God can and docs fometimes make 
 " ufe of his ow^n Word for Converfion, tho' preach'd by 
 " an irregular & even an immoral Man" — Anfiv. The 
 Fa61: is not fo clear as to be taken for granted, but re- 
 quires Proof, as tjiac whigh may be jullly queftioned. 
 But whatGod may or can do, out of his fovereign Prero- 
 gative, is no Rule to us, but what we have Warrant from 
 his Word to depend on that he will do -, and if we will 
 be guided by that Kuk of Judgment,^ we ihall fee little 
 
 or 
 
Chap. II. of Infant-Baptifm. 65 
 
 or no Reafon to cxpedl any faving Advantage from the 
 Miniftry of thofe that have no Call or CommiiTion from 
 Godjwho faith of the Prophets in 7/r<3^/,which ran before 
 they v^ere fent, Jer. 23. 21, 32. Ifentthem not^ nor com- 
 manded them^ therefore they jh all not profit this People at all. 
 Under xhtfotirthlieadoi Confequences, he fays, P. 1 1. 
 *' ThePeriod of Time pitched upon for thePrevalence of 
 *' Infant-Baptifm, is very unhappy for the Credit of it, 
 *' both as to the Beginning and End ; as to the Begin- 
 *' ning of it, in the fourth Century, a Period in which 
 *' Corruption in Do6lrine and Difcipline flowed into the 
 «' Church."— But hold here, Sir, — Who is ir, I pray, 
 that has pitched on this Period of Time for the Rife or 
 Prevalence of Infant-Baptifm ? Not theAuthorof theZ)/^- 
 logue^ nor any other of zhcP^dobapti^s^v/ho all afTign the 
 Term of its Commencement to the Age of Chrifl and his 
 Apoftles, and that Author particularly had very plainly 
 exprefled his Sentiments to this Purpofe •, Dial. Pag. S. 
 Only for the betterConvidion of theParifhioner he waves 
 it, and infills only on an Argument from the ConcelTion 
 of his Adverfaries, who moftly agree, that Infant-Baptifm 
 began to be a general Praflice in the Church about the 
 third oc fourth Century. Now how unfair &: difingenu- 
 ous is it in our Author, to turn that to the Reproach and 
 Difcredit of the Caufe of the P^dohaptifts^ which is the 
 meer Conceit and Invention of his own Party, and con- 
 trary to the Sentinients of all the Pc^dobaptifts ? and this, 
 only becaufe the Minifter in the Dialogue admitted it as a 
 Suppofition, for the Sake of what they call an Argument 
 ad hominem ? Do they make this ConcefTion, only to up- 
 braid and Calumniate us ^ Then they ought to take Care 
 that theCalumny be laid at theDoor of the rightAuthors.^ 
 j and not impofe on the fimple Reader, as if we allowed i:, 
 I and own'd it to be juft. Our Author has told usjthat the 
 I Period of Time pitched on for the Prevalence of Infant- Bap- 
 ' tifm is very unhappy for the Credit of it^both as to its Begin- 
 ning and End, And we have heard fomething as to the 
 Beginning of it. But how is it unhappy for the Credit of 
 
 F " ^ ' !l 
 
66 J Defence of the Divine Right Chap. II^ 
 
 it as to itsEnd ? Of this he fpeaks but fparingly : but it 
 ran in his Thoughts (it feems) that it ended with the be- 
 o-inning of the Reformation, (for between the fourthCenr 
 tury, and thatTime comes in thePeriod which he affigns 
 for the Darknefs and Superftition of Popery.) But herein 
 he is greatly miilaken ; for tho' theBeginning of thePre- 
 valence of the Se6l of the Anahapti^s^ and divers other 
 Se6ls, may be dated about the Time of the Reformation, 
 yet P^dcbaptifm ftill prevailed, and all the Reformers 
 were in the Practice of it, and many of them aflerted and 
 defended it in iheir Difputations 6c Writings, againft its 
 Adverfaries. And there never was, nor is there at this 
 Day, any nationalChurch in the World butPasdobaptills, 
 either among the Greeks, the Romari-Catholicks, or the 
 Keiormed, as Dr. IVall has proved at large, f And that 
 all that go under the Chriflian Name in 4fia & Africa^ 
 as far as they may be called nationalChurches,under//(?^- 
 then and Mahometan Powers •, the Armenians^ Maronites^ 
 the Chriflians of 6V. nomas in the Indies^ the Cophti of 
 E^ypt^ and the Abaffenes, do all pradife Infant- Baptifm : 
 and that Antlp^dobaptifm never obtain'd to be the efta- 
 bhfh'd Religion of any Country in the World : but thofc 
 that profefs it gje a Scd:^ that differ from the Body of 
 Chrillians in all Countries where they refide. And I am 
 on good Grounds perlwaded,thatPasdobaptifm will never 
 have an End till the End of Time ; but that it will ftill 
 prevail, as the inftituted Means of the Continuance and 
 Propagation of the vifible Church of Chrifl, as long as 
 he hath a Church in the World ; which the Principles of 
 the Antip^dobaptifts have a manifeft Tendency to ob- 
 itrucf, by cutting off the Succeffion of a vifible Seed in the 
 natural Branches. And if the Term affign'd by our Ad- 
 verfaries for the Beginning of the Prevalence of Infant- 
 Baptifm, be unhappy for itsCredit in the fourthCentury, 
 when Corruption flowed into the Church j furely it is not 
 much more happy for the Credit of Antipicdobaptifm, 
 (,tho' it fell out about theTime of theReiormation^bee^un 
 
 f Hifl, of Infant-Baptifm, Part H, Chap. 8. 
 
Chap. II. of Infant -Baptifm. 67 
 
 by Luther ^A^mo Domini i^iy* or rather five, orfixYears 
 alter it) that it had its Beginning and Prevalence under 
 the Condud: of fuch a Sort of Men, who are known and 
 confefs'd to be theBlemifh &Scandal of the Reformation, 
 and the greateft Obftacle to the Progrefs of that glorious 
 Work ; and by their wild Opinions and Practices, threw 
 Germany into a Tumult. And Pm confident, Dr. GillhsLS 
 no Opinion of any Reputation gain'd to his Caufe from 
 thatEvent •, by the fame Token, that he takes it as a Re- 
 proach to be told of the Afi^air of Munfier in ourDifputes 
 with them. And I own it a Reproach unjuflly cad upoa 
 our prefent Antipasdobaptifis (which therefore I wou'd 
 conftantly refrain from) to tax them with the other perni- 
 cious Principles, and Pra6lices of the Old German Ana- 
 baptifts, which they profefledly renounce, and abhor,and 
 while they do fo. And tho' it had the Hap to be co- 
 incident in Time with theReformation, for which Reafon 
 our Author and thoie of hisPerfuafion wou'd have a Share 
 in that glorious Name, yet in Truth it derived no more 
 Credit thence, than the Tares from the Wheat in our Sa- 
 viour's Parable, becaufe they grew up together, much at 
 the fameTime, and in the fame Field. It is granted, that 
 it was not inconfiftent with Chrifl's Veracity in his pro- 
 mifed Prefence with his Church & faithful Minifters, to 
 permit PopiQi Abufes and Superftitions to prevail in the 
 Church j yet our Author is grofsly miftaken, when he 
 infinuates thatlnfant-Baptifm was one of tl-iofe Abufes and 
 Corruptions. For theCorruptions of Popery did not con- 
 fift in abolifhing any plain Gofpel-Infticution, (which it 
 muft have done, according to the Sentiments of our Ad- 
 verfaries, if Infant-Baptifm be a Nullity) but all facred 
 Ordinances of Jefus Chriil which he appointed for Conti- 
 nuance in his Church, were by his over-rulingProvidence 
 prefervedjas totheirSubn:ance,in thofeTimes of Apoflacy, 
 and under the greateltDarknefs of Ignorance &:Superftiti- 
 on in thatPeriod; but theSuperftitions of Popery confifted 
 in the corrupt Additions,of Men's devifing,to thelnftituti- 
 ons of Chrilt, and in the mixture of human Inventions, 
 
 F 2 ^ whereby 
 
6? A Defence of the^ Bivine Right Chap. II. 
 
 whereby the pureWorfliip and Ordinances of the Gofpel 
 were adulterated & extremely defiled. And confequent- 
 ly the Work of the Reformation was not to revive any 
 Ordinance of Chrift that had been loft, ov was abolifh'd 
 inPopery, (as thefe Men pretend) but to throw off thofe 
 c.orruptAdditions,and to purge theOrdinances from thofe 
 impure Mixtures, by reducing them to the Rule of the 
 \Vord, and thereby to correct the Errors and Abufes that 
 had crept into the Worfhip of God , and not to fet up 
 any new Inftitution, that had been out of Ufe before. 
 
 He adds further, P 12. "There were WitnefTes for 
 " adult Baptifm in every Age, and Chrift had a Church 
 " in theWildernefs in Obfcurity, at this Time % namely, 
 *' in theVallies oi Piedmont. — Who bore theirTeftimony 
 *' againftlnfant-Baptifm." — He feems tohave amiftakcn 
 Notion of that prophetickEmblem of a Woman flying into 
 the Wildernefs^ Rev. 12. 6. While he appropriates it to 
 thofe Chriftians in theVallies oi Piedmont.^ who, it is true, 
 witnefs'd againft the Apoftacy of the Church of Rome ; 
 But were almoft conftantly harrafs'd with Perfecutions 
 from the Popifh Party. Doubtlefs the truer Interpreta- 
 tion is, that the Apocalyptical Writer, in theUfe of that 
 Emblem, alludes to the Church of Ifrael fled into the 
 Wildernefs from Pharoah (who in prophetick Scripture 
 is called the Dragon) which was a State of Deliverance 
 to the Church, and ot Efcape from EgyptianTy vjinny and 
 " OpprefTion, and a middle State between the Bondage of 
 Egypt^ and the Reft of Canaan. In AUufion whereunto, 
 the State of the New Teftament Church is (inRcv. 12.) 
 defcrib'd in it's Deliverance from theDragon,or from the 
 the Perfecution of the Heathen Emperors, and its Refto- 
 ration to a State of Liberiy and Peace, which vv^as a great 
 Mercy to the Church, and the Means of its glorious En- 
 largement ; which yet was but a middle State between 
 the Tyranny of the perfccuring Heathen Powers^and the 
 Reft and Happinefs of the Kingdom of Chrift when it 
 comes in its tull Power and Glory. But let it fignify the 
 Church of Chrift in Obfcurity, as it was under thcReign 
 
 of 
 
Chap. II. cf Infant-Baptifni, 69 
 
 of Popery •, the' I apprehend, in a different Senfe from 
 that which is intended by ourAuthor ; yet I can't be per- 
 fwaded that the Kingdom of Chrift, even in the Height 
 of Antichrift's Reign, was of no greater Extent than the 
 Vallies o^ Piedmont : Since there were many among other 
 Chriftian Nations of Europe^ who rofe in that Period as 
 WitneiTes againft the Apoftacy of the Church of Rome -, 
 as may be feen inBifhop UJher de Succefftone et fiatu Ecck- 
 fiarum^ &:c. and divers other Authors. But that any 
 Churches in thofe 'V ?^\t% fuccejfively bore T^eftimony againft 
 Infant-Baptifm^ is a meer Surmife of ourAuthor,that has 
 never been prov'd •, tho' feveral Antipsedobaptili Writers 
 have attempted to prove it (as our Author likewife pre- 
 tends to do) yet have fail'd in the Attempt 5 their Alle- 
 gations from ancient Writers for thisPurpofe, have been 
 prov'd by their Anfwerers to have been either Mifrepre- 
 fencations of the Authors they have cited, or nothing to 
 their Purpofe. However, as if it had been fully proved, 
 and that therefore the Antipaedobaptifts were the only 
 true Church, and had engrofs'd the gracious Prefence of 
 Chrifl to themfelves, he concludes this Head thus ; " It 
 *' will lie upon thisWriter and his Friends, to prove the 
 " gracious Prefence of Chrifl in the Adminiflration of 
 " Infant Baptifm." Here he gives us a Specimen of his 
 Charity, in reprefenting it as a Thing that needed Proof, 
 that the Padobaptifts have the Prefence of Chrifl with 
 them in their Adminiflrations ! When it will ferve ourAu- 
 thor*s Turn, and his Caufe requires it, he can eafily llip- 
 pofe, that an irregular or even an immoral Man may ad- 
 minifler theOrdinances,and that to faving Advantage for 
 Converfion and Comfort. And what does this impiy,but 
 the fpiritual Prefence of Chrifl in fuch Adminiflrations ? 
 But now it feems, it requires Proof, that a Ps^dobaptilt 
 has any Thing of the gracious Prefence of Chrifb in his 
 Adminiflration of theOrdinances ! One would think,that 
 to a charitable Man, there would need no other Proof of 
 this,than the vifibleEfFects of his fanclifying GracCjwhich 
 have appeared ia many Thoufands that have receiv'd no 
 
 F 3 other 
 
70 A 'Defence of the Bivine Right Chap. IL 
 
 other Baptifm, than that in their Infant-Age. Had not 
 Chrifl a Church in England^hdoxt the Rile of the Antip^- 
 dobaptifts there,which was long fince theBeginning of the 
 Reforqiation ? For in lefs than two Hundred Years ago, 
 there was not an Englijh Antipasdobaptift known. And 
 v/as not Chrift gracioufly prefent with his Church then ? 
 Had not theMartyrs who fufFered inQiieen M^r/sReign, 
 the Prefence of Chrift with them, Cranmer, Ridley, Lati- 
 mer. Hooper, Bradford, Philpot, thofeholy Men, and vaft 
 Numbers befides, who were all Psedobaptifls ? The laft 
 mention'd,PM;>^/,a little before hisMartyrdom,boreTel- 
 timony againft the Errors of the Anabaptiils (which 
 feerned then to have got Footing mEngland, and to have 
 been Matter of Debate, tho' not openly profefs'd by any 
 Englifloman) in a Letter he wrote to one of hisFellow-Pri- 
 foners. * Do I need to add the numberlefs Inftances of 
 Children in pious Families, who have been Subjeds of 
 fandlifying Impreffions from their early Childhood, by 
 Means of no other than Infant-Baptifm ? Or does he re- 
 quire it to be prov'd by an Argument d Priori F This is 
 done as often as we prove, that Baptilm adminiftred to 
 Infants is an Inflitution of Chrift, and that it has been 
 the Pradice of the Univerfal Church from the Days of 
 the Apoftles. But by what Argument he will prove it 
 incumbent on the Paedobaptifts /<? prove the graciousPre- 
 fence of Chrift with them, &c. I know not •, unlefs it be 
 what Logicians call Petitio Principii, or the begging 
 the Thingin Queftion (and I am fenfible he can by no 
 other Argument prove the Prefence of Chrift, in Way of 
 Difcrimination, with the Antipsedobaptifts in the Admi- 
 niftration of Adult-Baptifm ]jox unlefs they cou'd prove, 
 that Adult-Baptifm only was ttielnftitution of Chrift,and 
 that that only has been in Ufe all along in theUniverfal 
 Church from the Days of the Apoftles, (which it is im- 
 pofiible for them to do) it argues nothing but Weaknefs 
 andVanity, join'd with an uncharitable Spirit, to demand 
 
 of 
 
 f Fox'& ACis & Mojiuments. Vol. III. P. 606. 
 
Chap. II. of Infant-Baptifm. 71 
 
 of us Proof of Chrlft's gracious Prefence in the Admini- 
 ftration of Infant-Baptifm. — 
 
 Under his fifth and lafl Head, vi%, " That upon the 
 " Pnnciples of rejedlinglnfant-BaptifmCiff. it is not pofli- 
 «' ble there fhould be any Baptifm at all in the World, 
 " either among the P^dobaptifts or Antipsedobaptifls," 
 He tells us, P^. 13,14. " The Englifh Antipaedobaptifts 
 *' when they were firft convinced of the NecefTity of fet- 
 " ting a Reformation on Foot in this Matter, met toge- 
 *' ther, and confulted about it : When they had fome 
 " Difficulties thrown in their Way about a proper Ad- 
 " minftrator to begin this Work, fome were for fending 
 " Meflengers to foreignChurches,who were theSuccefibrs 
 " of the ancient Waldenfes^ in France znd Bohemia ; and 
 " accordingly did fend over fome, who being baptized, 
 " returned & baptized others." But whence he had this 
 Piece of Hiflory, he has not inform/d us : And whom he 
 calls the Succefibrs of the ancient TValdeyifes^ I know not. 
 The Prot eft ants mLntber^s Time, in Germany^ France and 
 Bohemia^ were accounted the true Succefibrs of the ancient 
 Waldenfes -, who were notof theAntip^dobaptift Perfwa- 
 rion,as fhall be fhcwn hereafter. But it looks pretty odd, 
 that they fhould fend Abroad to procure a proper Admi- 
 niftrator of Baptifm according to their Opinion,when the 
 foreign Antipaedobaptifts were ready enough to meet them 
 at Home *, many of whom came {xovnHolland and the lo'-jo 
 Countries^ after the Affair of Munfter^ mioEngland^ before 
 any Englijhman profeffed himfelf of their Opinion j and 
 thefe were of two Sorts, as Bp Burnet obferves ♦, " Some 
 " only obje6lcd to the baptizing of Children, and the 
 " Manner of it by Sprinkling,& not by Dipping. Others 
 " held many Opinions that had been anciently condemn- 
 " ed as Herefies."f So that doubtlefs they might have 
 found a proper Adminiftrator in theirWay,wichout fend- 
 ing into toreign Countries,and that before any of the£;;^- 
 lijh Nation had gone over to that Sed. YoxFuller^on Oc- 
 cafion of his giving an Account of a Congregation of 
 
 F 4 Vutcb 
 
 t Abbrldg. gf theHift, of the Reform. Book II. P. 84. 
 
72 J Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IL 
 
 Dutch Anabaptifts, that were difcovered without Aldgate 
 in London, fays, " Now began xh^AnabaptiJls wonderfully 
 " to increafe in the Land, and as we are forry that any 
 " Country Men fhould be feduced with this (Dpinion, fo 
 *' we are glad that the Englijh were yet free from that In - 
 " fedlion."* This was in the 1 8th Year o'i Q^Elizabeth 
 A. D. 1575- Two of the aforemention'dx^nabaptifls that 
 we^e mollobftinate,being condcmn'd to be burnt, Mr,i^i?;«r, 
 the ".•artyrologift, in a very movingLetter to the Queen, 
 i;-iterceeded for the fparing their Lives, or that a milder 
 Punifliment might be infli&d on them than burning. In 
 the Letter,which is recited at large in Fuller ^\\t calls them 
 Foreigners, not Englifhmen ; and gives thanks to Chriji^ 
 that at that Time he knew of none among theEnglifh acceffory 
 or addi^ed to this Madnefs ; |1 fo he caDs their Errors. 
 And fo, it feems, the Forwardnefs of this S^^di in coming 
 over to ipread their Tenets in En^land^ might have laved 
 the firft j£w^///??Antipasdobaptifls the Labour andTrouble 
 of fendingAbroad for anAdminiftrator of Baptifm in their 
 Way. But be this as it will, our Author lays no great ^ 
 Strefs upon it, but feems to intimate that there were but 
 fome few that took this Courfe ; the reft made noScruple 
 of receiving their firftBaptifm in this Way fromtheHands 
 of an unbaptized Perfon. And our Author pleads for 
 the Lawfulnefs of it in the Cafe of a general Corruption, 
 which he fupppofes to have been the Cafe with Refped to 
 Baptifm : Of this fomething hath been fpoken before. 
 But fince wc admit no fuch Cafe to have happened, efpe- 
 ciaHy in fuch a Degree as to annul the Ordinance of Bap* 
 tifm, and have no Ground from the Word of God to be- 
 lieve it ever will happen, and confequently no Dire6lions 
 thence, as to what ought to be done in fuch a Cafe •, We 
 therefore look upon it as a rafh Interpofition of Man's 
 Judgment, to determine what may lawfully be done in the 
 Cafe fuppofcd. i^ he had remembred and well confidered 
 Z^;;r/'j's Words in Reference to the prefent Cafe, v/hich he 
 
 recites 
 
 * Church Ilifl. Book IX. P. 104, || //;/V. His Words in his Latin Letter 
 to *....:^QueeR arc^ 4'n^lorum hodie nsmimm huie iujl.nia; nj^^ncm I'id^o. 
 
Chap. II. ^/ Infant-Baptifm. 73 
 
 recites in the next Page, wz. "What cannot bedeter- 
 *' mined by the Word of God, we fhould not dare to de- 
 *' termine •," perhaps he had been more modeft, or lefs 
 confident in his Determinations. 
 
 But I mull here briefly animadvert on the Injullice he 
 has done the Writer of the Dialogue,in charging his Sup- 
 pofition with an abfurd Confequence it will by no Means 
 admit. For he hys^Pa. 15. " According to this Man's 
 " Train of Reafoning, there never was, nor could be any 
 " valid Baptifm in the World -, for Jobn the firft Ad- 
 " miniftrator being an unbaptized Ferfon, the whole 
 " SucceflTion of Churches from that Time to this Day, 
 " mud remain unbaptized." — For that Writer had in 
 exprefs Words (and thofe quoted by Dr. Gill himfelf,P^. 
 13.) guarded his Suppofition with an Exception or Li- 
 mitation,that fully obviates thisConfequence,to thisEfFedl; 
 That in Cafe Infant-Baptifm be a Nullity (it being admi- 
 niftred to the firft Antipasdobaptifls by thofe that had no 
 other Baptifm themfelves) there can be no true Baptifm 
 now in the World, either among them, or us, adding in 
 exprel^ Terms, until there be a new Commijfion from Heaven 
 to renew and reft ore this Ordinance. And had not John 
 the Baptifl a CommiiTion fromHeaven ? ne Bapifni of 
 John whence was it ? of Heaven^ or of Men ? Where 
 then is the Juftice of the Refiedion on this Man's Train 
 of Reafoning ? Was there ever an AntipasdobaptifV, that 
 could produce the likeEvidence from Heaven, as we have 
 for John's Miniflry and Baptifm ? But the mofl flagrant 
 Inftance of Uncharirablcnefs occurs in the clofe of that 
 Chapter. After a long Citation komZanchy^ who brings 
 inTho. Aquinas taking it upon him to decide the Quef] ion. 
 Whether he that was never baptized may baptize another ? 
 This he determines in the Affirmative, from a Decree of 
 Pope Nicolaus (fo I perceive popifn Authority is better 
 than none at all, elfe Womens and Midwives Bap- 
 til qi had wanted Authority. J And after mentioning 
 leveral Cafes in v/hicli he thinks it may be done ; which 
 is difapproved by Zancby^, for ihe Kcafoa before re- 
 cited 
 
74 ^ Defence of the Divine R\ght Chap. If. I 
 
 cited, viz. What cannot he determined hy the Word of God^ 
 we Jhotild not dare to determine — He (i.e. Zanchy) puts a j 
 Cafejwherein he is of Opinion, that the Determination is !| 
 moreeafy, that it may lawfully be done. The Cafe is ||- 
 this, " Suppofing a Turk in a Country where he could ^ 
 " not eafily come at Chriftian Churches, he by reading [ 
 " the New Teftament is favour'd with theKnowledge of 
 *' Chrift,and with Faith, he teaches his Family,and con- 
 *' verts that toChrift,and fo others likewife. The Quef- 
 '' tion is, Whether he may baptize them whom he has 
 " converted to Chrift,tho' he himfelf never was baptized 
 " with Water-Baptifm ? 1 don't doubt but he may, and 
 " on the other Hand, take Care that he himfelf be bapti- 
 *' zed by another of them that were converted by him. 
 *^ The Reafon is,becaufe he is a Minifter of the Word ex- 
 
 *' traordinarily raifed up by Chriil" The Cafe here 
 
 fuppos'd, of a Turk converted only by reading the New- 
 Teftament and converting others, was never, I believe, a 
 Cafe in Fadl, nor ever likely to be, without fome extraor- 
 dinary Infpiration, which virtually includes aCommiffion 
 fromGod. AndZancby feems tofuppofe the fame,in?;alling 
 fuch an one aMiniJler extraordinarily raifed up byChrift: and 
 fo there is nothing in the Cafe that favours our Antipse- 
 dobaptifts •, unlel^ they pretend to an extraordinary In- 
 fpiration and Miffion (this indeed was pretended by fome 
 at their firilRife in G^;7;2^;n', about twoCenturies ago) but I 
 hope there are but fcw,at thisDay,fo wild & frantick, as to 
 appear tojuftify fuch Enthufiaftick Pretenfions. And yet 
 even in the Age of Infpiration,the£/Z''/^/?^^;/Eunuch was not 
 converted by reading the Scriptures, buf by Philips direc- 
 ted to him by the extraordinary Miniftry of an Angel to 
 guide him to a right Underftanding of what he read, and 
 to preach Jefus to him, and fo to baptize him upon 
 the Profeffion of his Faith. Aci. 8. However, admit the 
 Suppofition, for Argument fake •, what does our Author 
 colledl hence ? Take it in his own Words, P. 17. " The 
 " Reafon Zanchy gives, will, I think, hold good, in the 
 ^^ Cafe of the firll Aniipadohaptifrs in England'' The Rea- 
 
Chap. 1L ef Infant-Baptifm. 74 
 
 fon which Zanchy gives,is,that the Perfon,m the Cafe fup- 
 pofed, living among Mahometans^ could have no Accefs 
 to Chriftian Churches and Minifters for the Ordinance of 
 Baptifm, as well as that he is himfelf a Minijler ey.traor- 
 dinarily raifed up hyChrift. And will either of thefe hold 
 good in the Cafe of iht^v^AntipcedobaptiJlsm a Chriftian 
 Nation, where all agree in the ProfefTion of Faith & Sub- 
 jedion to the fame Lord Jefus Chrift, and in the Symbol 
 of their Profellion, in one and the fame Baptifm, differ- 
 ing only in the Age of receiving it, and in the Mode of 
 Adminiftration ? What is this but to fay in plainEnglifh, 
 As good receive Baptifm at the Hands of one who is a 
 Believer \nMahomet^2iS of aPasdobaptift -, and theReafons 
 that juflify the Refufal of theformer,as anAdminiilrator, 
 will hold good with Refped to the latter ? Thus our 
 Author concludes this Chapter, in great Charity (no 
 Doubt) to the reft of his fellow Chriltians -, if any fuch 
 there be, who are not of his ov/n Perfuafion. 
 
 There are many Errors in Matters of Religion, v/hich 
 yet are confiftent with a good Temper of Mind, with 
 Humility, Meeknefs and Love, and with all the other 
 Graces of the Spirit, which frame theHeart for Chriftian 
 Communion, even with thofe that are not in every Parti- 
 cular of our own Perfuafion •, and vv^hile they are but Er- 
 rors of Judgment, not joined with an obftinate Will, and 
 perverfe Affedions, and Men are open to divine Light, 
 and ready to admit the Evidences of Truth, as foon as 
 they difcern them, it is to be believed, that God, inCom- 
 paflion to the frail and fallible Mind of Man, will gra- 
 cioufly overlook them. Or elfe Wo to the beft Maa liv- 
 ing whoknows but in Part, and confequently muft be lia- 
 ble to Error. But it is a particular Inftance of the Un- 
 happinefs of the Antip^dobaptift Opinions, that thofe 
 who embrace them in ail their rigid Notions, are made 
 therewith to imbibe uncharitable Prejudices againft all 
 other Chriftian Churches and ProfeiTors, and to difown 
 their vifibleCommunion, and even theirChriftianity \t.k\t^ 
 confining,inEficcf,that honourable and v/orthy Name to 
 thofe of thdr owa Sed, CHAP. 
 
76 A Defence of the Livine Right Chap. IIL 
 
 Chap. IIL 
 
 The Antiquity of the Praftice of baptizing 
 Infants, even from the Days of the 
 Apoftles, maintain'd againft Dr. GiU\ 
 Exceptions. 
 
 o^pD^.&^oHEN there appears good Scripture- Warrant for 
 claWcS:? ^^ Baptifm of Chriftian Infants, it is but of 
 '^^^ fmall Confequence, to one whofe Mind is fet- 
 .^. .^ .«• ^|g^^ jj^ ^ £j.^ Belief of divine Revelation, and 
 in a fixed Purpofe to govern himfelf by that Revelation 
 in all Matters of religiousPra6lice,whether or no theCaufe 
 of Infant-Baptifm may receive any additional Enforce- 
 ment from human Authority, or thePra6tice of Antiquity : 
 Yet or fome Confequence it is to know howMatters flood 
 in theChriftian Church,efpecially in the primitive Times, 
 with Reference to this Pra6tice. For, 
 
 I. If it be found thatAdult-Baptifm only was pradlis'd 
 in the primitive Church, and the Baptifm of Infants was 
 generally in Difufe ; we muft conclude either,/7y/?, That 
 the primitive Chriftians liv'd in the Omiflion of a clear 
 and plain Duty. Which Suppofition is unreafonable, as 
 well as uncharitable ; for thofeChriflians had theApoftles, 
 and apoflolical Men for their Guides in the Obfervance 
 of tlie Ordinances of divine Worfhip •, and have been had 
 in Reputation with the Church in all fucceedingAges for 
 their Piety and Purity : The Infant- Age of the Church 
 being, doubtlefs, theAge of its greatefl Innocence & free- 
 dom from Corruption. Or Secondly^ Wemufl conclude, 
 that thofe Texts of Scripture, on which we ground the 
 Pradlice of Infant Baptifm, were differently underftood by 
 the ancient Fathers, to whom they did not appear to be 
 fo clear a Warrant for this Pra6lice,as to us they feem to 
 be. Could this be made to appear, it fliould put us upon 
 
 a 
 
Chap. III. of Infant-Baptifm. 77 
 
 a more narrow and clofe Examination of the Grounds of 
 our Pradice, in order to a juilDetermination of cheSenfe 
 of thofe Texts, which we take for our Warrant, that we 
 might know whofe Interpretation is mod agreable there- 
 unto. This is that which our Antipasdobaptifts wou'd 
 have to be the real State of theCafe, that Intant-Baptifm 
 was not in ufe in the primitiveChurch,but was ot -a much 
 later Date. And if this could be once proved, they would 
 gain much to their Caufe. But on the other Hand, 
 
 2. If it appears, as far as can be known from the Re- 
 cords of Antiquity, that the baptizing of Infants was the 
 conftant and general Pradice of the Church from the 
 ApoftlesTimes, we niuft undoubtedly conclude,that they 
 founded it on the Authority of divinelnflitution-, & then ic 
 will alfo follow,that admitting theGrounds of ourPradice 
 (which we produce from Scripture) to be doubtful, or not 
 fo clear as we pretend 'em to be, which fome aver ( and 
 what is there fo clearly deliver'd in Scripture, which the 
 reftlefsWits of Men influenced byPride,Prejudice, Party- 
 Zeal, and a Spirit of Contradidion, have not call'd in 
 Quellion, andftudied to render doubtful ?) We mull be 
 fettled and determined inFavourof Infant- Baptifm. For 
 the conflant Pradice of the Univerfai Church fhould in 
 allReafon be allowed to be the bed Interpreter of a doubt- 
 fulLaw. And how far thePsedobaptifts have thisDecifion 
 of the'Ancients in their Favour, will appear from what 
 follows. 
 
 But if after all our Search, Antiquity be found filenton 
 this Head, fo that no Argument can be produced for, 
 or againft Infant- Baptifm, from the antient Writings of 
 the Church, we are then juft where we were before, and 
 mud reft content with the ible Authority of the facred 
 Scriptures, which is fufRcient to us. In the mean Time, 
 this may undeniably be pleaded in our Favour, that fo 
 far as we can with Certainty trace the Pradice of theUni- 
 verfal Church in Reference to Infant-Baptifm, which, by 
 theConfeflion of ourAdverfaries,is as far as tothe third^ov 
 fourth Century, wQ have it intirely, and without Difpute 
 
 on 
 
78 A Befeme of the Divine Right Chap. III. 
 
 on our Side. They contend, indeed, for an Exception of 
 an handful of Men comparatively, in fomeAges pa{l,but 
 upon no certainGroLinds, till the Sed of the Anabaptifts 
 arofe in Germany about the Time of the Reformation. 
 
 The fcriptural Grounds of the Adminiftration of Bap- 
 tifm to Chriftian Infants will be produc'd, and vindicated 
 in the two next Chapters. But the Miniller in the Dia- 
 logue having drop'd thefe few Hints, incidentally, and 
 by the by, without pretending to infill on them, viz. 
 
 1. " That Intant-Baptifm conftantly obtain'd in 
 « the truly primitive Church : And that there is un- 
 *' doubted Evidence of this from the antient Fathers." 
 
 2. " That it can't be pretended,that this Pradice was 
 *' called in Queftion, or made Matter of Debate in the 
 " Church, till the Madmen of Mun§fer — fet themfelves 
 *' againft it." And particularly, 3. " That the antient 
 *' IValdenfes being in the conftant Pra61ice of Adult- Bap- 
 *' tifm, is a chimerical Imagination,and to be rejeded as. 
 " a groundlefsFigment." Dial. P. 7, 9. Thefe fewHints 
 have furnifh'd out Matter to our Author for his third 
 Chapter, on which I am now to make fome Remarks. 
 To proceed then with our Author, according to the 
 Method and Order of the foremention'd Heads — 
 
 I. "Thatlnfant Baptifm conftantly obtained in thetru- 
 " ly primitiveChurch." Dr. Gz7/,to confute thisAfTercion, 
 would have " the truly primitiveChurch" confined to the 
 Times of Chrift & hisApofbles, including only theChurch 
 of the firllCentury, (But why may not the Church of the 
 fecond, and third Century too be truly primitive ? or at 
 what Year will he fix the Bounds, after which theChurch 
 ceafed to be truly primitive ?) And then infills upon the 
 old triteObjedlion from theSilence of Scripture -, and hav** 
 ing produced the feveral Inllances of Adult- Baptifm re- 
 corded in the New-Teflament, where there is no mention 
 of Infants, would have us thence conclude, that none fuch 
 were baptized •, at lead, that there is no Evidence, that 
 they were. Firft. He alledges the Inftance of thofe who 
 were baptized by our Lord^ i. e. by the Miniflry of his 
 
 Difciplesa 
 
Chap. III. of Infant-Baptifm. ' 79 
 
 Difciplcs, Joh, 4. I, 2. But left we fhould think there 
 were any Infants among them, he is careful to note, they 
 were "firft madeDifciples — and then baptized" — Which 
 we readily grant, but deny that it concludes any Thing 
 againftlnfantsbeing baptized. But of this more hereafter, 
 Secondly^, He proceeds to a large Recital of the Baptifms 
 adminifler'd in the feveral Churches, as recorded iii the 
 A^s of the Apoflles •, particularly in the Church at Jerufa- 
 lem,to the threeThoufands converted at Pentecoff j in the 
 Churches at Samaria^ Philippic and Coruith^ to thofe of 
 Adult Age, who are faid to have heard and believed^ and 
 to be baptized. And is particularly concern'd, under each 
 Inftance, to put his Reader in Mind, that there is no 
 Mention, or Intimation of any Infants that were baptized. 
 P. 18,19,20. But what of all this ? Does Dr. G/7/ think, 
 that theP^dobaptifts have never read theNewTeftament, 
 or the Ads of the Apoilles, with Attention and Care ? 
 Or that he advances any Thing new,or flrange to them, 
 for their Convidion, which they never took Notice of 
 before ? They well knew all this, that the facred Hifto- 
 rian gives an Account only of the Baptifms of theAdult, 
 and makes no exprefs mention of Infants baptiz'd, and 
 need not this particular, and long Recital for their Infor- 
 mation orConvidlion. This is indeed a Topick on which 
 the Antipsedobaptiil Teachers make their moft plaufible 
 Harangues, and work much upon the ignorant Vulgar, 
 who never obferv'd, or confider'd this before, that the 
 many Inilances of Baptifm mention'd in the New-Tefta- 
 ment, are all of adult Baptifm, and not one fingle Verfe 
 mentions the Baptifm of Infants. Surely ^ (think they) 
 thefe Men muft have theTruth on their Side, who adhere 
 fo clofely to the exprefs Word of God. Yet to the more 
 intelligent, 'tis all but an empty Shew, a meer flourifh 
 of Words •, and is of no Weight to prove the Thing 
 defign'd, either that no Infants were baptiz'd in thofe 
 Times,or that there is no Evidence of it. For, 
 
 1 . The P<TdQbaptifts do not place the Evidence of In- 
 fant-Baptifm, in the Hiftory of Fad, or in any exprefs 
 
 Mention 
 
So ^A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IIL) 
 
 Mention of it in the New-Teftament. No Man ever* 
 pretended it ; and no fuch Thing is afferted in the Bia-l 
 logue-, but the Evidence, that Intant-Baptifm univerfally 
 obtained in the primitive Church, is therein refer'd to the, 
 Tcllimony of the ancientFathers ; who do indeed atteft it, 
 as will appear under the next Head. Neverchelefs there is 
 f J much Evidence from Scripture concerning thisMatce*-, 
 as to a fober impartial Mind may leave it a Thing patt 
 all reafonable Doubt, that Infants were baptized, even iai 
 theApoftlesTimesi tho' not from any exprefsDeclarations 
 of Fad therein, yet from divers other Confideracions laid 
 together. E.G. From Chrift's receiving,and owning little 
 Children as the Members of his ChurchjOrSubjefls of the 
 Kingdom of God, which he came to fet up, to eftablifli 
 and propagate among Men •, his ordering his Apoilles to 
 admit little Children Difciples,or Profelytesto,him,which 
 is meant by his faying to ihcm, Suffer littkChildren to come 
 unto me^ Luk. 18.16. Which might ferve forDire6tion to 
 the Apoftles in the Adminiftration of Baptifm, as to the 
 difputed Subjed of it : Nor can they in Reafon& Juflice 
 be fuppofed to have with-held that inllitutcd Symbol of 
 AdmilTion into the vifible Kingdom of God, from thofe 
 of whom Chriit had plainly declared his Mind, that they 
 fhould be received and own'd as the Subjeds of it. Add 
 to this,thc Confideration of theRule which ih^Jews went 
 by,according to divine Appointment, in admitting Pro- 
 felytes into the Church of Ifrael; which was,to receive all 
 the youngChildren of profelyted Parents,from eightDays 
 old and upv/ards,into the Covenant of the God o{ Ifael^ 
 together with their Parents,by the inilituted Rite of Cir- 
 cumcifion. This being the known & eftabf rh'dCuilom 
 in the Jewijh Nation, and that by the Ordinance of God, 
 {E^od. 12.48,49.) ferved alfo for a Rule to the Apoftles, 
 in adminiftring the Chriflian Circumcifion (as Baptifm is 
 called,C^/.2.ii,i2.) to the young Children ot Parents 
 profelyted to the New-Teftament Church. For if the 
 Children of profelytedParents had,beforeChrift'sCoiTiing, 
 by a divine Appgintment,a Right to God*s Covenant and 
 
 the 
 
Chap. IIL of Infant-Baptifm. Si 
 
 the Seal thereof, we cannot fwi'hout derogating from 
 the Honour of Chrift,and leflening hisGrace andKindnefs 
 to Man, which he has fo abundantly manifefted,and even 
 to httle Children^ conceive that he came to dif^ofTefs 
 Infant-Children of this their ancientRight, and cutthem 
 off from theCovenant-Mercies ofGod. And confequently, 
 it may be fairly gather'd from the Confideration of the 
 wholeHoufholds baptized,of which there is exprefs Men- 
 tion in the New-Teftament, which to a Je^jj (whofeLan- 
 guage is imitated by the facred Writers of the New- 
 Teflament, and for whofe Ufe primarily their Hiflorical 
 Writings were intended) wou'd leave no more Grounds 
 of doubting, whether Infants in thofe fevcral Houfholds 
 were baptiz'd, than, if it had been faid, that fuch aParent, 
 or Mafter, and all that were his^ or all his Houftoold were 
 circumcifed, it would have been Matter of Doubt with 
 him, whether he had any Infants circumcifed. Let me 
 only add the Confideration of the Children of Believers 
 being accounted, or numbered amongD//?/p/^j( Ad. 1 5.10.) 
 and Saints^ or the Holy. (i.Cor. 7. 14.) Which are Titles 
 or Charadlers commonly given to the baptized, at leaft 
 they mark out fuch as are qualified for Baptifm. I fay, 
 ail thefe Confiderations laid together, (and divers others 
 might be added) tho' they don't amount to a full con- 
 vi6tiveEvidence,erpecially to aCaviiier,yet to thofe whofe 
 Minds are not warp'd with prejudicateNotions & Opini- 
 ons, fo as to hinder their paffing an equal and impartial 
 Judgment, they muft appear of fo much Weight,at leaft, 
 as to render it more than probable, that the Practice of 
 baptizing Infants obtained in the Apoftles Times. Such 
 Evidence we have in Scripture of the Probability of it : 
 and if we add hereto the Teilimony of the Ancients, this 
 will put the Matter out of Queftion. And thele living 
 nearer the Age of the Apoftles, are reafonably to be ad- 
 mitted as competent WitnelTes, and capable of giving us 
 a true Information of what the general Practice was ia 
 that Age. And their Teftimony in Behalf of Infant- 
 Baptifm is, on this Account, the more credible, in that 
 
 G it 
 
^z A Defence of the 'Divine Right Chap. III. 
 
 it perfedlly agrees with theScripture,and is no other than 
 what a Man would in Reaibn exped, who has read, and 
 confider'd thofe Paffages of Scripture that render it ex- 
 ceeding probable that this Pradlice generally obtain'd at 
 that Time. The Conhderations I have fuggefted being 
 fome of the Scripture- Arguments which we make ufe of 
 in the Defence ot the Right of Infants to Baptifm, are in- 
 deed excepted againft by our Adverfaries, and by Dr. 
 Gill in particular, which will give me Occafion to fay 
 fomething hereafter in Vindication of them. 
 
 2. On Suppofition that the Baptifm of Infants was ge- 
 nerally pradtis'd in the Apoftles Times, there may yet be 
 good Reafons given, why the facred Hiftorian paiGTes it 
 over in Silence : Becaufe the chief Subject and Scope of 
 his Writing were Matters of far greater Importance,fuch 
 as the teflifying the Refurre6lion of Chrift, his Afcenfion 
 into Heaven,the Defcent.of the Holy Gho{l,the Sermons 
 and Difcourfes of the Apoftles, the Miracles they wro't, 
 the wonderful Succefs ot theDo6trine they preach'd, their 
 Confultations,Travels,Sufienngs,thefpreadingoftheGof- 
 pel into many Heathen Countries, ^c, Thefe are great 
 Things, and of high Importance, that employ'd the Pen 
 of the infpired Hiftorian, that it is no Wonder at all he 
 does not defcend to fo minute a Particular, as the bap- 
 tizing of Infants : confidering withal, that the Inftances 
 of Baptifm which he has recorded are but few in all, in 
 Comparifon of the many Thoufands converted by the 
 Apoftles Miniftry,and the manyChurches planted, which 
 he has given anAccount of, v;ithout faying any Thing of 
 their Baptifm. And tho' the Apoftles had it in their 
 Commiftiun to baptize,as well as to preach, and a6tually 
 did baptize, yet their main Work and Bufinefs was to 
 preach the Gofpel. As Faid faith of himfelf, giving the 
 Reafon why he baptized lb few, i Cor. i. 1 7. For Chri§l 
 fent me not to baptize^ but to preach theGofpeL The Work 
 of baptizing was ordinarily committed to inferiour Mini- 
 fters, or fuch whom the Apoftles deputed to that Service. 
 Thereigre we have no Reafon to expeCl to find in fuch a 
 
 brief 
 
Chap. III. ^/ Infant-Baptifm. 83 
 
 brief Hiftory as the A5ls^ a particular Detail of all that 
 were thus baptiz'd ; for as this Hiftory is entitled the 
 A^s of the Apo§iles^ fo the facred Writer confines himfelf 
 very much to that Subie6t,and touches, but incidentally, 
 other Things. There are diverfe otherThings of as great 
 Confequence, of which we might defire a more particular 
 Account, which are pafs'd over by the facred Hiftoriaa 
 with as much Silence as Infant-BaptifmjOr with but very 
 general Hints. But we muft thankfully accept and im- 
 prove what is written, which the Wifdom of God faw 
 lufficient for us, and moreover, has given us Reafon, and 
 a Capacity to ufe it in fearching his Mind and Meaning 
 therein ; whether plainly exprefs'd, or by juft Confe- 
 quence to be deduced from what is written. And as to 
 the Point of Infant-Baptifm, fuch Hints are left on Re- . 
 cordjin Reference to that Practice,as are fufficient to give 
 Satisfadion to well difpofed Minds. The Baptifm of 
 whole Houlholds, fo exprefly mention'd more than once, 
 is as much as may be expected in fo brief a Narrative of 
 the great Tranfadions of thofe Times. And fome ob- 
 ferve, that " of the fix Baptifms (which are all that St. 
 *' Faiil is mention'd to have been concerned in) three 
 " were the Baptifms of whole Houfholds •, fuch a one, 
 *' and all hisr * 
 
 3. In that there are fo many Inftances of Adulc-Bap- 
 tifm recorded in the New-Teftament, and none expre/ly 
 of Infants, the Reafon is obvious to all that underftand 
 and confider the State of Affairs in thofeTimes. Chrifti- 
 anity was then a new Religion to the whole World. The 
 Apoftles were not fent to thofe who had, or knew any 
 Thing of the Chriflian ProfefTion before, but to Jews and 
 Heathens ^ysho could not pofTibly haveChriftian Baptifm in 
 thcirlnfancy •, therefore of NecefTity they muft firft preach 
 the Gofpel to the Adult, to bring them overtothe Faith 
 and ProfelTion of this new Religion, before they them- 
 felves, or their Children could be baptized. And there- 
 fore the Converfion and Baptifm of the Adult was of the 
 
 G 2 greateft 
 
 • miPi Hift. of Infan;-Baptifm, Par^ II. Chap. X. §. 3. 
 
S4' A Defence of the Divine R\ght Chap. HI. 
 
 greatcfl: Account, and deferv'd more particularly to be 
 recorded, as the Pfedobaptiils grant-, tho' they fuppofe, 
 the Baptifm of their Infants, when they had any, followed 
 of Courfe •, and was known to do fo (by theApotlles and 
 thofc of that Age) in the Jewifh Church, whole common 
 Cuftom it was to baptize all the lnfants,or littleChildren 
 of Profelytes,as well as tocircumcife all theirMales,whom 
 they received with their Parents into the Covenant of the 
 God of Ifrael. And this may be another Reafon why the 
 facred Writer is fo fparing in the mention ot Infants bap- 
 tized ; becaufe the Cuftom of the Jews was well known, 
 in baptizing Children with their Parents,who were profe- 
 lyted to their Religion, * that a particular Account of 
 them was needlefs. For there can be but little Doubt, 
 that theApoftles proceeded by the fameRule in admitting 
 the little Ones of thofe whom they made Difciples (or pro- 
 felyted to the Religion of Jefus Chrift) into theChriltian 
 Covenant by the fameRite of Baptifm. That Argument, 
 therefore, of the AntipjEdobaptifts, taken from the want 
 of plain Examples, or Precedents in Scripture of Infants 
 baptized, wherewith they make fuch a Flourifh,can have 
 its Weight or Force with commonPeople only fromtheir 
 Ignorance, or want of attending to this Confideration of 
 the Condition of thofe Times, which was far different 
 from the prefenr. They are apt to meafure theScripture- 
 Accounts of Baptifm, by what they now obferve in Chri- 
 flian Countries, where there is but here & there one adult 
 Perfon baptized for many Scores of Infants ; not confi- 
 dering,that in thofe firftTimes of the Gofpel all theV/orld 
 was without Chriftian Baptifm •, and that thofe whom 
 the Apoftlcs preached to, and converted, were all adult 
 Perfons -, ail and every one born of Parents unbaptiz'd, 
 being Strangers to the Chrillian Religion : So thatAduk - 
 Baptifms were vaitly more numerous than the Baptifms 
 
 of 
 
 * This is attefied by the mod of ]carnedMen,\vho have been conver- 
 fant in the ancientWritings of the Jews; particularly mDY.Lightfcct 
 we find laige Citations from the Rahhi's in his Hora; Hehriac. on 
 iVJatt. 3. and other Parts of his Works, fliewing that little Children 
 ofProfclytes were efteeni'd by them as Profelytes, being received as 
 fuch by Baplfr.i together wich QircuTnciJlon. 
 
Chap. III. of Infant-Baptifm. 85 
 
 of Infants, as well as more remarkable. And fo Luke^% 
 Account of Adult Baptilms in his Hiftory of the A5ts of 
 the Apo§iles dot% very well confift with the Suppofition of 
 Paedobaptifm obtaining at that Time, efpecially if we 
 fuppofe, ("as I have lliewed it realbnable to fuppofe) it 
 was taken for granted at the fame Time, that thofe of 
 the Adult, who had Infants, had them alfo initiated by 
 Baptifm into the fame Religion, v/hich'they profefs'd 
 themfelves. For thisAccount is no other than what any 
 P^dobaptill would have given. Suppofe fomePasdobap- 
 tift iVIinifters fent into anHeathen Country, which 4^ever 
 had the Gofpel preached to them before, and writing a 
 brief Account of their Succefs fhould fay, that feveral 
 Hundreds or Thoufands were profelyted to Chriftianity, 
 and baptized -, and particularly fom^e noted Families rea- 
 dily & joytuiiy embraced the Gofpel, and were baptized, 
 fuch a Man and all that were his, fuch another and bis 
 Houjhoid \ who could raife a Doubt, whether anylnfants, 
 or Perfons in an infantile State, were baptized in thofc 
 feveral Families ? If we take a View of the New-Tefta- 
 ment-Hillory of Baptifm in this Light, the not men- 
 tioning Inlant's Baptifm exprefly, need not Humble us in 
 the leait,bejng no Way inconfiilent with our Suppofal of 
 the Practice of it. Wherefore let me fay, 
 
 4. That if there be no dired Evidence for Infant-Bap- 
 tifm from the hiftorical Relation of Fa6ls in the New- 
 Teftament, furely no Argument againft it can be made 
 out from the Silence of the facred Writers in Reference 
 thereunto. It has never been accounted a good Way of 
 arguing, todrav/ Conclufions,as to Matters of Fa6V,from 
 the Silence of the Scripture \ or to conclude fuch 
 a Thing was not done, becaufe* the Scripture hath no 
 where faid it. This might be fhewed in innumerable In- 
 ftances ; particularly withRelation to the prefentSubjedl', 
 it will follow from thisWay of Reafoning,that mofl: of the 
 Churches mention'd in the New-Tellament as founded 
 by the Apoftles, were unbaptized^ becaufe no mention is 
 made of their Baptifm by the facred iliftoriitn. Our Au- 
 
 G 5; thor 
 
S6 'A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IIL 
 
 thor has reckon'd up three or four, and thefe are all I caa 
 find, whofeBaptifm is regillred : Shall we then conclude 
 that the Church at Antioch^ at Iconium^znd divers others, 
 mentioned in the Jdls of the Jpojiles, and the famous 
 Churches of the Galatians^ of the Romans^ of the Tbejfalo- 
 nians^ of the Coloffians^ and many others, were all unbap- 
 tized, becaufe there is no hiftoricalAccount of their Bap- 
 tifm in the New-Teftament ? One may read the Hiftory 
 of the Old-Teflament for feveral Ages together, and not . 
 find an Inftance of anyChild circumcifed. Did the Jews 
 then Jive all that while without circumcifing theirlnfants ? 
 I need not fland to fliew the Weaknefs & Fallacy of fuch 
 anArgument, which is open to every Man of Senfe. But 
 it is as good as that which is bro't againftlnfant-Baptifm 
 from the Silence of Scripture in that Matter. There is 
 no Need of Examples,or Precedents, when there is other- 
 wife fufBcient Warrant for any Pradlice. But if fuch an 
 Argument as this be of any Force, it may with equal 
 Force, be turned againfl our Antipaedobaptifts. They 
 demand of us aScrlpture-Precedent,orExample of Infant- 
 Baptifm -, and we demand of them a Scripture- Precedent 
 or Example of Adult-Baptifm in their Way ; which they 
 are not able to produce. I imagine, they will prefently 
 reply and fay. Do not all the Inftances of Baptifm in the 
 New-Teftament make for ourSide,who were onlyPerfons 
 baptiz'd at Adult- Age ? I anfwer, not one ; and to ex- 
 plain and prove what I afiert, let me obferve, that the 
 Controverfy between us and the Antipsedobaptifts, does 
 not lie in this, v/hether Adult Perfons unbaptiz'd ought 
 to be baptized ? This fully agrees to our Sentiment and 
 Pradice, as well as to theirs. But the Controverfy lies 
 here. Whether Children born of baptized Chriftian Pa- 
 rents, ought to be denied Baptifm till they grow up to 
 mature Age ? This they affirm, and we deny. So that if 
 they could produce a Thoufand Inftances of Perfons bap- 
 tiz'd at Adult-Age,who were born of JcwiQi or Heathen 
 Parents, who had neither received nor were in a Rapacity 
 XQ receive Chriftian Baptifm before, it would fignify no- 
 thing 
 
Chap. IIL of Infant-Baptifm. 87 
 
 thing to thelrPurpofe : for by fuchlnflances their peculiar 
 Practice (as it difagrees with that ot the Psedobaptifts) is 
 not at all to be juftified But if they would produce an 
 Inftance pertinent to their Caufe, it mufl be of fuch as 
 were unbaptiz'd till Adult- Age5who had baptizedChrifti- 
 ans for their Parents. And fuch an Inftance, I fay, they 
 cannot produce ; for of all theExamples ofAdult-Baptifn:^ 
 regiftred in the New-Teftament, there is not fo much as 
 one fingle Inftance of a Perfon who can be proved to be 
 born of Chriftian Parents. If they fay, we demand a 
 Thing unreafonable and impollible \ for Chriftianity had 
 juft then its Rife in the World,when theNew-Teftament 
 Hiftory was written, fo that in that Space of Time there 
 could be none born of Chriftian Parents grown up to a 
 Capacity for Adult-Baptifm, to have their Baptifm re- 
 gifter'd in facred Hiftory : I anfwer,theThing demanded 
 is neither impoflible, nor unreafonable ; for the Hiftory 
 of the A5ls is fuppofed to contain the Space of about 
 Thirty Years, from Chrift's Afcenfion, to FauV^ impri- 
 fonment at Rome, So that the Chriftian Church had been 
 growing from its Infancy,and Baptifm, as the folemnRite 
 of Admiflion into it, had continued, during theTimes of 
 the Scripture-Hiftory, near Thirty If ears. And in that 
 Space of Time, there were many Thoufands born of 
 Chriftian Parents, and grown up, many to near 30 or 40 
 Years of Age, if we fuppofe the young Children of the 
 firft baptized Chriftians to be left unbaptiz'd, and many 
 Thoufands more, who might within that Space have 
 grown up to an Age capable of Adult-Baptifm \ and if 
 none of thefe were baptized, while Infants,or youngChil- 
 dren, nor included in the feveral Houfholds baptiz'd by 
 the Apoftles, there is no Regifter of the Children of 
 Chriftian Parents baptiz'd at all. For it is certain,there 
 is not one Inftance of any of thefe baptiz'd at Adult- Age, 
 Therefore if the not mentioning the Baptifm of Infants in 
 Scripture be a good Argument againft it, we fee, it turns 
 as forceably againft our Adverfaries,who by their Way of 
 Reafoning about theSiibjefl of Baptifm>furnifli the.Quak- 
 
 G 4. "^ eri 
 
S8 A Defence of the Divine Right Ghap. III. 
 
 ers with an Argument againfi; all Water Baptifm fince the 
 Adminiftration of it to the firft Chriftians, which upon 
 their Principles they may find it difficult to anfwer. 
 Let me only add, 
 
 5. Tho' it be granted, that there be no plain exprefs 
 Examples of Infants beingbaptized in theNew Teftament, 
 Yet there are pretty plain Intimations of fuch Baptifms in 
 niofl; of the Churches, our Author has inftanc'd in. For 
 to touch briefly on each of his Inft ances. Firft^ As to the 
 Church at Jerujalem^ and thofe that were converted by 
 the Apoftle Peter's Sermon, The Apoftle had directed 
 them, being convinced of their Sins, and pricked at the 
 Hearty to repent and embrace Chriftian Baptifm, and en- 
 forc'd his Advice by this Argument, For the Promife is 
 to you^ and to your Children. Ad;. 2.38,39. They readily 
 and joyfully received the Apoftle's Advice, 2LX\diwere bap^ 
 tized. y^ 41. I know, it is commonly taken for granted, 
 that thofe Three Thoufands mention'd in the latterClaufe 
 of that Verfe, were the fame that heard the Apoflle's 
 Sermon and were baptized, & it's underfbood as fpecifying 
 the Number of his Converts. But I would offer it toCon- 
 fideration (without laying much Strefs on the Criticifm) 
 whether the Grammatical Conflrudlion of the Words 
 will tairly admit of this Senfe. The Words of the facred 
 Penman are, I' hen they that gladly received the Word^ were 
 haptized ; and the fame Day there were added to them about 
 Three Thou f and Souls. The firft Converts are defcribed in 
 the former Claufe, ^hey that gladly received the Word^were 
 laptized. And we readily grant, theic wereAdultPerfons ; 
 and if it had been only further faid, and tt efe were about 
 Three Thoufand Souls, it had agreed well with the com- 
 mon Opinion. But it follows,^;^?^ the fame Day there were 
 (idded to them about Three Thoufand Souls — were added. 
 Flow ? DoubtlefsbyBaptifm,thefacredRiteof Admiffion 
 into the Chriftian Church. To whom were they added ? 
 To what Antecedent do thcfc Words refer ? To what 
 other can they refer more properly than to the next fore- 
 going ; thofe lir^t gladly received thelFcrd^iverebaptiz^ed? 
 
 And 
 
Chap. III. of Infant-Baptirm. ^9 
 
 And if they were added to them, they were not the fame. 
 If it be faid, they were added to the Apoflle-,, and the 
 Hundred and Twenty Difciples, that conftituted the firft 
 Chriftian Church •, the Words then mufl refer to a very 
 remote Antecedent, as far off as Chap, i. 13, 14. or at 
 leaft, the Beginning of this fecond Chapter. For which 
 remote Reference there appears no Reafon, or NecefTity, 
 when they may with the greateft Propriety be underilood 
 as referring to the immediately foregoing Llaufe, as the 
 Rules ofGrammar feem to require. And thefameDay there 
 were added — On whatDay P The fameDay on which thofe 
 firft Converts (of whofe Number, tho' doubtkfs great, 
 there is no certain Account) were baptized, there were 
 added to them about Three Thoufand Souls, by being 
 baptized into the fame Chriftian Faith & Profeffion. Be 
 it granted then, that thofe who heard the Apoftle, and 
 were converted and baptized, were only Adult Perfons, 
 yet among thofe that were added to them the fame Day, 
 it is highly probable, there were many Infantr,orChild*rea 
 in their Non-age, who were in the Power, and at the Dii- 
 pofal of theirParents, efpecially theChildren of fuchjevvs, 
 as were proper Natives, and Inhabitants oVjerufakm^ who 
 might the fame Bay bring their Children to Baptifm, 
 and fo initiate them into the Chriftian Church of which 
 tlieythemfelves had become profefTed Members. And this 
 S^w{t and Interpretation of the Words feenis countenan- 
 ced by the Denomination here ufed, of the Subjedt. It is 
 not faid, T!hree Thoufand Men & IVomen^ but Three Thou- 
 fand Souls •, a Term, that may very well include Infants, 
 and is often applied in Scripture to ftgnify every Sex and 
 Age of Mankind, when number'd together, Men, Wo- 
 men, and Children. Let me cite only one Text to this 
 Purpofe : It is faid, Gen. 46. 26. All the Souls that came 
 "Mh Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his Loins, befides 
 Jacob's Sons Wives, all the Souls were Thrcefcore and fix. 
 Where it is evident, that under rlie generalDenomination 
 of ^// their Soul, their Children aiid Babes muft be in- 
 cluded in theReckoningj as wcl! as grown Peribns. And 
 
 the 
 
9© A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. III. 
 
 the fame Term here ufed In the Text is very applicable 
 to the fame Sort of Perfons, Men, Women andChildren : 
 And it is reafonable to fuppofe, that they might be the 
 rather induced to offer their Children to Baptifm, from 
 the Confideration of the Argument the Apoftle had ufed 
 with them,to perfuade them to embraceChriftianBaptifm, 
 which imports a Reafon why their Children, as well as 
 themfelveSjOiight to be baptized. For thePromife is toyou^ 
 and to your Children, Which had ever been a Reafon with 
 the Jewifh Church, why their Children ought to be 
 circumcifed. And Areiiiis^ a learned and judicious Ex- 
 pofitor, is of the fame Opinion, f And I know no Rea- 
 •fon by which it can be difproved. But whether theSenfe 
 I have given of theWords of the facredWriter be receiv'd, 
 or rejeded, yet carrying a good Appearance of Probabi- 
 lity, for the Reafons given, fo much at leaft will hence 
 follow, that in this firll folemn Adminiilration of Baptifm 
 in the Chriftian Church, it can't be pretended,that there 
 is not the lead Intim.ation of Infants being baptized •, tho' 
 the Caufe of P^dobaptifm does not red on theEvidence 
 of Fa6t in this firil Adminiftration, but on the Warrant 
 which the infpired Apoftle has given us for baptizing 
 Infant-Children, by extending the Promife or Covenant 
 of Grace to the Children of Gofpel-Believers, and that as 
 a Reafon why they fhould be baptized, as has been faid, 
 and will more fully appear hereafter. 
 
 2. The Inftance of the Church in Samaria I fhall pafs 
 over, only with this Remark, that the Men & IVomen faid 
 to be baptized there by Philip.Kdi. 8. 12. are theNames 
 or Denominations of the feveral Sexes, as much as to fay, 
 bothMales ^ Females -, which may be equally applied to 
 Infants and the Adult. But if any ftiflly contend, that 
 only grown Men and Women muft be meant, I think it 
 not a Matter worth contefting, fince nothing is gain'd or 
 loft on one Side or the otherjas from our Reafoning under 
 
 the 
 
 f Probabile eft cum Adaltis, ad JBaptlfmum delates quoque fuifle In- 
 fantes, et pueros, de quibus dixi:, pi-OiTili:oncs illib etiam et infer vire. 
 j^nt. in Lvc, 
 
Chap. III. cf Infant-Baptifm. 91 
 
 the formerHeads may appear. And let me obferve here, 
 that there feems to be a Reafon and Neceffity, that fomc 
 Declaration fhould be made in theNew-Teflamentof the 
 Mind andWill of God, that Baptifm, the initiating Seal 
 under the Gofpel, fhould be applied to the Females, fince 
 theMalesonly by divine Inflituticn had it applied to them 
 perfonally under the Old-Teflament in Circumcifion. 
 And the making this Declaration mightbe the principal 
 Defign of the Holy Ghofl in the infpired Penman's re- 
 cording this Paflage ; but there was no fuch Reafon or 
 Neceflity with Regard to the Infants of the Church, be- 
 caufe they ever had it applied to them by the divine 
 Command, fince God firfl inflituted an initiating Seal to 
 his Covenant. 
 
 3. As to the Church zxPhilippi^-^t have very clear In- 
 timations of Infants being baptized, in the mention of two 
 feveralHoufholds baptized there, viz. That of Lydia^znd 
 that of the Jailor^ A6t. 16.1^,^^. Of both which I have 
 faid fomething already, and fhall have Occafion to fpeak 
 more hereafter, to fhew the Weaknefs & Infufnciency of 
 Dr.G///'s Exceptions againfl thefe two Inflances. And 
 
 4. As to the Inflance of the Church of Corinth., which 
 is the laflChurch mentioned as baptized •, tho' it be true, 
 that thofe of the Corinthians who firil co'nflitutcd this 
 Church, were (as the Reafon of the Thing requires they 
 fhould be) adult Perfons, of whom it is faid, that they 
 hearing theApoflle preaching the Gofpel to them, believed 
 and were baptized^ A6t. 18.8. yet that their Children alfo 
 were baptized (tho' it be not recorded by Luke) there can 
 be but little Doubt5if we take intoConfidcration a PalTage 
 in theApoflle PauFs firfl Epiflle to xhtCcrinthians^ Chap. 
 7. 14. — Elfe were y cur Children iwclean^ but 7Jow are they 
 holy. Where he determines the Cafe, that it either of the 
 Parents were a Believer, theirChiidren were not to be ac- 
 counted unclean., as the Heathen and their Children were 
 reputed, both in Scripture, and in the common Language 
 pt the Jevjs^ (Ezra 6. 2 1 . A(5l. 10.28.^ beins; without the 
 Covenant <)f God, and unfit for f-icrt' ;i Ordinances -, but 
 
 ' " hcls ; 
 
92 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. III. 
 
 holy ; whether we underftand the Term of a haptijmal 
 Holiriefs^ as divers Ancients & Moderns have underftood 
 it, for which there are fohd and weighty Reafons given. 
 (The Greek Word, hagia^ holy^ being commonly rendred 
 SaintSy and applied to baptized Chriftians, as Chap. 1.2. 
 for none but fuch could conftitute a vifible Church : and 
 if this Senfe be admitted,we have then here a plainScrip- 
 ture Inllance of Children baptized.) Or whether we inter- 
 pret it only of a Covenant-Holinefs, fo much» at lead, is j 
 certain, that the Word fpeaks a facred Relation to God, 
 whereby the Children of Believers are moft plainly and 
 exprefly difcriminated fromHeathens, and rendred quali- 
 fied Subjedsof Baptifm, if it does not import their being 
 adually baptized. But of this alfo I fhall fpeak again 
 more largely, when I come to vindicate the Pafiage, and 
 .ihall therefore difmifs it at prefent. And thus much for 
 the Evidence of the Pradtice of Infant-Baptifm, as far as 
 it can be made out from the Writings of theNew-Tefla- 
 nient. The next Thing to be enquired into is, 
 
 II. Whether there be not undoubtedEvidence from the 
 Teftimonies of the ancient Fathers tranfmitted to us in 
 their Writings, that Infant-Baptifm conilantly obtained 
 in the truly primitiveChurch. In order to theRefolution 
 of this Enquiry, ourAuthor has confined hisExamination 
 to the ancient Writers of the two firfl Centuries, and de- 
 termines from what he has cited out ot theirWritings,thaC 
 there is no Evidence for the Pradice of Infant-Baptifm 
 from theirTeftimony. But it is unfair to exclude or leave 
 out the Teftimonies of the Writers of the two following 
 Centuries, who were not fo diftant from the Apoftolick 
 Age, but that they were capable of giving us a right In- 
 formation (in a Matter of fuch publick Notice,& general 
 Concern, as theAdminifbration of Baptifm in theChurch) 
 what the Pradice was in the truly primitiveChurch. For 
 tho' there be not wanting fufficient Evidence from the 
 Writings of fome of theFathers-^of thofe tv/o firft Centu- 
 ries, for Infant-Baptifm, yet perhaps the Evidence is not^ 
 fo bright and clear for the Convidion of thofe v/ho are 
 
 difpofed 
 
Chap. III. of Infant-Baptifm. 9^ 
 
 difpofed to doubt and wrangle, as that of thofe in the 
 tbird&i fourtbCenturks ; who tho' fomewhat more remote 
 from the Apoftles Times, yet their Evidence may be at- 
 tended with fuch Circumftances of CredibiHty, as to ren- 
 der it undoubted; that Intant-Baptifm obtained in thofe 
 j Times ; not only as they were Witnefles for their own 
 [ Age, as our Adverfaries allow, but of the preceeding A- 
 • ges up to the Apofl;les,of whofe Pradice they were capa- 
 ble ot attaining certain Knowledge, in a Matter of this 
 ' Nature. 
 
 j But let mfirjt confider what our Author has to fay of 
 I the two firft Centuries. He pretends to give us a Cata- 
 ^ logue of the Writers of thofe two Centuries, Pa. 20,22. 
 And as thefe were but few in all, fo theirWritings gene- 
 ! rally related to different Subjeds, fuch as the Defence of 
 I Chriftianity againfb the Cavils and Obloquies of theHea- 
 then ; theVindication of the Chriftians fi'om their Afper- 
 fions andCalumnies •, the beating down the Herefies,that: 
 fprung up in thofe Times ; the Comfort & Encourage- 
 ment of Chriftians under the Sufferings andPerfecutions 
 I they were almoft conftantly liable to, and the like ; they 
 I fpeak very little of Baptifm, and lefs of the Baptifm of 
 I Infants, which they touch but occafionally, and in gene- 
 ral Hints, when they are treating on other Subjeds. A 
 I Sign there were no Antipa^dobaptifts in thofe Ages ; for 
 it's probable, if there had been fuchjthere would not have 
 been fo general a Silence about the Controverfy •, fince, 
 j as our Adverfaries grant,PaedobaptiilTi began to be a ge- 
 neral Pradice in the third Century y and that, without 
 any Noife or Stir that we hear of,but from one Man, and 
 from him not fo much in Way of dired Oppofition, as 
 in Way of Advice to delay the Baptifm of Infants 'till 
 the Age of Difcretion. 
 
 There are but three of the ancient Fathers,both of the 
 firft and fecond Century, whom our Author has cited, as 
 fpeaking of Baptifm ; and but one of them fays any Thing 
 to thePurpofe,in Relation to the difpurcdPoint of Infant- 
 Baptifm. He tells us, Mr. Slefma and Mr. Rees have 
 
 cited 
 
9+ A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. Ill, 
 
 cited fome PafTages from Barnabas and Hermas^ which I 
 fuppofe may be to as little Purpole, as what he himfeif 
 has cited horn Ignatius^ Pa. 21. viz. " Let yourBaptifm 
 *' remain as Armour, Faith as an Helmet, Love as a 
 *' Spear, Patience as whole Armour." This, he fays, 
 *' favoursAdult-Baptifm,fince he fpeaks of it as attended 
 *' with Faith, Love, and Patience." If he means, that 
 the Baptifm which true Chriftians have received, is at- 
 tended with thele Graces, which they are obliged by the 
 Nature, Import, and Defign of their Baptifm, to be al- 
 ways furnilh'd with, there is nothing here laid, but what 
 a Pasdobaptift Minifter may fay to a Congregation of 
 Chriftians baptized in Infancy •, and fo thefe Words of 
 Ignatius import nothing in Favour of Adult-Baptifm. 
 Or if he underftands his Author 'to intend,that the Act ion, 
 or receiving of Baptifm, is accompanied withFaith^Love 
 and Patience, there is no impartial Eye (I am perfwaded) 
 that can difcern any fuch Thing fo much as implied in 
 the Words. But fuppofe,that Adult- Bapt'.fm was chiefly 
 intended in Ignatius his Words, what can our Author 
 infer from them ? Becaufe in thofe firft Times of Chri- 
 flianity,greatNumbers ofHeathenscame intotheChriftian 
 Church, and were baptized at Adult- Age, he mu(l prove, 
 that this was inconfiftent with theBaptifm of theirlnfants, 
 after they had become Chriftians, or it is nothing to his 
 Purpofe. 
 
 The next of the ancientFathers he cites,is7r^;?^^j,who 
 lived in the Beginning of the fecondCentury,& wrote the 
 Book out ol which the Citation is made, fomeTime after 
 the middle of it in his elder Years, for he lived to be a 
 'Very old Man ; and the Pafifage produced is more to 'the 
 Purpofe, than any other he has cited : But it is a plain 
 Evidence for Infant-Baptifm, whatever Pains Dr.G^/has 
 taken to weaken the Credit of it, and to darken the true 
 Meaning. The PafTage is taken out of his fecond Book 
 agairift UerefieSy Chap. 39. I fhall fet it down at large, 
 tranllated. Speaking ot Chrift he has thefe Words, 
 
 " Magijler ergo exijhns^Magipi ^uoque habebat at at em ^ 
 
 " ^c. 
 
Chap. III. cf Infant-Baptifm. 95 
 
 " ^c. Therefore being himfelf a Mafter,he had alfo the 
 •' Age of a Mailer, not difdaining, nor going in a Way 
 " above human Nature, nor breaking in his own Perfon 
 *' the L.aw which he had fet for Mankind ; but fandti- 
 *' fying every Age by the Likenefs which it had to him- 
 " felf ; for he came to fave all Perfons byHimfelf ; All, 
 " I fay, ^i per eum renafcuntur in Deum, who by hinl 
 " are regenerated (born again^ or baptized) unto God 5 In- 
 *' fants, and little Ones, and Boys, and young Men, and 
 " elder Perfons. Therefore he went thro' every feveral 
 " Age •, and for Infants he became an Infant, fandifying 
 *' Infants ; to little Ones,he became a little One, fandli- 
 " fying thofe of that Age, and alfo becoming anExam- 
 ^' pie to them of Piety, Juftice, and Subjedion," &c. 
 
 That which may render this Tellim.ony for Infant- 
 Baptifm more obfcure to vulgar Readers at this Day, is 
 their Unacquaintednefs with the Language and Way of 
 I fpeaking ufed by the Ancients. For the Word Regene^ 
 j ration was cuflomarily and conllantly ufed by them for 
 1 Baptifm -, as thofe who have been moil converfant with 
 i the ancient Writers of the Church do know and teflify : 
 i To regenerate ^-^^s with them to baptize^ &: regenerated^ov 
 ! born again^was, baptized. Tho' the Words have not been 
 ' appropriated to this Sta^t in the Books of thefe latter 
 Ages, yet nothing was more frequent with the ancient 
 Chriflian Writers, grounding this Phrafe on thofe Words 
 of our Saviour, Joh. 3 . 5. Except a Man be bcrn of Wa- 
 ter^ and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of 
 God. Which they generally underftood of Baptifm with 
 Water, with the conjoin'd Operation of the holy Spirit 
 by the Ordinance of Chrift for the Purpofe of Regenera- 
 tion. And in this,and no other Senfe, can theWords of 
 Irem^us be underftood, when he fays, that Chj^iji came to 
 \fave all that are by him regenerated unto God^QVQn Infants^ 
 and little Ones ^c. i. e. who are baptized unto God the 
 ■ Father, Son & holy Ghoft. Agreably to the like Phrafe 
 iof theApoftle — Hefaved us by the waffoing of Regeneration^ 
 jTit. 5. 5. which Words manifeftly refer to the wafting 
 
 with 
 
96;; A Defence of the Bmjie Right Chap. III. 
 
 with Water in Baptifm, the inflituted Symbol of Rege- 
 neration. But whether the Ancients had a right Notion ' 
 or Senfe of thofe Words of our Saviour,in J^/;?.3.5 when ' 
 they underilood them of Baptifm, it is not to our prefent 
 Purpofe to inquire -, but that in Fa6l the Word regene- 
 rate^ or born again ^vi^s ever ufed by them for baptized, is 
 undeniable ; and particularly by Irenaus. Dr. IVall has 
 obferv'd, that in all otlier Placesof his Book that fell ua- 
 der his Notice, he ufes the Word in this fame Senfe, and 
 gives a particular Inftance, that comes home to our Pur- 
 pofe, in his thirdBook, Ch. 19. " Where he is producing 
 *' Teflimonies of Scripture concerning the holySpirit,he 
 *' has this, Et iterum potefiatem regensrationis in Deum 
 " demandansDifcipulis^dicebat eis, &c. "And again when 
 *' he gave his Difciples the Commiffion of regenerating 
 *' unto Gody he faid unto them, Go, and teach all Nations 
 *' baptizing them in theName of the Father, of the Son, 
 *' and of the Holy Spirit." Where the Commiffion of 
 '' regenerating plainly means the Commiffion of baptiz- 
 " ing." t And it may be further obferv'd, that thePhrafe 
 of regenerating unto God^ is of the very lame Import with 
 that he had ufed in the torecited Fairages,of Infant, which 
 therefore can mean nothing elfe but their Baptifm. This 
 Tcflimony of Iren^us is the more confiderable, and de- 
 ferves the greater Regard, fmce he lived fo near theAge 
 of the Apoftles, being born, as fom.e compute his Age* 
 before the Death of the Apoftle John, or at leaft very 
 foon after, and was acquainted with Polycarp, theDifciple, 
 it is faid, of St. John^ and remember'd his Difcourfes of 
 the Converfation he had with thatApcille -, and therefore 
 could not poffiibly be ignorant of what was the Pradlicc 
 of the Church at thatDay in Reference to Infant-Baptifm, 
 and mentions it but tranfiently as aXhing cuftomary and 
 known in the primitive Church. This leftimony of his, 
 being fo plain & full in Favour of Infant Baptifm ; the 
 Antipaedobaptift- Writers have endeavoured,with all the 
 Art and fnvention they are Mailers of, to run it down, 
 
 and 
 
 t WalPs Hlft. of Infant-Baptifm. Pa<I. Ch. 3. §. 3. * Ibid. § 5, 
 
Chap. III. of Infant-Baptlfm: ^7 
 
 and evade the Force of it, as Dr. Gill doth particularly 5 
 but all his Evafions are infignificant. Pcig. 22, 
 
 1. He fays,," It is but a fingle Paflage." Anf, The 
 Evidence is nbt the worfe for that, if it be exprefs & per- 
 tinent ; but it is the more unfufpeded, when theAutbor 
 does not fet hirnfelf,in many Words,to alTert & prove the 
 Thing, as if it had been oppos'd or contradicted, but in 
 treating on other Subjecls, fpeaks of it occafionally as a 
 Thing generally known and allowed. 
 
 2. He fays, " It depends on a fingleWordjtheSignifi- 
 " cation of which is doubtful." Anf, It could not be 
 doubtful to the ancient Chriftians, who were ufed to that 
 Way of Speaking •, the Word regenerated^ in the Senfe 
 before given, beino; to them well known & familiar, fio:- 
 nifying the fame Thing as the Word baptized does to us. 
 And does not ourAuthor know,that theMeaning Mntent 
 ot an whole Sentence or Paragraph is often determined 
 by a lingle Word ? If in the Account our Adverfaries 
 give,from the Writings of the Ancients, of Adult-Bap- 
 tifm, the fmgle Word cnly might have been once found, 
 in a Senfe that excludesInfanti,how would they triumph ? 
 'Tis what they would have •, and a certain boldAntips- 
 dobapti ft Writer (ontDanvers) has by hisAnfwerers been 
 convided of faliifying in this Matter, by inferting the 
 Word only in his Quotations from the ancient Writers,in 
 favour of his Opinion. * W^ho knows not, that a fmgle 
 Particle may fometimes fo fix the Senfe of an Author,as 
 thereby to put an IfTue to a Difpute ? 
 
 3. He adds, " The PalTage is only a Tranflationcf /- 
 •' ren^us, and not expreffed ni his own original Words.** 
 Therefore what ? Therefore no Doubt the TranHator 
 foifted in thofe Words of Infants and little Ones being re- 
 generated unto God. But for what Reafon ? Be fure, in 
 Favour of theCaufe of the PiEdobaptijfls. But w^hy then 
 did not the Antipasdobaptifts (if any fuch there, were as 
 our Author fuppofes) corred this faulty Tranflation by 
 the Original, while it was extant ? Why did not they ex- 
 
 H pofe 
 
 f SecDr,^r^/r8 Hill. Part II. Chap. i. § 4,5, 
 
qS a Defence of the Divine Right Chap. III. 
 
 pofe the Tranflator,as aForger of Words, & an Impoftor, 
 and not fufFer the franflation to pafs down to Pofterity 
 uncorre6ted,rothe greatPrejudice, if not Ruin of their 
 Caufe ? But the Truth is, tho' this PafTage be a Tranfla- 
 tion, and not this only fas our Author would infinuatej 
 but the whole Book f and all or mod of the Works of 
 Iren^iis now extant, are but Tranflations from the Greek 
 into Latin^ yet it is a very ancient one,and approved and 
 cited by the Fathers, and thro' allAges tothi:.Day. And 
 it is but a poor Evafion,io alledge it is aTranllation,with- 
 out being able to produce the Original to confront it. 
 
 4. He fuggeils,that thePaflage is not genuine,and fays, 
 *' TheChapter trom whence it is taken,is by fome learned 
 *' Men judged to be fpurious •, fince it advances aNotion 
 *' inconfiftent with that ancient Writer, and notorioufly 
 " contrary to the Books of the Evangelifts,'* refpeding 
 Chriil's Age. Jnf. If there have been fome learnedMen 
 that have taken up this Conceit, there have been other 
 learned Men fince, who have more throughly ftudied the 
 Point, who have refuted it, and have Ihewn Iren^us to 
 have l3een confident with himfelf, tho' they think him 
 miftaken in making theYears of Chrift's Age to be 40 or 
 nigh 50. Which Miftake he might be led into, by thofe 
 Words of the Jews to our Saviour, Joh. 8. [^y. Thou art 
 not yet fiftyTears old. But fuchMiflakes have been com- 
 mon with other Writers in Point of Chronology, the Ge- 
 numenefs of whofe Writings have never for that Reafon 
 been denied, orcall'd inQiieftion. The only learnedMan 
 (cited by Dr. Gale *) who has taken up this Opinion con- 
 cerning this Chapter in Iren.^us^ and has appeared to de- 
 fend ityVJSisEaroniuSj the popifli Annaliil : He indeed fuf- 
 pe6ted that Part of the 39rhChap. that fpeaks of the Age 
 of our Saviour, to be an Interpolation -, but his Reafons 
 have been fufficiently anfwered by other learnedMen, both 
 Popifli and Prorcflant. || But that Part of the Chapter 
 fufpeded to be fptriouSjis at a confiderable Diftance from 
 
 that 
 
 * Dr. G^/e's Reflea. on Dr. /"/W/'s Hift. of Inf.Baptirm. p. 4.65. 
 11 Pr, ^V/'3 Det?nce. Pa, 283. 
 
Chap. III. of InFant-BaptifmV 99 
 
 that in which Infants are fpoken of, as regenerated unto 
 God ; which I cannot find was ever controverted. But ^ 
 how does that Miftake concerning our Saviour's Age 
 notoriotijly contradid; theBooks of theEvangelifls ? Where 
 is the precifeTime of the Age of our Saviour at hisDeath 
 fet down in any of them ? Notwithflanding what is faid 
 in the Evangehils concerning Chrift's Age, Chronolo- 
 gers, it is known, are not agreed to this Day, concerning 
 the exa6l Year either of his Birth, or of his Death ; fome 
 placing the Time of his Death v/ithin a few Years of the 
 Age of which Irenaiis fuppofed him to be, without being 
 charged with advancing Notions notorioufly contrary to 
 theWritings of theEvangehfts : And it' mull be confefs'd 
 to be a poor Shifc,to except againft a Paflage in anyAu- 
 thor, of long Standing, and a well-eftabliilied Repu- 
 tation among the Learned, ( and fuch has been this 
 Book of Iren.-eus) as fpurious, to evade the Force of his 
 Evidence j becaufe if it be allowed to be genuine, his 
 Teftimony will appear to be convidive. But after all, 
 our Author fufpe&ng, as it feems, all his Exceptions a~ 
 gainft this PafTage to w^ant a Foundation •, proceeds to 
 give us his Senfe (^Interpretation of it. He lays,P^.2 3» 
 *' The Queflion is, Whether the Word Renafcuntur is 
 " to be rendred horn again^ which is the literal Senfe of 
 " the Word, or haptifed'' But the literalSenfe of Words 
 is not always in Authors the proper one, but fometimes 
 the Figurative ; and it is known, that in the Ufe of the 
 ancient Chriilians, ih^'^ovdi regenerated or born again, is 
 conftantly appropriated to fignity baptized. He hys^ihid. 
 '' That the true Senfe of Irenaus feems to be, that Chrift 
 '' came to fave all that are regenerated by his Grace and 
 " Spirit." But this is not excluded, but comprehended 
 in Baptifm ; tho' it be not the whole of what is intended 
 by Chriilian Baptifm. Does he not know, that the Sa- 
 crament of Baptifm confifts of an outv/ard Sign, and a 
 fpiritual Myftery fignified .^ It is not the bare outward 
 Sign, the wafhing'the Body with Water, which is the 
 Chriftian Ordinance of Baptifm 5 but as ic relates to the 
 
 H 2 Tirno 
 
100 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. III. 
 
 Thing fignified, which is Regeneration by the Spirit : If 
 we fay otherwife, we deftroy the Nature of it as a Sign. 
 But to fay, that Chrift came to fave all that are regenera- 
 ted by his Spirit, exclufive of the outward Sign, or the 
 Sacramental wafliing with Water, is to put afunder what 
 God would have joined together in thelnftitution*. Water 
 and the Spirit being joined together as theCaufe &Means 
 of Regeneration, or of our new Birth (in thofe Words of 
 our Saviour, Joh. 3 5. Except a Man be horn of Water and 
 of theSpirit &c.) the Spirit as the principal efficientCaufe, 
 and v/afhing with Water, as the outward Sign, or infti- 
 tutedMeans of the Spirit's Influence. AndRegeneration 
 by the Spirit being the mofl confiderable Part of Bap- 
 tifm, the whole Sacrament took its Denomination thence 
 with the ancientChriftianSjas hath been obferved. NoMan 
 can deny theUfeot the Word in thisSenfe by thofe ancient 
 Writers of the Church, but either for want of Knowlege, 
 or for want of Honcily •, the former I fliall not impute to 
 ourAuthorjfor I believe he knows better-, & as for the latter, 
 the want of Honefty, I fhall only refer him to the next 
 PafTagc which he has cice4 out of Jifjlin Martyr^ to con- 
 vince him of his Partiality (on which I am prefently to 
 make fomeRemarks) in which PafTage the Words Regene- 
 ration^ and Regenerated^ are ufed no lefs than threeTimes 
 in one Ihort Sentence, for Baptifm^ and baptized. The 
 W^ords of thatSentence are, — " And they are regenerated 
 *' in the fame Way of Regeneration as we have been re- 
 *' generated, for they are then wafhed with Water in the 
 *' Name of the Father &c." Thefe Words ("becaufe he 
 thinks, they favour Adulr-Baptifm) muft be taken for 
 granted without more 260x0 mQau Baptifm^or their being 
 baptized^ as indeed they do, tho' Ji^ftin does not once ex- 
 prefiy mention Baptifm in that whole Paragraph. But 
 when the fame Word is ufed in Jrenietis yhtCTnuk it makes 
 for Infant-Baptifm, mufl not fignify their being baptized^ 
 but only the Work of the Spirit & Grace of Chriil in their 
 Regeneration, What is Partiality in a' Writer, or what is 
 sbufing of the Reader, if this be not ? 
 
 And 
 
Chap. III. ef Infant-Baptifm. iqi 
 
 And now, as if he had done the Burinefs with Ircnaus 
 his Teftimony, he begins to infult the Author of the Dia- 
 logue, in an ironical Exclamation,/*^. 23. " This is all 
 *' the Evidence, the undoubted Evidence of Infant- Bap- 
 *' tifiT), from the Fathers of the two firfl Centuries." 
 Anf. This is good Evidence to an honeft Mind, tho' not 
 all the EvidencCj'hat might be produced from the Fathers 
 even of the two firftCenturies ; yet it is as good & clear an 
 Evidence,as mayreafonablybeexpeded from the fewWri- 
 ters of thofe Centuries. He is in hade, I perceive, for his 
 Triumph, tho' rais'd on a poor Foundation : otherwife, 
 if he would wait a while, there are more Evidences flili 
 behind, to be produced from the Teflimonies of the Fa- 
 thers of the third Century, ("which he has unfairly exclud- 
 ed,becaufe elfe they would have fpoiled hisTriumphJand 
 from thdfe Teflimonies, if I mi flake not, an undoubted 
 Evidence may be made gut, of Infant-Baptifm obtaining 
 in the truly primitive Church. And it the Evidence 
 produc'd from Iren^us be doubtful, to a Man that has a 
 mind to cavil, yet it is certainly better than any ourAntl- 
 psedobaptifls are able to produce inPavour of theirCaufe ; 
 for they cannot bring fo much as one Inflance, from any 
 authentick Teflimony of the Ancients, of a Perfon bap- 
 tized at adult Age, who was born of baptized Parcnts^at 
 lead not in the two firft Centuries. Dr.Gill thinks, *'lt h 
 " eafy to producePafTages out of thofe ancientWriters la 
 " Favour of Believers Baptifm." So think I too, both 
 from the Scripture, and from the Fathers •, but they ai-e 
 nothing at all to his Purpofe, as I Hie wed under the 
 Scripture-Inftances of Adult- Baptifm. 
 
 However, there is one more of the ancient Writers 
 (arrd it is the third and laflof«theFathersof the two firft 
 Centuries, he has thought fit to cite) and that is Juftm 
 Martyr^ whofe Teflimony he alledges in Favour, hefup- 
 pofes, of Adult-Baptifm •, it is that which I now juil re- 
 ier'd to. The Paffage is taken out of Jujiinh Apology 
 for the Chriitians of that Age^rcfented to the Ernpei-ov 
 Antonimu Fius^ and the Senate of KortK^, I iJuilffet It 
 
 H 3 ' ' doWa 
 
102 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. III. 
 
 clown at large, fo far as it relates to the prefent Subjed. 
 Ic is as follows, 
 
 " As many as are perfuaded and do believe theThings 
 " taught and faid by us to be true, and do promife to 
 *' live according to them, are inftru6ted to pray and afk 
 *'• of God, with rafting, theForgivenefs of their paftSins, 
 '' we praying and failing together with them, and then 
 " they are brought by us where there is Water, and they 
 " are regenerated in the fame Way of Regeneration^ as we 
 " have been regenerated j for they are then wafhed in 
 «• Water, in the Name of the Father and Lord 
 " God of all, and in the Name of our Saviour Je- 
 " fus Chrift, and of the holy Spirit " This PafTage is 
 made much Account of by the AnripasdobaptiftWriters, 
 and is often quoted by them as if it were defignedly writ- 
 ten as an Apology for them, and a full Juftification of 
 theirCaufe : whereas there is not aWord in it that makes 
 for their peculiar Practice ; for tho' it be undoubted, that 
 Juftin here fpeaks of the Baptifm of the Adult, yet it is 
 alfo unqueftionable,that thofe adult Perfons fpoken of as 
 regenerated, orbaptiz'd,were fuch as were converted from 
 Ileathenifm to Chriftianity. For firjl^ the Baptifms.of 
 Converts from Heathenifm were moil frequent in that 
 Age ; the Heathens being brought by the Preaching of 
 the Gofpel in the greateil Numbers into the Church of 
 Chrift, in the two or three firil Centuries. Dr. PFallfup- 
 pofes (and it is no improbable Conje6lureJ " that the 
 '« Apoilles at their Death left the World in fuch a State, 
 '•' as that there was probably an Hundred Heathens left 
 " for one Chriilian, even in the Roman Empire, where 
 «^ they fpent moft of their Pains ; but at theEnd of three 
 " or four Hundred Years Inhere were probably tenChriili- 
 " ans for onelleathen." '*' Now when theWorld was be- 
 comingChrillian, aid fuchlMulftudes were daily brought 
 over from Paganifm toChriilianity, the Baptifms of adult 
 Perfons muft be fuppofedto be more common, and greatly 
 to exceed in Number the Baptifms of the Children of 
 
 ChriftianSj 
 
 * //-WA Hiil. Part 11. Chap. i. § z. 
 
Chap. III. <?/ Infant- Baptlfm. 30| 
 
 Chriflians, whether we fuppofe them baptiz'd in Inftincy, 
 oratAdult- Age. There is noPsdobaptifl but what in the 
 Age&Circumftances in whichyz^/?/;^ lived (being about to 
 inform Heathens & Strangers to the Chrillian Frofeflion 
 concerning the Way & Manner of admitting Profelytes 
 into the Chrillian Church) would have given without all 
 Scruple the fameAccount that Juftin doth here. Secondly ^ 
 The Mention of thefe Adult-Baptifms was . fuitable 
 to the Defign of Jujlinh Apology ; which was to vindi- 
 cate the Chriflians of thofe Times from the vile & odious 
 Afperfions caft on them by their Heathen Adverfaries, 
 by whom they were reprefented as a wicked Confederacy, , 
 and as a Body of Men ill-affeded to C^ejar and the Roma^i 
 Empire, nourifhing Principles of Difloyalty and Sedi- 
 tion jn their Society, on Purpofe to fbir up the Heathen . 
 Powers to perfecute, and extirpate them. And this Suf- 
 picion might be augmented by the great Numbers of the 
 Headien Subjeifls of the Empire joining themfelves to 
 theirCommunity, which might occafion their being look'd 
 upon as dangerous to the Roman Government. And no- 
 thing could conduce more effedlually to wipe off this vile 
 Calumny, and remove all Grounds of Sufpicion, than the 
 giving a juft and plain Account of the Manner of their 
 admitting Profelytes from among the Heathen ; that no 
 fa6li6us Principles were inftilled into them, but only the 
 Truths and Precepts of the Gofpel of Chrifl, calculated 
 for the Benefit of Mankind and of Society *, that noRites 
 were made Ufe of in their AdmilTion, but what were in- 
 nocent, and favoured of Piety, obliging them to Rever- 
 ence and Devotion to the great God & Lord of all, which 
 being rightly underftood could give no Umbrage to the 
 Government, nay, which could not but be juilified by the 
 Principles of the natural Law remaining inHeathenMen. 
 And therefore it was with great Wifdom and Propriety 
 that Juftin being about to give fomei^ccount of Chrillian 
 Baptiim, chofe to exemplify it in adult Converts from 
 Heathenifm. We can't fuppofe theHevithen to be under 
 any Sufpicion or Concern about the Infants of ChriftianSi, 
 
 H 4 " " . hovi 
 
104- 'A Defence cf the Bhhie Right Chap. IIL 
 
 how they difpos'd of them,or what Share they had in their 
 RehgioQ \ they might reafonabJy conclude, that they ini- 
 tiated them into the fameReligion which they themfelves 
 profefs'd. Suppofing therefore the baptizing of Infants to 
 have been then a general Pradlice, yet it had been imper- 
 tinent to the Purpofe of the Apologiftjin explaining this 
 Chrifbian Rite toHeathens, to have produc'd the Inftan- 
 ces of fuch Baptifms. Nor was it his Defign,to open and 
 declare all the Myfteries of the Chriftian Religion to an 
 Heathen Emperour ; but only to vindicate the Chriftians 
 in thofe Points in which they were moft liable to the ma- 
 licious Cenfures of their Pagan Adverfaries. Now what 
 can be gathered hence to the Advantage of the Caufe of 
 Antipaedobaptifm ? Is there the leaft Proof, or indeed 
 Probability, that the Inftances ot Adult-Baptifm refer'd 
 to by Jujlm^ were of any Children of Chriifian Parents, 
 who had been denied Baprifm in Inlancy ? It not, and it 
 is certain there is not, then this Citation from that ancient 
 Writer, as it affords noArgument or Evidence for Infant- 
 Baptifm, fo it makes nothing againft it, or for theCaufe 
 of our Adverfaries. 
 
 Our Author proceeds to touch on the third Century, 
 but flops fliort, and fays, P. 24, "As to the third Centuryy 
 " it will be allow'd that it (i. e, Infant-BaptifmJ was 
 *' fpoken of in it.'* A poor ConcefTion ! If he had been 
 ingenuous and honeft, he fhou'd have faid, it was abun- 
 dantly confirmed by the Teftimonies of moft of the an- 
 cient Writers in that Century, not only as the common 
 Pradiceof the Church in their Time, but as what had 
 been the conftant Uiage from the Days of the Apoftles.. 
 But it feems, the Force cf Truth has, as yet, extorted no 
 more from him, than that it was xh^tn fpoken of: But left 
 we Ihou'd Jay any Weight even on this poor ConcefTion, 
 he has taken Care to explain and limit it in fuch a Man- 
 iier that it might not ferve for our Turn. And that it 
 might not offend his own Party, there are two Things he 
 has to fay to qualify it to their Guft. Firjly that it did 
 ^ur begin to be fpoken of in the third Century. Secondly y 
 
 that 
 
Chap. III. of Infant-Baptifm. 105 
 
 that the Man that firfl fpoke of it, fpoke againft it. For 
 fays he, ibid. " As foon as it was mention'd, it was op- 
 *' pofed •, and the very firflMan that mentions it, fpeaks 
 " againft it, namely 'T'ertullian'' So that according to this 
 Writer, Infant- Baptiliii was never fpokenof till the third 
 Century *, aSpecimen of the Gentleman's highConfidencc 
 (when he would have his bold AfTertions pafs for Argu- 
 ment) without the leaftFoundation of Truth that appears. 
 But how came Infant-Baptifm to be oppos'd before it was 
 fpoken of ? Or why did Tertullian^'iiht was the firftMan 
 that mention'd it, fpeak againft it ? Did he fight with his 
 own Shadow ? — But that we may know what Weight is 
 to be laid on the TeftiiTiony of this ancient Father, let 
 us confider his Words with fome brief Obfervations on 
 them. His Words are cited at length by Dr. fFall^ in his 
 Hiltory of Infant-Baptifm :* they are in hisBook de bap- 
 tifmo^ Cap. 1 8. I fhall tranfcribe fo much of them as more 
 immediately relates to the Subjed in Debate, which are 
 as follows. 
 
 — " According to every One's Condition, andDifpo- 
 " fition, and alio their Age, the delaying of Baptifm is 
 " more profitable, efpecially in the Cafe of HttleChildren. 
 *' For what' Need is there" (it is added in fome more an- 
 cient Editions, as Dr. /F^// obferves, tadefs in Cafe of Ne- 
 ceffity) " that the ('6^/)^wy^rj^God-farhers fhould be brought 
 *' into Danger .^ becaufe they may either fail of their 
 " Promifes by Death, or they may be miftaken by a 
 *' Child's proving of a wicked Difpofition. Our Lord 
 *' fays indeed, Do not forbid them to come unto me, There- 
 *' fore let them come when they are grown up. Let them 
 ^' come when they underftand \ when they are inftruded 
 *' whither {for what End) it is that they come •, let them 
 " be madeChriilians when they can know Chrift : what 
 " need their guiklefs (innocent) Age make fuch Hafte to 
 *' the Forgivenefs of Sins ? — For no lefs Reafon,unmar- 
 '^ ried Perfons ought to be (delayed) kept off, who are 
 ^' likely to come into Temptation^ as welhhofe (///F/r- 
 
 ginity) 
 
 J Part I. C^.3^. 4. § ?. . 
 
jo6 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. III. 
 
 " ginity) that never were Married, as thofe in Widow- 
 *' hoodjfor being without theirPartners, until they either 
 
 *' Marry ^ or be confirmed /;; Continence 
 
 Let me here obferve a few Things, 
 
 1. Of Tertullian himfelf, who (tho' a learnedMan, and 
 by his Writings did good Service to theCaufe of Chrifli- 
 aiiity) was yet noted by theAncients &Moderns that have 
 read his Works, for a Man incUn'd to fmgular and odd 
 Fancies, and who held divers ftrange and heterodox O- ; 
 pinions, and in his latter Days. fell into the Herefyofthei 
 Montanifts^ which was had in great Deteftation in the! 
 primitiveChurch ; whereby he loil muchof hisReputation 
 with the Church in following Ages ; that his Judgment; 
 or Opinion was never accounted of any great Authority ; 
 or Weight for deciding Controverfies in Religion. 
 
 2. That he was a Man addided to flrange and odd 
 Opinions, appears from feveral Inftances in the Pallage: 
 cited, befides that which relates to Infants Baptifm ; luch 
 as his Expofition of our Saviour's Words, Forbid not little 
 Children to come unto me^ that is, fays he. Let them come 
 %vhen they are grown up — when they under sJand, &c. which i 
 is. a Senfe quite contrary to that of our Saviour, who \ 
 plainly means thofe little Children which were bro't to 
 him in Arms, and others of the like Age ; otherwife his 
 Words could not be underflood as correcting a Fault in 
 hisDifciples for rebuking them : They would have never 
 rebuked tliem, if they came to Chrift when they v/ere 
 g;own up ; yet thisExample of theDifciples, thus blam- 
 ed and correited by thefe Words of our Saviour, is foi 
 lowed by Tertullian in giving the Senfe of them. Ano-: 
 ther odd ExprefTion he has, when he calls the Age of In- 
 fants, their innocent or guiitlefs Jge^ which he gives as a 
 Reafon why they have no Need to make hatle to Baptifm 
 for the Forgivenefs of Sins -, yet in other Parts of his 
 Works, he plainly confefTes the original Defilement and 
 Sinfulnefs of Man's Nature ; as in his Book de Anirna^ he 
 has thefe W"ords, " Every Soul is reckon'd as in Adam 
 '' fo longjtiil it be a-new enroU'd in Chrifl"; and fo long 
 
 " unclean. 
 
Chap. IIL ef Infant-Baptifm.- 107 
 
 «' unclean,till it be foenroirdi&rinful,becaufe unclean"— 
 and more to thatPurpofe. Which naturalDefilement was 
 always improv'd as a Reafon by the Ancients for the 
 Baptifm ot Infants. Another Inftance as odd and unac- 
 countable as any, is his Advice to Virgins" and Widows 
 to delay their Baptifm, till they are paft the Danger of 
 Temptation thro' Lull, either till they were Married,or 
 confirmed in Continence : for fear, I fuppofe, of falling 
 into Sins afterwards. (Not that Sins after Baptifm were 
 thought unpardonable, but next to unpardonable, the 
 Guilt andStain whereof being with greatDifficulty wafhed 
 out) StrangeAdvice to be given by one of the facred Or- 
 der, which is no more agreable to ourAdverfaries in this 
 Controverfy, than to us ; fuch as many wicked Men are 
 apt to improve for delaying their Converfion to God I 
 and to advife any adult unbaptiz'd Perfons to delay their 
 Baptifm till they are out of the Danger of Temptations, 
 is in Effed to advife them to delay theirConverfion ; for 
 the baptifmal Dedication to God is the compleating A61 
 of Chriftian Converfion. Whence it appears how little 
 iWeight is to be laid on this Father's Judgment. 
 
 3. If we confider the above-cited PaiTage, not only as 
 
 it declares what was the Advice or Judgment ofTertulliaft 
 
 about the baptizing of Infants, but as it relates to thePra- 
 
 ftice of the Church at that Day, it appears to be rather a 
 
 Teftimony in Favour of P^dobaptifm,' than againft it. 
 
 The Subjedl of our prefent Enquiry is not, what this or 
 
 the other Father's Judgment or Opinion was in the Cafe, 
 
 but what the common Pradice of the Church was in that 
 
 Age withReference to the baptizing ofChildren •, and tho' 
 
 Tertulian has declar'd his particular Judgment againft ir, 
 
 and pleads for its Delay till riper Years •, yet he has de- 
 
 nliver'd it in fuch a Manner as plainly fuppofes it to have 
 
 ii|been in common Ufe. He is the firll Man (fays ouriVu- 
 
 dlthor) that meniions Infant-Baptifm, and /peaks agairji it, 
 
 lejWhat does he infer thence ? Therefore it had not come 
 
 [ii,^nto Ufe in the Church before hisTime ! So he is the firfl 
 
 rManj Ifuppole, that mentions theBaptifm cfunm,arried 
 
 People, 
 
loS [A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. HI. 
 
 People, Virgins and Widows, and fpeaks againft it, and 
 as earncftly pleads for its Delay till theDanger of Temp- 
 tation is pa{l,tillMarriage or the abatement of Luft. Will 
 it thence follow, that theBaptifm of fuch unmarriedPeo- 
 ple did not obtain in the Church till Tertullian^s Time ? 
 Or that it firft began then to be in Ule ? Our Author 
 may as reafonably infer the latter as the former. There 
 is not a Word in Tertullian intimating that the Pradlice 
 of Infant-Baptifm did hot obtain in the Church before 
 his Time. But the very Words in which he gives his O- 
 pinion againft it, do plainly enough imply it to have been 
 a common Pra6lice. For why fhould he plead for the de- 
 laying the Baptifm of little Children as more profitable, 
 if no fuchThing had been in Ufe P And his fpeaking of 
 SponforSf or God-fathers,{hews there had been fome fuch 
 Cuftom. And hisWordsj-o;^^/ need their innocent Age make 
 fuchhafietotheForgivenefs of Sins? (i.e.inBaptifm) plainly 
 luppofe it to have been aThing cuflomary in theChurch, 
 to bringlnfants quickly after theirBirth toBaptifm. But 
 
 4. After all, what is itth^iT'ertullian has fpoken, againfl 
 the baptizing of Infants ? 'Tis true, he has given it as 
 his Judgment,that it is more profitable that theirBaptifm 
 fliould be defer'd till they come to riper Years, to be able 
 to underftand fomething of the Nature and Defign of it. 
 But he is far from going to the Heights of our prefent 
 Antipgedobaptifts •, he does not condemn it as unlawful, 
 as they do, and as he would have done if it was hut then$ 
 brought into theChurch, as an Innovation contrary to the 
 Rule of Scripture, or without the Approbation or Direc- 
 tion of theApoftles. On the contrary, he allows it inCafe 
 of Necefllty, i. e. in Danger of Death. And do not moft 
 Children fomeTime or other in their weak infantileState 
 become obnoxious to fuch aNecelTity ? So that he would 
 have been as far from elleeming their Baptifm void and 
 null,orfro]n thinking it needed to be repcated,when it had 
 been once adminiftred, as we may fuppofe he wou'd have 
 been from condemning the Baptifm of thofe that are un- 
 married, or requiring a Repetition of it, tho' he equally 
 
 fpeaks 
 
Chap. III. of Infant-Baptifm. 109 
 
 fpeaks againft it, and fays it ought to be delayed, ISlon 
 mnori deCaufa^^ox no lefsReafon than that of Intants. So 
 that upon the whole, our Antipaedobapcifls are but little 
 befriended by this Teflimony of Tertullian^ and have but 
 little Reafon to glory in it : Tho' (whereas Dr. Gill tells 
 us, he was the firft Man that mentioninglnfant-Baptifni 
 fpoke againft it, he Ihould have laid, that) he was the only 
 Man in all Antiquity,of thofe whofe Writings are come 
 down to us, who has faid any Thing againft it. 
 
 But he goes on to fay, P. 24. " The Truth of theMat- 
 *' ter is, that Infant- Baptifm was moved for in the thii'd 
 **" Century ; got Footing & Eftablifhment in ih^ fourth 
 *' and fifth ; and fo prevail'd until the Time of the Re- 
 *' formation." This is fo far from being the Truth of the 
 Matter, that it is a manifeft difguifing of the Truth, and 
 a meer Figment of the Brain, deftituteof the Jeaft Sha- 
 dow of Proof that can be produced. But fmce he allows 
 thePasdobaptifts no more Evidence from the 3dCentury, 
 than thatlntant-Baptifm began then to h^fpoken of ; and 
 be fure he would produce no more than what he thouo-ht 
 made for hisCaufe,(all theAuthors he has cited,or refer'd 
 to,I have examin'd,& fhewed how littleAdvantage he has 
 gained by them) it is therefore meet,and proper,and what 
 may reafonably be expeded, that to undeceive theReader 
 I Hiould produce theTeftimonies of the ancientFathers in 
 theBehalfoflnfant-Baptlfmjwhich being laid together, will 
 (I perfuade myfelf ) amount to an undoubtedEvidence to 
 every unprejudic'd Mind, that Infanr-Bapcifm generally 
 cbtairCd in the truly primitive Church. 
 
 And for this End, I might refer the Englifb Reader to 
 a Book I have had Occafion to cite feveralTimes already, 
 entitled, The Hiflory of Infant -Baptifm^ written by Dr. 
 Wall^who has with great Induftry made a faithfulCollec- 
 tion of the feveral Paftages in the ancient Fathers of tlic 
 four firft Centuries, that make for,or againft Infant Bap- 
 tifm. And becaufe the Book is fcarce in thefe Parts,and 
 but in very few Hands, I ftiall take leave to tranfcribe a 
 few of thefe Paftages, (out of the great Numbers cited) 
 
 that 
 
i lo A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. Ill 
 
 that are plain & pertinent to the Purpofe^and may fuiTiCQ 
 to give full Satisiadion to the Reader •, tho forBrevity's 
 Sake I fhall leave out the originalWords of theAuthors, 
 which are fet down at large by the foremention'd Writer. * ^' 
 Several of the Ancients of the firft and fecond Century, 
 befides Irenaus^ are brought in giving their Suffrage to 
 Infant-Baptifm by more remote Hints. Particularly, 
 ^ufiin Martyr fpeaks of Baptifm being to us Chriftians in- 
 ftead of Circumcifion -f |in his Dialogue with Trypho) m 
 thele Words, "We alfo who by him have had Accefs to 
 *' Godjhave not receivedthis carnalCircumcifion,but the 
 *' fpiritualCircumcifion, yNliichEnoch and thofe like him 
 *« have obferved. And we have received it by Baptifm, 
 *^ by theMercy of God5becaufe we were Sinners ; and it 
 *' is enjoin'd to allPerlbns to receive it by thefameWay." 
 In the fame Senfe the ancient Fathers generally fpake of 
 Baptifm, as the fpiritual Circumcifion^ fucceeding to us 
 Chriftians in the Room of the carnal Circumcifion^ agrea- 
 bly to the Words of the Apoftle Faul^ Col. 2. 11, 12. 
 From whence the Confcquence is eafy to be prov'd, that 
 Baptifm which is the Chriftian Circumcifion, ought to 
 be apply'd to Infants, as Circumcifion in the Flcfh was to 
 theliiiants of the Jews. But to come to the nextCentury — 
 The firil 1 fliail mention isOn^^-^jWho flourilhed in the 
 Beginning of the third Century, and was for fome Time 
 
 Contemporary 
 
 * 7/. B. Tho' tte few following Quotations from the Fathers are taken 
 at fecond Hand, yet we may be fecure as to the Fidelity, and Im- 
 partiality of the learned Writer mention'd, from whom I have taken 
 them. -And I had lels Need to have Recourfe to the original Au- 
 thors (as I defjgn'd to have done before the Publication of thefe Pa- 
 pers, not having the Fathers by me at my firft Writing) fmce I find 
 Mr. 14 hi/tony who was well vers'd in the Fathers of the four firft 
 Centuries, and after he had embrac'd the Communion of the Bap- 
 tifts, in his Addrefs to that People, declaring to them, that Dr. M^airs 
 Hiftory oi In/ant -Baptifm, " as to theFafts," appeared to him, "raoft 
 ** accurately done, and might be depended on by theBaptifts thera- 
 •* feives." Mem. of his Life. Part. 11. P. 461. So that the Reader has 
 no Cauie to fufpefl, that the Truth or Genuinencfs of the faid Quo- 
 tations will be contefted by any of our Adverfarics. 
 
 f Hift. cf lafant-Baptifm, Part I. Ch. 2, \ z, 
 
Chap. III. <?/ Infant-Baptifm. m 
 
 Contemporary witWertuUian. He plainly declareslnfant- 
 Baptifm to have been ufed in the Church (in his Homily 8. 
 on Lev. Chap. 12.) where he haththefe Words,* '^ Hear 
 " X)<^i;/J Ipeaking, I was ^{'dysht^ conceive din Iniquity ^and 
 " inSin did my Mot her bring me forth : Shewing,that every 
 " Soul that is born in theFlefli,is polluted with theFilth of 
 '• Sin and Iniquity, & that therefore that was faid which 
 '^ we mentioned befoi*e, that none is clean from Pollution 
 " tho" his Life be but of the Length of one Day. Befides 
 " all this, let it be confidered, what is the Reafon, that 
 *' whereas the Baptifm of the Church is given for theFor- 
 *' givenefs of Sins, Infants alfo are by the Ufage of the 
 *' Church baptized : when, if there were Nothino- in In- 
 *' fants that wanted Forgivenefs & Mercy, the Grace of 
 *' Baptifm would be needlefs to them." lb the fame 
 Purpofe he fpeaks {Homily 14. on Luke) f " Infants are 
 " baptized for the Forgivenefs of Sins. Of what Sins ? 
 *^ Or when have they finned ? Or how can any Reafon 
 *' of the Laver hold good in their Cafe, but according to 
 " that Senfe that we mention'd even now. None is free 
 " from Pollution., tho" his Life be but of the Length of one 
 " Day upon the Earth ? And it is for that Reafon, be- 
 *' caufe by the Sacrament of Baptifm thePollution of our 
 •' Birth is taken away, that Infants are baptized." And 
 in another Place he afiirms,the Clxirch had received it as 
 a Do6lrine orTradition from the Apofdes, to baptize In- 
 fants— J {Comr/ient.on the Epifile to the Roraans.,Book 5.) 
 *' In the Law it is commande3,that a Sacrifice be offered 
 '• for every Child that is born fL^i;. 12.6.) A pair of ^ur- 
 *' tie Doves and two young Pigeons : of which one is for 
 " a Sin-offerings the other for aBurnt -offering. — For what 
 *' Sin is this young Pigeon offered ? Can the Child that 
 " is new born, have committed anySin } It has even then 
 " Sin,for which x}.\^ Sacrifice is commanded ro be ofter'd ; 
 *' from which even he whofe Life is but of one Day is 
 " denied to be free. Of this Sin, David is fuppos'd to 
 " have faid that which we mentioned before , //; Sin did 
 
 § I. t Ihil §. 2. J Ihil 5. s» 
 
112 A Defence of the Bivine Right Chap. III. 
 
 ^^ my Mother conceive me * for there is In the Hiftory no 
 " Account of any particular Sin that his Mother had 
 " committed. For this alfo it was5that the Church had 
 *' ^\{ofrom theApfiles a "Tradition (orOrder)to|giveBaptifm 
 *^ even to Infants ; for they to whom the divine Myfte- 
 *^ ries were committed, knew that there is in all Perfcns 
 " the natural Pollution of Sin,which ought to be wafh'd 
 «' away by Water and the Spirit ; by Reafon of which 
 « the Body it felf is alfo called the Body cf Sinr 
 
 Thefe Tefti monies of Origen are fo clear and full as to 
 put the Matter in Debate out of all reafonable Doubt, if 
 any Credit can be given to them : And there is no Rea- 
 fon that appears, why they Ihould not be credited ; and 
 our Adverfaries can object nothing of any Moment, but 
 that they are Tranflations (as mod of Origenh Works are 
 Tranflations out oUheGreek^m which he wrote,intoL^//;/) 
 But the Fidelity of the Tranflators,and the Authentical- 
 nefs of thefe PafTages, are fufficiently vindicated by Dr. 
 JVall^to the Satisladion of all impartial Enquirers.* And 
 thefe Tefti monies of Origen defer ve greater Regard, in 
 that he was one of the moft learned Men of the Age, and 
 he vifited and refided for fomeTime in feveral of the moft 
 eminent Churches in his Day ; for he was born and e- 
 ducated at Alexandria in Egypt,znd he travelled to Rome^ 
 to Greece, to Pa!eJline,3,ndSyria, & into otherFarts,where 
 be fpcnt his Labours : And therefore muft be tho't to 
 be well acquainted with theCuftom of theChuiches ; and 
 living fo near the Age of the Apoftles, being born Anna 
 Domini 185, within an Hundred Years of the Apoftles j 
 he could not pofTibly be ignorant how the Cafe ftood as 
 to the baptizing of Infants in the Times of the Apoftles. 
 Efpecially fince his Father and Grandfather were both 
 Chriftians, from whom he might have certain Informa- 
 tion about this Matter ; and is therefore to be admitted 
 as a competent Witnefs both for his own Times and the 
 Age preceedingjup to the Apoftles. And he exprefty de- 
 clares it to be the common Ufage of the Church,to bap- 
 tize 
 
 • Ibid, J 4, ij, 6, 7, »• 
 
 ^1 
 
Chap.III. of Infant-Baptlfm: i/^^ 
 
 tize Infants,and that the Church received it as a Dodrine 
 or Tradition from the Apoflles. For we may obferve, 
 that he does not fpeak of it as a Thing at all oppofed, or 
 denied by any One, but occafionally refers to it for 'A- 
 luftrating and confirming other Points he was handling, 
 as that which was generally known and approved in the 
 Church. And the fame Thing may be obferved of the 
 Teftimoniesof the otherFathers of that Age : They do not 
 any of them fet themfelves to defend or pleadforir,as if it 
 met with Oppofition fromGainfayers ; but by occafional 
 Hints they give us plainly to underftand, it w^as the ge- 
 neral approved Pradice. 
 
 The next of the Fathers whofe Teftimony I fliall pro-' 
 duce, is the blefled Martyr Cyprian^ who next to Origen 
 was the moft noted Writer of the Church of that Age, 
 and who was for fome Time his Contemporary. (ForCy- 
 prian was made Bifliop o^ Carthage in the Year 248, and 
 Origen died in the Year 252. -f) The Teflimony of this 
 ancient Writer which I refer to, was occafioned by a 
 Queftion fent him by Fidus^ a Frejhyier or BijJdop in the 
 Country, which was, Whether an Infant might be baptized 
 before it was eight Bays old ? TheReafon of his Doubt, 
 it feems, was the Law of Circumcifion, which under the 
 Old-Teilament required an Infant to be circumcis'd the 
 eighthDay from its Birth. TheRefolution y^\\\c\iCyprian 
 in a Council of Bifhops afTembled at Carthage^ y^.jD.253, 
 gave to this Qiieftion, was to this Effect, That an Infant 
 might be baptiz'd on the 2d or 3d Day,oranyTimie after 
 his Birth •, and that Circumcifion (befides its Sacramental 
 Nature) had fomething typical in it, particularly it's be- 
 ing adminiftred on the eighth Day, which ceas'd at the 
 coming of Chrift,who has given us Baptifm, the fpiritual 
 Circumcifion, in which we are not tied up to thatCirtum- 
 ftance of the Age. This Refolution of Cyprian had the 
 unanimous Concurrence of every one of his Colleagues, 
 as his Epiftle to Fidus teftifies. The Infcription of it 
 runs thus, 
 
 I Cyprian 
 
 t D«//«'s Hift, Vol. 2. Chap, 6. 
 
114 A Defence of the Divine Rkght Chap. 111. 
 
 Cyprian and the reft of the Colleagues, who are prefent 
 in Council, in Number fixty fix, to Fidus our Bro- 
 ther, Greeting. * 
 
 The Epiftle is too large to be inferred at full Length ; 
 I fhall extrad afew Paragraphs from it,vvhichmay fufficc 
 to give us the Sentiments ot thofe Ancients on this Cafe. 
 Thus Cyprian writes in the Name of the forementioned 
 Bifhops ; 
 
 — "As to theCafe of Infants, whereas you judge ^th at they 
 *' muji not be hapttjed within two or three Days after they 
 *' are horn^and that theLaw of the ancimtCircumcifion is to 
 " he obferved^ fo that you think none fhould he baptized and 
 '' fanUified before the eighth Day after he is horn : We 
 *' were all in our Afiembly of a far different Opinion ; 
 *' for in this which you thought fitting to be done, there 
 *' was not one that was of your Mind. But all of us ra- 
 *' ther judged, that the Grace and Mercy of God is to be 
 " denied to no Perfon born : For whereas our Lord in 
 *•' his Gofpel fays, 'The Son of Man came not to deftroy 
 '' Mens' Souls (or Lives) but to fave them — • As far as lies 
 *-' in us,no Soul if pofTible is to be loft. — That the eighth 
 •^^ Day was to be obferved in the Jewifti Circumcifion, 
 *'- was a Type going before in a Shadow orRefemblance, 
 " but on Chrift's Coming was fulfilled in the Subftance j 
 *' for becaufethe eighthDay,thatis the next after theSab- 
 '' bath, was to be the Day on which the Lord was to 
 " rife from the Dead, and quicken us, and give us the 
 " fpiritual Circumcifion ; This eighth Day that is the 
 *' next to the Sabbath, or Lord's Day, went before in the 
 *' Type, which Type ceafed when the Subftance came, 
 '' and the fpiritual Circumcifion was given to us. So 
 *' that we judge that no Perfon is to be hindered from 
 *' obtaining the Grace (i.e. of Baptifm) by the Law that 
 *' is now appointed ; and that the Ipiritual Circumcifion 
 *' ought not to be reftrained by the Circumcifion that 
 *' was according to the Flefh ; but that all are to be ad- 
 *' nutted to the Grace of Chrift 5 fince Peicr fpeaking in 
 
 the 
 
 t Hifl. of Infant-Baptifai, Part I. Ch. 6. § i. 
 
Chap. III. /?/* Infant- Baptifm. ii^ 
 
 " the A6ls of the Apoftks, fays, I'he Lord has /hewn me 
 
 <« that no Perfon is to be called Common, or Unclean 
 
 " This therefore, Dear Brother, was our Opinion in the 
 " AfTembly, that it is not for us to hinder any Perfon 
 " from Baptifm, and the Grace of God, who is merciful 
 «' and kind, and afFedionate to all ; which Rule, as ic 
 *' holds for all, fo we think it more efpecially to be ob- 
 % ferved in Reference to Infants,and thofe that are newly 
 " born, to whom our Help, and the divine Mercy is ra- 
 *' ther to be granted, becaufe by their Weeping &Wail- 
 " ing at their firfc Entrance into the World, they do in- 
 *' timate nothing fo much as that they implore Com- 
 *• paflion." 
 
 That which is efpecially to be noted in this Epiflle to 
 i7'^«j, written by Cyprian in the Name of the Council at 
 Carthage is, that it was not defigned to eftablifh thePra- 
 dice of Infant-Baptifm, or to decide the Queflion, Whe- 
 ther Infants were to be baptized ; of which there had 
 been no Doubt ; but that it was taken for granted both by 
 Fidus that propos'd the Cafe,and by Cyprian, & the fixty- 
 fixBiihops that refolved it, Thatlnfants ought to be bap- 
 tized ; but it only determines that an Infant may be bap- 
 tized before the eighth Day, to which Circumcifion was 
 reftrained : Which was the onlyThing fcrupled hyFidus. 
 But if there be any Truth in that which is fuggefted by 
 our Author, That the Baptifm of Infants was but moved 
 for in the third Century \ The firft Queflion iliould have 
 certainly been, Whetherlnfants may lawfully be baptized 
 ; at all ? But of this there was no Qtieflion then, and moit 
 of the Antipjedobaptifts do grant, (being compelled by 
 the Force of Truth) That the Pra6lice of Infant-Baptifm 
 may be traced up to Cyprian^ Time. But they muil go 
 higher, if they allow anyCredFt to be given to thisEpiftle, 
 which was written but about i5oyears from theApoilles. 
 And there can be no Exception made againft it. nere 
 is not a Piece in all Antiquity, fays Dr. f^all, that can he 
 more certainly proved to be Genuine than this. If therefore, 
 theSaptifm of Infants did but then begin to be a general 
 
 I 2 Praftice, 
 
1 1 6 A Defence of the Divine Right Ch a p. III. 
 
 Pradice, and was brought into t^<= Church, as an Inno- 
 vation, in the third Century, it is utterly incredible that 
 in aCouncil of rixty-fixFi/hops in the middle of that Cen- 
 tury, there fhould not be one Man that fliould make the 
 leait Objetlion againft it -, or that fliould have noDoubt, 
 but it might be adminiftred to an Infant on the fe- 
 cond or third Day after his Birth. ForCyprian declares, 
 there was not one Man in that Aflembly, that agreed in 
 Opinion with Fidus, that the Baptifm of Infants ought to 
 be deferred to the eighth Day ; much lefs could they b^. 
 of Opinion that they ought not to have it adminiftred to 
 them at all. This general Confent neceflarily fuppofes 
 the Pradice to have been eftablifhed and approved by 
 Jong Cuftom, and is it felf a good Proof, if there were 
 no other, that it had obtain'd in the preceeding Age, asl 
 far as the Apoftles J 
 
 I think it needlefs to recite at large any more Pafifages' 
 out of the Fathers, efpecially fince our Author does in 
 Effedl yield, that plain Teftimonies were given to Infant- 
 Baptifm,ifom the third Century. Neverthelefs,to render 
 theEvidence we have of thisFra6tice,in thofe earlyTimes 
 of the Church, and even from theApoftles, the more un- 
 doubted, let me add in a few brief Hints, thefe further 
 Teftimonies from thofe ancient Writers. 
 
 Gregory Nazianzen * exhorts Parents without Delay 
 to offer their Infant- Children to God in Baptifm. 
 " Haft thou an Infant-Child ? (faith he) Let not Wick- 
 *' ednefs have the Advantage ot Tima ; let him be fan- 
 " difiedfrom his Infancy ; let him. be dedicated from his 
 " Cradle to (or by)theSpirit." He,as well as many others 
 of the Fathers, ufes the ^ord fan^t if ed for baptized, 
 
 Qptatus Billiop of Milevis, comparing Chriit to a Gar- 
 ment,that is put on in Baptifm, in explaining what isfaid 
 by the Apoftle, Gal. 3. 27. As many of you as have been 
 baptized into ChriftJ^ave put on Cbrijl ; Says of this Gar- 
 ment, '' Ic is not plaited (or contradled) for Infants, nor 
 ** ftrecchcd out for young Men, nor is it alter'd to fuit 
 " Women.'' il ^;, 
 
 * 
 
 Bid. Chap. II. § 4, |i Chap. 9. §, 2. 
 
Chap. III. <?/ Infant-Baptifm. 117 
 
 SL Jmbrofey fhewing the Refemblance between John 
 the Baptift and Elias, and having Reference to the Mira- 
 cle of Elias in dividing the River Jordan, fays, "Perhaps 
 *' this may feem to be fulfilled in our Time, and in the 
 " ApoftlesTime : For that returning of theRiver- waters 
 *' towards the Spring- Head, which was cauled by Elias^ 
 *' when the River was divided fas theScripture fays, Jor- 
 " dan was driven back) fignified the vSacrament of the 
 " Laver of SaIvation,which was afterwards to be inflitu- 
 *' ted ; by which Infants that are baptized,are reformed 
 " back again from {Evil) Wickednefs (or a wickedState) 
 " to the primitive State of their Nature. 'f 
 
 This is another Teftimony that carries Infant-Baptifm 
 up to the Times of the Apollles •, and this was written 
 but about 274 Years after the Apoftles. 
 
 St. Chryfoftom about the Year 380, fpeaking of the 
 Difference betweenCircumcifion of old,andChriftianBap- 
 tifm, which God has given us inilead thereof : among o- 
 ther Things, fays ; " Our Circumcifion, I mean the 
 *' Grace of Baptifm — has no determinate Time, as that 
 '' had, but One that is in the Beginning of his Age, or 
 *' One that is in the middle of it, or One that is in his 
 " old Age, may receive it."* 
 
 Abundance of fuch occafional Hints arc drop'd In the 
 Difcourfes and Writings of the Ancients in Relation to 
 Infant-Baptifm, which feem to have a more peculiarForce 
 to perfuade us, that it was. a general uncontroverted 
 Practice in their Day, than if they had made Ufe of kt 
 Difcourfes to prove it. They feem to fpeak of it in fuch 
 a Manner as any One would now, in treating on other 
 Subje(5ls,referring to anyPoint of Dodlrine orPra61:ice,that 
 is generally taken for granted, about which there is no 
 Difpute. Let me add to thefe a FaiTage of St An§fin^ 
 about 300 Years after theApofties (in his Difpute againft 
 xhtDonatiJts concerning Baptifm. Book 4 Chap. 15.) 
 which is as ample a Teftimony as any one can defire. 
 
 " If any one," faith he, " do afk for divine Authority 
 
 I 3 ^' 18 
 
 t Chap. 13. 5 I. JChap, 14. §. I. - -; 
 
<c 
 
 1 1 8 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. III. 
 
 " in this Matter ;" {viz of Infants baptized) " tho* that , 
 " which the whole Church pradlifes, and which has not : 
 " been inftituted by Councils, but was ever inUfe^is very 
 " reafonably believed to be no other than a Thing deli* 
 *' ver'd (ororder'd) by the Authority of the Apoitles ; 
 yet we may befides take a true Eftimate, how much 
 the Sacrament of Baptifm does avail Infants, by the 
 *' Circumcifion whichGod's formerPeople received." [| 
 
 But for a Conclufion of thefe Teftimonies of the An- 
 cients, let me only fay, further, that the ancient Fathers 
 never had theOccafion of fpeaking fo diredly to thePoint 
 of Infant- Baptifm,as when the Pelagian Controverfy arofe 
 aboutthe beginning of the fifthCentury,moftAuthors pla- 
 cing it intheYear 4io,whenP^/^^/«j began to vent hishe- 
 reticalOpinions ati<^;;?^,theChief whereof were thefe two^ 
 viz. Thatlnfants were conceiv'd & born without original 
 Sin, derived to them fromJdam. The other Error he was 
 charg'd with, was his denying the fupernatural Grace of 
 God to be neceffary to good Works. It was the former of 
 thefe that gave Occafion to the Writers of the Church 
 who appear'd in Opofition to that Tenet of PelagiuSj 
 (that Infants were horn free from anyJinfulDefilemcnt) par- 
 ticularly to St. Hierome, and St. Jujiin, who were the 
 chief that wrote againft him, to infill much upon the 
 Baptifm of Infants, which being the known & generally 
 receiv'd Pradice of the Church, was improv'd by them as 
 anArgument inConfutation ofPelagius, St.Juffin clofely 
 urges this Argument in his Writings againft ihcPelagians^ 
 That Infants are hy all Chrifiians acknowledged to ftand in 
 JNeed of Baptifm^ which mtift be in them for original Siny 
 fince they have no other. If they have no Sin, why are 
 they then baptized according to the Rule of the Church 
 for the Forgivenefs of Sins ? Why are they wafJoed in the 
 Lav er of Regeneration .,if they have noBefilement ? Pelagius 
 was extreamly puzzled and perplexed by thisArgument, 
 and knew not hov/ to evade th'eForce of it, but by invol- 
 ving himfelf in greater Abfurditics j for he had not the 
 
 Impudence 
 
 11 Chap. 15. J, 3, 
 
Chap. III. <?/ Infant-Baptifm.- ii^ 
 
 Impudence or Impiety to deny either that Infants had 
 Need of Baptifm, or that it was the conftant & univerfal 
 Cuflom of theChurch to baptize them. On the contrary, 
 he plainly acknowleged it •, for being accus'd by fome of 
 denying the Baptifm of Infants, which they drew as a 
 Confequence from his Opinion,thatInfancs were free from 
 original Sin, he utterly denies this Confequence, & com- 
 plains of the Accufation as a Slander of his Adverfaries ; 
 and in the ConfefTion of his Faith, which he fent to Pope 
 Innocent the fir fi (recited at large by Dr. Wall) he owns, 
 that Baptifm ought to be adminiffred to Infants with the 
 fame Sacramental Words as it is to elder Perfons. And in 
 his Letter fent to him at the fame Time, he vindicates 
 himfelf in the flrongeft Terms, and fays, ^hat Men do 
 flander him as if he denied the Sacrament of Baptifm to In.-- 
 fants^ and did promife the Kingdom of Heaven to any Per- 
 fons without theRedemption of ChrijiJ^ And aflirms,/^^/ 
 he never heard any^not even the mojt impious Heretick^ that 
 would fay fuch aThing of Infants, ThisConfefTion ofPelagius 
 feems to carry in it little iefs than the Force of a Demon- 
 ftration, That Infant-Baptifm univerfally obtained,Time 
 out of Mind ; for he whofe Intereft it was (being fo hard 
 prefs'd with this Argument for original Sin in Infants) to 
 have it believed, thatBaptifm was not inftituted for them, 
 and that it was not the Pradice of the Church from the 
 TimesofChrift&hisApoftleSjtoadminifteritto them ; he 
 could not fail of getting fome Notice of it, if it had been 
 true. But the Pradice was fo notorious toallChriftians, 
 that he never durft deny it, how much foever his Caufe 
 required it •, but declares that he never heard of any whe- 
 ther Catholick or Heretick (that own'd any Chriftian 
 Baptifm j that denied it to Infants •, and accounts it a 
 Slander call upon him, tha%he was charged with denying 
 it to them. 
 
 There was furely noSociety of Antipsedobaptifls then 
 in the World, nor within the Memory of Man in his 
 Time, otherwife he mud have known or heardl of them ; 
 
 I 4 "^ ' for 
 
 :j: Chap, lo, 5 29. 30* 
 
1 2C> A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. III. 
 
 for Pcslagius was a great Scholar, and a great Traveller, 
 and had been converfant in moflParts of the World where 
 the Chriftian Church flourifhed in that Age. He was 
 born in Britain, and travelled to Rome, where he refided 
 fome Time, and was acquainted with, and had inEfteem 
 by the learned Men there. From thence he went into 
 Africa, to Egypt, to Jerufakm, where he abode a confide- 
 rableTime, and therefore he muft be fuppos'd to be well 
 acquainted with theCuftoms of moft Churches in Chri- 
 Itendom ; but he had heard of no Church, or Chriftian, 
 that denied Baptifm to Infants. A Man of Pelaghis his 
 Learning and Acquaintance in the World, might eafily 
 uponEnquiry have obtain'd certain Information concern- 
 ing thisPra6tice \ whether it had been inUfe in and from 
 theApoftlesTime i living but threeHundredYears diftant 
 from them •, or whether it was an Innovation brought 
 into the Church fince that Time ; if he had known this 
 latter to have been the Cafe, (and had it been fo inFadl, 
 its fcarce pofTiblebut he fhould know it) how eafily might 
 he have baffl'd St. y^?/i?/Vs Argument, by replying ? You 
 cannot prove original Sin from the baptizing of Infants, 
 which is but a modern Cuftom and Innovation brought 
 into the Church of Chrift, without any Inftitution from 
 the Beginning, and lb is of no divine Authority to prove 
 a Dodtrine of Faith. But neither would St. /liiftin have 
 us'd this Argument, nor Felagius have yielded it, had net 
 Infant- Baptifm been a general Pradlice in the Church, 
 which both of them were verily perfuaded had theStamp 
 of a divine Inftitution upon it. But Pelagiiis had Re- 
 courfc to another Pretence,to evade the Force of the Ar- 
 gument thence for original Sin, which was, that Infants 
 "were not baptized for the Forgivenefs of Sins, but that 
 they might obtain theKingdIih of Fleaven. (Which was 
 the Ground, I apprehend, of his being charg'd with pro- 
 mifing the Kingdom of Heaven to fome without the Re- 
 demption of Chrift •, whichjhc denies in hisLetter toP(?^,^ 
 Innocent above cited) A new and abfnrd Fancy, peculiar 
 to him &hisAccompiiccs -, which has had npMaintainers, 
 fo far as appears^ fmcc hi*^ Times, Upon 
 
Chap. III. ^/ Infant -Baptifm. 121 
 
 Upon the whole,let the impartial Reader judge, whe- 
 ther the Author of the Dialogue had not fufficientReafon 
 to aflert, That there is undcubted Evidence from the ancient 
 Fathers^ that Infant -Baptifm constantly obtained in the truly 
 primitiveChurch ? And theChurch in the three firilCentu- 
 ries has generally been allow'd by all the learned inAnti- 
 quity,to be that primitive Church, which was mofl pure 
 from Corruption in Do6lrine and Difcipline. 
 
 But perhaps fome may inquire. What is there in the 
 Writings of the Ancients that makes againftPa^dobaptifm ? 
 Since I intimated, that in the forementioned Colledlion 
 the Author of it propos'd to alledge impartially all fuch 
 Paflages in the ancient Fathers, as make either /?r, or 
 agaivjf Infant- Baptifm ; and fincel have given a Tafte 
 of the Writers that fpeak for it, fome may be curious to 
 know what has been faid againftir,and by whom. Where- 
 fore, that I may not be thought to conceal any Thing of 
 the Strength of our Adverfaries, I muft anfvver,The only 
 Man in all Antiquity (as I obferv'd before) who appears 
 to have fpoken,or written anyThing againft the baptizing 
 of Infants,or advifed the deterring of it to more adult Ages, 
 isTVr/z////^;^; whofeOpinion has been already confider'djand 
 tho' OLirildverfaries in thisDebate, appeal to him as their 
 great Patron, ye<- I have fufficiently fhewed, how little 
 their Caufe is favoured even by this one Man. It's true, 
 ourAnipaedobaptill Writers do often fill many Pages, to 
 the furfeitingof theRcader,withPafrages cited from thefe 
 ancient Writers, which relate to Aduit-Baptifm,and the 
 ProfefTion of Faith that goes before it, which us'd to be 
 inculcated upon ihtCatechumens (i. e. thofe who came over 
 from Paganifo to C hriftanity, and were inilru6ted in the 
 Principles ot the Chriilian Faith to prepare them forBap- 
 tifm) but it is all befide the Purpofe, as I Ihewed in my 
 Remarks on the Quotation from y/-//?/;^ M^r/>r. And 
 thofe that cite them,can hardly be believed to be in ear- 
 ned, but that they defign'd to impofe upon the illiterate 
 Vulgar •, unlefs they thoughc,that thePasdobaptiils v/ere- 
 lellrainedby theirPrinciples Irom adminidringBaptiUn to 
 any befides Infants,or denied Adiu:-Bapnfm. But 
 
122 ' A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IIL 
 
 But let thisQuellion, (What has heenfaid^or written by 
 the ancientFathers^againfi Infant' Baptifm? )ht anfwered by 
 Dr. Wall^ who had the beflAdvanta^^es forKnowing,and 
 who made it the principal Subjed of his Studies andEn- 
 quiries ; he, in fumming up theEvidence on bothSides, |j 
 and after having given a fummary Account of the Evi- 
 dence for Iniant-Baptifm, adds thefe Words, " Laftly, as 
 *' thefe Evidences are for the firft four Hundred Years, 
 *' in which there appears only oneMan, Tertullian^ that 
 *« advis'd the Delay of Infant -Baptifm in fomeCafes, and 
 *' one Gregory that did perhaps pradtife fuchDelay in the 
 *' Cafe of hisChildren •, but no Society of Men fo think- 
 " ing, or fo pradlifing ; nor no one Man faying, it was 
 *^ unlawful to baptize Infants ; fo in the next fevenHun- 
 " dred Years, there is not fo much as one Man to be 
 '' found,that either fpoke for, or pradifed any fuchDc- 
 «' lay, but all the contrary. And when about the Year 
 *' one Thoufand one Hundred ^ thirty, one Sed among 
 *' \\xtWaldenfes declared againft the baptizing of Infants, 
 *' as being uncapable of Salvation,the main Body of that 
 " People rejeded that their Opinion ; and they of them 
 «' that held that Opinion, quickly dwindled away, and 
 *' difappear'd ; there being no more heard of, holding 
 " that Tenet, till the rifing of the G^r;;/^;^Antipa^dobap- 
 " tilts in the Year 1522. 
 
 This, upon the bell & moft impartial Search,has been 
 found theTruth of the Cafe •, which fhews, that our Au- 
 thor, however he fails in his Proofs, does not at all in his 
 Contidence,when he fays, "Throughout thefe feveralCen- 
 *' turies'* (i. e. from the third Century until the Time of 
 theRcformation.) " there wereTeftimonies bore toAdult- 
 *' Baptifm \ and at leveral Times certainPerfons rofe up 
 *« andoppos'd Infant-Baptifm." SomeMen are very ape 
 to believe that which they have a flrong Defire to find 
 true •, otherwife it can't be accounted for,that Perfons of 
 anyReading, or Ingenuity, among our Adverfaries,fhould 
 perfuade themfelves into theBelief of what is allerted here 
 
 by 
 
 |[ Hill, of Infant-Baptifm, Part z. Chap. 10. § i. 
 
Chap. III. of Infant-Baptifm. 123 
 
 by our Author, of which they have never been able to 
 bring any tolerable Proof, tho' many have attempted it, 
 andDr. Gill among the refl,under the nextHead,to which 
 I fhall proceed with him, and beftow fome Remarks on 
 what he has advanced. Wherefore, 
 
 III. The next Thing he has thought lit to difpute is, 
 that which is aflerted {Tiial. P. 7.) that " It cannot be 
 " pretended that this Pradlice was called in Queftion or 
 *' made Matter of Debate in theChurch, till theMadmcn 
 " of Munfterizx. themlelves againflit." — It is but a weak 
 Oppofition that our Author makes againfl thisAfiertion ; 
 for tho' he could not fairly deny it, yet he makes a great 
 Shew of Proof on the contrary, by mulriplying his Au- 
 thorities : but in Effed, all that he has alledged amounts 
 to no more than what is fuppos'd in theDialogue, at leaft 
 may be eafily accounted for,without any Con tradition to 
 the foremention'dAflertion. Which a few Remarks may 
 ferve to make evident. 
 
 ^/r/?, WithRefpect to theTimesfince theReformation. 
 I. I oblerve,he takes a great Deal of Pains to prove, 
 that which will be readily granted, by his Qiiotations 
 from P. 2 5. to P. 29. which is, That there wereAnabap- 
 tifts in Being, that rais'd many Stirs, andDifputes in Ger- 
 many fome few Years (ten or twelve at moft) before the 
 Tragical Affair q{ Munfter^ who were either the famePer- 
 fons, or others of the fame Spirit & Way with thofe that 
 were concern'd in that Affair ;' which was fo remarkable 
 for that Scene of Enthufiaim, Blalphemy, Sedition, and 
 Confufion that was aded in that City, as well as for the 
 difmal Fate of the chief Authors, and Leaders in ii:,as to 
 give Denomination to the whole Sed:. And who (but one 
 that had a Mind to cavil) could have thought, that the 
 Writer of the Dialogue meant any other,by theMadmen 
 of Munfier^ than the German Anabaptifls ? as tho' he had 
 faid, there was no Strife or Debate m the Church about 
 Infant- Bapriim, till theRifeof the Anabaptifts mGcrnian)\ 
 who made themfelvcs ]:nown to theWorld,and to Poite- 
 rity by the v/ild Excrav.iganci'.^s th^ir enthufiaflick Prin- 
 ciples 
 
124 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. III. 
 
 ciples led them into, with the fatal EfFeds thereof in the 
 City of Munfier •, tho' they fet themfelves (as is fuppofcd 
 in the Dialogue) to oppofe Infant- Baptifm, a tew Years 
 before they afted that mad Part. TheMadnefs (disNlx.Fox 
 calls the Errors of the Anabaptifts) had been growing 
 upon them for feme Years, before it grew up to the 
 Height of enthufiaftick Frenzy at Munjier. . I'herefore 
 our Author might have fpar'd his Pains in fearching out 
 the Dates of theTranfadlions, andDifputes of thofeTimes, 
 (that he might find fomeOppofers of P^edobaptifm before 
 the Extravagancies dxMunfter) which he runs up within 
 5 or 6 Years of theReformation begun by Luther -, which 
 will be granted him without much Difficulty. But does 
 he think any one fo void of Senfe,as to imagine, theMad- 
 men of Munfier v/ere drop'd out of theClouds, and never 
 known or heard of before ? or not rather,that they were 
 of the fame Tribe, orParty of Men known by theName 
 of Anahapti^s (which is given them by all theWriters of 
 thofe Times) who by their Preachings & Difputations in 
 the preceeding Years, raifedCommorions in feveralParts 
 of Germany ! Thefe Times are plainly enough included 
 in that Period mention'd in the Dialogue, in which thofe 
 Men fee themfelves againft the Pradice of Infant-Bap- 
 tifm. But 
 
 2.1 obferve, he would fain clear the People cdWcdAna- 
 hapttfts^ from being concerned in thofe 1 umults in Ger- 
 many raifed a little aficr the Reformation, at lead from be- 
 ing the chief Promoters thereof; in which Endeavour he 
 has advanced feveralThings tending to difguife theTruth, 
 which require fome Animadverfion. 
 
 Firjl^ He fays P^^.25. " That theDifturbances inGer- 
 many were firil begun in the Wars of the Boors^on the Ac- 
 count of Civil Liberties.^'' This is fo far true, that there 
 were before the Reformation greatDifcontents among the 
 Boors^ or poor Country-Peafants of Germany^ being grie- 
 voufly opprefs'd by the tyrannical Government of their 
 Princes, and by their rich Landlords, and fome Commo- 
 tions rais'd on that Account. But then to declare the 
 
 whole 
 
Chap. III. ^I infant-Baptifm. 125 
 
 whole Truth, ^'c fliould be added. That thefe Ferments 
 continuing ^<^"^^ Years after the Reformation fet on Foot 
 by Liiibcr in the Year 1 5 1 7, there rofe up feveral fana- 
 tical Feachers, who took Advantage of them fordiflemi- 
 nating their fedicious Opinions among the Vulgar \ the 
 chiet or whom mentioned inHiftory,were NicholasStorck^ 
 an ilhterate Man, Mark Slukr j^nd Thomas Mimtzer^ who 
 appeared about the Year 1521. f and began to divulge 
 their pernicious Dodrines ; and among other Opinions 
 tending toDivifion in theChurch,they preach'd up Liberty 
 fromSubje5fion toPrinces in temporal'Tbings ; and Communion 
 cfGocds,2is\tyN2is in theprimitiveChurch^Dodrines highly 
 to the Reliih of the opprefledCountry-People ; by which 
 Means they drew theMukitude after them. Luther hav- 
 ing in the Year 1520, publifh'd his Book of Chrijiian 
 Liberty^ thefe Men pretending to Infpiration and fecret 
 Communication with God, carried his Principle of Li- 
 berty, much further than he ever intended. For tho' 
 Luther afTerted the juft Liberty of all Chriftians from the 
 Yoke of Popifli Tyranny, and the burthenfome Seperfti- 
 tions and human Inventions, wherewith they loaded the 
 Confciences of Men ; yet both he and the other firft Re- 
 formers conflantly and ftridly taught Obedience &Sub- 
 jedion to the civil Migifhrate in Things temporal. But 
 thefe enthufiailick Preachers taught their Followers not 
 only to renounce the Romifh .Tyranny, but thcAuthority 
 of the civil Magiftrate,efpecially Muntzer the chief Lea- 
 der of the Seditious Rabble, who openly profefs'd him- 
 felf raifed up by God to punifli wicked Princes, and fliled 
 himfclf the Sword of the Lord, and of Gideon, conflantly 
 declaim'd againft the Government of the PrinceSjas harfli 
 and tyranical,and not to be tolerated by Chriflians ; and 
 having the Multitude attach'd to him, he inculcated it 
 upon them that all Things were free byNature^and common 
 to all, and that the Yoke of -the Princes was to be fhaken off^ 
 as well as that of iU Pop* And it was held by them 
 
 as 
 
 f Fred. Spanhefn. Diatribe Hiftorica Ds Origimt Progreffu, $i%, Ana- 
 %^. §. I, 2, I Ibid, §. 3, 4, 9. ' 
 
JlS A Defence of the Divine fHi^ht Chap. Ill 
 
 as aPrIncipIc,that it was not fit, nor to be ^ndur'd in the 
 Kingdom ofChrift,that fome fhould be foRich,&r others fo 
 Poor &c.|l The giddy Multitude, infpii'dwiththefe Wel- 
 lingPrinciples,grew tumultuous,& wenton under theirEn- 
 thufiaftickLeaderjCommitting horribleDiforders mGerma-- 
 fiy^ Magiftrates were depofed,Monafteries rifled, rich Men's 
 Houfes pillag'd, and fpoiled of their Goods, &c. The 
 IfTue of thefeExofbitances,fo fatal to the Authors of them, 
 and to many Thoufands of poor fimple People led blind- 
 fold by them, in the Year 1525 + it is not my Bufinefs 
 to relate : I fhall only obferve, that 2iktvMuntzer had fee 
 out upon Principles of Sedition againft the civil Govern- 
 ment, and could not be flopped in his wild Career, by 
 the Warnings of Luther ^2in^ the Teflimony borne againft 
 his, and his Followers licencious Proceedings, by other 
 Proteftant Minifters, as that which brought a Scandal 
 upon the Reformation ; he inveighed againft Luther*^ 
 Reformation as imperfect, and began to confult with his 
 Accomplices about renewing the Church to a more per- 
 fedl State. Then they took it into their Thoughts to 
 baptize a- new, thofe that became their Difciples {jjla 
 Occafione Cogitatum^ fays Spanheim) and leaft any Scruple 
 of Confcience in Refpedt of their former Baptifm ftiould 
 prove an Obftacle to their Defign, they declaim'd againft 
 Intant-Baptlfm, condemning it as Unprofitable and Un- 
 lawful, becaufe Infants were not capable of that Sacra- 
 ment ', but only the Adult, who were able to judge and 
 choofe for themfelves, ought to have it adminiftred to 
 them. So Spanheim gives the Account of the Original 
 of Anabaptifm.* Whence it appears,that theOppoficion 
 toIntant-Baptifm had its Rife from a very wickedDefign, 
 which was carrying on by Enthufiaftick Preachers, as it 
 
 fell 
 
 II JTalP^WSk. Part II. Chap. 8. §. 4. f Spanh. Diatrib. Hift. §. 9. 
 
 * His Words are, — hide de no-vd, ^ pcrfe^ion Ecchfia condendd^ 
 fionjuq\ ejus — [PoUteia) aiium, et ijla occaftone cogitatum, de ejus MyJIis 
 no^oo.baph/mo initiandis, et ne banifmi prioris ohjiaret Rtligio', ddclama- 
 turn in Pa'dohnpfilmum, ut 'vanumy ini7no illicitum^ hifantibus quippg 
 ejus haudquaquum capadbus CoUatttm^ qiimn Sacramentum ijiud non mji 
 adult is f ^ fuijudicii, acju<^ Spovtii Imninibui confer ri dcbeat, — Ibid. §. $. 
 
Chap. III. cf Infant-Baptifm. 127^ 
 
 fell in with their Scheme of attempting Innovations both 
 in Church and State. And if this were to be accounted 
 a Reformation in this Ordinance of Baptifm, as Dr. Gill 
 thinks it was, Fa, 29. we lee what Sort of Men were the 
 Inftruments, and by what Counfels it was begun & car- 
 ried on ! And how unlikely it is, that thefe firft Admi- 
 niftrators of it in the Way of theAntip^dobaptiftslhould 
 have the extraordinary Prefence of Chrift with them,while 
 cngag'd in fo wicked an Enterprize. 
 
 Secondly^ He fays, Pa. 25. " That the forementioned 
 " Difturbances were firft begun by fuch as were Paedo- 
 " baptifts, Papifis^ and Lutherans,''' Which (tho' it be a 
 Truth,yet as he has left it unexplain'd) feems defigned to 
 transfer the Blame of beginning thofe Tumults on the 
 Pasdobaptifts, and to perfwade the vulgarReader that the 
 Anabaptifts had no Hand in it -, tho' he confcfTes, that 
 *' in procefs of Time fome few of the People callcdAna- 
 *' baptifts mingled themfelves among them." An artful 
 concealing of the Truth in Fa6l. 
 
 I am fully perfuaded,that all thofe who are charg'd as 
 the Authors of thofeDifturbances, were at firftPasdobap- 
 tiftsjOr fuch as had received no other thanlnfant-Baptifm : 
 for it does not appear, that there was any other Baptifm 
 1 commonly in Ufe in the Church at the Beginning of the 
 ; Reformation. But thefe, and thefe only were the very 
 Men who were afterwards known, and diftinguifh'd by 
 the Name of Anabaptifts^ on the Account of theirPradlice 
 \ of Re-baptizing, and fetting themfelves againft Infant- 
 I Baptifm •, who (tho'Paedobaptifts at their firft fetting out) 
 \ yet in theCourfc of their tumultuous Proceedings, found 
 j it requifite to their Defign of innovating in the Church, 
 I to condemn & renounce Baptifm in Infancy, and to bap- 
 tize over again fuch as join'd themfelves to them. That 
 i this is the plainTruth ot the Cafe,may appear from what 
 i was laft mention'd under the foregoing Head. And all 
 ! Authors that write of thefeAfi'airs,generilly impute thofe 
 : Seditions & Infurredions that happen'd u\Germany^ fince 
 theReformadgn,to_^thePeopie calkdAnaba^tifts,and their 
 . " Leaders, 
 
i28 ^A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IIL 
 
 Leaders, and to them only. And the Stirs andSeditions 
 that follow'd the Defeat of Muntzer, and the Difperfion 
 of his Followers,are conftantly attributed to the Seeds of 
 Anabaptifm,that had been fcatter'd and taken deepRoot 
 in Germany and other neighbouring States and Provinces, 
 and were cultivated by Anabaptift-Teachers -, parti- 
 cularly F^elix Manlz, Conrad Grebel, and Balthafar 
 Hubmeier^ the chief Leaders of that Sedl, whom our 
 Author commends for their Learning and Knowlege in 
 the Tongues, Pa. 28. A rare Thing then to be found a- 
 mong the People of thofe Principles But otherWriters 
 brand them as Incendiaries,caufingDifturbances & Com- 
 motions in the State, wherever they came to difTeminate 
 theirDodlrine.-f For which Caufc theMagi Urates of Zu- 
 rich, and other Cities and States were induced to make 
 fevereEdicSls againft them,by which fome of them fuffer'd. ■ 
 Korean our Author (I believe) produce any Proof from 
 good Authority,of any oneP^dobaptift that had an Hand 
 in raifing thofe Difturbances, that did not fall off to the 
 Principles of the Anabaptifts. 
 
 To what Purpofe then, is it to tell the World, that the 
 Difturbances in Germany were firft begun by the P^edo- 
 haptifts I when ( to fpeak truly ) he could mean nothing 
 elfe than that they had been P^dobaptiffs, but by the 
 fame enthufiaftick Principles, whereby they were infti- 
 gated to make thofcDifturbances, they were alfo induced 
 to btcomt Jnabapti/is. He does indeed fay, P. 26. That 
 «' even the Difturbances in Munfter, a famous City in 
 *' PVeHphalia, were firft begun by Bernard Rot man a P^- 
 «' dobaptiftMinifter, of the Lutheran Perfuafion, afiifted 
 " by other Minifters of the Reformation." But here a- 
 gain, he ufeth Equivocation with his Reader : The 
 Difturbances he refers to, were quite of a different Na- 
 ture from thofe we are now fpeaking of,whichwere raifed 
 by the Anabaptifts, and from thofe that were afterwards 
 raifed in the City of Munfler by the fame Men. The 
 Difturbances that followed thePrcaching of Bernard Rot- 
 many 
 
 t U'id, § 16: 
 
Chap. III. ^/ Infant-Baptifm.' 129 
 
 man^ were of the fameNature with thofe which common- 
 ly attended the Preaching of the lame Doftrine of" the 
 Gofpel in other Places, in Oppofition to popilli Errors 
 and Superftitions, thro' the Malice of the Pap-fts •, nor' 
 were the Diflurbances in Munffer properly ralfed by him, 
 but by the popifh Party, the Adverfaries of the Refor- 
 mation. This Bernard Rotman was at firll a Preacher 
 of the reformed Do6trine at Munfler^ where he with his 
 Colleagues had very great Succefs, a great Multitude in 
 the City embracing theReformation •, whereupon aCon- 
 troverfy arofe between them and the Papifts, about the 
 Ufe of the Churches in the City for the pubHck Perfor- 
 mance of facred Offices -, but even this Difference was 
 well compofed by the Interpofition of the goodOffices of 
 the Landgrave of Hejfe ; and all was peaceable and quiec 
 in the City before the .inahapiifts flocked thither in the 
 Year 1533, among whom the Chief of the Party were 
 John Matthias of Harlem^ one of their new Prophets ; 
 John Becold^^T 3.y\oi' oi Leyden^ Bernard Kmpperdol:ng,2ind 
 others known in Hiftory. I'hefe, firfl more privately 
 infmuating themfelves into the Favour of the Citizens, 
 began to fpread their Errors, condemning Pxdobaptifm, 
 baptizing a-new thofe that embraced theirDodrine,teach- 
 ing theCommunion of Goods,(for they found this a Doc- 
 trine very palatable to the Vulgar) till in a fhort Time 
 they grew to a vaft Number, and became the prevailing 
 Party of the City, having called their Friends to them 
 out of the Neighbouring Towns and Provinces *, even 
 Bernard Rotman was carried away with the Stream •, he 
 ^nd fome others that had been P^dobaptifts before, fall- 
 ing away to the Anabaptifts, many Tumults were raifed 
 in theCity, in fo much that mod of theSenators, & wifer 
 and fobererSort of People departed out of it5as forefeeing 
 the State that foon after befel it, and left it to the Sway of 
 the Anabaptifis^ who now over-bore all ; and made John 
 of Ley den their King, who aflumed the fi^.natical Title of 
 JohnKing of theNew-Jerufalem^\<Km^Qi^\^\iQQ\Jiinti^^^c. 
 
 K and 
 
ijo A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. III. 
 
 and behav'd with incredible Tyranny, and Blafphemy.f 
 Here one might have feen all the wild Effeds of Enthu- 
 fiafm in its Reign, in all Manner of Licentioufnefs and 
 Difgrder, under Pretence of the Liberty of the Gofpel, 
 and the Kingdom of Chrift. 
 
 But it is foreign to my Purpofe to enter into the Par- 
 ticulars of this Tragical Story : In fliort, the City was at 
 length befieg'd by fome regular Forces brought againfl it 
 by the Bifhop, who after fome Time made themfelves 
 Mailers of it ; and John of Leyden^ the mock King, and 
 fome others of hisAccomplices were taken alive, and put 
 to a miferable Death. And the Reil of the Anabaptills 
 being difpers'd, afterwards form'd different Seds in Hol- 
 land^ and the low Countries. 
 
 Now for a Man that had read thefe Things {in Span- 
 helms hiftorical Difcourfe of the Rife^Progrefs^ and Setls of 
 the Anabaptifts^ which he has often quoted, as I have alfo 
 done to fet Matters in a truer Light) to put fuch falfe 
 Colours on Things, as to fay that the Diilurbances of 
 Munfter were firil begun by Bernard Rot man, a Picdobap- 
 i:ifl Miniiler, and other Minifters of the Reformation, 
 (when by theDifturbances of Munfler^ all Men underftand 
 thofeTumults & Seditions that arofe there after the Year 
 1533. when the Anabaptills prevailed, and grew maflier- 
 lefs in the City,and not fuch Differences as arofe from the 
 Oppofition 01 the Papills to theDodtrine of the evangeli- 
 cal Preachers common to otherPlaces) cannot,! think, be 
 (in the utmodExrent ofCharity) accounted for otherwife, 
 than from a ilrong Prejudice he was under in Favour of 
 of his own Party. Yet after all, 
 
 'Thirdly, Let me obferve, that he is willing to difclaim 
 all Affinity with thofe GVr;;?:7wAnabapti(ls j for lie fays-, 
 P. 25. that they are " a People that fcarce in any Thing 
 " agree with us." But he fhould have excepted the main 
 Thing,from whence both Sorts have theirDenomm'ition, 
 in which they perte6lly agree, that is, their Oppoficion to 
 Infant-Baptilm. 'Tia to be hop'd there is no Agreement 
 
 bcLweea 
 
 •ij- Ihid. §. 17. 
 
Chap. III. of Infant-Baptlfm. 131 
 
 between our Englijh Antipadohaptifts and the old German 
 Anabaptifts in their other pernicious Errors & feditious 
 Principles, yet they continue the Innovation begun in the 
 Church by thofe Anabaptids in Germany^ by foUowino- 
 them in their Principle of Antipsedobaptifm. After the 
 Sedition of Mun§ier they were divided into many Sedls : 
 And one Menno Simonis, the Patriarch of one of the moft 
 fober of thofe Se6ls (from whom his Followers are called 
 Mennoniils^ov Mcanift to thisDay inHolland •, from which 
 Se:l, it is faid,the Antipsedobaptifts in England look their 
 Rife) tho' he condemned many Things in the Munfier 
 Anabapti{ls,yet was not fo fhy of owning them for Bre- 
 thren, f as Dr. Gill feems to be, but pit:ying their hard 
 Fate,applies to them theComforts of the Gofpel, fpoken 
 by Chrifl: to them that forfake all to follow him ; and 
 fays ('as his Words are cited by Cloppenburch %) I make no 
 'Doubt ^ hut that our beloved Brethren^who have of late tranf- 
 greffed fomewhat againft the Lord^ in defendin/ their Faith 
 by Arras ^ have found God merciful to them. I perceive oar 
 Antipsedobaptifts do not well reiiih this Story, and Dr. 
 Gill in particular fays, ibid^ the " Psedobaptift frequently 
 '*• reproach us with it." It mud be confefs'd to be aFauk, 
 and contrary to theRules of Charity to reproach anyMan 
 t with the Faults & Vices of his PredeceiTors,of which he 
 i is innocent ; as it is unchriftian, and inhuman, that th^ 
 ! Child of a virtuous Difporition and Behaviour, fhould be 
 reproach'd with the Faults of his Anceilors ; yet inCafe 
 i Kis Title to any Part of his Patrimony, which they had 
 I gotten by ill Means be contefted, he ought not to take ic 
 i amifs, or impute it as a Crime to any, that he is told of 
 ithe Fraud and Injuflice q\ his Fore-Fathers, ^o in the 
 1 prefent Controverfy, the P^dobaptilts, I prefume5are not 
 ' to be blam'd for reviving theRcmembrance ot the Diflur- 
 i bances, and Seditions caus'd by the German Anabaptifts, 
 ! when they are led into it in pleading their own Caufe, 
 j while in the mean Time they forbear taxing their Adver- 
 
 K 2 * ' farit§ 
 
 f Ihid. §. 18. % Chvi]pQnh\iYg. Gangr^^na Tbeol. <^aahj>, DK^a;^ 
 XVI. Corollar. J. 
 
1 3^ A "Defence of the Divine Right Chap. III. 
 
 farles with the other impious Errors and enthufiaftical 
 Opinions of their Predeceflbrs in Germany^ which they 
 profclTcdly difavow. Yet it muft be own'd to be a lafting 
 Kepmach to the Opinion it lelf which they maintain, that 
 it had its Rife in Company with thofe other vile Errors 
 and Opinions. 
 
 Fourthly^ He fays,P.26. "That it is not reafonable to 
 •« fuppofc that thefe (AnabaptiJls)^Qvt the only Men con- 
 " cern'd in that AjfFair, or that theNumber of their Fol- 
 «* lowers fhould increafe to fuch a Degree in fo fmall a 
 *' Time^as to make fuch allevolution in fo large aCity." 
 But this Objeftion is fufficiently obviated by what has 
 been already faid. If indeed there had been no Stirs and 
 Debates about their Opinions, before the Madmen of 
 Mmffer appear'd to act that mad Part in that City, or if 
 they had not fet themfelves inOppofition to the common 
 Opinion and Pradice of the Church before that Time, 
 it had been hard to account for fo fudden a Revolution. 
 But when it is confider'd, that there had been for a long 
 Time great Ferments among the Vulgar, on theOccafion 
 aforemention'd, and thefe increas'd, and ftrengthn'd by 
 their fanatical Leaders, w^ho had been for feveral Years 
 inftiiiing feditious Principles into them, efpecially the 
 Do6lriiies of Liberty from the Yoke of Princes,and Com- 
 munion or Goods, under the fpecious Pretence of great 
 Piety and Chriftian Liberty ; upon which leveliingPrin- 
 oples the common Sort of People,that compofe theMul- 
 titude, might reafonably hope to gain more, than they 
 might fear to loofe •, and when the Anabaptifts, the Au- 
 thors and Promoters ot thefe Principles, had form'd a 
 ilrong Party in the City of Munjhr j and fent & invited 
 all their Friends from Abroad in the adjacent Towns and 
 Provinces, upon the Promife of the Gofpel to thofe that 
 forfake Houfcs mid Lands for Chriji \ which upon the fore- 
 faid levelling Principles they might eafily be induced to 
 hearken to; (and that all this was real FaCl, is evident 
 from the Hi (lories of thofe Times ; ) I fay, thefeThings 
 confider'd, it isnotatairincredible,that they might foon 
 ^ have 
 
Chap. III. cf Infant-Baptifm. i^^ 
 
 have an Head-flrong Multitude on their Side, by Means 
 whereot they might eafiiy effed: that fudden Revolution 
 in the City. And tho' the Principle of Anabaptii'm, in 
 itfelf confider'd, might. not have that vifibleTenaency to 
 *' lead them into fuch extravagant Notions & Adions-," 
 yet it was not for the Credit of it, that it was conneded 
 and interwoven in the Scheme of its Authors, with thofe 
 other Principles of Sedition againft the State and civilOr- 
 der, that had that Tendency •, and in its own Nature di- 
 redlly tended to make a Schifm in the Church, which is 
 not healed to this Day. 
 
 Lajily^ He adds, P. 29. "That it is evident, that fome 
 " of the firft Reformers were inclined to have attempted 
 " a Reformation in thisOrdi nance, tho' they, forReafons 
 " beft known to themfelves, drop'd it." Who they are 
 he means by fome of the firft Reformers^ know not % but 
 thofe eminent Men of God who were improv'd as Inilru- 
 ments of the Reformation,are univerfally knov/n to have 
 been zealous Aflert rs and Defeaders of Infant-Baptifm. 
 And none of them, fo far as appears, ever had it in their 
 Thoughts to abolifh it (which is what he means by at- 
 tempting a Reformation in that -Ordinance) and to fugged 
 that they defifted from that Attempt forReafons in their 
 own Breafts, is to caft a Reproach upon thofe Worthies, 
 as if they were fwayed by fecret Views in any Part of the 
 Reformation, more than by the Word of God. No, the 
 Reafons why they declin'd any fuch Attempt, as thisAu- 
 thor fpeaks of, were open and apparent from the Word of 
 God, and the Pradlice of the Univerfai Church. And if 
 Zuinglius^ or aiy other, were once more favourably in- 
 clin'd to the Principles of Anabaptifm, as they had been 
 to many Superftitions in Popery before the Liglit of the 
 Reformation brake forth; yet their declaring againft it af- 
 terwards with fo much Zeal, as it is certain tb.ey did, is an 
 Argument that upon deeperSearch&betterLight receiv'd, 
 they were fully convinc'd of the Folly as well as Unwar- 
 rantablenefs of thatOpinion. I have now ihewed,chat all 
 his Allegations relating to theDifputes rais'd by the Ana- 
 
134 ' ^ Defence of the Divine Right Chap. III. 
 
 baptifls in Germany^ fince the Reformation, (the Dates 
 whereof he is fo careful to note that he might prove thefe 
 were Debates about Infant-Baptifm before the Munfler 
 Affair) are quite befide hisPurpofe -, thofeDifputes being 
 evidently included in thatPeriod of Time,in which thofe 
 Men (who afterwards might jullly be termed the Madmen 
 cf Munfler) fet themlelves in Oppofition to it. Were it 
 otherwife, it wou'd fignify very little to his Caufe,for he 
 wou'd gain but ten or twelve Years more (than he mif- 
 took the Author of the Dialogue to intend) to the Age 
 of Antipsdobaptifm. 
 
 Secondly^ Let me go on to fhew, that he is as imperti- 
 nent in his otherQuotations to evince that there wereOp- 
 pofers of Infant-Baptifm in the Times that preceeded the 
 Reformation. But here I would previoufly obferve,that it 
 is not fufficient to weaken the Credit of that AiTertion in 
 the Dialogue ( that there was no Strife or Debate in the 
 Church about the PraElife of Infant-Baptifm^ till the Mad- 
 men of Munlfer oppofedit ) to produce fome Inftances of 
 particular Perfons that have denyed, or oppofed it in any 
 Age before the Reformation. But in order to prove any 
 Thing contradictory to the mention'd AfTertionjit is requi- 
 fite to produce good Evidence of fome fucceffiveBody of 
 Men in the Chriftian Church, that have rais'd a Con- 
 troverfy about it, or have been found in the Practice of 
 Adult-Baptifm only, (iftj It fhould be made evident, 
 that there has been ^ ^6^^ or Society of Men in the 
 Church, that have denyed Baptifm to Infants, in Oppo- 
 fition to theBelief andPradice of the generality of Chrift- 
 ians. For if it be the Opinion only of a few ftragling 
 Individuals, that ftart up in one Age and another, who 
 have Httle or no Influence in the Church, to difturb the 
 Peace of it •, it can't with Reafon or Propriety be faid, 
 that fuch Opinion, or Pradice, in Confequence of it,was 
 Matter of Debate in the Church ; unlefs it were efpoufed 
 and maintained by any confiderable Party of Men, who 
 have fet themfelves againft thePradticoof the reft of their 
 Fellow-Chriftians in that Particular;, and raifed aConteft 
 
 ' ' ^ " '"■ with 
 
Chap. III. of Infant-Baptifm. 13/j 
 
 with them about it. (adly.) There fhould be Evidence 
 of zfucceffive Body of Men joining in their Opinion and 
 Pradtice againfl Infant-Baptifm. For if it could be made 
 to appear, that there have been a Number that have rifen 
 up, four or five Hundred Years before the Reformation, 
 joyned in Society, who have denied Infant-Baptifm, and 
 renounced the Pradtice of it ; yet if this Society Ihould 
 afterwards, in an Age or two, dwindle away and come 
 to nothing •, it might truly be faid ( notwithilanding the 
 Inflance of fuch a Society, which bears no Proportion to 
 the Univerfal Church J that Infant-Baptifm was notMat- 
 ter of Debate in the Church before the Reformation,and 
 the Rile of the Anabaptifts. For in the Cafe fuppos'd, 
 there might pafs two or three Hundred Years betore that 
 Period, in which there would be a profound Silence as to 
 any Difpute or Strife of that Kind in the Church •, tho* 
 it might not be truly affirmed,there never was fuch aDe- 
 bate in the Church betore. But in Cafe there were Evi- 
 dence of fuch a Body or Society of Men, that continued 
 fucceflively in being down to the Times of the Reforma- 
 tion, this indeed would make up a Proof againfl the 
 Truth of what is afTerted in the Dialogue. 
 
 But now there is no certain Evidence of either of thefe 
 Requifites lo fuch a Proof •, viz. That there has been in 
 any Age preceeding the Reformation, any Body of Men 
 which have oppos'd Infant-Baptifm ; much lefs that there 
 has been a Succefllon of fuch aBody down to thatPeriod : 
 Of the former there is but probable Evidence at befl:,but 
 nothing certain •, Of the latter there is noEvidence at ail. 
 And if all the Evidence from Dr. Gill's Quotations were 
 allowed as certain and folid, they would only prove there 
 has been in fbme Ages paft, a Number of difunited Indi- 
 viduals, in fundry Parts of theWorld, who have declared 
 againfl Infant-Baptifm ; but no fuch Number of Men 
 that have compofed a regular Body, or joined together 
 in Church Society, holding that Opinion : (I fliall except 
 but one Inftance^ which is that of the Peirobruftans, or 
 the Difciplcs and Followers of Peter Brnis \ of whom I 
 - "■ K 4 "" "~ ■ '~ iiiall 
 
136 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. III. 
 
 IhaJlfay fomething afterwards) Much lefs do they prove a 
 continued Succeffion of fuch a Society for more than one 
 Age. But all his Allegations ot Authorities arefarfrom 
 affording us the certain Evidence he pretends : They 
 have ail been long ago examined by the Pasdobaptifl 
 Writers,and have been proved to be either impertinent or 
 groundlefs, and evidenced to be Miftakes. Yet he ad- 
 vances forward with his Quotations, as confidently as if 
 nothing had been faid in Confutation of them. I lliall 
 beftow a few Remarks upon them, to Ihew theWeaknefs 
 and Infufficiency of his Proofs thence. 
 
 The PalTages themfelves have been more largely con- 
 fidered and examined by others. There are but two a- 
 mong all his Inffances that carry the leaft Shadow of 
 Probability. I fhall firfl confider thefe, and then briefly 
 touch on the refl. 
 
 The firfl is, ALetter written toErafmus out of Bohemia, 
 by one Ccjlelecius^ dated Oihk 10. 15 19. Wherein he 
 gives an Account of a certain Se6t, called Pyghards^ who 
 had their Name, he fay?, from a certain Refugee of the 
 fame Nation, who came thithe: 97 Years before theDate 
 of the faid Letter. The PafTage quoted thence is this, 
 " Such as come over to their Sedt, mufl everyone be 
 ^' baptized a-new m meer Water." Thefe Words taken 
 by themfelves, leave it uncertain (asDr.^<^//hasobfervcd*) 
 Whether they baptized a-jiew fuch as came over to their 
 Se6l, either as judging Baptifn in Infancy invalid^ or as 
 judging allk'aptijm received tn the corrupt Way of theChurch 
 cf Rome to he fo» But confidering the Strain of theLet- 
 ter. It appears pretty plain, that the latter was the Cafe, 
 and that the Reafon of their Re-baptizing fuch as came 
 over to them from Popery, was, becaufe they efteemed 
 popiihBaptifm corrupted*witk fomanyfuperffitiousRites, 
 to be null, or not the lawful Chriftian Baptiim, and noc 
 becaufe of its being received in Infancy. For it ]s to be 
 noted^ that the Writer of the Letter reprefents them as 
 great Adverfaries to the Church otRom^ calling thePope 
 
 and 
 ^ im, of Infitnt-Baptirm, P*:t II. Clmp, 8. §. a. 
 
Chap. III. c/ Infant-Baptifm. 1^7 
 
 and his Clergy by the Name of Antichrifl, T^heWhore.and 
 the Bea§f in the Revelations^ and owning no other Autho- 
 rity but that of the Holy Scriptures. And the very Ex- 
 preflion in the PafTage cited,of their being baptized a-new 
 in meer Water ^ plainly fuggefts this to be the Reafon, 
 that they baptized with meer Water^m Oppofition to the 
 impureMixtures of Salt,Oyl and Spittle, with theWater ; 
 and divers other fuperflitious Rites ufed by thePapills in 
 Baptifm, whereby the Ordinance was greatly corrupted, 
 and in their Opinion nullified, as fome others have tho't 
 likewife. Therefore thofe that came over to them, re- 
 ceived Baptifm in pure Water, conformably to Chrift's 
 Inftitution •, and that this was indeed theTruth of theCafe, 
 appears from the Tenor of the whole Paragraph whence 
 thisCitacion is made, which is pointed intirely againflthe 
 popilh Superftitions. It runs thus, " J/:?^_y believe or own 
 '' little or nothing of theSacramems of the Church, (\\x. of 
 *' theChurch of Rome) juch as come over to their Se£f,muil 
 *' every One be baptized in meer Water, ^hey make no 
 *' Blejfmg of the Salt, or of the Water, nor make any Ufe 
 *' of confecrated Oyl" Here is no Intimation that they 
 difapprov'd of their former Baptifm, becaufe it was re- 
 ceived in Infancy, but becaufe ( as the Words ftrongly 
 imply ) they look'd on the popifh Baptifms as corrupt 
 and invalid. 
 
 And if thefe Pyghards were the fame with the ancient 
 Picardsy as it is thought they were, it does not appear 
 that thefe latter were ever charged with the Denial of In- 
 fant-Baptifm. Dr. Wall fhews from good Authorities, 
 that rhey expreHy own'd ii in the Confeffion they prefent- 
 ed to King Uladiflaus. * So .hat rhis Inflance of the Pyg- 
 hards, or Picards, is fo far from affording any Evidence 
 of their Agreement in Opinion, or Praftice with the An- 
 tip2edobaptifts,that it fcarce affords the lead Probability 
 of it. But it is highly probable, if not certain, that they 
 were led into the Praftice they are charged with, from 
 their Eifeeai of popiih Baptifm as a Corruption of the 
 
 Ordinance 
 
 * mi 
 
138 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. III. 
 
 Ordinance, whether adminiftred to Perfons in Infancy, or 
 at adult Age. And though Dr. Gill repeats this Inftance 
 again, P. 40. Yet he has added no new Strength to it ; 
 but has given it up, inEflfed, in calHng them indifferent- 
 ly, Pyghards, or Picards : And if they were the- fame (as, 
 it feems, is uncontroverted) there is good Evidence that 
 they received and own'd Infant-Baptifm, as Dr. IVall has 
 ihewed in the Place above-cited. And the fame Anfwer 
 may fuffice to what he has alleg'd in the fame Page from 
 Scultetus his Annals^ on the Year 152 8, after the Anabap- 
 tifls had made fome Progrefs in Germany •, who fays ( as 
 he has cited him ) " That the united Brethren in Bohe- 
 ** mia, and other godly Perfons were Re-baptized, not 
 *' that they patronized the Errors of the Anabaptifts." 
 Our Author adds inWay of Comment upon him, "mean- 
 *' ing fuch that they were charged with, that had noRe- 
 ** lation to Baptifm." This might pafs for Senfe, if he 
 could have proved Scultetus to have been an Antipaedo- 
 baptitl i otherwife it is vifible to any unprejudic'd Eye, 
 that he does include, and chiefly intend fuch Errors of 
 the Anabaptifls as had a Relation to Baptiim. For in 
 the Reafon given why,tho' they pradiced Re- baptizing, 
 yet they did not patronize the Errors of the Anabaptifis^ 
 there is not the leail Hint that they difapproved Baptifm 
 in Infancy •, but as he has exprefTed it, " Becaufe they 
 *' could not fee how they could otherwife feparate them- 
 *' felvesfrom an unclean World j" which m an ifellly refers 
 to the P' Hut ions of Popery, by which they fuppofed the 
 Ordinance of Baptifm was fo contaminated (as well as o- 
 ther Ordinances of Chrift, by being turned into a meer 
 Piece of Pageantry ) as to Ipfe its Validity and Efficacy •, 
 and therefore would diflinguifh themfelves from that 
 corrupt Party that had the World following them, by re- 
 ceiving Baptifm in ics Purity according to the Inflitution 
 ofChrift. And this confirms what was before oblerv'd, 
 as the Reafon why the Pyghards ^ox Picards baptifed a-new 
 fuch as came over to them. Thus we fee his firfl Evi- 
 dence fails of evincing that which he pretends : And it 
 
 ". is 
 
Chap. III. of Infant- Baptifm.' 139 
 
 is the onlyEvldence he is able to produce within a Hun- 
 dredYears before the Reformation ; yea, I may fayThree 
 Hundred Years, for the next Inftance he has mentioned 
 bares Date nigh Two Hundred Years before, in the Be- 
 ginning of the thirteenth Century •, Anno Bom. 12 15. So 
 that it may be faid truly, for ought that appears to the 
 contrary. That there was no Debate in theChurch about 
 Infant -Baptifm, at lead for Three Hundred Years before 
 the Reformation. 
 
 Secondly. The next Inftance among thofe which he has 
 cited, P. 32. which Ipurpofe to mention as carrying 
 fome Colour of Pobability in it, is that of ihtPetrcbru- 
 ftans^ fo named from one Peter Bruis^ who began to vent 
 his Opinions in France in the Country of Ddupbin, about 
 the Year 1 1 26, near 400 Years before the Reformation : 
 "Whether this Peter Bruis, and Henry bis Follower andSuc- 
 cejfor ( from whom the Se6l was aifo called Henricians ) 
 were Antipsedobaptifts, that had any Body or Society of 
 Men adhering to them in that Opinion andPra6tice ? Or 
 whether they held any Baptifm with Water for the 
 Adult, and denied it tolnfants ? I fhall neither alHrm nor 
 deny ; Becaufe thofe that have purpofely made the ftnd:- 
 eft Search into the Authors of thofe Times, to find out 
 the Truth of Things, as Mr. Baxter^ Dr. fFa'l Sc others, 
 reprefent it as aMatter full of Intricacy andUncertainty. - 
 
 Dr. fFall is indeed of Opinion, That there is fuch a 
 Degree of Probability in the AfBrmative, that he is wil- 
 ling to give up this Inftance to the Antipsedobaptifts,tho' 
 he owns there is no certain Evidence of it, but probable 
 at moft. 
 
 Dr.G/// catches hold on thisConcefTionjand hy^^Pa.^i. 
 ^' Dr. Wall allows thefe two Men ("viz. Peter Brtiis and 
 '^ Henry) to be Antip^dobaptifts, and fays, " J key were 
 *' the fir ft Antipadohaptift Preachers that ever fet tip a 
 *' Church or Society of Men holding that Opinion againft 
 " Infant -Baptifm^ and Re -baptizing fuch as had been bap- 
 " tizedin Infancy'' But he omits (as not being for his 
 Purpofej that whichDrJF'^//adds in the AimcParrigraph, 
 
 that 
 
'i4<^ A Defence of the Divine Right Chap, III. 
 
 that the Account he gives of thofe two Men,may equally 
 gratify the Quakers, for he believes them to be the firji 
 likewife of all that have owned the Scriptures^ that even 
 taught^ that the Ufe of receiving the Lord's Supper is not to 
 he continued.^ For this, and other grofs Errois were 
 charg'd upon them by their popiih Adverfaries ; in whofe 
 Writings only there is all the Evidence that is ex* ant of 
 their denying Infant-Baptifm. And what is tound in the 
 "Writings of Protejiants to this Purpofe, is copy'd from- 
 them. Therefore "our Antip^dobaptifts are much be- 
 holden to Dv Wall's Ingenuity & Impartiality in making 
 this Conceflion •, tho' at the fame Time,indifferent iv:en 
 muft be fenfible that theProofs of this Charge taken from 
 fuch malicious Accufers as the Papifts, art little to be 
 depended on. 
 
 Here therefore it is be obferved,in order to our form- 
 ing a right Judgment of the Petrobruftans^ or of thtWal- 
 denfes^ that arofe in a fhortTime after •, that about their 
 Time, or rather a confiderableTime before either of them 
 made their Appearance in the World, there rofe up feve- 
 ral Sedls in thofe Parts of the World (as Dr. Wall has 
 largely lhewed,t Jwho,tho' they widely difFer'd from one 
 another, and fome of them held Opinions heretical and 
 pernicious, yet they all joined together in declaiming a- 
 loud againft theSuperftitions& Corruptions of theChurch 
 cf Rome ; which excited the Spleen of the popifh Party, 
 who in their Writings againft them, without diftinguifh- 
 ing the Good from the Bad, were apt to charge the beft 
 with the Errors of the worft. Their Oppofition to the 
 Pope, and popifh Bifliops and Priefts, was Crime enough 
 in their Jndgment to deferve the Cenfure of wicked He- 
 reticks : And fome of them were really bad, being tainted 
 with the impious Herefy of the Manichees % who were 
 charg'd with holding two Principles of all Things^ or two 
 Gods ; the one Good, the Author of all Good ; the other 
 Evil, the Author of all the Evil in the World : The evil 
 Cody they faid, made the material World j They reje^cd 
 
 the 
 
 * JhU, Chap. 7. f . 7. i- Ihil §. 4, 
 
Chap. III. of Infant-Baptifm. 141 
 
 the Old ^eftament^ and all the Books of the new^ except the 
 four Gofpels : they condemned all JVater-Baptifm^ as like- 
 wife Marriage^ and the eating any FleJJj^ and divers otlier 
 impious arrd abfurdTenets. There were greatNumbers, 
 it is raid,of thefe Manichees that mingled themfelves with 
 thofe Sects, by whofe Herefy they were more or leis in- 
 fed:ed ; for tho' the old Manichees that held thefe vile 
 Opinions had theirRife in the EafternParts of theWorld, 
 and had for a long while infefted thofe Parts, yet (zs 
 Bijhop Ujher relates from good Authors, t J Conftantine^ 
 the Son of Leo Ifaaurus Emperor of the Eaft, having re- 
 covered Melitena, and Theodoftopolis^ Cities of Armenia^ 
 about the Year yc^^^ brought the InhabitantSy^r/'/^^jjand 
 Armenians into Thrace^ and with them a whole Rabble 
 of Manichees -, who difperfed their heretical Opinions in 
 thofe Parts. And many Years after, under the Reign of 
 John Limifces in the tenth Century^ vafl Numbers of the 
 Manichees in the Eall, were at the Requefl of Tloeodorus 
 Bifhop of Aniioch^ to the Emperor,tranfplanted into the 
 Weftern Parts, into "Thrace^ and from thence into the 
 neighbouring Countries oi Bulgaria & Sclavonia,vjhQnce. 
 their Herefy came to be propagated into Lo?nbardy^ and 
 into the Southern Parts of France^ where it greatly prc- 
 vail'd (great Numbers embracing itj and continu'd 'till 
 the Time of Peter Bruis, and the Rife of the JValdeufes, 
 And the feveral Seds that had been form'd, or were at 
 that Time often fpringing up, 'tis obferved, had moil of 
 them aTinclure of the Manich^an Herefy in them ; And 
 tho' there was a great Number of found pious Chriftians, 
 who kept their Purity, and witnefTed againft the Romifii 
 Idolatries & Superftitions,fuch as have been fince known 
 by the Name of the Waldenfes^ yet their popifli Adverfa- 
 ries writing againil them, and lumping them with the 
 other Sedls, did not fcruple to charge them with the im- 
 pious Herefies of the Manichees \ as Bijhop JJfim hath 
 fully fhewed.* 
 Hence arifcs the uncertainty of the Truth of what Is 
 
 objedled 
 :t DeSucceffione ^ ftatu Ecdef, Chap. 8. §. 1 7. * /^/V.Ch. 6. & 8. 
 
142 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. III. 
 
 objefted againft the Petrobruftans^ by Petrus Cluniacenfis^ 
 or the Abbot of C/zi!^«y,and other popifli Writers ; whether 
 their being charged with the denial of Infant- Baptifm be 
 a true Accufation, or a Slander call on them by the Pa- 
 fifts ; for there is no Account they have given of them- 
 felves extant in any of their own confelTing, that I have 
 ever known or heard of, as there is of the IValdenfes ♦, un- 
 lefs they foon after came over to the PFaldenfes,and incor- 
 porated with them, and forfook their Error of denying 
 the Baptifm of Infants (if they ever held it) which is not 
 unlikely ; for Dr. fVall fays, " That Opinion of the 
 «c Petrobruftans feems to have been in a fhort Time ex- 
 •' tinguifhed and forgotten."* If it was a trueAccufati- 
 on, then for the fame Reafon we ought to admit the 
 Truth of the other Accufations brought againft them by 
 the fame Men •, and thereby it will appearjthat they were 
 guilty of fuch vile Errors, as rcndred them unmeet for 
 any Chriftian Communion. And fo I doubt, but little 
 Credit will arife to our Antip^dobaptifts by owning them 
 for PredecefTors. For befides the Denial of Infant-Bap- 
 tifm, they are charged by Peter Abbot of Clugny^ with 
 holding, that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, is not 
 to be adminiftred fince Cbriji's I'ime^^nd that it is a mocking . 
 of God tofing in the Church, \\ If they were the fame Sort 
 of Men, that St, Bernard inveighs againft,in his Sermons 
 on the Canticles (as Dr. Gill fuppofes. Pa. 31.) tho he 
 calls them by no Name, but fays, they call themfelves 
 Apflolicks \ it is plain they had imbib'd the Principles of 
 the Manichees -, tor he fays not only,that they laugh at us 
 for baptizing Infants^ (which onJyDr. Gill hds cited -, ibid, 
 as a Precedent to juftify his own Se(5l) And fo did thofe 
 Manichees (becaufe they renounced and derided allWater- 
 Baptifm) And fo do the fakers now, as well as xhtAn- 
 tipd^dohaptifts deride the Baptifm of Infants ; but he char- 
 ges them with holding the more grofs Opinions of the 
 Manichees., as that they held it unlawful to Swear in any 
 other Cafe -, but being examined of their 'Te?tetSy they would 
 
 fwear 
 
 * pyalP^ Hlft, Part. IL Ch, 7, §. 7. || Cited by Dr, Wall, Ibid. §. 5. 
 
Chap. III. vf Infant Baptifm. 14^ 
 
 [wear and for [wear in the denial of them. 2. n at they 
 held Marriage a wicked Uncleannefs (only fome of themfaid 
 that Virgins might marry and none elfe) and yet they kept 
 Company with Women in a Way that gave great Scandal ^^c, 
 ^.nat they held the eating ofallFlefh &c, unlawful. /^.That 
 they owned not the Old feftament, and fome of them^ none 
 of the New but the Gofpels.f Now fee the unfairnefs of 
 Dr. Gill in quoting only that Article that relates to the 
 Baptifm of Infants, bearing his Reader in Hand, that 
 thefe Men were of the fame Perfuafion with thofe of his 
 own Sed. When it is evident, that if they held thofe 
 otherPrinciples, they are equally charged with by the fame 
 Author, they were infedled with the Herefy of the Mani- 
 cheeSy and fo derided all Water-Baptifm, only becaufe it 
 was the general Pradlice in the Catholick Church to ad- 
 iminiiler it to Infants, they made that^ peculiarly, the 
 jMatter of their Scoff and Derifion. 
 j The fame Sort of Heriticks were probably intended by 
 \Evervinus^ of the Diocefe of Cologne^ of whom he gives 
 Ian Account in a Letter he wrote to St. Bernard, a little 
 before the Year 1 140, defcribing them by their Tenets, 
 uhey condemn, he fays, the Sacraments, except Baptifm only, 
 \and this only in thofe who are come to Age &c. ThisParc 
 of the Letter, our Author quotes out of Dr. Wall ; but 
 artfully conceals the other, which is to be found in the 
 fame Writer, and which ihews them to have been Mani- 
 chees, viz. All Marriage they call Fornication, except that 
 which is between two Virgins ^cl Which was one of the 
 Principles of the Manichees, as we have obferved. 
 
 There is no certain Knowlege to be obtain'd, whether 
 ::he Things laid to the Charge of this People, {viz. the 
 Petrobrufians) by the Papifts be true or falfe. But I in- 
 fiil upon it, there is no Reafon why we fhould admit the 
 Charge of their denying Infant-Baptifm to be true &jufl:, 
 without admitting the other odious Errors and Heref es 
 charg'd upon them by the fameMen to be truealfo. And 
 ;f this be admitted to be the Cafe, one would think, that 
 
 our 
 
 t Cited Ibid, X Cited Ibid. 
 
144-" ^ Defence of the Divine Right Chap. III. 
 
 our Antip^dobaptifts fliould not be fond of any Affinity 
 or Agreement with fuch People, unlefs the darlingPoint 
 of Antipaedobaptifm be of more Weight & Account with 
 them, than the very Fundamentals of natural & revealed 
 Religion, which are fubverted by the forementioned Ma- 
 mchaan Principles. But indeed,there is but littleAgree- 
 ment with them in that very Point ; for tho' they equally 
 hold that Infants are not to be baptiz'd, yet they widely 
 differ as to the Grounds and Reafons of their denying 
 Baptifm to them. The Petrobrufians maintain'd, that 
 no Infants could be faved, therefore it is in vain to bap- 
 tize them. TheirTenet in this Particular, as Peter Ab- 
 bot of Clugny Cwho wrote againft them) has reprefented 
 it is, in Brief, to this Effett. % " Chrift fays in the 
 «' Gofpel, He that believeth and is baptized fh all be faved^ 
 *' but he that believeth not^fhall be damned. From thefe 
 «' Words of our Saviour it is plain, that none can be 
 " faved, unlefs he believe and be baptized, that is,have 
 *' both Chriflian Faith & Baptifm ; for not one of thefe, 
 «' but both together do fave. So that Infants,tho' they 
 *' be by you baptized, yet fince by Reafon of their Age 
 " they cannot believe, are not faved." And therefore 
 concluded, that the wafliing their Bodies with Water was 
 an idle and ufelefs Ceremony, fince their being baptize 
 avails nothingtotheirSalvation, being uncapable of Faith 
 But our prefent Antipsedobaptifts do not, as far as ap 
 pears, agree to this Opinion, but hold the direct: Con 
 trary, that Infants dying unbaptized are faved, and have| 
 no Need of Baptifm ; nor are they ever the more faveds 
 for their being baptized \ as if their Salvation were a na- 
 tural Right, and depended not on theWill &Wifdomof 
 Chrift in the Difpenfation of it, according to his own In- 
 ftitution. But it mud be confefs'd, that if thofe Words 
 of our Saviour in the Gofpel be underflood to compre- 
 hend Infants (otherwife than as they are included in the 
 ProfelTion of their believing Parents which gives them a 
 Covenant Right with them to theOrdinance of Baptifm) 
 
 the 
 
 t As cited by Dr, Wall IhiL 
 
Chap.IIL of Infant-Blptlfnl. 145 
 
 rte Conclufion which the Petrobrufians drew from them, 
 feems much more direct and natural,That Iniants cannon 
 be faved, than that of the Antipsedobaptifts, That they 
 ought not to be baptized, becaufe they cannot believe ; 
 for the before- mention'd Declaration of our Saviour does 
 more exprefly make their beHeving neceflary toSalvatjon, 
 than unto Baptifm : And if our Saviour meant, by thajC 
 Prerequifite of Faith, to exclude Infants from Baptifm, as 
 ourAdverfaries pretend, 'tis an unavoidable Confequence, 
 that he equally intended to exclude them from Salvation. 
 Therefore I fee no Reafon but thai o\jiV Antip^dobaptifls 
 ( in Confequence of their Principles J mull come inco an 
 Agreement with the old Fetrohrufians^ in that uncharita- 
 ble Opinion,that excludes ^all Infants from Salvation s if 
 the Charge exhibited againfl them be true. 
 
 But nov/ on the other Hand, If it be a Slander call on 
 them by popifh Malice, taking Occafion from the Inter- 
 mixture of fome Manichees among them, to tax them un- 
 defervedly with theirOpinions \ this Inftance, with others 
 that depend on the fame Foundation, makes nothing for 
 Dr. Gill\ Purpofe. And tho' his Evidence from it is very 
 precarious, in P^egard of the Uncertainty we are under as 
 to this Matter, yet he concludes hence, after hisManner, 
 with the higheft Degree of AlTurance, P. 33. " That it: 
 " is out of all Doubt, that this was a Matter of Debate 
 *' 400 Years before ^:i^Madmen ofMunffer fet themiqlves 
 " againft it." 
 
 'Dv.JVall^ tho' he is of Opinion, that this one Sedl of 
 the Petrohrufians did peculiarly deny Infant-Baptifm, yet 
 obferves, that thofe P^vdobabtifts who refus'd to give Cre- 
 dit to it, as being fupported only by popifh Evidence, 
 have two Things to plead, which he owns are very confi- 
 derable (and which, I think,carry fo muchWeight in the 
 Cafe, as might juflly abate the Confidence of thofe of tlic 
 contrary Opinion) which are, Fir§f, " That it is com- 
 *' mon for Men to flander their Adverfaries about the 
 *' Opinions they hold." — And it has been the known^ 
 P^acTtice of the Papifts to do fo, in a peculiar Manner. 
 
 L Secofidiy^ 
 
14^ ^ Defence of the Divine Right Chap. III. 
 
 Secondly^ " That we ought in all Rcafon either to deny 
 " Credit to thefe pop idi Writers concerning thefe Men, 
 •' or elfe to believe them in one Thing as well as another. 
 " If we allow them for good Witnefles, then thofe that 
 *' they dcfcribe, were Men of fuch unfound Opinions in 
 " other I'hings, as that no Church would be willing to 
 " own them tor Predeceflbrs : But if we account them 
 *' Slanderers, we oudit not to conclude from theirTefti- 
 *' niony,that any of thefeMendeniedlnfant-Baptifmj&c." 
 And he adds, " Thefe Confiderations do in a great 
 " Meafurejuilify thofe Pd'dobaplijis^ who maintain that 
 " there is no certain Evidence of any Church or Society 
 *' of Men, that oppos'd Infant- Baptifm, till, thofe 
 *' Germany^'' ^ dihoxxt the Year 1522. But fuppofing 
 with Dr. PVall^ it is probable, thofe Petrohrujians were 
 Antipjedobaptilts in Principle andPradice, about which 
 
 1 confefs it is fcarce worth while to contend. They 
 were a fmall and obfcure Se6f, that had their Rife about 
 400 Years before the Reformation, and tho' Peter Bruis 
 and Henry his Succeflbr might gather a Number of Fol- 
 ]owers,to compofe a Society,or fomething like aChurch ; 
 yet they conunued but a fhortTime, fcarce till the n-ext 
 Age, but were either foon after converted from their Er- 
 ror, or difpers*d, and difappear'd ; nothing more (as far 
 as can be learnt) being ever known or heard of them, for 
 
 2 or 300 Years before the Rife of the German Anabap- 
 tiffs. So that they fcarce deferve the Name of anExcep- 
 tion from the Univerfal Church,every where diffus'd,and 
 of 1500 Years Duration. In all which Time it can't be 
 pretended, with any Ground of Probability,that there has 
 been any otherBody of Men profeffedly appearing againfl 
 Infant-Baptifm, nor any one Man, not even Tertullian 
 ( of whom before ) upon the Principles of the moderri' 
 A.ntipcedob:ipti(ls. 
 
 I promifcd to touch brieBy on the other Inftanccs our 
 Author has produced under this Head. Thofe which he 
 has rnentikon'd about ths '.I nBcs of th^, FetrQh'ufians^ or a 
 
 little. 
 
Chap. III. of Infant-Baptlfm." ^Ai 
 
 little after5rely on the fameCredit with what is faid of that 
 Se6t, njiz. That of popifh Accufation : And the fame 
 Anfwer may fuflice to them, as to the other. The Con- 
 demnation of Teter Bruis^ and Arnold of Brefcia^ by the 
 Lateran Council, A.D. 1 139,/^r denying Infafit-Baptifmj, 
 (P. 3 2.) may be accounted for, the fame Way. 
 
 St. Bernard's Complaint, in a Letter dated in the Year 
 1 147, to the Earl of St.Gyles^ of his harbouring Henry an 
 Hcretick, by whom the Infants of Chriftians were bindred 
 from the Life of Chrift^ the Grace Baptifm being denied 
 thcraficz. ('P.3 1.) was in all Probability grounded on the 
 Report he had received from malicious Accufers,and not 
 on any certain Knowledge he had himfelf of that Matter, 
 in charging him and hisFollowers with oppofing theBap- 
 tifm of Iniants. St. Bernard ( (mh Fuller ) '^ taking it 
 ^' rather from the Reboundjthan firftRife, ehargeth them 
 '' therewith." % As to the Letter of the Bp. of Aries in 
 Provence to Pope Innocent the third f cited by our Author, 
 P. 29, 30) reprefenting to him, " That fome Hereticks 
 *' there had taught, that it was to no Purpofe to baptize 
 *' Children, fince they could have no Remiflion of Sins 
 *' thereby, &c." it may be faid, thofe Hereticks might 
 be fome of the Manichean Se6ts, for ought that appears 
 to the contrary. Or perhaps, they were fome Remnants 
 of the Fetrohrufians^ of whom enough b^s been faid al- 
 ready. As for thofe Gafcoigners (^mentioned in the fame 
 Page) that came over into England under Gerhardus and 
 Dulcinus, their Leaders, in the Year 1158, he knows not 
 what to make of them from his Authors. " Mr. Fox. 
 " fuppofes, they had received fome Light of Know- 
 *' ledge, of the JValdenfes. — Rapin calls thcvnGermanHG- 
 ** reticks — But William of Newbourgh calls them Ptib- 
 " licans — "Which was theName of oneSed of xhtMani- 
 chces^ who denied allWater-Baptifm * But it feems, the 
 Writer lad mentioned comes nearer our Author's Vvifh : 
 for he relates, that thefe Men " being interrogated, 
 
 L 2 aj; 
 
 t Fuller's Holy War. Book III. Ch, 2®. 
 
148 A Lefme cf the Livine Right CfiAP.III. 
 
 " at a Council held at Oxford^ concerning theirFaith,faid 
 " perverle lliings concerning the divine Sacraments," 
 ( then, befure, they were Antip^edohaptifts ) " detefling 
 " holyBaptifm, the Eucharift, and Marriage ;'* therefore 
 they were as certainlyManichees, orQuakers,inPrinciple. 
 What fignifies then the Manufcript Qtiotation from Ra- 
 dulph the Monk (which, for ought he knows, might be a 
 monkiHi Legend) charging them with afierting, " That 
 '' Lifants ought not to be baptized, till they come to the 
 " Age of Underflanding " ( which h no more than 
 what a Manichee might fay then^ and a Quaker now (tho* 
 they both difuwn all Water Baptifm) as well as thofethat 
 deny Infant-Baptil'm peculiarly ) when it plainly appears 
 by the printed Account he had cited, that thefe Men re- 
 jected both the Sacraments of the New-Teftament, de- 
 tefling holy Baptifin and the Eiicharifi I Our Author, it 
 feems, is put to hard Shifts to find outPrecedents for his 
 Opinion in thofe Times, -when, rather than fail, he will 
 admit into the Number, fuch a Sort of People, who ap- 
 pear to be at a much nearer Agreement with iht^akerSy 
 than with the Antipaedobaptiitj. 
 
 But he has an harder Tafk yet, to produce Examples 
 to his Purpofe before theTimes of the Pet7'obruJians. The 
 few Infkances he has meiptioned, I fhall alfo briefly confi- 
 di^'S. The firft is that of ^r^^/2^,Biihop o^ Angers luFrancey 
 ^nd Btrengariu:^ Archdeacon of the fame Church. All the 
 Evidence that either of thefe opposed Infant- Baptifm,re- 
 liesupon common Fame, gather'd from a Letter wrote 
 by Deodwin Blihop oi Liege , to Henry I. King oi^ France ; 
 which runs thus, as he has cited it — " There is aReporc 
 " come out ol France^ which goes through all Germany^ 
 ** that thefe two do maintain that the Lord's Body ( the 
 ** Hofl) is not the Body, but a Shadow or Figure of the 
 <' Lord's Body. And that they do difannul lawful Mar- 
 ** riage •, and as far as in them lies, overthrov; the Bap- 
 *^ turn of Infants." But what is chieRy faid in Hiilory 
 concerning tliisAffair,relatcs only or chiefly toBerejigariir^ 
 who appear'd in tiieekventh Century (abowc lOo Years 
 
 before 
 
Chap. III. of Infant- Baptlfm. i^^j 
 
 before the Petrohruftans and Waldenfes ) to oppofe Tran- 
 fubftantiatidn, or the Do6trine of the corporal Prefence of 
 our Lord in the Sacrament of his Supper ; which was 
 then fliffly maintained inr the Church of Rome, And 
 this is all, that appears to be the Truth, in that Report 
 mentioned in Deodwin's Letter. For Berengarius had 
 manyAdverfaries,and manyCouncils held againAhim and 
 his Followers in thatAge. But Bp.fT/^^r, who has trac'd 
 his Profecution thro' feveral Councils, affirms, that in the 
 whole Procefs his Adverfaries had no Controverfy with 
 him about Anabaptifm, * Nor does it appear, that either 
 Bruno or Berengarius were ever charg'd with the Denial 
 of Infant-Baptifm : Therefore wc may take it as aThing 
 morally certain,that they did not hold thatError *, other- 
 wife their imbittered Adverfaries would not have fail'd to 
 have charg'd them with it. Nor can it be inferred from 
 the Report that Deodwin mentions, which is generally 
 exprefs'd,^-^^/ they did as far as in them lay ^overthrow the 
 Baptifm of Lfants. He does not fay, they denied it. And 
 jf there were any Foundation for that Report, Bp. UJher is 
 of Opinion, it might arife from their oppofing thit cor- 
 ruptDoftrine of theChurch of R^;;'f,That theSacriments 
 confer Grace ex opere operate^ i. e. by the meef Work 
 done-, which might give aHand'e to the Papiiis, to re- 
 proach them with overthrowing theSacrament ofBaptifm^ 
 which was ufually adminifler'd to Infants. And he quotes 
 Alanus (in his 3dBookagain(ltheHereticks of h]srime)fo 
 underilanding them,as if they had faid. That Baptifm has 
 no Efficacy^ either in Infants or the Adult ; and that there- 
 fore Men are not bound to receive Bapnfm. f So that if that 
 Ground of the Report ( which had luch a fmifler Inter- 
 pretation put upon It by the Papifts ) were true, it is no- 
 thing at all to the Purpofe. And what Guitmundus fays, 
 who was one of Btrengarius\ Adverfaries, ( whom our 
 Author quotes, P. 34.) That he did not teach rightly con- 
 cerning the Baptifm of Infants^ dec. he took wholly on 
 the Credit of the forefaid Letter of Deodwm i and there- 
 
 L 3 foi'C 
 
 t D« SvwillQn? ^ flatu Ecd, Csp, \1I. J. 37, f Bid, 
 
1 5Qi ^ Defence of the Divine Right Chap. Ill, 
 
 fore needs FaO further Anfwer. — The next is a PafTage 
 which Mr. Stennet recites from Dr. Jllix^ and our Author 
 from him, concerning ont €undulphus d.n6 his Followers, 
 who being examined at the Synodjby the Bp. o'iCambray^ 
 in the Year 1025, denied that Baptilm was profiiable to 
 Infants, and gave fome Reafons againft their Baptifm. 
 jVnd our Author adds, " Dr. PFall indeed reprefents 
 *' thefe Men, the Difciples of Gundulphus^ as ^takers and 
 ^' Manicbees m the Point of Baptifm." (/i?ii.) One may 
 here fee an Inftance of the Craft of thefe Writers, in clip- 
 ping their Quotations to ferve their ownCaufe. DrJVall 
 had correcSled theUnfairnefs of Mr. Stennet ^m quoting only 
 that PaiTage from Dr. AlIix'sBook relating to thofeMen, 
 'viz. their denying that Baptifm could do any good to Infants 5 
 leaving out what follows in the fame Author, viz. " That 
 ^f in the fame Examination, being further interrogated, 
 <' the Men confefs'd, that they thought Water-Baptifm 
 «« of no Ufe or NeceiTity to any ons, Infant or Adult."'^ 
 So that it is Dr. Alli^ indeed (from whom theQuotation 
 was made ) that reprefents thofe Men as ^takers or Ma- 
 nichees in the Point of Baptifm, holding that Water-Bap- 
 tifm is ot no Ufe to any. But our Author brings inDr. 
 Wall 2,^ correding, not Mr.5/#.^;/^/'j Partiality, but rather 
 the learned Dr. AUix his Account of thofe Men : And fo 
 is rather more unfair & diringenuous,thanMr,6"/^;/;/f/. Dr. 
 Gill having feen the Corredion, yet perfifts in the Fal- 
 lacy put upon uhe Reader, and then goes on vaunting 
 from his abufed Auu ors, (ibid.) *^ So we have Teftimo- 
 ^^ nies, that Paedobaptifm was oppos'd 500 Years before 
 ^'' the Affair of Mmifier:' 
 
 In the next Place,he takes a large Stride, from the ele- 
 venth, up to the fourth Century (not being able to find 
 in the intervening Centuries one fingle Inllance, that he 
 could v/ith the lead Shew of Probability pretend, v/as an 
 Oppofer of P.-edobaptifm, for theSpace of more than 600 
 Years) and fays, P. 34, 35. '' If the Pelagians, the Do- 
 t^ mliffs^ and L^a/^n^/zj were againil Infant -Baptifm, as 
 
 ^l fever^l 
 
 y m. of I'rf. Bap, ?u JL ci}. 7. §.5, 
 
Chap. III. «?/' Infant- Baptifm. 151 
 
 *^ feveral Paedohaptift Writers affirm, this carries theOp- 
 *' poficion to it Itill higher." What Pasdobaptift Wri* 
 ters confirm this, I know not : It is poflible, however, 
 fome might bcinduc'd to allow it5from fome miflakenEx- 
 preffions in Authors concerning the Bonatifts their being 
 termed Anahapifis^ becaufe of their Pra6lice of Re-bap- 
 tizing fuch as came over to theirSed. He might as well 
 have added the Arians to the Number, who have been by 
 fomeWriters z'^Vi^Anahaptifts,, for the fame Reafon j not 
 becaufe they difapproved of the Baptifm of Infants, but 
 difagreeing with the Orthodox in theDodrine of theTri- 
 nity,in the Name whereof Baptifm was admini(lrcd,they 
 re-baptized fuch as embrac'd their Error, and came over 
 to their Communion.f The Miilake concerning theP^- 
 lagians might arife from their Denial of original Sin in 
 Infants. Therefore Pelagius is charged by fome with 
 denying Infant-Baptifm, becaufe he denied that which 
 was reputed by the Church the Ground and Reafon of it. 
 This Charge Pelagius difown'd, and complain'd of it as 
 a Slander (as has been fhewn) and St. Aujlin argu'd a- 
 gainll the Pelagians from the Baptifm of Infants, as ex 
 confeffo^ to the puzling and confounding their Caufe. 
 The Donatifis and Luciferians were in a State of Schifm 
 from the Catholick Church ; and fo might re-baptize 
 fuch as came over to their Party *, as it is certain the 
 Bonatifts did, efteeming all Baptifm adminiftred in the 
 Catholick Church, whether to Infants or Adults, invalid ; 
 and not becaufe of any Diilike they had to the Baptifm of 
 Infants. And there is moreover good Evidence,that the 
 Bonatifts were in the Pra'ftice of Infant-Baptifm. Pela- 
 giusy in his Confeflion & Letter fent to Pope Innocent the 
 firll(which I have before cited) declares,that henever knew 
 or heard of any CatholicK or Heretick that would deny 
 Baptifm to Intajits : It is then paft all reafonableDoubt, 
 that none of the Se6ts, here mentioned,oppos'd it. In the 
 mean Time, I cannot but obfcrve^ that our Author is 
 not troubled with over-much Modcfty 9 otherv/ife he 
 
 L 4 n}iQ.hc 
 
 t S«e Dr. Tlalh Hig^ Pt. II. Chi* 4.. f. ^,. 3v 
 
'i'52' ' ^A Defence of the Divm Right Chap. Ill, 
 
 might have hiufh'd at the Thought of admitting thofe 
 Hereticks and Schifmaticks into the Catalogue of his 
 pretended PredecefTors. He thinks it ftrange, that fince 
 it had *' not its EftabHfhment till the Times of Auflin^ 
 there fhould be none to fet themfelves againft it." P-SS- 
 But to fay, that Infant- Baptifm had not its Eft abli foment 
 till the l^imes of Auflin^ is to take a Liberty to fay, not 
 what theTruth of Things requires, but what pleafes him 
 beft ; without, and againft all Evidence fromAntiquity^ 
 which has been in Part fbut fufficiently) fhewed. And. 
 therefore theCaufeof hisWonderingisagroundlefsFancy. 
 For which Realbn, I don't at all wonder that he is fo lame 
 and defedive in his Proofs, that there were any fuch ; for 
 neither Dr. Gill^ nor any other Antipaedobaptift, has 
 been able to produce any good Evidence of fo much as 
 one Man, either Contemporary with Auflin^ or for fix ix 
 feven Hun.jred Years after, that fet hi rnfelf againft In- 
 fant-Eaptifm, which (in Cafe it had not been eflablilhed 
 in the Practice of the Church before Aufiin appeared) 
 had been the ftrangeft Thing of all. 
 
 But he" has not yet done j There is, it feems,oneThing 
 more that he thinks favours his Conceit, that is, a Canon 
 of the Council held at Carthage in the Year 418, which 
 is to this Effeel, as he has rendered it : " Alfo it is our 
 *' Pleafure, that whoever denies, that new-born Infants 
 *' are to be baptized ; or fays, they are indeed to be 
 -*^ baptized for the Remiffion of Sins, and yet that tijey 
 " derive no original Sin from Adam^ to be expiated by 
 " the wafhing ot Regeneration 5 — Let him ht Anathema'^ 
 (ibid.) This Council was held againft the Pf%/^//j, and 
 the Canon cited is plainly pointed againft their tierefyj 
 who fDwn'd the Baptifm of Infants, and yet denied origi- 
 nal Sin in them that needed thatWaihing. But he aflcs, 
 *' If there were none that oppofed the Baptifm of new- 
 *' born Infants, why fliould the firft Part of this Canon 
 ^' be made f" I anfvver, i. It may be accounted fo/, 
 without fuppofing, there were any in thofe Times thai 
 cppos'd tbeSaptita of Infants ^ If it were only clcilgned 
 ■■"""■■' - --- '" • eq 
 
Chap. IIL df Infant-Baptifm: 15^- 
 
 to confirm the Argument, which theCatholicks conftantly 
 us'd to prove that Infants were not without Sin, derived 
 by natural Generation from Adam^ taken from the gene- 
 ral Pradice of the Church in adminiftring Baptilm to 
 thofe of that early Age, before they could be guilty of 
 a6lual Sins \ and alfo to obviate, or cut off the Plea,that 
 might be made ufe of by any to evade the Force of that 
 Argument,by denying that Infants ought to be baptized % 
 of which Pdagius is faid to have been accufed, but with- 
 out any other Grounds, it feems, but that ot it's vifible 
 Connection v/ith his otherTenet,thatInfants are free from 
 the Defilement of original Sin. And therefore theCoun- 
 cil denounces an Anathema againft him that fhould deny 
 the Baptifm of new-born Infants. Take the Canon en- 
 tire, as it is level'd againft the Pelagian Herefy,this can'c 
 be thought unreafonable. Ncverthelefs, I am rather in- 
 clin'd to think, 2. That the firft Part of the Canon was 
 fram'd with a particular View to the Opinion of thofe 
 who held, thatlnfants were not to be baptized before the 
 eighth Day from their Birth •, tho' they fully agreed to 
 the Pradice of Infant-Baptifm, yet thought the old Law 
 of Circumcifion was fo far to b&regardedjas to determine 
 the Day before which Infants were not to be baptizei 
 He fays, "This wantsProof ; viz. "That there were fome 
 People of this Opinion in the Time of this Council, that 
 the firft Part of the Canon ftiould be made with Refpe6l 
 to them. Anf, But it is fufticiently manifeft, partly, in 
 that the fameOpinion had been ftarted, and was difcufs'd 
 and rejefled by a Council h^ldihy Cyprian inthefameCity 
 of C^r/^^^(?,confifting of fixty fixBifhops, about i5oYcars 
 before, occafioned by aQueftion put to Cyprian by Fidus^ 
 a Bifhop or Prefbyter in fome Part of the Country about 
 Carthage^ Whether Infants were to he baptized before the 
 eighth Day ? Cyprian with his Colleagues came into an 
 unanim.ousDetermination againft this Opinion 5 whereof 
 Mention has been made before. Which renders it highly 
 probable that this was the Notion of more than zftngk 
 Perfon;^ and that th^re were fome that maip^ai.n'd and ad- 
 r " " ^' " ' hered 
 
154 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. III. 
 
 hered to this Notion, even to the Year 418, when it was 
 condemn'd a fecondUme by aCouncil atC^r/i?^^^. Partly, 
 it appears from the original iWords of the Canon, which 
 have a direct Afpedl on the forefaid Opinion \ a right 
 Tranflation whereof might have fatisfied theReader,with- 
 out further Proof. The Words in the Original are. Item 
 placid t^ ut qiiicunque ' parvulos recent es ah uteris matrum 
 baptizandos Negate &c. Anathema fit. Dr. Gill (whether 
 defigaedly,or not, I fliall not fay) has not fairly render'd 
 thefe words of the Canon into Englifh^ in that he has not 
 given the proper and full Emphafts of the Words Parva- 
 los recentes ah uteris matrum^ when he renders them by a 
 more general Term, new-horn Infants^ which may be ap- 
 plied to an Infant of a Month old,or more, as well as to 
 one of a Day old. Whereas the literal Tranflation is ; 
 jllfo it is our Pleafure^ (or, it is refolved) that whofoever 
 denies that Infants come frefh from their Mothers Womhs 
 are to he haptiz\U &c. let him he Anathema. Which Man- 
 ner of ExprefTion can't otherwife be fo well accounted 
 tor, than as it relates to, and is direded againft thofe that 
 held the foremention'dOpinion,ThatInfants are not to be 
 bapciz'd any Time when come frefh from their Mo- 
 thers Womh^ till at leaft they be eight Days old ; tho' the 
 Maintainers of thisOpinion were far from denying, that 
 Infants ought to be baptized. Either of thefe Ways,the 
 former Part of the Canon may reafonably be accounted 
 for : And if fo, there ilill wants Proof, much more, that 
 there were any at that Time that oppos'd theBaptifm of 
 Infants. 
 
 tIovvevcr,to be fare of fomething that may look like a 
 Proof, that Infant-Baptifm was Matter of Debate in the 
 Church before the Madmen of Munfter appeared in the 
 World, and as fufpedling that all his Allegations hitherio 
 might be rejeded as at leail: doubtful and uncertain ; he 
 runs up at laft to his I'ertullian in the Beginning of the 
 thirdCentury, and ia.ys^Pag.'},6. "Plowever, certain it is 
 *' that Terttil/ian oppos'd the Baptifm of Infants, and 
 ^ diffuaded froiu it, who is the iirft Writer that makes 
 
 " mention 
 
Chap. III. of Infant-Baptifm. 155 
 
 " mention of it ; fo it appears5that as foon as ever it was 
 *' fet on Foot, it became Matter, of Debate." How^^^r- 
 tullian oppos'd Infant-Baptifm^has been fhewed already ; 
 not by condemning it as unlawful & unwarrantable, (for 
 in fome Cafes he admitted it,) but by giving it as his O- 
 pinion,and Advice, that it is more profitable thatBaptifni 
 fhould be delayed in the Age of Infancy, till riperYears, 
 Nor does it appear from anyRecord in ancient HiHory, 
 that there was any Debate in the Church rais'd on this 
 Account ; Nor that any Oppofition was made to his O- 
 pinion by any of theFathers : fo fa-r is it from being true, 
 lh?iiInfant'Baptifm was fir fi fet onFoot inTertuIlian'sTimc^ 
 or that ii then began to be Matter of Debate^tha.t his fingu- 
 lar Fancy was not thought fo confiderable,as to give any 
 Turn to the general Perfuafion of Chriflians, or any In- 
 terruption to the general Practice of the Church in bap- 
 tizing their lafants , which Origen^ who liv'd in th^ Be- 
 ginning of the fame Century, teflifies to have been the 
 ccnftant Prad:ice/r^»^ the /Ipoftles, Nor can it be made 
 to appear from any good Authority, that there ever was 
 one Cedt form'd upon his Opinion, or any oneMan,either 
 in that, or the fucceeding Ages, that profelTedly adhered 
 to it. So that (as far as appears) as this Opinion was 
 peculiar to TertuUiany who fignaliz'd himfelt by divers 
 other odd and fmgular Conceits, fo it died with him, and 
 was no more heard of in the Church, till reviv'd by the 
 Antipsdobaptifts. Therefore Dr. G///'s Argument (if he 
 means to argue anyThing from this Inflance ofTertuIlian) 
 mult run to thisEfFed j ^Tertullian djebated it with him- 
 feif, whether Infants were to be baptized : But "TertuUian 
 was in the Cathoiick Church, till he turn'd Heretick by 
 embracing theErrors of Montanus : Therefore it can't be 
 truly faid, there were no Debates in the Church about In- 
 fant- Bapcifi-n tWltheMadmen ofMunfter appear'd.' — How 
 ridiculous foever this Argument appears, yet I am per- 
 fuaded, he can fet it in no better and ftrongerLight, un- 
 lefs he could prove (which I hardly think he v/ill ever at- 
 tempt to do} that there were Dcba&es aad Contcfts rais'd 
 
 ' ' " in 
 
1 5 5 'A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. III. ^ 
 
 m the Church, either with Terlullian^ or any other in his 
 Time, about Infant-Baptifm. 
 
 Thus I have made fome Remarks on all the Authori- 
 tlesjwhich he has mufler'd together under this Head, and 
 Ihewed how little they ferve hisCaufe, and how infufRci- 
 ent to prove what he has been aiming at inOppohtion to 
 the abovemention'd Aflertion in the Dialogue. And 
 therefore, by all that occurs hitherto, he mufl be content 
 to take the old German Anabaptifts, that appear'd in the 
 World a little better than two Centuries ago, for his ear- 
 lieftPredeceffors,how fliy foever of owning them as fuch ^ 
 being unable to make out hisClaim,with the leaflDegree 
 of Clearnefs orCertainty to any others of a more ancient 
 Date. — However, there remains one Claim mere, which 
 if he can make goodjit will be granted, he may find Pre- 
 deceflors four or five HundredYears higher than the Pe- 
 riod lail mentioned ; and thefe are the ancitntfValdenfeSy 
 whom he pretends to have been Ant ip ^ dob ap lifts. I fhall 
 have thePatience flill to attend him with myRemarks,and 
 doubt not to evince, the Grounds of his Pretenfions are 
 as precarious and defe6tive,as hitherto they have appear'd 
 to be : And this will be the Subjed of our Enquiry under 
 the next. Head. 
 
 IV. Whether the ancient TValdenfes were in the con- 
 •llant Practice of Adult-Baptifm only, and denied theBap- 
 tifm of Infants ? Dr. Gill very earneftly contends for the 
 AfHrmative,and feems to take it in Difdain,that it fhould 
 be call(?d a meer Chimera, or groundlefs Figment, by the 
 Author of the Dialogue. But indeed, unlefs hisOpinion 
 could be better fupported, this is the mofl proper Ap- 
 pellation that can be given it ; ef];3ecially, if on the con- 
 trary it can be made to appear (as I doubt not it may)by 
 fuflicient Evidence,that the ancient JValdenfrs (not inclu> 
 ding the feveral Seds lump'd together by diePapifls un-" 
 der that Name,fome of whom deny'd all Water Baptifm, 
 and had feveral other Names or Denominations : But the 
 JFaldenfes ftridlly & properly fo called,and the Albigenfes^ 
 who were of the fame religious Perfi,miion) were ever in 
 
 the 
 
Chap. III. of InFant-Baptlfm. 1^7 
 
 the Practice of Infant-Baptlfm. This I Ihall endeavour 
 to prove ", and then fliali confiderjwhat Weight there is 
 in what Dr. Gill has to fay on the contrary. 
 
 But in order to a clearer underftanding of this Matter, 
 it may not be amifs to premife a few Things very briefly 
 concerning the Waldenfes. — As to thcName o^ JValdenfes^ 
 HiRorians generally agree, they are fo denominated from 
 one Peter Waldo (ox Waldus) a rich Citizen of Lyons in 
 France^ who began to publifli his Doftrine, A. D. 1 160 
 (fome fay, A.D. 1130) in Oppofition to the Idolatries, 
 and Corruptions of the Church of Ro7ne 5 affirming, that 
 Ihe had loftjhe Faith of Jefus Chrift, and that Ihe wa€ 
 the Whore of Babylon fpoken of in the Revelationy 
 condemning Purgatory, Mafies, Dedication of Temple?, 
 Worlhipping of Saints, and Commemoration ot the 
 Dead, as Inventions of the Devil, and Snares of Avarice. 
 This Waldo^ it is faid, reading that Command of ourSa- 
 viour to the rich young Man,Ai"<:2//i?. 19.21. took a Re- 
 folojtion of felling all he had, and giving it to the Poor • 
 and fome Writers report, that oneEvening after Supper, 
 as he was walking and talking with his Friends & Com- 
 panions, one of them fell down dead upon the Ground. 
 Being greatly affedei with that awful Accident, he took 
 
 • a Refolution to lead an unblameable Life, approaching 
 as near as he could to thatof theApoftles, applying him- 
 felf Vv'holly to the reading of theScriptures, and initru6l- 
 ing the Poor that reforted to him for Alms, in the Way 
 of Saivatior.', from, the Word of God. But he with his 
 Followers, v;ht> were greatly multiplied in about Three 
 Years Space, being driven out of Lyons by the Fury of 
 papal Perfecution, they difpfr-s'd tjiemfelves into other 
 Regions •, this became the Means of propagating their 
 Doctrine, and increafmg the Number of their Followers 
 in mofl Countries in Europe. * Now it is to be noted, 
 that ( as I hinted before; about the Time of the Rife of 
 
 the 
 
 * See Pf/vV/s Luthirh Forerunners. Book I. Ch, i, 2. Fulhr\ Hoi/ 
 War. Book III. Ch. 19. ViUihdQrf, «ited k We.ir^ Hift. Paftll^ 
 Ch.:!.;. 
 
158 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. III. 
 
 the Waldenfes^ and before that Time, there had fprung 
 up divers Se6ls in the fameParts^of the World, chiefly iai 
 the SouthernParts of France^ andNorth of Italy ^ &: about 
 theJlps, fomeof whom were grofly Heterodox, holding; 
 the vile Opinion of the Manichees, (as already obferv'd) 
 fome denying all Water- Baptifm ; one Se6t only, w^ho 
 own'd Water- Baptifm, viz. xhtPetrobrufians^ Dr. IVall 
 (who feems to have made the mofh accurate and impar- 
 tial Search of anyMan into thisMatterJ is of Opinionjde- 
 nied it peculiarly to Infants ; -f of whom before, what is 
 fufhcient has been fpoken. And if this StOi be given up 
 to the Antipiedobaptifls, it is their Intereft to make the 
 bcft of them ; yet it is but httle Credit or Advantage 
 that will accrue to their Caufe from this Sort of People : 
 For it is equally certain by the lameAuthority, that they 
 wholly cafhier'd the otherSacrament, denying theLord's 
 Supper to be a continuingOrdinance finceChrift'sTime ; 
 and feeing all Chriflians agree, upon the Warrant and 
 Authority of the Apoftle ( i Ccr. 10. 16, ly.) that this/ 
 Sacrament was inftituted for a Band of Communion ta 
 the whole Body of Chriftians, I know not what Right a 
 People that renounce it have to be reputed any Part 
 of the Chriftian Community. But all thefe Seds fetting 
 up in Oppofition to the RomtJhChnrch and the fcandalous 
 Corruptions that were then maintained in it ^ the popifh 
 Writers, either out of Ignorance or Malice, have fince 
 charg'd on the whole Body of their Oppofites indifcri- 
 minately, under the Name of Walderifes^ the grofseft Er- 
 rors ot iome fewSeds that intermingled with them : and 
 among therefl-, theError of denyinglnfant-Baptifm. And 
 tjiis is all theColour (I can find) for maintaining any A- 
 grcement of the anzmMJValdenfei inOpinion and Pradice 
 with the Antipicdobaptifits. 
 
 But that the IFaldenfcs flriflly fo called, or the Fol- 
 lowers of the Doctrine of Peter Waldo (ox as fome Writers 
 call him, Peter of IValden^ in the Confines of France \\ ) 
 
 were 
 
 -t- rVnWs HHl. Part 11. Ch. 7. §. 5, 7. 
 H UOcr. d^^uQ^^i^ Bed ti\, 8. §. s, ^^ 
 
Ch AP. . III. of Infant-Baptifm. 1 59 
 
 were no Friends to Antipasdobaptifm, but have been in 
 the conftanc Pradice of Infant-Baptifm, appears to be 
 the Truth, as far as may be learnt from any certain Re- 
 cord of their Principles and Practice. And this I fhall 
 endeavour to make evident, 
 
 Firji^ From negative Teftimony ; I mean, from their 
 not being charg'd .with the Denial of Infant-Baptifm,by 
 fome ofthe fierceft of their Adverfaries that wrote* againft 
 ;them. I don't pretend to have feen or confuked the 
 . Books of tliofe ancient popifh Writers, that appear'd a- 
 j gainft the Waldenfes before the Times of the Reforma- 
 j tion ', ( nor does our Author pretend it, fo far as appears 
 I from hisQuotations) But fuchAuthors of unqueftionable 
 Veracity and Credibility, who have feen and read thofe 
 I Books, and produced large Quotations from them, as 
 jBp. Ujher'% Hiilory oi ihcSucceffion of theWefternChurches^ 
 'Dr. Wair% Hiflory oi Infant-Baptifm, and others, efpec'i- 
 ally Mr. Perm's Hiflory of the IValdenfes^ colleded 
 from their own ancientRecords ; which is therefore more 
 to be relied on, than a Thoufand of their popifli Adver- 
 faries, whofe Inrerefl and Inclination it was to paint them 
 out as odious as pofTible : Thefe I have perus'd ; and 
 from thefeAuthors it appears,that tho' among the diffe- 
 rent Seds that hadrifenup at that Day under different 
 Names, fome were charg'd by thofe ancient Writers 
 iwith the Error of denying Infant-Baptifm, yet to thofe 
 'who are properly^called IValdenfes, whom the Protedants 
 have generally own'dfor Predeceffors, they attribute no 
 hich Error. And tho' all thefe Se6ls have been blended 
 ; together under the general Name of Waldenfes ; yet Dr. 
 "^IVall fays, " Efpecially this is conflanr,that no one Au- 
 "■• thor that calls the People he writes of, l4^aIdenfeSydoQ% 
 '* impute to them the Denial of Infant-Baptifm.* 
 
 Billiop Ufljer produces out of JSneas Sylvhts his 
 liiftory of Bohemia, out of Guilielm. Reginald, and from 
 a very ancient Manufcript, cited by the MagdeJmrgejtfan 
 Hijiorians, feveral large Catalogues of the Tenets of tho, 
 
 Waldenfq, 
 
 * Wdh Hiil, Part II, Ch. 7. §. 7, 
 
i6o A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IIL 
 
 Waldenfes, which thePapifts charg'd upon them as Errors, 
 purpofely written to give a particularEnumeration of 'em. 
 But there is in none of thofeCatalogues the leaft mentioii 
 of anyError theyheld concerninglnfant-Baptifm. Nor is 
 there any Error at all charged upon them aboutBaptifm, 
 but only their ufing meerWater, and refufing theMixture 
 of confecrated Oil, which jEneas Sylvius and Reginald 
 are fo particular as to recite •, a trivial Matter, in Com- 
 parifon of the Denial of Infant-Baptifm, which they 
 would by no Means have omitted, had there been juit 
 Grounds to charge them with it. And he cites to the 
 famelFurpofe Jacob Picolomineus, Antoni BonfniuSy and 
 others. t Befides thefc, Dr. fVall alfo refers toLucasTu- 
 den/is, and Petrus de Pilichdorf, who had written largely 
 againft the Waldenfes ; and Nauckrus his Chronicon \ and 
 tlie feveral Treatifes in Gretxefs Colle6tion, written a- 
 gainft the Waldenfes^ reckoning up their hetorodox Opi- 
 nions : in all which (he faysjthere is not aWord of their 
 Denial of Infant-Baptifm.* Whence we may rationally 
 conclude,it is morally certain,thcy did not hold thatError. 
 For had they renounced the Baptifm of Infants, it could 
 not fail of being known \ and their popiih Adverfaries, 
 we may be fure, w^ould not have failed of inferting ic 
 in the particular recital of theirErrors. But moreover, 
 
 Secondly y We have pofitivc Tedimony concerning this 
 People's owning and pra6lifing Infant-Baptifm, from 
 the Account given of them by others, and which they 
 give of themfelves,from their own Books & Conteflions. 
 Dr. IValU after his critical Search info this Affair, thus 
 concludes : % ^'If we take theName (JValdenfes) itridly for 
 <« one Sort of Men, as thofe old Writers generally do, 
 ^< then ther^is no Account that any of them v/ere Jnti- 
 <' 'pjedobaptifh \ But if we take it in that large Senfe, as 
 *' many lare Writers do, to include all the Sorts that I 
 <' have rehearfed, then there is probable Evidence that 
 '' one Sort of them, viz. the Petrobntfians^ were fo ; but 
 
 " not 
 
 f De Sue. Eccl. Ch. 6. i i6, 17, i?. * Jr.i{ir& Hift.Part. If. 
 
 Ch, 7. §. 6. % Iii(L §, 7* 
 
Chap. III. of Infant-Baptifm. i5r 
 
 ** not that the general Body of the U^aldenfes 'wtrt^^ 
 And he adds, " That Opinion of th^ Petrobrujiaru feema 
 ** to have been in a lliortTime extinguilhed Sctorgotren/* 
 Fuller^ giving fome Account of the Albigenfes^ who were 
 a Branch of the IValdenfes^ or of the fame Faith & ReH- 
 gion with them, faith, " TheBaptifm of Infancs they re- 
 " fus'd not,but only deferred it,'tiii ic might be ad mini- 
 " fired by one of their ownMinifters •, their tender Con- 
 " fciences not digefting the Popifh Baptifm, where clear 
 *' Water by God's Ordinance was by Man's Additions 
 ** made aSalve withPlaifter."* Which is exadly agreable 
 to the Accoun given of them hy Paul Ferin j an Author 
 of chief • redit in this Matter, wiiocompil'd the Hiftory 
 of the Waldenjes (as was noted before J out of their owa 
 ancient Writings & ConfefTions ; and fhews very plainly 
 fromthence,that the Baptifm of littlelnfants was anuncon- 
 troverted Pradice among them. And the Denial ot ic 
 is reckoned in the Number ot the Calumnies charged up- 
 on them by rhePapifts. ^he fourth /i,faith he, that they 
 reje^i theBaptifm cf Infants.-];' How they acquitted them- 
 felves of this Slander, he fhews from an ancient Book a- 
 mong them, entitled the Spiritual Almanack. % I fhall fet 
 down the Words at large, becaufe they plainly fliew that 
 they own the Pra'lice of Infant-Baptifm, and what ic was 
 that gave a Handle to their Adverfaries the Papifls to 
 bring the before- mentioned flanderous Accufacion againft 
 them. Thus then they clear themfelves from this Im- 
 putation. " The Time and Place of thofe that arc to 
 •' be baptized, is not ordained, but the Charity & Edifi- 
 •* cation of the Church and Congregation muft ferve for 
 ** a Rule therein, &c. And therefore they to whom the 
 •* Children were neareft allied, bro't their Infants to be 
 " baptized •, as the Parents, or any other whom God 
 •* had made charitable in that.Kind. True it is,that be- 
 •* ing conftrained for fome certain Hundred Years to fuf- 
 •• fer their Children to be baptized by the PrieRs of the 
 •• Church of Rome^xVty defcr'd the doing thereof as long 
 
 M as 
 
 • Tulhy-'i Holy War, Book III. Ch. 20. 
 
 t Hilt, of the Waldmfis, Book I. Chap. 3. % Hid, Ch. 4, 
 
1 62 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. III. 
 
 " as they could pofiibly, hecaufe they had in Detejlation, 
 *« thcfe human Inventions which were added to that holy 
 " Sat^ament,which theyheldtobe butPollutions thereofV 
 *' But for as much as theirPaftors(which they CdWBarbes) 
 ** \'reie manyTimes Abroad, employ'd in the Service of 
 *^ 'their Churches, they could not have the Sacrament of 
 *' Baptifm adminiftred to their Infants by their ownMi- 
 •* nifters ; for this Caufe, they kept them long from 
 *' Baptjfm •, which the Priefts perceiving,and takingNo- 
 " tice of, charg'd them thereupon with thislmpofture ; 
 " which not only theirAdverfaries have believed5but di- 
 ^* ver^ others,who have well approved of their Lite and 
 *'^' i^ai'th in all other Points." — There are a great many 
 Pal^igesin the faid'Piiftorian, that make it plain & evi- 
 dent, that there was no Difpute among them about the 
 baptizing of Infants,but that it was their avowedPraftice. 
 I fhall take Notice of one or twoPalTages which are clear 
 to thisPurpofe. The one is contain'd in the Proportions 
 er Articles folemnly afifented to by the Churches in Pied- 
 mont:, affeitibled at Angrcgn^, by the Heads of their Fa- 
 milies, with their Paflors, in the Year 1535, Sept. 12. 
 Which Propofitionsfthey fiiy) had been taught them from 
 the Fathers to the Son, for thefe many Hundred Years, 
 tind taken out of the Word of God The Seventeenth is 
 in thefe Words,* viz. "Touching the Matter of the Sa- 
 " craments, it hath been concluded by the holy Scrip- 
 " tnres, that we have but two Sacramental Signs, the 
 *' v/hich Jcfus Chrift hath left unto us •, the one is Bap* 
 " tifm, the other the Euchariil ; which We receive, to 
 " fhew what our Perfeverance in theFaith is, as we have 
 *' prom/i fed, vuhtn ice were baptized being It I tie Infants ; as 
 *' alfo in Remembrance of that greatBenefit,which Jefus 
 *' Chrift hath done unto us, when he died for our Re- 
 *' dcmption, wailiing us with his moft precious Blood." 
 No Man reading this,xvith an unbyas'd Mind, but would 
 conclude without all Doubt, thatliaptifm in Infancy had 
 been an ufual Praclice among them, and that they re- 
 ceived 
 [I. Ch. 4. 
 
Chap. III. of Infant- Baptifm. 1^3 
 
 ceived and obferved the other Sacrament, in Tefllmony 
 of their conftant Adherence to the baptifmal Vow, which 
 they came under the Bonds of, when little Infants, What 
 Dr. Gill excepts againft this Article,! fhall prefently con- 
 fider. In the mean Time, 1 fhall add another PafTage 
 to the famePurpofe : It is in their Bo^frine of tbsSacra^ 
 merttSy extradled from their old Books, which Mr. Perin 
 has publifhed in the third Part of their Hiftory. * The 
 PafTage runs thus •, " Whereas Baptifm is adminiftred 
 " in a full Congregation of the Faithful, it is to the End, 
 " that he that is received into the Church, fhould be re- 
 " puted and held of all for a ChriflianBrother -, and that 
 ** all the Congregation might pray for him, that he may 
 I *' be a Chriftian in Heart,as he is outwardly efteemed to 
 *' be a Chriftian. And for this Caufe it is, that wepre- 
 *' fent our Children in Baptifm, which they ought to do, 
 '' to whom the Children are neareft, as the Parents, and 
 *' they to whom God has given this Charity." What 
 Evidence more full & dired: to the Purpofe can be de- 
 fined than this, if the Account this People give of their 
 own Dodlrine is to be credited, rather than that of their 
 Adverfaries ? And in their feveral ancient Trearifes, Ca- 
 techifms, and Confeilions which Mr. Perin has colle6led 
 and annexed, at the End of his Hiftory, wherein there is 
 a particular Enumeration of the Errors of the Church of 
 Rome^ which they renounc'd and witnefs'd againft, there 
 is no Mention of Infant -Baptifm, as one of thofe Errors. 
 Which is a manifeft-Argunnent that they did not account 
 that to be any Part of the antichriftian Corruption, but 
 a facredOrdinance of Chrift : otherwife they would with- 
 out all Doubt have teftified againft it as well as many 
 other popiftilnnovations,&fome of muchlefslmportance. 
 All thefe Confiderations laid together, will amount (I 
 prefume) to a convi6liveEvidence to any reafonableMan, 
 that the ancient IValdenfes own'd and pradis'd Infant- 
 Baptifm; 
 
 But now let us confider,what Dr,G///has to alledge on 
 M 2 the 
 
 f Jbid, Pt. 3. Book I. Chap. 6. 
 
I ^4 A t>efena of the Divine Righi Chap. IIL 
 
 the contrary : I find all his Reafgns to prove the 
 7'FaIdenfes were ia rhePradice of Adult-Baptifin only (for 
 this he muft pretend, or he had as good fay nothing •, for ,^, 
 no Man ever doubted that they baptized advik Perfons i 
 as well as Infants) are fo farletch'd, and inconclufivejthac 
 I cannot think they'l h^ve much Weight with any judi- 
 cious and impartial Enquirer -, that I need not fpend 
 many Words in refuting them. 
 
 He lays,P^.36. "^ There was a People in the Valleys of 
 *^ t^Ldmcnt beioie the Times of Waldo^ and even from 
 '^ the Apoftles Times, that held the pure evangelical 
 ** Truths,& bore al eftimony to them thro'out the dark' 
 *^ Times of Popery." Anf, And for that Reafon I be- 
 lieve they held ihcDo6trine of Infant-Baptifm^ and their 
 Practice was agreable, for ought that has ever been made 
 to appear to the contrary. But hov/ will Dr. Gill prove 
 in Oppofition to ibeDialogue^ihat i\idValdenfes being in the 
 conftant Pradice of Adult- Baptifm, is anymore than a 
 Chimera or groundlefs Fidion ? 
 
 I. He thinks it may appear, " by what their ancient 
 *' 5t3rto or Paftcrs taught concerning it." P. ^7" And 
 here for Infbance, he brings in only Peter Bruis, and one 
 Henry and Arnold of Brejiia^ the Adherents & Follower^ 
 of Bruis^ as denying Infant-Baptifm. Thefe Men, it is 
 granted, may be called IValdenfes in that large Senfe of 
 lome iate WriterSjWhich Dr. ll^all fpeaks of, as inclufive 
 of the feveral Sefts or Societies of Men, that rofe up in 
 thofe Times, and in thofe Parts of the World, hoidirg 
 diffcrentOpinions. But the Petrobrttjtans were a differenc 
 Se6t from the JVrddenJes ftridlly fo called, as Dr. Wall 
 has clearly fhewed from thofe old Writers*, and that 
 ^r If zV began to ceach feveral Years be fore^^/<i^ appeared. || 
 And it thefe Men be yielded to him, I fhall leave him, 
 after what has been fald of them, to make his beft Ad- 
 vantage of 'em. But they will avail him Nothing for 
 Proof that the proptrFt^alden/es were agi|inftInfant-Bapr 
 tifm. As for tht Lollards inEngland{{o narn'd,fays our Au- 
 thor, 
 II TFatPs Hift. Part II, Ch. 7, ^. S, 
 
Chap. III. <2/^ Infant-Baptifm. 165 
 
 thor,from one.LoliardOyB.nothtr of thtir Barl^es) it is known, 
 they were the Difciples, or Followers of the Doftrine of 
 yohn Wickliff^ irom whom they were called fFicklJfaes^f 
 of whofe Opinion in Favour of Infant-Baptifm, there is 
 good Evidence,and no Evidence to the contrary,bu£ that 
 he did not attribute the Efficacy of the Ordinance tQ the 
 meer outward Work, as the popifh Do^lors did, but held 
 in Oppoiition to them, that an Inrant dying unbaptized, 
 being providentially hindred from the Ordinance,might 
 be faved oy che Mercy of God. Therefore what our Au- 
 thor relates out of Fox his A^'^s and Monuments t, of fome 
 Lollards^ who were charged with holding that '^ the Sa- 
 *' crament of Baptifm ufed in the Church by Water, is 
 " a light iMatter and of fmall Efred : that Chriftian 
 " People be fufficiently baptiz'd in the Blood of Chrift, 
 " and need no Water, and that Infants be fufficiently 
 " baptiz'd, if theirParentsbe baptiz'd before chem :" It 
 is moft probable, might be occalion'd by their holding 
 the forefaid Opinion of FFicklief, that the meer outward 
 Work of wafhing the Body has no faving Euicacy, and 
 that the Children of Chriftian Parents,by Accident dying 
 without Baptifn>,might be faved. I am fure,he can argue 
 nothing hence to the Advantage of hisCaufe. For either 
 this Charge againft the Lollards was true or falfe. If it 
 was true, 1 fear,they will be found to approach nearer the 
 Quakers in Opinion,than theAntipasdobapiifts, as deny- 
 ing all Ufe or Neceflity of Baptifm with Water. If it was 
 falfe, (whichMr.F^^i- fuppofes to have beentheCafe,&: that 
 a maliciousTurn was given to theirWords by thePapifts, 
 who were likely enough to exaggerate Matters of fuch a 
 Nature -, there is no Need of fuppofing,with our Author, 
 that it arofe " from their deny inglnfant-Baptifm .-"This 
 it msiyfeem to do to one that is ignorant, or Itrongly pre- 
 pofleflfed, but to any* one who is acquainoed with the po- 
 pifh Tenets, and difpos'd to weigh Things impartially, 
 it does not fo much as feem to do fo-, for there can be littie 
 Doubt, but that it had its Rife from their denying that 
 
 M 3 Tenec 
 
 t F4t/Ur\ Churcli nifkory otBrK. B00I5 IV. } z. 
 
1 66 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. III. 
 
 Tenet of Popery,that theSacraments confer Grace ex opere 
 operato, by the meer outward Work done, (which is aHo\ 
 -deny'd by all Proteftants) and their afcribing the faving 
 Efficacy of Baptifm, to the Blood and Spirit of Chriflr, 
 which is not always tied to the outward Sign, efpecially 
 when there is no Opportunity of receiving it j and this 
 is all his Evidence from the ancient Barbes. 
 
 2. He pretends to prove hisOpinion from '' their anci- 
 *« entConfefTiOns &Writings."P.38. 1 have produced full \ 
 and clear Proof out of thofe ConfefTions & Writings, that 
 they own*d and praftifed Infant- Baptifm •, and fhall own 
 myfelf much miitaken, if he can produce any Thing out 
 of 'em contradictory ; but indeed what he has alledged, 
 has fcarce theAppearance of a Contradidion : He quotes 
 (ibid.) the i2th & 13th Articles of one of their Confeffi- 
 ons, bearing Date, he fays, A. D. 1 120. (but thisDate is 
 juilly to be queftion'd, being feveral Years before Peter 
 Bruis^OY Waldo^ appeared in the World, andPm;^ has in- 
 ferred it without a Date, taken out of a Book, entitled. 
 The fpiritual /llmanacky2ind from theMemorials oiGecrge 
 Morel.) In the i2thArticle5they profefs theirBelief of the 
 Sacraments, '* that they are outwardSignsof holyThings, 
 ** or vifible Forms of the invifible Grace" and declare 
 *' they hold that the Faithful may be faved without re- 
 *' ceiving the Signs aforefaid, inCafe they have noPlace, 
 *' nor any Means to ufe them." In the i3thArticlethey 
 profefs to own but two Sacraments, Baptifm & thtLord's 
 Supper. And what Proteilant is there that denies either 
 of thefe ? To whatPurpofe then can they be alledg'd,but 
 to amufe his Readers ? His nextQuotation (ibid.) is to as 
 little Purpofe. It is the fevenrh Article of an ancientCon- 
 fefTion of the Waldenfes., without a Date. 
 
 That which he conceives makes for Adult-Baptifm in 
 this Article, I fuppofe is that Part of it wherein they de- 
 clare what they believe to be the internal & fpiritualPart 
 of Baptifm, reprefented by the outward Sign, namely, 
 " the Renovation of the Spirit, and the Mortification of 
 !* ourMembersinJefusChrift; by which alfo we are re- 
 
 '' ceived 
 
Chap. III. of Infant- Baptifm. 167 
 
 ** ceived into the holy Congregation of the People of 
 " God, thefe protefting and declaring opcniy cur Faith 
 " and Amendment of Life." And what Piiedobaptiil 
 Church can he name,but acknowledges all this and more 
 too to be thefpiritual Import &Deiign of theOrdinanceof 
 Baptifm, whether it be adminiflred to Inran:s or Adult ? 
 Or if he put the Emphaf,s on thefe jait Words, there {viz. 
 in the Congregation) protefting grid dedarm^ opeiifj^ XiUT 
 Faith andAynendment of Life, .Ivcsx this is no more than 
 what agrees to thcNature of Chriftian Baptifm,to whom- 
 foever adminiflred, as it is a folemn an4 open Profellion 
 of Repentance and Newnefs of Life. Or can he be ig- 
 norant that the P^dobaptifts require this ProfefBon of all 
 adult Perfons that come to thisOrdinapce,aad of Parents, 
 and Sponfors that prefent their Children ? And theChild 
 baptiz'd, is thereby laid under aVow or Engagement to 
 inake fuch aProfefiion, and to make it good at a ,proper 
 Age. Nor do the Words of theArticle neceflarily fuppofe 
 or imply this Declaration,to be always made, by theparty 
 baptiz'd. previous to his Baptifm... . So that nothing can 
 be gathered hence,with any Pretence of Reafon,inFayour 
 of Antlpsdobaptifm, Yet he goes on in his impertinent 
 Quotations : The next is a Tra6t called the noble Leffton^ 
 written he fays in the Year i ioo,then,befure,long;beiore 
 theTimes ot the IValdenfes •, but let us hear the Words of 
 the noMeLeJfonywhtn ever it was writ ^ He has thisPafiage 
 from it,P.39. ^^^^^ fpeaking of theApoil:le5,it is obferv'd, 
 that " they fpoke wuhoutFear,of theDodrineof Chriiti 
 ^^'^they preach'd to Jews & Greeks, working many Mi- 
 " racles, and thofe that believed, they baptized in, the 
 *' Name of Jefus Chnft." And does he think there is 
 any Chriftian of whatever Denomination, who has read 
 the Bible, that docs not believe this ? Who can help ad» 
 ran-ing the fmgular Penetration of our Author, that he 
 could efpy an Argument for Antipsedobaprifm in this 
 PaiTage, which no Man elfe, I am perfuaded, tho' he had 
 read the noMe Leffon a ThoufandTimes, could ever have, 
 karnt from it ! They believed the Hiftory of the New- 
 
 M 4 Teftamenc 
 
i6"8 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. III. 
 
 TeOament, efpecially the A6ts of the Apoftles, and the 
 M^nnei therein declared, how they admitted their Con- 
 veits from Judaifm & Heatbewfm to Chriftian Baptilm ; 
 (and this is all that this Palfage from the noble Lejfon 
 teaches) therefore they were in Opinion againft Intant- 
 'Byi\(v[)y and for Aduk- Baptifm only. So his Argument 
 Hiuil run i but the great Fault of it is, that it is a beg- 
 ging the whole Queftion in Difpute, let him prove the 
 Coniequencfi, 
 
 His next [ibid,) carries fom^thing more of a Shew of 
 Peafon, and ic is but a Shew at bell •, it is taken from a 
 Trcatife of their's concerning Jntichrift, The Paflage is 
 this : " The third Work of Anticbriii confift in this, 
 ** that he attributes the Regeneration ot the holy Spirit 
 «' unto the dead outward Work ( or Faith ) baptizing 
 •' Children into that Faith, and teaching, that thereby 
 ^* Baptifm and Regeneration muft be had ; and thereia 
 •' he confersOrders and otherSacraments,and grpundeth 
 *' therein ail his Chriftianity, which is againft the holy 
 ** Spirit." This Treatife, Cit is faid) was written, A.D. 
 1 1 20. if there be not a Miftake in the Date,it was com- 
 posed earlier by many Years th^nPFaWs firfl Appear 
 ance •, however it is allowed to be very ancient, and was 
 prefer vcd by the Waldenfes in the JlpSy and by divers 
 others, faith Perin^ from whom he hath added it in the 
 End of his Hiftpry. -f But when, or by whon>foever it 
 was written, it decides nothing of the main Queftion,ei- 
 ther tor or againft Infant Baptifm : But to any one who 
 reads the PaSage cited with a due Attention, it muft ap- 
 pear, that it was not defign'd to condemp fimply theBap- 
 tifm of Children as a Fault or Abufe in the Antichriftian 
 Party, but that it is plainly and diredtly levell'd againft 
 that antichriftian Doftrine before rnentioned, tjiat the Sa- 
 craments confer Grace by the meer outward Work done ; 
 which they juftly call the dead outward fVork^or a lifelefs 
 PrqfefTion of Faith. Here they lay the Fault and Blame 
 whic;h they charge on the Papijs as aWork of Antichrifi^ 
 
 HOC 
 
 t Firing Hlil. of th? Waldm/ih Pu 3. Book III. Ch. u 
 
Chap.III. of Infant-Baptifm. 169 
 
 not in their baptizing Children, but in attributing the 
 Regeneration ot the Spirit in Bapcifm, to the meer out- 
 ward Adminiftration oi the Ordinance, whether to the 
 Adult or Infants, { only the Baptifm of Children is in- 
 ftanc'd in, bccaufe that was moll generally pradlifed in 
 the Church) arid in their laying the main Strefs of Chri- 
 ftian Religion on fuch external lifeiefs Formalities. Nor 
 do the Waldenfes reckon the Bapcifm of Infants amonp- 
 the Errors of Popery which they rejeded, in any of their 
 Catechifms, and other Confeflions of Faith, framed de- 
 fignedly in Oppofition to thofe Errors, and antichriflian 
 Abufes, which they decefted. And Perin does mofl fully- 
 clear them from the Denial of Infanc-Baptifm, as aSlan- 
 der of the Papifts, as we have feen. And therefore this 
 Paflage weighs nothing againft that Evidence, but may 
 fairly admit aConllrudion confident with it. Our Author 
 goes fo far as to own, '* That there are indeed tvvoCon- 
 ** feffions of theirs, which are faid to fpeak ot Infant-Bap- 
 " tifm." But he adds {ibid.) " Thefe are of a lateDate." 
 The latter of thefe, it is granted, bares Date a few Years 
 fmce the Beginning of the Reformation A. D. 1532. as 
 he gives the Date, or i c^^^^ as Ferin. And he is careful 
 to let us know, P. 40, 41. That it was siiter George Morel 
 returned with Letters from CEcolampadius and Bitcer out 
 of Germany^ whither he had been fent with Peter Majfon^ 
 to confer with the Divines there, about the Reformation 
 of the Church ; and infinuates, as if they had received 
 Convidlion from thofe Divines, of the Error they had 
 followed in denyingBaptifm to Infants, and ^5/ theNotion 
 fas he Terms it, i. e. of baptizing Infants ) from them ; 
 which they inferted into their ConfelTion. But this is a 
 meer Surmife of our Author, that has no Foundation of 
 Proof in Hiftory, but the contrary. — But that which ef- 
 fectually baffles thisSurmife is, that thePaftors andHeads 
 of the Churches afTembled at Angrogn^^ to whom thofe 
 Letters of the German Divines were read ( tho* theirCon- 
 feflion bears fo late a Date, about 1 5 Years after Luther 
 began to oppofe the Pope, yet they) declare, that theAr- 
 
 ticks 
 
x^o A Defence of the Divine RigPjt Chap. III. 
 
 tides of ic, which were folemnly figned and fworn to by 
 all prefent, were conformable to theDo5irine that hath been 
 taught them, [rem the Father to the Son, for thefe many 
 HundredTears^and taken out of thelVord of God \ utfupra : 
 among which is that oflnfant-Baptifm. And in theLetters 
 written to the IValdenfes oi Provence by CEcolampadius and 
 Bucer^m the Year 1 530, recited byPm;'/,there is no men- 
 tion of any Errors they were in, buc they both blefs'd 
 God for fo greatLight of Truth he had imparted to them 
 in a dark Age. * So that it is evident, that the Articles 
 then affented to, were not drawn up upon any new Cou- 
 vidion, as he would make his Reader believe, but were 
 the Matter of their Belief, which they had received (as 
 they themfelves declare) from the Father to the Sen, Time 
 cut of Mind. The Article that relates to Infant-Baptifm, 
 I have cited before : And if it mulr Hand for goodEvir 
 dence for the ancient Belief & ^vz.Gi\Qt q{ ihtVValdenfes -^ 
 Dr. Gill has found out a Way to weaken the Credit of it, 
 as an Evidenceibr Infant-Baptifm •, for reciting thatPart 
 of the Articie,whei-e they fay " We receive theEucharifl 
 " ( or Lord's Supper ) to fliew that our Pcrfeverance 
 *' in theFaith is fuch as v«/e promifed,when we were bap- 
 " tized,being('/////(?/;i/'^/;?/jor jlittleChildren." He adds, 
 " This Phrafe being little Children, as. I think, means 
 " their beinglittleChildren inKnowledge ^Experience.'* 
 A fine Thing it is, to have a Faculty of making Words 
 to fignify juft what one pleafes. A Man with thisFacuky 
 will never need to fear being worded in any Controverfy. 
 It is but to put a metaphorical Meaning on ExpreiTions, 
 that are clear and proper, and he may ward of Convidli- 
 on from the pi aineit Evidence that Words can exprefs. 
 Dr. G^// had as good fay, \\t will not (land to the Deter- 
 mination of any human Teflimony, as rcjedl the plain 
 and literal Senfe of Words when they make againft him, 
 where there is no urgent Reafon or Necefiity to recede 
 from it But what Reafon is there that little Children 
 here,fhould not mean little Children i;^ Jge, but inKnow- 
 
 ledge, 
 » Hift. of the IVclde.ifcs. Book H. Ch. 4. . 
 
Chap. III. (?/ Infant-Baptifm, 171 
 
 ledge and Experience ? The Pretence is, becaufc, '' They 
 " fpeak of their receiving the Euchariir, to fhew their 
 '' Ferfeverance in theFaith they had promifed, when they 
 " were baptized. — And whatPromife are Infants in a 
 " hteral Senle capable of making ? " But knows he not 
 that the Psedobaptifts teach, that even Infants are inBap- 
 tifm by Virtue of God's Covenant, laid under the Bond 
 of a Vow or Promife to all the Duties of the Covenant, 
 and obliged, when come to a proper Age to recognize 
 this Vow or Promife, as their own, by a perfonal Pro- 
 feiTion of Chriftian Faith and Obedience, and to make it 
 good, zndpew their Ferfeverance in it fas theConfeffion 
 properly exprelles it) by receiving the other Sacrament, 
 the Lord's Supper ? And tho' ' the Waldenfes did not 
 admit God-Fathers and God- Mothers, according to the 
 modern Ufage •, yet they admitted Parents to be Spon- 
 fors for their Children, (whom the natural Law, as well 
 as the revealed Will o\ God in his Covenant with hisPeo- 
 ple, hath appointed to that Office; and others alfo when 
 Neceffity required it, as appears from the feveralPaffages 
 Lhave quoted from their Confeffions, as when they fay, 
 '\Chey to whom theChildren are neareft allied^ought to prejent 
 them to Baptifr/iy and any other s^whom God hath made cha- 
 ritable in this Kind. So that taking little Children or In- 
 fants in the literal Senfe in this Conteffion, it fpeaks the 
 right Language of Paeciobaptifts. Thus much it was 
 needful to obferve of the latter of thofe two Confeflions 
 of zhcPFalden/eSy which he owns fpeak of Infant-Baptifm. 
 As to their formerConfe{rioD,that of ih^Bohemian^Va Iden- 
 fes^ wherein they own Infant-Baptifm -, this bares Date 
 fo early as the Year 1508, fome Years beiore L^/Z/rr's 
 Reformationy which heg^Dy A. D, 151 7. And therefore it 
 can't be pretended, that this Conieffion v/as made in 
 Compliance with the firit Reformers, in the Point of Ps- 
 dobaptifm. Vv hat tho', " They fay they were faifly 
 *' called PFaldenfes^'^'' lince their Belief was one and the 
 fame ? Tho' they were more properly the Difciples of 
 John liufs^ who taught in Boherma^ having received the 
 
 ■ Liciht 
 
't*jz A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. Ill, 
 
 Light of Truth from the Books of JohnWickliff^ who 
 alfo was excited to oppofe Fopery,from the Example of 
 the Waldenfes. * So that their Faith and religiousPrinci- 
 ples were in EifecSt the fame. As to what he adds(P.40.) 
 of the Pygbards or t^icards^ and the Bohemian Brethren, 
 mentioned by Scultetus^ it has been already confidered, 
 with proper Remarks. 
 
 It is, I confefs, a tirefome Bufinefs,to tranfcribe all his 
 Quotations, being fo little to the Purpofe (and I iear the 
 Reader's Patience is more than fufficiently exercifcd aU 
 ready) yet I would crave Leave to recite one more, that 
 I may give a fair Account of his wholeStrength,and con- 
 ceal nothing that he thinks makes for his Caufe : And 
 that it may appear to what Straits he is driven to main- 
 tain his Opinion, when he catches hold on fuch Imperti- 
 nences, and offers them asProofs. It is, " a brief Con- 
 *' feflion of Faith (he fays) publilh'd by the Reformed 
 " Churches of Piedmont^ fo late as A, D. 1655." The 
 PafTage he cites out of it,hefays,(if we will take his Word) 
 is, " in Favour of Adult-Baptifm"(i.e.of Adult-Baptifm 
 only in the Stnk of the Antip^dobaptifts) the PafTage 
 is this. Pa, 42. " That God does not only inftrud: and 
 *' teach us by hisWord,but has alfo ordained certain Sa-. 
 ** craments to bejoined with it, as a Means to unite us 
 " toChrij[l,and to make us Partakers of hisBencfits. And 
 " there are only two of them belonging in common tp 
 *' all the Members of the Church under theNew-Tefta- 
 " ment, i^/z.Baptifm, and the Lord's Supper -, thatGod 
 " has ordained theSacrament of Baptifm to be aTeltimo- 
 *' ny of our Adoption, and of our being clcanfed from 
 *' our Sins by the Blood of Jefus Chrift, and renewed in 
 *' Holinefs of Life." But what of all this to the contro- 
 verted Point .? He adds, " Nor is there one Word in it 
 of Infant-Baptifm." Finely argued ! This Gentleman 
 may go on at this Rate to write Volumes of Quotations 
 agamft Infant-Baptifm,and that even from the Books and 
 Writings of the P^cdobaptifts. For,it feems,if he lights 
 
 f See Ptrin. ibid. Book II, Ch. 9. 
 
Ghap. III. of Infant-Baptlfm. 17^ 
 
 on a PafTage in any Author, that fpeaks of Baptifm, and 
 there be no exprefs mention made ot In fan- -Baptifm, he 
 will without morcAdoe, prefs it into his Service ; and it 
 IhaJl be a goodArgument inFavour of Adult -Baptifm, in 
 his Senfe, i. e. exciufive of Infants. But if there he not 
 a Word in it of Infant -Baptifm 5 is there a Word againft 
 it ? or that tends to exclude them ? Not one Word % 
 unlefs he fuppofrsInfantsuncapableofSalvationbyChrift. 
 Otherwife, there are divers Things in this very Paflage, 
 that looks favourably onlnfant- Baptifm As/ry^,Intants 
 are capable of being united to Chrijly and partaking of his 
 Benefits ; which is owned and declared to be the Thing 
 reprefented, and fignified by the Sacrament of Baptifm, 
 as the outward Sign,and Means ; otherwife,Infants muft 
 perifheternally, dying in Infancy : which I cannot think 
 thofe reformed Churches werefo uncharitable, as tofup- 
 pofe, of all Infants. And can any one doubt, that they 
 are as capable of the Remedy byChrift,as they are of Sin 
 and Death derived to them from the firft Adam ? What 
 then fhould hinder their partaking of the outward Sign, 
 unlefs Chrift had exprefs'd his Will to the contrary ; 
 which he has never done. Secondly. The Infants of Be- 
 lievers are Members of Chrift's Church under the New- 
 Teftament ; Chrift having declared, that of fuch is the 
 Kingdom of God ; therefore the Sacrament of Baptifm be- 
 longs to them : for they confefs // belongs to all theMem- 
 hers of the Churchy under the New-Teftamcnt, Thirdly^ 
 Infants need, and are capable of being cleanfed from ori- 
 ginal Defilement hy the Blood of Chrijt •, and the Infants 
 of Believers belonging to his"Church,it is his Will plainly 
 enough fignified in the New-Teftament,that they fhould 
 enjoy the inftitutcd Means (they are capable of) of the 
 Application of the cleanfing Virtue of his Blood, which 
 is Baptifm. So that this Quotation, inftead of proving 
 any Thing in Favour of Adult- Baptifm peculiarly, fur- 
 niihes us with feveral good Arguments for Infant Baptifm. 
 Yet here he fets up his Trophie, and fays, " Upon the 
 ;^ whole, it will be eafdy feen, what little Reafon the 
 
 " Writer 
 
174 A Defence of the Dhine Right Chap. III. 
 
 *' Writer of the Dialogue under Confideration, had to 
 « fay, -that the ancient IValdenjes being in the conftant 
 «< Pradlice of Adult-Baptifmjs aChimericallmagination, 
 «* and a groundlefsFigment." NoManJ am perfuaded, 
 without Dr. G/7/'s Spedacles, is able to Mccrn^upon the 
 Whole^ the lead Evidence in all that he has alledg'd, to 
 weaken that Aifertion of theWriter of the Dialogue. Yet 
 he has the Confidence to fay> "There is nothing appears 
 ." to the contrary,but that they were in thePradtice of sr, 
 *' (i. e. of Adult-Baptifm only) until the fixteenth Cen- 
 *' tury ; for what is urged againft it, is fince thatTime." 
 p. 43. I anfwer, tho' thofe ConfefTions of the Waldenfes^ 
 which contain full Proof of their being in the Pra6tice of 
 infant- Baptifm, were drawn up a little after the Begin- 
 ning of the fixteenth Century •, yet therein they declare 
 not only what their prefent Belief and Praftice was, but 
 alfo that it was no other than what had been taught 
 among them from Father to Son, for feveral Hundred 
 Years before the Reformation. And who fhould better 
 know what their Opinion and Pra6lice was, in Reference 
 to Infant-Baptifm, than the WaUenfes themfelves, attefl- 
 ing it from theirown ancientRecords ? And this (IDoubt 
 not, mod Men will judge) carries an Appearance of fome- 
 thing to the contrary of what he pretends. And it is cer- 
 tain,thatourAdverfaries cannot produce any more ancient 
 ConfelTion of theirs that contradids thefe, or make for 
 their Side of the Queftion. And what ourAuthor has al- 
 ledg'd to the contrary is of no Confideration againft the 
 preponderating Evidence, which thefe ConfefTions that I 
 have cited,carry in them. Yet he will have it,whether he 
 has any Evidence for it or no, that the Waldenfes were in 
 Pfa6lice of Adult-Baptifm, till the fixteenth Century : 
 And fays moreover, (ibid.) that " even at thatTime there 
 *' were fome that continued in the Practice of it." 
 
 And on this Occafion he brings in the Teftimony of 
 Ludovicus Fives to the ancient Pradice of Baptifm. His 
 Words are (in his Comment on Aufiin's Book de civitate 
 Dei) ''Formerly no Peiion was brought to iheholyBap- 
 
 tiftary, 
 
cc 
 
 Zhap. III. cf Infant-Baptifm. 175 
 
 ^iftary,till he was of aduItAge, &c." And one (hall (carce 
 ead a Pamphlet written by Antip^dobaptift, whereia 
 his Teftimony of Lttdovicus Fives is omited -, anAuthor 
 who fiourifh'd in the Begir>ningof the fixteenthCentury, 
 and who was as little capable of giving a true Account 
 Df thePradlice of the ancient Church in baptizing, as any 
 It this Diftance of Tinrje. And the fame Author adds, 
 I hear in fome Cities of Italy ^ the old Cuftom is ftill in 
 a greatMeafure preferved." HereDr.G/7/afks, " What 
 People fhould he mean by fome Cities in Italy ^ unlefs 
 theRemainders of i\\tPetrobrufians^ovJ^Valdenfes^ as Dr. 
 JVall obferves." But this is an unfair Reprefentation, 
 '^T.lVaUis fo far from obferving this, that he rather 
 queftions theTruth of the Report that Fives had heard ; 
 only on Suppofition of ^the Truth of that Report,he con- 
 efbures, they might be Tome Remnants of the oldPetro- 
 hrujlans^ not of the VFaldenfes. And there needs no other 
 Anfwer to this wholeTeftimony of hudovicus Fivesyihzn 
 vfhz.tDr.Wall has given -, whofe Words I fhall fet down 
 n^iore largely (that the Reader may judge of theFairnefs 
 hd Integrity of this Quoter of Authors) which are as 
 ?rllt)ws : " Since this Fives liv'd fo littlevvhile ago, and 
 •'produces no Proof out of any Author to confirm his 
 ' Opinion ; his affirming anyThing concerning any old 
 '' Cuflom, is of no moreAuthorlty, than if anyone now 
 ^"^ living fhould fay the fame,without producing hisProof; 
 * efpecially fince he w^s but a young Man when he 
 " wrote this — and confefTes, that as for Divinity, which 
 was none of his Profeffion, he minded it only fo far as 
 his other Studies would give him Leave. And it is 
 buta flenderOccafion given hi mfrom5/.y^;//?/Vs Words, 
 to fay any fuch Thing : For St. Auftin is only fpeak- 
 ing of fome baptized at the Age of Underftanding, 
 without the leafl Intimation that they wereChildren of 
 Chriftian Parents. And for the Cities of //<3/y, which 
 he mentions, I think no Body ever heard of them be- 
 fore, norfince ; unlels'we will fuppofe that fome Re- 
 mainders of the Petrobrufians^ who are faid about 400 
 
 Years 
 
176 A Defence of the 'Divine Eight Chap. III. 
 
 ** Years before /^/T'^'sTime,to have been Jntip^edobaptifls 
 « — might continue that Practice in fome ol theValiies 
 •^ o^ Piedmont. ''W Nowwhat a differentTurn has ourAu-f 
 thorgiven to thereWords,in bringing inDr./F^//^as obferv- 
 ing that this People mentioned by Fives (without any 
 Linaitation) were, *' the Remainders of the Petrobruji' 
 «* ans^ or IFaldenfes, who continued that Pradice in the 
 «« YdiVicsoi Piedmont ? " And his followingObfervation 
 (tho' true) will not help his Caufe, as he intends it, viz. 
 «* That there were different Se is that went all by the 
 " Name of JValdenfeSy fome of very bad Principles,fome 
 <^ were Manichees^ and held other Errors •, and therefore 
 ** it was not to be wondered at, that fome bearing this 
 ^' Name, were for Infant- Baptilm, and others not." For 
 the Truth is, ("as has been made evident by theTeftimo- 
 nies above cited,) " That thofe that denied Infant-Bap- 
 '* tifm were of bad Principles in other Rerpe6ls,and held 
 *' otherErrors ; and being tainted more or lefs with the 
 *' M^«/V^^rt« Opinions, moft of them, if not all, denied 
 *' all Baptifm with Water.** He concludes (ibid.) that 
 *< it will not be denied, that of late Years, Infant- Bap- 
 •' tifm has obtained among them •, but that the ancient 
 *' Waldenfes practis'd it,wants Proof." Is this the migh- 
 ty ChampioHjwho appear*d with fo muchDifdain againfl 
 the Saying of the Writer of the Dialogue, that the (Vol- 
 dcnfes being in the confiant Practice cf Adult- Baptifm f^?i% 
 a groundkfs Figment ? Whom therefore, I had thought 
 he had undertaken to confute, by laying down the folid 
 Grounds and Reafons of theoppofite Opinion, as it was 
 incumbent on him to do, by the Rules of Difputation 5 
 yet as being confcious of his Failure herein, he lowers his 
 Confidence, and concludes in the Language of a Defen- 
 dant, " That the ancient Waldenfes pradis'd Infant- 
 '^ Baptifm, wantsProof" I have produc'd good Proof, 
 that the proptr JValdenfes, as diflinguifhed from the o^ 
 ther Seds that went under their Name, were ever in the 
 Praftics of Infant Baptifm, as- far as we are able to learn 
 
 from 
 I Wairs im. Part II. Ch. 2, §. 3. 
 
Chap. III. ^/ Infant-Baptlfm. 177 
 
 from their ancient Records. And if this Proof be not 
 fatisfadory, I am pretty confident, our Adverfaries are 
 unable to produce any tolerable Proof to the contrary ; 
 but till they do this, we are to be juftified in rejeding 
 their Opinion, that the ancient IValdenfes were in the 
 conftant Pradice of Adult-Baptifm, as a chimericallma- 
 gination. 
 
 Thus I have endeavour'd to vindicate Matter of P'ad, 
 that the Baptifm of Infants has obtain'd in theUniverfal 
 Church, in a conftant Succellion, from the Apoftles to 
 the Times of the Reformation, againft the Exceptions 
 of Dr.Gill •, wherein I confefs, I have been carried out to 
 a far greater Length than ever I defigned : But fince he 
 took Occafion from a very few Lines in the Dialogue to 
 enlarge as he has done,on theHiftory of Fafis,in a whole 
 Chapter ; I perceived him to be full of the Subjed, and 
 to lay a mighty Strefs upon it. I was willing therefore 
 to take a little Pains to looK into it, and have particu- 
 larly and carefully, and ( I hope ) impartially examin'd 
 all his Arguments and Allegations fromAuthoricies •, nor 
 have I defignedly over-look'd any Thing that he or his 
 Party may judge material. And I was the rather induc'd 
 to do it,for thefe tv/o Ends efpecially, 
 
 Fhft, To fliew the Vanity andEmptinefs of theBoafts, 
 of our Adverfaries, and to difabufe the illiterate Vulgar, 
 who are apt to beimpos'd upon by confident A iTertions, 
 back'd with a large Colleilion of Quotations, & a greac 
 many Names of Authors -, with which the Antipaedo- 
 baptift Writers, affed to ftuff theirBooks andPamphlers ; 
 thereby making a Shew,as if they had thejudgment of all 
 the moftLearned, Ancient &Modern,on theirSide : And 
 the common People for V\^ant of Reading, being unable 
 todiftinguifh of Times, Perfons,andothcrCircumftance?., 
 and uncapable of judging of the Credit and Authority 
 of a Writer, whofeName,perhaps, they have never heard 
 of before ; not knovN^ing but thm LtidcvkusFhes^is as good 
 an Evidence for -the Pradice of the primitive Church, a^ 
 Iransuiy Cjpiajt,QX Juffin -, are apt to b€ deluded with 
 
 N this 
 
178 A Defence of the Bivim Righi Chap. III. 
 
 this Pretence. Whereas if their Authorities be fearch'd 
 to the Bottom, they commonly appear to be but an 
 empty Flourifh, as being either m.ifreprefented f which is 
 not uncommon) or impertinent, and mifappKed, or at 
 lead ambiguous and uncertain, from whence nothing can 
 be concluded or depended on as the Truth. And how- 
 far this may be truly faid of Dr. G/7/'s Way of Manage- 
 ment in his Quotations hitherto, is left to the difcreeC 
 Reader to judge, upon a calm and impartial weighing of 
 the Remarks already made. And if Antip^sdobaptifm 
 be an Error, (as' will be more fully evinc'd hereafter) 
 and an Error which ( as Experience fliews ) has a Ten- 
 dency to unfettle People's Minds, even in other Points 
 of Religion, and to draw them off from thePrinciples of 
 a religious Education receiv'd in their Childhood, cau- 
 fing them to wander from the Footfteps of the Flock, to 
 the Diflurbance of thePeace andOrder of the Churches 5 
 it muft be accounted a Piece of Charity toMen'sSouls,to 
 lay open the Fallacies whereby they are in Danger of 
 being drawn into that Error, and to prevent their being 
 impos'd upon by the Patrons of it, by their abufed 
 Authorities,and to clear up and vindicate theTruth that 
 is difguis'd and perverted thereby. This has been de- 
 iign'd and endeavoured in the foregoing Remarks, and,, 
 I hope,not without Succefs, to an impartial Judgment. 
 
 Secondly^ To furnifh out a confirming Evidence of the 
 divine Right of infant-Baptifm, which may appear from 
 the foregoing Remarks, thefe twoWays, 
 
 FirJ}^ From the Abfurdity of the contraryHypothefis. 
 For if Infant-Baptifm be not aninititution of JefusChriff, 
 bxit a mecr Nullity, as our Adverfaries affirm •, then it 
 muil be faid, that the Church has loft an Ordinance of 
 Jefus Chrift, for many Hundred Years, and even from 
 the earlieft Times of Chriftianity, that we have any cer- 
 tain Account of ; then the Subjeds.of ChriU's Kingdom 
 have been without the vifiblc Badge of Difcrimination 
 from the reft of theWorld, for fo. long Time,contrary to 
 the Ddign of Chnll's loft'itution j then the Laws & Or- 
 dinances 
 
Chap. III. of Infant-Baptifm. 179 
 
 dinances of the Kingdom of Chrift,are not perpetual, and 
 unchangeable, as the Scriptures reprefent them to be ; 
 then it will be difficult to account for the Fulfilment of 
 Chrift's promifed Prefence to hi*? Minifbers in theAdmi- 
 niftration of Baptifni, always even to the End of the 
 World. All which moil manifcllAbfurdities, are confe- 
 qucnt on the Denial of Infant-Baptifm ; for I have made 
 it appear from Authors of good Credit,that Infant-Bap^- 
 tifm conftantly and generally obtained in the primitive 
 Church : Some of the mod ancient Fathers teitify, that 
 it was taught and pra6tis'd from the Age ot theApcftles ; 
 nor is there any Account to be given of the Time, Man- 
 ner, or Perfons, when, how, or by whom, it was firfl in- 
 troduc'd into theChurch, if it was not an Inilitution from 
 the Beginning of Chriftianity. Sorfie Ei^rors'& Corrup- 
 tions,'tis grantedjmay fo infenfibly creep into theChurch, 
 as that it may be hard to Account for the nrft Rife orBe- 
 ginning ok them : Yet that a Practice fo publick & no- 
 torious to all Chriliians, as that of Baptifm is, fhould b6 
 chang'd from it's firit In{Litution,and that in'fucli a De- 
 gree, as to become quite null and void •, and that too, in 
 the primitive and pureft Times of the Church, without 
 any Oppofition, at leaft with the general Silence of all an- 
 cient Writers f whole Writings are extant) about fucli 
 Oppofition, or about the Time, or A^uthors'of fuch a 
 Change, or the Meiins by which it was eftefledjis utterly 
 beyond all Belief N'or is there any Account for the 
 firil400 Years after Chriil, nor any Shadow of Proof, 
 that there was any Se6l of Chriftians, or Body of Men, 
 that may be called a Church, owning ChriflianBaptifm, 
 that denied it to Infants : Nor any one Man in that Pe- 
 riod that objecfted againft it, except Terttdlia?7ynoY did he 
 condemn it as unlawful ; but only advis'd the Delay of 
 it, as more profitable. Nor is there any Evidence at all 
 that it was oppos'd by any one Man, for the Space of fix 
 or feven Hundred Years from that Period : But the 
 Practice continued in the Univerfal Church without In- 
 terruption or Excepticm, ( fo far as can be knovv'n from 
 
 N 2 the 
 
i8o A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IIL 
 
 the Writings and Monuments of Antiquity ) till about 
 the i2thCe"ntury,?^/^r^rw/V,and his Followers inFr^;;r^, 
 are laid to renounce it , a Scd that continued but a fhort 
 Time, and dwindled away : Whereof yet there is but 
 probable Evidence at befl. And as to the proper WaU 
 denfes^Luther's Fore-runners, their oppofing Intant-Bap- 
 tifm,and being found only in thePradice of Adult-Bap- 
 tifm, for all that has hitherto appear'd, deferves no better 
 Name, than that of a Chimera^or groiindlefs Fi5fion. And 
 Dr. Gz7/, notvv'ithftanding all his Pains, has lail'd of pro- 
 ducing any tolerable Evidence of it ; and until he, or 
 feme others,. -do it more effedually, I cannot doubt but 
 that theEvidences produc'd from their ownConfefiions to 
 prove,that it was an uncontrovertedPradice among them 
 to baptize their Children, will be efleem'd unexceptio- 
 nable. It may therefore, I think, upon good Grounds 
 \)p concluded, that the Baptifm of Infants was the con- 
 flant Practice of the Univerfal C hurch from the Begin - 
 Xiing, with little or no Oppofition, till the Germa?i Ana- 
 haf lifts- arofe in the Age ot the Reformation. And con- 
 fidering the knov/nCharafters andPradices of thofeMen, 
 It feems very unlikely thatChrift fliould afford them fuch 
 Marks of his extraordinary Prefence, as to improve them 
 as the Infiruments of reftoring any of his Laws, that had 
 been loft or-,negle61:ed. But now if Infant-Baptifm be not 
 the Inilitutjon of Chrift, or if it be fubftitured to the 
 making void his true Inftitution, I 'cannot fee how we can 
 avoid thofe intolerable Abfurdities before mentioned. It 
 remains then, that we ought to conclude it to be truly 
 his Inftitution, which he has preferv'd, together with the 
 other Sacrament, thro' all Succellions of the Church,and 
 will preferve as his Memorial, thro' all Generations. 
 
 Secondly^ l^he Pradice of the UniverfalChurch makes 
 out a confirming Evidence, as it interprets to us, and 
 eftabliflies the Senfeof thofe Scripture- PaiTages, whence 
 \ve prove the Pvight ot Infants to Baptifm. GoodPrece- 
 dents are allow'd to be of Ufe to explain and fettle the 
 meaning of a doubtful Lav>^ ; tho' the Pradice of the 
 
 Church 
 
Chap. IV. /?/ Infant- Baptifm. iSi 
 
 Church be not our Warrant for baptizing Infants -, yet 
 it may help to dired: us to the rightSenfe of thofeScrip- 
 ture-Teftimonies that are fo ; fuppofing them to have 
 been doubtful before •,' and thofe to whom they appear 
 doubtful, ought in all Reafon to be determined by the 
 Practice of the UniverfalChurch, efpecially of the primi- 
 tive Chriftians, by whom, it is rationally to be fuppos'd, 
 this Law of Chrift was reduc'd to Pradice,- according to 
 the true Intent and Meaning of it. If therefore the Evi- 
 dence produced of this Pradtice of the Church be of fuf- 
 ficient Weight, as I cannot but think it will appear, to 
 Perfons at Liberty from Prejudices and PrepofTeirionSjto 
 confider Matters impartially •, this alone may fufficeto 
 put an IlTue to the Controverfy. Tho* indeed, the 
 Grounds from Scripture for the Pra6lice of Infant-Bap- 
 tifm, are not fo doubtful, as fome would reprefent therrk 
 But this will be the Subject of our Difquiruions, in the 
 two next Chapters. ■ 
 
 Chap. IV. 
 
 The Title of Chriftian Infants to Baptifm, 
 founded on their Cove?iant-l72tereJi^ 
 proved and vindicated. 
 
 I^I^I^AVING in the two foregoing Chapters,difcufs'd 
 1^ hi|^ at large theConfequences of theDenial of Infant- 
 2^1^^ Baptifm, and efpoufing the Principles of Anti- 
 psdobaptifm ; and examin'd the Antiquity of the Prac- 
 tice of baptizing Infants^and prov'd it, (Ithinkby unex- 
 ceptionableEvidence, ) to have obtain'd from the earlieft 
 Times of Chri{lianity,inOpporition to Dr. Gih'^ Remon- 
 (Irances ? I come at lengh to confider and difcufs Matter 
 ' of Right ; and to vindicate thofeTeftimonies of Scripture 
 oi\ which this Pradice is founded. The mainFoundatioa 
 
 N 3 of 
 
i S 2 A Defence of the Divwe Right Ch a p. IV, 
 
 of the Right- of Infants to Baptifm, I conceive to be the 
 Intereil of the Seed of the Faithful in the Covenant of 
 their Parents, to whom the conftant Tenor of the divine 
 Promifes in theScriptures,both of theOld & New-Tefba- 
 menc hath been, ,to be a God to them and to their Seed ; 
 and am of Opinion, that all the other Arguments from 
 Scripture, whereby thisRii^ht of Infants hath been juftly 
 and ilrongly defended, may be reduc'd to this Head j as 
 they receive their Force andEvidence from theCovenant- 
 Intered of theChildren of Believers. If it could be prov'd 
 that fuch Children are excluded from all Interell inGod's 
 Covenant of Mercy and Salvation through Jefus Chrift 
 .with fallen Man, it will be own'd to be a truitlefs At- 
 tempt to go about to prove their Title to Baptifm ; for 
 in that Cafe, they mull: be left in the Ruins of Man's 
 Apoftacy irrecoverably, at leaft till they arrive to Adult 
 Age ; and dying in Infancy muft be left without Hope 
 or PofTibility of Salvation, according to the ordinary 
 revealed Method of the Difpenfation of God's Grace. 
 For to be an Alien to the Covenant^ is the fame Thing as 
 to be without Chrift^ aad without Hop. (Eph. 2.i2.)But 
 if on the other Hand, it be made to appear from good 
 ScriptiTre Teftimonies, that the Infants of the Church, 
 have been all along taken in with their Parents, into 
 Ood's Covenant with them, it may with no great Diffi- 
 culty be argu'd thence, that they have an undoubted 
 Right to Baptifm. For the Covenant and the Seal are 
 in the Reafon of the Thing,and by God's Appointment, 
 of equal Extent to Subjects capable. And this appears 
 from the whole Tenor of Scripture, that in all the T ranf- 
 adions of God'sCovenant with Man, in everyExhibition 
 and Difpenfation of it, Children have been included wiih 
 their Parents : And particularly, eminently and moil 
 exprefly in the Covenant v;ith Abraham., whom God ex- 
 traordinarily raifed up to be not only the greatPratriarch' 
 of theChurch oHfrael, but of all Believers under theGof- 
 pel,vv'ho are exprefly declared in theNew-Teftament to be 
 theSeed oi At>rakam^ (Rom, 4, 16. Gal. -3.19. )to whom 
 
 God's 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant-Baptifm, 183 
 
 God's Covenant and Promife was, to he aGod to him and 
 to bis Seed after him in their Generation ; whichCovenant 
 and Promife was declared to be an everlalfing Covenant^ 
 being defign'd to abide in the fame immutable Tenor, 
 even under the Gofpel, to the End of the World, as it 
 was firft eflablifhed by God to Abraham and his Seed for 
 ever ; as the infpired Virgin-Mother of our Lord in her 
 Song of Praife declares, Luk. 1.53. And therefore the 
 Author of the Dialogue, very juftly and confonantly to 
 Scripture, gathers from the Conftitution of this Cove- 
 nant, with the annexed Seal of Circumcifion, a good and 
 fufficient Warrant for the Baptifm of Infants under the 
 Gofpel. 
 
 Dr. G///, I find, has very little to fay in diredl Anfwer 
 to the Arguments produced in the Dialogue. But he 
 advances a new Scheme of Notions concerning theCove- 
 nanc, but fo perplexed and confufed, and fo wide of all 
 Foundation in Scripture, that one might almoft venture 
 to fay, it leems defignedly invented to fecure an Hypc- 
 thefiSy and to evade the Force of the Argument from the 
 Covenant that infers the Right of Chnftian Infants to 
 Baptifm. He pretends the Covenant with Mraham was 
 not a Covenant of Grace, but rather of Works : And 
 yet allows it in fome Refpedts to be a pure Covenant of 
 Grace, but not as fuch to comprehend Infants. And as 
 to the Covenant of Grace, he has very odd and ftrange, 
 and I am fure, unfcriptural Notions about it •, as that the 
 Covenant of Grace was made with all that ever had, or 
 fhall have an Intereft in it,from Everlafting. The Ab- 
 furdity of which Conceit, I have already fufficiently ma- 
 nifelled. * But I am alfo to take Notice of the Ground 
 of this Error,in his confounding/^^ Covenant of Redemp- 
 tion made with Chrift the Mediator, with the Covenant of 
 Grace made with Believers in him. He feems to admit 
 no Covenant of Grace made with any Man in Time,but 
 that which was made with the Son of God, the defigned 
 Mediator and Redeemer before the World began ; And 
 
 N 4 fays 
 
 * Chap. ir. 
 
1 84 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap.IV. 
 
 fays exprefly, that "The Covenant of Grace is not made 
 *' with any Man. — And when at any Time we read of 
 *' a Covenant of Grace being made with particular Per- 
 " forts, it mull always be underftood of making it ma- 
 " nifeil to them, &c." P. 47. In fhort his Scheme feems 
 Xo be entirely Antinomian, as far as can be gather'dfrom 
 his Expreflions, importing, that Men may really have an 
 Intereft in the Covenant of Grace, and be poflefs'd of 
 the Privileges of it, Pardon, Juftilication, &c. all the 
 Time of their Impenitency in Sin,before Faith andRege- 
 neration, yea fromEverlafling ; that Faith is not require- 
 ed to their having an Intereft in the Covenant, but only 
 that it might be manifefted to them, & that they might 
 have the AlTurance and Comfort of it •, that all wa? 
 tranfacled in and with Chrift their Head and Reprefen- 
 tative, before ever they had a Being ; and that all the 
 Benefits and Privileges of the Covenant are fo purely 
 of divine Grace, as to exclude not only the Merit of 
 Works on our Part, fwhich is granted^ but all Conditi- 
 ons and Terms of Duty required of us ; for he fays not 
 .only,That theCovenant of Grace is not made with Man, 
 but that it is not to be kept byMan^nov can it be broken by 
 Man, P. 45, 46. All which confident AfTertions, arc 
 void of any Grounds in Scripture, yea contrary to plain 
 Scripture, as has been partly fhewn already •, and 1 fhall 
 now fhew it more fully. 
 
 And therefore I find it necelTary, before I come to a 
 dired Confideration of what he has to objed againft this 
 Argument from the Covenant,that a few Things be pre- 
 mifed, for the better underftandingtheForce & Propriety 
 of this Argument,which I Iliall lay down in feveral Pro- 
 pofitions and Dillindions, for clearing up the Scripture* 
 Dodtrine of the Covenant, fo far as it relates to the pre- 
 fcntDifpute •, which being well fupported from the Word 
 of God, and duly attended to, it will require no great 
 Pains to deted: the Sophiflry of ali his Arguments and 
 Objc^^ions. Error, I kncv/, is no Friend to Diftindions, 
 whereby it is driven out Qf its lurking Places j for it de- 
 lights 
 
Chap. IV. <?/ Infant -Baptifm. 185 
 
 lights to lie hid inAmbiguities, and double Meanings of 
 Words & Phrafes -, but the true Meaning of fuch Words 
 and Phrafes,being once fettled by proper Diftinctions,the 
 Truth will be more clearly and eafily manifefted,andEr- 
 ror diffipated, and Debates ended. The mainDiftinctioa 
 to be here firft fettled is that of God's Covenant with the 
 Mediator, and his Covenant withMan fallenjin and thro' 
 the Mediator. 
 
 Of God's Covenant with the Mediator. 
 
 I. I jfhall fpeak a few Things, firft of all, of God'^s 
 Covenant with the Mediator^ (called by Divines, the 
 Covenant of Redemptions ox the Covenant of Siiretifiip) and 
 Jhew, that this is a diftind Covenant, and eflentially dif- 
 ferent from the Covenant of Gr^^^,made with Man in and 
 thro' the Mediator ; tho' neither of thefe Term.s are to 
 be found exprelly in Scripture,yet the Thing fignified by 
 them,are evidently contained therein. That 'theMethod 
 of Man's Redemption was concerted between God the 
 Father,and the Son Jefus Chrift, oajrMediator,before the 
 World began, is apparent from fundry PafTages of facred 
 Writ, which fpeak of fasderal Tranfad:ions, or Terms of 
 Agreement entred into, between God the Fatherjand the 
 MeiTias, the defigned Mediator, before his coming into 
 the World, for the Agcomplifnment of our Redemption. 
 I (hall only refer the Reader for Brevity's Sake, among 
 others, to the followingTexts of Scripture. /'y2z/.2.6,7,S. 
 and Pfal. 4.0. 6,7,8. compar'd with Heb. 10. 5,6,7,10. 
 Ifai. 4.9. I, — 6. Chap. ^^. 10, 11,12. Zech. 6. 12, i^. 
 Chap. 13. 7. Joh. 6. 38,39. Tit. i. 2. 2 Tim. i. 9. And 
 Chrifl's Interceilbry- Prayer, in Joh. 17. plainly n feis to, 
 and is grounded upon the federal Tranfadions between 
 the Father and him bcjfore the World was. And iUq 
 Dodrine of Redemption, as taught intheNew-Teftamenr, 
 the Suretifhip and Satisfadion of Chriif, cannot be well 
 explained, or underflood, without fuppofing a previous 
 Agreement between God the Facher,and the Redeemer j 
 
 as 
 
I S6 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 as might be fhewn more at large, but that it is befide my, 
 prelenc Purpofe. Thst which I am now to fhew,is5that 
 this Covenant of Redemption between thofe divine Per- 
 fons, is entirely diftincl from cheCovenant of Grace God- 
 made with us in ChriH, tho' rhe latter is founded on the 
 former : And the Materials of the Covenant of Grace, 
 are provided and comprehended in the Covenant of Re- 
 demption i yet they are form.ally diftind: Covenants, 
 To make this more clear, we may /r/?,confider, wherein 
 thefe two Covenanrs agree v/ich each other. 
 
 I. They agree in this, that they are both of Grace. 
 The Covenant of Redemption tranfadied before the World 
 began, was purely of Grace. This was the lirftMo ive to 
 the whole Work of Man's Redemption ; 'twas the free 
 good Pleafure of God's Will •, that was at the Bottom of 
 all his Thoughts and Counfcls about the Salvation of fal- 
 len Man. 2 'Tim. 1.9. Hs hath faved us — according to 
 bis own Purpofe and Grace, that zv as given us in Cbrijl Je- 
 fus^ before the JVcrii te^:an. And it was owing to the 
 Grace and Love of the Son of God, that he who was o- 
 riginally free, fubmitued to becomx his Father's Servant 
 in this Undertaking. (2 Cor. 8, 9 J And the Covenant 
 made in Chrilt with Believers is i'o purely of Grace, that 
 it has ufually this Appellation given it, The Covenant of 
 Grace. Hence feme who allow them to be diilindt Co- 
 venants, do yet term each o'f them the Covenant of Grace. 
 That between the Father and the Son, they call iht eter- 
 nal Covenant of Grace • That between God & Believers 
 thro' Ch riff, the temporal Covenant of Grace : * But the 
 Nam€ or Term is not to be Ifood upon, if the Thing be 
 acknowledged. 
 
 2. They both agree in this, that they relate to the Re- 
 demption and Salvation of the chofen People of God. 
 This is the principal Matter & Defign of bothCovenants. 
 Go.i the Father and the Son enter into Articles about it 
 in the Covenant of Redemption : God and Believers come 
 under mutual F^ngag-ments for obtaining* it, in the Cove- 
 nant 
 * Vid. Van Maflrld. Tbiolog. Ucoretko-Traet, J.ib. V. Cap. I. 
 
Chap. IV« g/ Infant-Baptifm. iSy 
 
 .nant of Grace : Yet with this Difference ; the Covenant 
 of Redemption, refers chiefly to the Impetratinn or Fur- 
 chafe of Redemption -, the Covenant of Grace, fuppofes 
 the Purchafe of Redemption, and refers only to the Ap- 
 plication of it. 
 
 3. They agree alfo in this, that the Salvation of the 
 fpiritLialSeed of Chrifl is promifed in bothCovenants. It 
 is promifed to theBeliever,in the Covenant of Grace,iipon 
 hisFaich inChriil. The Right eoufnefs of Faith (theApofbie 
 tells us) i.e. the Covenant of Grace.CQnferringRighteouf- 
 nefs and Life on Sinners, upon their Faith in Chrifb, runs 
 in this Tenor, Rom. 10. 9. If thcujhalt confefs -with thy 
 Mcuth the Lord Jtfus^ and fo alt believe in thine Heart — 
 thcujhalt he faved. It. is promifed to Chrift in Behalf of 
 his fpirituai Seed in the Covenant of Redemption, upon 
 his making an Expiatory Oblation for Sin, //^^/. 53.10,1 1, 
 For Chrill is conftituted in the Covenant of Redemption, 
 the Mediator, Surety, or Guardian, of the Covenant of 
 Grace ; and the publickTruliee, or Repofitory of all the 
 pnrnifed Mercies & BlefTings of it. Thefe Agreements 
 between the two Covenants have caufed feme to overlook 
 the real Difierence betv/een them, and to make them one 
 and the fame ; as our Author doth. But that there is a 
 manifeil Difference between them, will appear in thefe 
 Particulars. 
 
 I. The Parties are different. In the Covenant of Re- 
 demption, God the Father, and the Son, are the Parties 
 Covenanting : The Father propounds his Will & Coun- 
 fel to the Son, concerning what was to be done fortheRe- 
 demption of fallen Man -, the Son readily accepts his Fa- 
 thers Decree and Propofal, and voluntarily confcnts to 
 his Part of the Undertaking, faying, LoJ come to do thy 
 JVtlly God. Heb. 10.7. WhichPropofal,&Confent,car- 
 ries in it theMatter & Form of a Covenant But novv-,in 
 the Covenant of Grace, God and Man, are the confede- 
 rating Parties •, as appears from the conflantTenor of the 
 Scriptures, which often fpeak of the Covenant tranfacttd 
 between God & Man j but never fpcak in expuels Terms 
 
 of 
 
i88 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. W% 
 
 of theCovenant made with JefusChrift (unlefs under the';^ 
 Typeof D^i;i^, Pral.89.3J But with Men often. Thus^ 
 Gcd made a Covenant wkhNoah and his Sons, Gen.^.g, 
 "With Abraham^ Gen. 17.. 2. I will make my Covenant be- 
 tween me and thee. With David., 2 Sam, 23. 5, He hath 
 wade with me an everlafting Covenant, And under the 
 Gofpel, with the New-Tellament Ifrael^ Heb. 8. I will 
 make a new Covenant with the Houfe of Ifrael i^c, i.e. with 
 Gofpel- Behc vers. We fee then the Confederates are dif- 
 ferent. But however (may fome fay) may not the Cove- 
 nant be the fame that is made with Chriil and Behevers ; 
 with Him as the Head, and with them as the Members 
 of his Body ? I Anfwer ; No : For, 
 
 2. TheConditions of thefe twoCovenants are different. 
 The Condition undertaken by Chrift was, that he fliould 
 become Man, take an human Body, that he might con- 
 verfe famiharly with Men,ancl open to them theCounfels 
 of God referring to their Salvation, and therein become 
 obedient unto Death, offering his human Body and Soul 
 a Sacrifice to makeAtonement forMan's Sin. Ifai. 53. 10, 
 Margin. When his Soul fo all make an Offering for Sin., &c. 
 Hcb. 10. 5, — 10 So that Obedience unto Death & Sa- 
 tisiadion for Sin thereby, was the m.ainCondition required 
 of theSon of God in theCovenant of Redemption ; where- 
 as in the Covenant of Grace, the Condition requir'd of 
 fallen Man, is Faith in the Mediator, joined withRepen- 
 tance, and produdive of unfeignedObedience to the holy 
 Precepts and Rules of the Covenant. In the Covenant 
 ofRedemption,theCondition runs thus, '■^ Make thy Sou I an 
 Offering for Sin, and thou fhalt fee thy Seed. But in the 
 Covenant of Grace, the Condition runs thus. Believe in 
 the Lord Jefus Chriff^and thou /halt be faved. ■ Thefe Con- 
 ditions are not only different,but incompatible tvitli each 
 other,in the fame Subject. The making an expiatory 
 Sacrifice for Sin, the Condition in the Covenant ol Re- 
 demption, excludes all Ncceffity & Ufe of Faith towards 
 a Mediator in the lame Perfon : and Faith in an atoning 
 Mediator, theCoiuiiiion «f the Covenant oi' Grace,would 
 
 be 
 
"hap. IV. of Infant- Baptifm. ig^ 
 
 beufelefsto a Man that could makeExpiatlon for his own 
 Sins. Yea,it is impoffible for thefeCondirions to be equal- 
 ly perform'd by Chrift andBelievers. The Condition of 
 theCovenant of Redemption is impoffible to all Men, for 
 ManjOnce a Sinner, is liable himfelf to be made aSacrifice, 
 but cannot pcffibly make an atonmg Sacrifice for Sin. 
 And the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace are as im- 
 poffible to Chrift, which are Faith & Repentance j Faith 
 in a Mediator,requir'd of Sinners,is impoffible to theMe- 
 diator himfelf. And how could he repent who had no Sin 
 of his own,to repent of ? It being neceflary to qualify him 
 to be an atoning Sacrifice tor the Sins of others, that he 
 Ihould be abfolutely finlefs hmifelf. And therefore the 
 manifeft Difagreement of thefe two Conditions,is a clear 
 Evidence, that they can't belong to the fame Covenant, 
 but do plainly conftitute two diltind Covenants. 
 
 3. They differ alfo in the Promifes and Privileges of 
 each Covenant. 'Tho' thePrcmifes made toChrifl: m the 
 Covenant of Redemption,virtually comprize all thePro- 
 n^ifes of the Covenant of Grace, and are the fundamental 
 Security of all the Bleffiings promifed to Believers,yet the 
 Promifes of the Covenant of Grace, were not formally 
 made to Chrift, as a confederateParty in the Covenant of 
 Redemption, neither could they be. The main Promifes 
 ot the Covenant of Grace5are of Pardon of Sin, the Gift 
 of the Spirit for Sandification and eternal Salvation ; all 
 which fuppofe thePerfons to whom ihey are made to be 
 Sinners, guilty, corrupt, and liable to Damnation. For 
 whichReafon,no fuchPromifes, furely,can agree toChrifb, 
 be needs them not who was perfedly pure and fporlefs; 
 had he needed Pardon of Sin and Regeneration, he could 
 not have been ourMediator. On thecontrary,thePromifes 
 n:ade to Chrift, as a confederate Party in the Covenant of 
 Redemption,were peculiar to him, and could agree to 
 none elfe ; fuch as the Promife of a Seed to ferve him. 
 liai. 53. 10. He JJjallfee his Seed, &c. Pfal. 22. 30. Of 
 ilriing at hisFathcr's right Hand, and a compleat Viclory 
 over his Enemies. Pfai. no. i, The Lord /aid unto my 
 
 Lord^ 
 
190 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 Lor d^ fit thdu at my right Hand^until I make thine Enemies i 
 thy Footftool. The Promife of a univerfal Dominion, to:' 
 whofe fupream Power & Authority all Creatures in Hea^ 
 'ven and Earth^and under theEarlh^ Angels Men & Devils- 
 ihouldZ'(?w the Knee. Phil. 2. 9, 10. In ihort, he had the 
 Promii'e of having the Honour & Glory of the great Sa- 
 viour &Head of the Churchy aGlory which fuits only to ' 
 the Mediator, as his peculiar Prerogative, which noCrea- 
 ture in Heaven or Earth can have any Share in. And 
 tlK>' thefe glorious Promifes made to Chrift redound to 
 the Benefit of all Believers, yet there are no fuchPromifes 
 made to them in the Covenant of Grace : but finding 
 them in Scripture made to Chriit, upon his Undertaking 
 and Peribrmance of the Work of our Redemption, wef 
 piuft conclude,that thefe are diftindt Covenants : for we 
 have already feen that both the Conditions and Promifes , 
 of theCovenant of Grace are fuch,as Chrift is uncapablel 
 of; and that the Conditions & Promifes of theCovenanC 
 of Redemption are fuch, as Believers are uncapable of. 
 Let me add, 
 
 4. Chrift is the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace,: 
 but in theCovenant ot Redemption, a Party confederate. 
 The Covenant of Grace is made with us through a Me- 
 diator or Surety : HericeChriil is fo often called the Me- 
 diatcr of the Nc-~jj Tejl anient, Heb. 12. 24. The 'TesJator,. 
 whofe Death confirmed his New 'Tejtament, 10 theHeirs ofi 
 Promife, Pleb. 9. 1 5, 1 6. And a Surety 0} a betterTeftament^ 
 which is no otherjbut the Covenant of Grace, Heb. 7. 22, 
 But in the Covenant between the Father & the Sonjtherc 
 was no Mediator or Surety, there needed none, for the- 
 Father and the Son were perfe6tly united in Mind andi 
 Counfel. John 10. 15, 18. As theFather knozueth meyevew 
 fo know I the Father : And I lay down my Life for theSheep, 
 — This Commandment have I received of my Father, f. 30.' 
 I and my Father are one. And they were immutably true 
 and faithful, and trufted each other on their Word. And 
 in this Covenant of Redemption, he was conftituted Me- 
 diator of the Covcnaiii; gf Grace. But if the Covenant 
 
 of 
 
.^lAP. IV. of Infant- Baptifm. 191. 
 
 f Grace was made with him,he would be bothMediator, 
 nd aParty,in the fame Covenant !. Both theTeftatorjand 
 he Legatee, which is unreafonable & abfurd. And 
 
 ^. In the Covenant of Redemption the Reward pro- 
 iiied to Chrift, upon his Performance of the Work 
 iiign'd him., was a Reward of Debt, and not of Grace. 
 Vnd he properly and righteouily merited all that was pro- 
 nifed by theFather j according to diatAcccount of Merit, 
 Zcm, 4. 4. that it confifts in fuch Works of perfect Obe- 
 lience as render the Reward of Debt^ and not of Grace ; 
 ind fuch were theWorks of Chrift's Obedience to the Fa- 
 her, on the Account whereof he might juftly claim the 
 ^romiied Reward as his Due, as we find him in Joh.iy, 
 Hitting in his Plea in theNature of a Claim, f. 4,5, 24. 
 lax. in die nev/Covenantall is of Grace, both theCondition 
 .nd the promifedReward. Rom. 4. 16. ItiscfFaith^ihat 
 t may he by Grace. Eph. 2. 8. By Grace are ye faved thro* ^ 
 '^^aith^ and that not of your f elves ^ it is the Gift of God, 
 Once more, 
 
 6. They differ in their immediate Ends. The Cove* 
 iant of Redemption immediately relates to thePurchafe 
 f Redemption by the Obedience & Sacrifice of the Son 
 f God, incarnate : The whole* Method or Plan of this 
 iVork was agreed on in theCounfel of Peace between the 
 I2kih^x & the Son •, but the Covenant of Grace is founded 
 m the Suppofition of this Purchafe already made, and 
 'efers immediately & only to theApplication of Redemp- 
 :ipn,and is publifhed & recorded in the faered Scripture^ 
 15 the appointed Method and Rule of the Spirit'sW^ork, 
 n bringingHome the Redemption purchafed by the Son 
 :Q-the Souls of Men. From ail thefe Differences it fol- 
 ows,as ,an undeniable Conclufion, that thefe muil be two 
 lirtind Covenants. * 
 
 Thefe 
 
 '• Mod: of thefe and other Points of Difference between the two Co- 
 venants, are noted and enlarged on by Mr.C/S(?/-/2i?ri,in hisDifcourf© 
 on God's being the Author of Bjicunciliaiion : By Mr. Fla^tK in his 
 fountain of Life opined. And by divers other Divines, who have 
 
 ^written on this 'SubjeS:, whereby they have clearly demorikated 
 
 - th^fe two Coveuan;^ to be iudrel^ diiimivt. 
 
192 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 Thefe Confiderations plainly fhew Dr. GiU's Miftake, 
 in making the Covenant with Chrift,and that made with 
 Believers,to be one & the fame,and pretending,that " the 
 " Covenant of Grace was made with Chrilt and his Peo- 
 '' pie, as confider'd in him from Everlafting.P.47." For 
 tho' the Covenant made with Chrift betore the World 
 began (called the eternal Covenant) had Rerpe6l to the 
 chofen People in Time, and was defigned and contrived 
 for their Good ♦, yet confidering the Nature andTenor of 
 it, as it has been diftindlly (tho' very briefly) explained, 
 in Refpe6l to its Conditions & Promifes,could not poffi- 
 bly be made with them, or with any of the Children of 
 Men, as Parties confederate, it being aCovenant peculiar 
 toChrift in his mediatorialCapacity : It may as truly and 
 properly be faid, that they were joint Undertakers with 
 him in the Work of Man's Redemption, as that they were 
 joint Federates with him, in the Covenant between the 
 Father and Him, relatino; to that Undertaking;. 
 
 It is to be confers'd,that the more ancientDivincs feem^ 
 to have had lefs diifind Notions of the Covenant of Re 
 demption : for obferving, there were Promifes made to 
 Chrift m Scripture, thefe they explained and apply'd, in- 
 diftindly to theCovenant ol Grace in general, and feem'd 
 to hold that theCovenant of Grace was made withChrifV, 
 as the Head, and with Believers,as his Members,or fpiri- • 
 tual Seed : But in a far dilFerent Senfe ^rom t\\t Antino- ■ 
 mians, or from that of Dr. Gill ; not as exclufive of a 
 Covenant of Grace made particularly withBelievers ; nor; 
 of the Conditions of that Covenant, required in order to 
 their having an Intereft in the Privileges of it. The • 
 Aflembly of Divines, both in their Confeffion of Faith^and 
 iarger Catechifm^ expreily mentionFaith,as the Condition 
 required of us, in order to our Intereft in Chrift, and his 
 faving Benefits , and the later Divines upon a more nar- 
 rt)w,and accurate Search, into theNature of theCovenant, 
 according to the Light of Scripture-Revelation, have ob- 
 fcrved a diftind Covenant between the divine Perfons, 
 God the Father, and the Redeemerj peculiar to them, 
 
 antecedeot 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant-Baptlfm. 19^ 
 
 antecedent to the Covenant of Grace, made with fallen 
 Man in Chrift, and the very Foundation of it. 
 
 Thofe who take thefe Covenants to be one and the 
 fime, feem to be led into that Opinion chiefly by one 
 Text of Scripture, and that a very myftical one. It is 
 that, in Gal. 3. 16. Nov: to /ibraham and his Seed were 
 the Promifes made : he faith not, And to Seeds ^as of many ; 
 but as of one^ And to thy Seed \ which is Chrift, But to 
 fliew, what is moil clear and certain from fo doubtful a 
 Text, let me briefly note, i. There are divers Promifes 
 recorded, which God made to Abraham in Reference to 
 his Seed. Particularly, G^;^ 22.18. In thy Seed Jloall all 
 the Nations of the Earth be bleffed. Chap. 17. 7. I will 
 eftablifn my Covenant between me & thee^ and thy Seed after 
 thee — to be a God to thee^and thy Seed after thee. Chap. 
 I J . 1 5. All theLand which thcufeeftjo thee will I give^ and 
 to thy Seed. Now we need not be curious to enquire,whicli 
 of thefe Promifes the Apoftle refers to, feeing he fpeaks 
 o^ Promifes in the Plural, including the feveral Promifes 
 God made to Abraham relating to his Seed. 2. We are 
 further to note. That by the Seed of Abraham mentioned 
 in God*s Promifes to him, befides his natural Seed, the 
 Jews, there is a twofold Seed efpecially intended.: Which 
 two, in other Refpe6is, are one. 1 here is that eminent 
 Seed, the MefTiaSjwho was promifed as the great BiefTing 
 of the World ; in whom all Nations of the Ecrtb arc to be 
 hleffed -, and v^ho is, by way of Eminence, ftiled the Seed 
 of Abraham^ Heb.2 16. The other, are all Chriftiansor 
 Believers inChri(l,the adopted Seed of Abraham, There- 
 fore thefe Promifes cannot be faid,according to theLetter 
 of the Hiftory, to be made to Chrift as the Seed of Abra- 
 ham \ fince as fuch, he was the great Blefling promifed, 
 and by whom the Promife of Blelfing was to be fulfilled 
 to the adopted Seed. 3 Obferve, That in whatever 
 Senfe the Promifes are faid to be made to the eminent 
 StQd of Abraham^ i. e. to Chrift, they were not made to 
 the Perfon of Chrift diftin(ftively, fo as to exclude others 
 ©f the Faithful from having a Share in them j nor indeed 
 
 O arc 
 
194 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 are any other Prcmifes here referred to, but thofe of the 
 Covenant of Grace, common to all Believers ; foryf^r^- 
 ham is particularly and exprelly joined with his Seed, to 
 whom the Promiies were made, and primarily to Abra- 
 ham, Fcr to Abraham & his Seed were thePromifes made. 
 But to fay, that the Promifes were made primarily io A- 
 hraham,, and then to Chrifl: perfonally coniidered, founds 
 harfh. Wherefore (to declare what I apprehend to be the 
 Mcaniiig ot this Text) 'tis to be obferv'd,that theApoftle, 
 in Oppofition to the Boaft of the Jews,that they were the 
 Seed ot Abraham^ andHeirs of thePromifes made to him, 
 is here fhewing, thatGod intended another Seed of Abra- 
 ham (befides the carnal unbelieving Jews,) upon the Ex- 
 hibition of Chrift in the Flefh, who (hould beHeirs of his 
 Covenant •, even as many both Jews & Gentiles as came 
 into Union withChrifl:,the great & eminent Seed o^Abra- 
 to^jbyFaith , i.e. theChriftianChurch,or the whokChurch 
 of Believers under the Difpenfation of Chrift theirHead. 
 So he had declared ^', 7. 'iThey which are of Faith^ the 
 fame are the Children of Abraham. And he proves this 
 from theType o{ Alrahamh immediate naturalSeed,thus: 
 as Abraham according to the Letter of the Hiftory had a 
 diverfe Seed, Iflrmad and Ifaac ; but Ifimael the Son of the 
 Bond-Woman was caft out, and Ifaac only counted for 
 the Seed *, on whom the Promifes were fettled, in whofe 
 Lm^ the Church was to be continued. Gen. 21. 12.' — In 
 Ifaac f}jall thy Seed be caIIed,Chap. 17.21. MyCovenant will. 
 I cftablifh with Ifaac: So at theComing of Chrift & under 
 his Difpenfation (tho* Abraham may be faid to have a di- 
 verfe.'^ ecd, viz. the carnal unbclievi7tgjews^\\\s naturalSeed, 
 vho adher'd to the legal Covenant, typified by the Son 
 of the Bond-Woman, and all Bcliez-crs, even among the 
 Gentiles, his r.dopted Seed, typified by Ifaac the Child of\ 
 thePrcmiJe^ Gal. 4. 22, 23. 28. Ytt) in the myfricalSenfe, 
 there is iliU but one Stt6^ who were defign'd theHeirs of, 
 thePromifes made loAbraham •, that is,all that areChriil's,: 
 all believing Jews and Gentiles united in ore Body, deno- 
 minated from theirHead C/n/? myflical,as in i Ccr. 12.13 
 
 according 
 
Chap. IV. ^/ Infant- Bapiifm. 195 
 
 according to the Explication given by the Apoftle in rliis 
 fameChapter. i!. 28,29. For there is neither]t'N nor Gxocl'iy 
 &c. For ye are all One in Chrijljefus^ and if ye be Chrift^Sy 
 then are ye Abraham's Seed (the one Seed to whom the 
 Promifes were made, as it follows) and Heirs according to 
 the Promife, The carnal Jews being broken off through 
 Unbelief from the Root of Abraharn\ Covenant, the be- 
 lieving Gentiles fucceed in their Room, as Heirs of the 
 Promifes : that as the natural Seed v/ere literally cne in 
 Ifaac^ IJhmael being call out tz not allow'd to inherit with 
 him •, fo the fpiritual Seed are myfticaliy one in Chrifh, 
 and to them only the Promife belongs under the Gofpel, 
 which was made to Abraham arid his Seed. 
 
 According to this Explication, I fee nothing that fa- 
 vours the Notion of the fame Covenant being made with 
 Chrift and Believers •, or however the Text be explain'd, 
 all that can be gather'd from it,is,that the Promifes were 
 made to Chrift confider'd in his publick Capacity, as the 
 fecond/fi^;;/, and Head of his redeem'd People, to be ia 
 Time made good to all hisMembers,as the greatBleiTing 
 he was to difpenfeto them •, which I conceive to be a very 
 different Thing from faying, that the Covenant of Grace 
 was made with him as a Party confederate in that Cove- 
 nant, which I have lliewed to be impolfible : yet nothing 
 hinders but that the Promifes of the Covenant of Grace 
 might be miade to him as a publick Truftee,in Behalf of 
 his fpiritual Seed, that they might claim all by and under 
 him, by Virtue of their Union & Relation to him, who 
 muft in all Things have the Prcheminence. And it is 
 undoubtedly a great Truth, and agreable to what has 
 been faid of the Tranfadions between theFather& Him 
 in the Covenant of Redemption, that all the Promifes of 
 the new Covenant, comprizing the ^X^^^mgo^ Abraham y 
 Juftincation, theGift of the Spirit for Sanciification, and 
 eternal Life, were originally made to Chrift in thofe an- 
 cient Tranfaftions, not as a Party concern'd otherwife 
 than as a Truftee, or Surety of the Covenant of Gr^ce, 
 %ho by Virtue of the Promife of the Father, had full 
 O 2 Right 
 
•196 A 'Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV, 
 
 Right and Power to difpenfe them to his redeemed Peo- 
 ple onNew-Covenant-Terms. The Father promifed and 
 engag'd to Chrift on the Behalf of his cholen Seed, in 
 Coniideration of his Obedience, Death and Sacrifice, to 
 give his Spirit to them, and all neceiraryGrace,to fit them 
 for Heaven, and eternal Life in the End ; which being 
 the CoTifummation of the Bleffing of Jl^rabam.and of all 
 the Promifes of the new Covenant, is faid to ht promifed 
 by God before the fFor Id began. Tit. i, 2. It was promifed 
 in Jefus Chriil:, as the Apoftle ellewhere fpeaks of the 
 Grace given us inCbrifi Jefus before theWorld began. 2 Tim. 
 1 . 9. Given not to Jefus Chriil:, but given to us in Chrift 
 Jefus ; who as Mediator was conftituied the Repofitory 
 of all divine Gifts, Mercies, and Bleirings,to be difpens'd 
 to fmful Men. For all the Promifes of God are in Cbriji 
 Tea^and in htm Amen. 2Cor, i. 20. All were fecured in his 
 Hands,on the Behalf of his People. And fo we fee5thac 
 whatever Promifes were made to Chriil, this is noProof 
 that the Covenant of Grace, as contradiflinguifh'd from 
 theCovenant of Redemption,was made with him. And leC 
 this fufiice for the firilHead. I proceed now to fpeak — 
 
 Of God's Covena?it with Man. 
 
 2. Let us in the next Place confider theCovenant 
 God has made with Manjn and through the Mediator. 
 And in Order hereunto, I would firit fliew what aCove- 
 venant between God and Man imports in general. 
 
 God's Covenant with Man is the revealed Method of 
 his Government over him, in a State of Trial, by Laws, 
 Promifes and Threatnings, whereby he hath fliewed what 
 Duty he requires of him -, and what Favours and Bene- 
 fits he may expedt from hisCreator upon his Compliance 
 wiih his Will, that he might in a Way moil fuitable to 
 his rational Nature, engage his Dependance on him, and 
 Obedience to him, in Order to his own Glory, and the 
 Happinefsof Man. All this is implied in every Cove- 
 nant with Man, as to the Subftance of it on God'sPai"t ; 
 and Mau'ii Confent and A<.n'eement hereunto brincrs hirn 
 
 into 
 
Chap. IV. cf Infant-Baptirm. 19-7 
 
 into Covenant witbGcd. There is (it is granted} a great 
 Deal of Difference betvveenGod's covenanting witiiMan, 
 and Man's covenanting with his Fellow- Creature •, con- 
 trading Parties among Men are fuppos'd tree from Ob- 
 ligations to each other, till they bind themfelves by Co- 
 venant. But Man is originally bound, as a Servant to 
 God, by the Law of his Creation, and God might juftly 
 demand Obedience from him, without engaging himfelf 
 -by Promife to reward his Obedience -, therefore it is 
 wonderful Grace and Condefcenfion in God to enter into 
 the Bonds of a Covenant with his Creature, to engage 
 him to that Service and Obedience which is his original 
 Due. Befides, Man is at Liberty to propound what 
 Terms he pleafes to his Feiiow-Creature, and it is not a 
 valid Covenant, till there be a mutual Agreement arid 
 Confentof both Parties : ButMan being originally bound 
 to God, is not at Liberty to make his ov/n Terms5orto 
 debate or except againft theTerms propounded,on which 
 God vouchfafes to enter into Covenant v/ith him ; but is 
 obliged to take the Covenant juft asGod offers it. God's 
 Command and Promife conftitutes the whole Ma:ter of 
 the Covenant : the Command makes our Part in it ; the 
 Promife, his. And it is the Duty of every one to whom 
 theCovenant is propounded,fand not Matter of Liberty) 
 to yield his Confent to it \ and it is his Sin, his Difobe- 
 dience, and Ingratitude, to refufe it. Thefe and other 
 Differences there are, of the Covenants between God and 
 Man,& betweenMan &Man, Neverthelefs,that which is 
 requifite to all Covenants, is the mutual Agreement,and 
 Engagement of theParties one to another ; without which 
 there can be no proper Covenant. So in God'sCovenanc 
 with Man, there are Promifes on God's Part, and Refli- 
 pulations on Man's Part, either exprefs or implicit. I'he 
 Proportion of the Covenant on God's Part, whether by 
 immediate Revelation, or in the Handing Record of holy 
 Scripture, is a fufncient Declaration of his Confent to a 
 Covenant- Treaty with Men. And in order to their In- 
 tcreit in the Covenant, there muft be an adual Confent 
 
 O 3 to 
 
'19S A 'Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV, 
 
 to God's Propofal and Demand, in Subjedls capable, be- 
 lievingly and thankfully accepting the ProiTiire,and obe- 
 diently fubmitting to theTerms requir'd. I fay^inSub- 
 jeds capable -, for lince Man is originally and naturally 
 bound to all the Duties required in the Covenant, if it 
 pleafe God to extend the Promife of it to fuch as are at 
 prefent uncapable of aflual Confent, as the Infants of the 
 Faithful they are neverthelefs properly to be reputed 
 Federates, and to have an Intereil in the Covenant, by 
 Virtue of the believingConfent of their Parents, andGod's 
 Promife to them. There needs not the Confent of Chil- 
 dren, to bring them underObligations to God ; they are 
 his already,and bound to all the Duties of the Covenant, 
 by the Right of Creation and Redemption : And his 
 Promife of being th(^ir God, annexed to his Command, 
 (which as they grow up to a Capacity for it, they arc 
 obliged to own and actually to confent to) is fufficient to 
 their Covenant-Intereft ; and they ought to be efteemed, 
 equally with their Parents, in Covenant with God, 'till 
 they cut ofFthemfelvcs by Apoftacy, or renouncing their 
 Part in the Covenant. 
 
 It has pleafed God, all along from the Beginning, to 
 deal with Man in the Way of a Covenant : which is to 
 be confidered as the Rule and Method of the moral Go - 
 vernment,v;hich he exercifesovcrhisPeople in this World-, 
 -wherein much of the Wifdom and Goodnefs of God is 
 manitefted. He hath chofen fuch a Method of Govern- 
 ment, to fhew, that hisAuthority is temper'd with Grace 
 and Love, refembling that of a kind and tender 
 Father, who confults the Good of his Children, & chiefly 
 deligns the Glory of Goodnefs and Love,rather than that 
 of an abfolute Monarch, who aims chiefly at the Glory 
 of Power and Dominion. And this Conititution of Go- 
 vernment is better accommodated to theNature of Man, 
 who being cndow'd with Reafon and Confcience, Hope 
 and Fear, is capable of a moral Law direding his Beha- 
 viour inObedience toGod,and of being influenced thereto 
 by Proniiies and Threatnings. But chiefly we may ob- 
 
 fcrvc. 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant- Baptifm. 199 
 
 ferve, that in this Way of Government:, God has laid a 
 Foundation of iiis People's Dependance on him, the bet- 
 ter to encourage & fecure their Obedience to him. Had 
 God only given us a L ommand, without giving us a 
 Promife to build our Hope upon, we Ihould have had 
 no Ground of Dependance, but the general Perfections 
 of his Nature, which are fo much above the Reach of our 
 Underftandings, that we could not certainly conclude 
 from thefe alone, that our moil difficult Services fhould 
 meet with a Reward, to compenfate our Pains. Indeed 
 his Goodnefs and general Juftice might incline us to hope 
 for a Recompence ; but when we confider him as an ab- 
 folute Sovereign,who may do what he will with his own, 
 we could have no certain Perfuafion, but that when we 
 had ferved his Ends, he might let us fink into our origi- 
 nal Nothing ; Ctho I think it is going too far, to fay, he 
 might make us mifcrable out of his meer Sovereignty ; 
 which feems abfolutely repugnant to his natural Good- 
 nefs) fo that we Ihould have had but little Encourage- 
 ment without a Promife, to depend on him, and confe- 
 quently to obey him : and fo the Band of Commerce 
 between God and his reafonable Creatures, would have 
 been very weak and eafily diflbluble. But his Covenant 
 with us affords fure Grounds to go upon both, in ourDe- 
 pendance on him, and Obedience to him. 
 
 What has been now faid of God'sGovernmentof Man 
 in a federal Way, is applicable to every Covenant God 
 hath made with him, not only to the Covenant made 
 v^it^^Adam before the Fall, (commonly called theCovenant 
 of Works) wherein his Duty was enjoin'd by an exprefs 
 Command, and guarded by aThreatning of Death, im- 
 plying a Promife of Life in Cafe of Obedience \ but alfo 
 to the Covenant of Grace fince the Fall, in everyDifpen- 
 fation whereof it has been God's great Defign to keep 
 up and eftablifli his governing Authority over Men, to 
 condud them to Happinefs, in a Way conducive to the 
 Glory of his Holinefs and Juftice, as the Ruler of the 
 World, as well as of his rich Grace. Wherefore to talk 
 
 o 4 4. 
 
200 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 of a Covenant oi Grace, wherein all is fo purely of Grace 
 as to exclude allTerms of Duty requir'd of Man, " a Co- 
 venant that cannot be kept by Man,nor broken byMan," 
 is unfcriptural and unreafonable, and repugnant to the 
 Method of the divine Government over Men -, it being 
 evident, that the grand Aim of tiie Gofpel-Difpenfation 
 (which will be own'd to be a Difpenfation of the pureft 
 GraceJ is to magnify the holy La'u:; of God, and to make 
 it honour able ^ Ifai, /\.2. 21. Matlh.^.ij. Rom 3.31. 
 But it is of the Covenant of Grace particularly, that I 
 v/ould fpeak a few Things, which are neceifary to be un- 
 derftood, for the better clearing up our Argument thence 
 to Infants Title to Baptifm. 
 
 I. I (liall (hew what the Covenant of Grace is, in ge- 
 neral, or what we mean by it. 
 
 The Covenant of Grace is that Difpenfation of the 
 Grace and Government of God to fallen Man by a Re- 
 deemer, reveal'd and publifh'd in the facred Scriptures, 
 wherein, upon the Account of the Satisfaction & Merit 
 of Chrill, God freely offers & promifes to us Pardon of 
 Sin, Grace, and eternal Life,with allThings necefTary and 
 conducive to our Happinefs in Soul and Body,requiring 
 of us Faith in Chrift, Repentance, Converfion, and new 
 Obedience to his Gofpel,as the Condition and Means of 
 our Iniereft in, and full PofTefTion of thefe gracious Pro- 
 mifes. Or more briefly thus. The Covenant of Grace is 
 God's wife and gracious Method of dealing with apollate 
 Man, in Order to his Recovery to his loft Holinefs and 
 Happinefs by a Mediator, wherein he promifes to be a 
 God to us and our Seed, requiring the Dedication of our 
 felves to him by Faith in his Son Jefus Chriff, to be to 
 him aPeople,and to walk before him inNewnefs of Life ; 
 offering & difpenfing the Grace of his holy Spirit to ena- 
 ble us thereunto. Which I find agreable, for Subftance, 
 to the ConfelTion of the Affembly of Divines^ * in the brief 
 Defcription they give of this Covenant, in thefe Words, 
 [[ TheLord was pleas'd to make afecondCovenant,com- 
 
 ^f monly 
 
 ^ ^* Cmf^fm of Fciilh, Chap. VII. 
 
Ckap. IV. ef Infant-Baptifm. 201 
 
 *' monly called the Covenant of Grace ^ wheiein he freely 
 *' offercth untoSinners Life & Salvation byJefusChrift : 
 *' requiring of themFaith in him, that they may be faved, 
 *' and promifing to give unto all thofe that are ordained 
 " unto Life, his holy Spirir,to make them willing and 
 *' able to believe." It is called theCovenantof Grace,by 
 "Way of Eminence. There was indeed much of theGrace 
 of God in the firft Covenant made with Adam in Inno- 
 j cence, and wonderful Condefcenfion in the high and lofty 
 One^ to Hoop down from the Height of Majefly to treat 
 with his mean Creature, Man, in a Covenant- Way, to 
 enter into Articles with the Work of his own Hands,to 
 j fecure that Duty & Homage (and to render it more agre- 
 i able and grateful to Man) which as his Creator he had 
 an originalRight to. But in the fecondCovenant,there are 
 I more peculiar and admirableDifcoveries of divineGrace ; 
 I it is of Grace, not only as Grace fignifies a free Favour 
 orVouchfafement,exclufive of all Regard to Merit in the 
 Creature \ but of Grace, as it fignifies abfolutely free 
 Bounty and Kindnefs, in Oppoficion to a contrary Deme- 
 rit in the finful Creature. The free Grace of God is evi- 
 dently manifeiled in the whole Conftitution of thisCove- 
 nant. So the Ajjeynbly of Divines declare in their larger 
 Catechifm. '' The Grace of God is manifefled in the fe- 
 " cond Covenant, in that he freely provideth & offereth 
 " to Sinners a Mediator, and Life and Salvation by him ; 
 *' andrequiringFaich as theCondition to intereft them in 
 *' him, promifeth and giveth his holy Spirit to all his 
 *' Eledt, to work in them that Faith, and all other faving 
 ** Graces.'* Agreably hereunto v/e may obferve,how pe- 
 culiarly and eminently the Grace of God is difcover'd in 
 this Covenant, chiefly in thefe Particulars. 
 
 I . The moft fovereign free Grace appears in the very 
 Foundation of this gracious Conftitution ; in God's ap- 
 pointing his own Son to be our Mediator and Sacrifice of 
 Atonement for Sin, which is the Ground of that Ad of 
 Grace which he has publifii'd in the new Covenant. 
 I Joh, 4. 10. Herein is Love \ not that we loved God^ but 
 
 that 
 
202 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 that he loved us, f with a free Love of Benevolence) and 
 fent his Son to be the Propitiation for our Sins. Rom. 8. 32. 
 He that fpared not his own Son, hut delivered him up for us 
 all, how fn all he not with him alfo freely give us allThings ? 
 The Gift of his own Son,fcr the Ends mention'd, is fun- 
 damental to all theBleffings of theCovenant. And thisGift 
 of his Son being an A61 of the pureft free Grace, not 
 only without Regard to any Merit in us, but previous to 
 the Confideration of the Merit of Chrift too,all theGifts 
 of divine Mercy,founded thereon and flowing therefrom, 
 mull have their Rife from the fame free Grace. 
 Therefore, 
 
 2. It is manifefled in the Conditions of Pardon and 
 Life, propounded to us and requir'd of us in this Cove- 
 nant. Which are, not any Satisfa^flion for our part: Of^ 
 fences, or perfect Obedience for the future •, both which 
 as Sinners we are uncapable o\ ; butFaith in theMcdiator, 
 with its neceflary and infeparable Concomitants, Repen 
 tance and newnefs of Life ; which are the lowed Terms 
 of our being reinftated in the divineFavour, which a wife 
 and holyGod could reafonably be fuppos'd to condefcend 
 to, confidently with the Glory of his own Perfedions, 
 and which are in their own Nature requifite and condu 
 cive to our Recovery from the Maladies and Miferies of 
 our fallen State. Thefe Terms of Pardon and Salvation 
 God has mod gracioufly ordered to be pubiidi'd to the 
 World, through the reconcilingSacrificeof theRedeemer, 
 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19. All 'Things are of God — v)ho was inChrift 
 reconciling the World unto himfelf. Mark 16. 15, 16. G- 
 j^ into all the World, and preach the Gofpel to every Crea- 
 ture : He that helieveth {£is baptized,pall befaved.Luk.24.. 
 46,47. — Thus it behovedChri§f to fuffer,^ to rife from the 
 Dead the third Day ; and that Repentance & Rmiffwn oj 
 Sinsjhould (thereupon) be preached in his Name among all 
 Nations, 
 
 3. The Grace of this Covenant appears, in that (tho* 
 the holy Law of God ceafes not to require the mod exad 
 and perfe6tObcdience,yet) it deliverech us from theCurfe, 
 
 which 
 
Chap. IV. cf Infant-Baptifm. 205 
 
 iwhich our Failures wou'd conftantly expofe us to, and 
 
 accepts the Truth and Sincerity of our Faith and other 
 
 Graces, and of our holy Obedience fpringing thence, not- 
 
 withftanding the manifold Sins & Imperfections attend- 
 
 ,ing them *, providing Pardon uponRepentance thro'Faith 
 
 lin the Blood of Chnft,which is fecur'd by his JntercefTion 
 
 'lin Behalt of all Believers. Rom. 6. 14. SinJJjall not have 
 
 \Dominion over you •, for y£ are not under theLaw^but under 
 
 Grace, Tho'Sin remains inBelievers,being but imperfedl- 
 
 ]y fanditied, yet through the Grace of the new Covenant 
 
 they are delivered from its condemning Power. For there 
 
 is no Condemnation to them that are in Chrift Jefus (Rom. 
 
 8. I.) Who are upright in their Obedience to the Gofpel. 
 
 I Joh.i. 7. If we walk in the Lights as he is in the Lights 
 
 we have Fellow jinp one with another^ and theBlood of Jefus 
 
 Chrift his Son cleanfeth us from all Sin. Chap. 2. i. If any 
 
 Man Jin^ we have an Advocate with the Father.^ J^f^s 
 
 Chrifl the Righteous. 
 
 4. The Grace of theCovenant is further manifefled in 
 the gracious Promife & Gift of the Spirit through Chrift 
 for Regeneration, and Sandification, and fo to work ia 
 jus the Conditions which the Covenant requires, in Order 
 to our being interefled in theBenefic of it. £2,^/^.36.26,27. 
 Zech. 12. 10. Which Offer of Grace fufficient,in thePro- 
 ;mifes,is defign'd as a Remedy to Man's Impotency, and 
 ian Encouragement to all, in^a Dependance on thatGrace 
 to work out their Salvation., Prov.i. 23. Phil. 2. 12,13. 
 and is made effectual to as many as God has chofen. To 
 I what Purpofe then is it, for Men to exclaim againft the 
 ;po:~irine of a conditional Covenant, as if it were preju- 
 idicial either to theFreenefs, or certain Efficacy of divine 
 I Grace ? Since it is of infinite Grace,that fuchConditions 
 i of Mercy are forChrift'sSake propounded to undone Sin- 
 ners, and fince it is by the Operations of divine Grace 
 that they are enabled to perform them : a«d perform 
 them they muft in their own Perfons, or otherwife they 
 fcan exped no favingBenefit of theCovenant. For though 
 it is from the Influence of the divine Spirit by theWord, 
 
 that 
 
2 04 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV* 
 
 that the Sinner is enabled to repent and believe, yet the 
 Spirit does not perform thefe Acts, does not repent and 
 believe in him. But they muil be theSinner's own volun- 
 tary,chorenAds,before he can have any ad-ualfavingln- 
 tereft in thePrivileges of theCovenant. But how contrary 
 to this is Dr. G7//'s Notion, that all Men that ever had aii 
 Interefl in the Covenanr,^^^^ it fo early as fromEverlafting ; 
 and that the Covenant was made with them in Chrift 
 from Everlafling, and that it is not to be kept by Man, nor ^ 
 broken by Man ? All which rafh & dangerous AlTertions, , 
 as they are contrary to Scripture, which has been fhewed, 1 
 fo they are derogatory to the divine Government in the 
 vifible Church, the Rule or Inltrument whereof is God's 
 Covenant with his People *, and tend to ennervate the ' 
 Motives to Obedience, as they apparently exclude all 
 Conditions orTerms oi Duty from theCovenant of Grace 
 But this is the next Thing I purpofe to prove. 
 
 2. That the Covenant of Grace is Conditional. We 
 have feen already that the Freenefs and Efficacy of the 
 Grace of God is not at all diminifhed by our aflerting 
 Conditions in the Covenant of Grace, but very well con- 
 fifls with them. To make this further evident, let me 
 premife a few Things, i. We aflert no fuch Conditions 
 of the Covenant, as have any Thing of Merit in them, 
 whether of Congruity or Condignity, as the popifh Doc- 
 tors teach •, all the Promifes and Privileges of the Cove- 
 nant being owing to the Merit of Chrift alone. 2. We 
 aflert no fuch Conditions as are performed by our own 
 natural Power, without the Ailiftance of fupernatural 
 Grace. 3. 'Tis granted, there neither were, nor could 
 be any fuch Conditions wrought by apoflate Man, as 
 might be thought to move God to enter into Covenant 
 with him, in Order to his Reftoration -, the making a fe- 
 cond Covenant with Man after the Violation of the firft, 
 could be owing to no other Motive, than the pure free 
 Grace of God towards Man, for the Merits fake of his 
 Son Jefus Chrift. 4. I am willing alfo to grant, that 
 there are fome Promifes of the Covenant that have no 
 
 proper 
 
Thap. IV. of Infant-Baptifmr 205 
 
 proper Conditions, on Man's Part, annexed to them 5 as 
 
 he Gift of Chrifland of" the Spiric,the firflGrace where- 
 
 3y a Sinner is enabled to repent and beheve in him ; the 
 
 Fromile oi God.' s giving a new Hearty &c, Ezek. 36.26. 
 
 ) Of God's putting his Laws in their Minds, and writing 
 
 It hem in their Hearts^ Jer. 31. 7^'^. Tho' thefe feem rather 
 
 sPredidions of whatGod would do for hisPeople inafter- 
 
 iTimes, than Promifes directed and limited to any certain 
 
 ISubjed: ; yet I willingly admit the Diftin6lion of the 
 
 ?,,Promifes of theCovenantjlaid down by fomeDivineSjinto 
 
 jPromifes that concern the Means^ and thofe that relate to 
 
 '^he End. Of the former Sort are thofe now mentioned, 
 
 jbf the Grace of the Holy Spirit to enable Sinners to 
 
 jperform the Conditions, Faith and RepentancCjwhich is 
 
 |abfolutely promifed and given, and depends not on fore- 
 
 1 going Conditions in a finful Creature ; yet not fo abfo- 
 lutely as to exclude all preparatoryEndeavours onMan's 
 Part, in the diligent Ufe of the Means of Grace, or to 
 countenance any in their Sloth and Negligence. But 
 the Grace of God in Chrift being at the Bottom of the 
 whole Tranfadlion of the Covenant, this Grace is pro- 
 jivided in Jefus Chrift, and difpens'd according to his 
 |Wifdom and good Pleafure unto Sinners, in the Atten- 
 ^dance on the Means he hath appointed. Of the latter 
 ifSort, are all the Privileges of the Covenant, as contradi- 
 liftinguifhed to the Duties required asMeans of theEnjoy- 
 smenc of them •, ihePromifes of Pardon, Reconciliation to 
 :God,Juftification, Adoption, and the eternal Inheritance. 
 fAnd in Refped of thefe, the Covenant is ftridly and 
 properly Conditional, as appears from the wholeCurrent 
 of Scripture •, wherein there is a conftant Connexion of 
 Precepts and Promifes, of Duties and Privileges. This 
 may be prov'd, 
 
 ■ I. From the Nature of God's Covenanr, which here- 
 in agrees with the general Nature of every proper Cove- 
 nanr,wherein rhere are mutual Stipulations, Content and 
 jAgreement between the Parties covenanting. If there 
 liWere no Conditions in God's Covenanr, or nothing re- 
 \ " quir'd 
 
2o6 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 quir'd on Man's Part, it would ceafe to have the proper 
 Nature of a Covenant. A Promife it might be, but not 
 a Covenant ; for neither a Promire,nor a Command, do- 
 fimply or precifely import mutualStipuiations orEngage- 
 ments between God andMan •, but both thefe connected 
 in a conditional Form, arc requilite Ingredients in every 
 Covenant ot God with Man ; that is to fay, BlefTings 
 promifed on God's Part, upon the Performance of fomc- 
 ihing required on Man's Part, which being agreed oa 
 between God and Man, fuppofe a conditionalCovenant. 
 And fuchCommands as makeup theCondition on Man's 
 Parr, there are in every Covenant God hath made with 
 him ; not only in the Covenant of Works before the 
 Fall, but in theCovenant of Grace made with fallenMan 
 in Chrift, fomething is required to be done by him in 
 Order to his Intereft in the Promifes of it,tho' the Com- 
 mands of thefe leveral Covenants are of a different Na- 
 ture, and to be perform'd from different Principles and 
 to different Ends. 
 
 2. If there were no Conditions in the Covenant of 
 Grace, on which the Bleflings of the Covenant are fuf- 
 pended,thenGod only,one of theParties,would be bound, 
 and Man the other Party would be left at Liberty, and 
 under no Obligations to God by Covenant ; Which is 
 unreafonable and abfurd. 
 
 3. If there be no Conditions in the Covenant of 
 Grace, then the Covenant may be faid to be made witl\ 
 Man without any Confent on his Part, which is an open 
 Abfurdity. If it be faid, Man may accept and confent 
 to an unconditional Promife and Covenant : I aik. Is, 
 this Confent required or not ? If it be not required, Man 
 is not bound to confent-, nay,if it be neither exprefty nor 
 implicitly requir'd, he has no Warrant to accept it, or 
 confent to it. If it be requir'd, this Confent is the main 
 Thing requifite in the Condition of the Covenant ; yea, 
 if it be fincerc, it virtually comprehends all the Condi-? 
 lions required; therefore theCovenant isConditionaL But, 
 
 >4 . l^hat which ^makes it evident beyond Contra- 
 
 diction. 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant- Baptifm. 20 
 
 didion. That theCovenant of Grace is Conditional, is, 
 that the Covenant and faving Benefits and Erivileges 
 of it are conflantly in Scripture propounded to Sin- 
 ners on certain Conditions, or Terms of Duty, to be by 
 them performed. As, Ifai. c,^. 3. Incline your Ear^ 
 come unto me^ Hear : ( there's the Condition in thefe 
 ExprelTions, implying Faith and Repentance, where- 
 upon God promifesj and your Souls fiall live j and I will 
 make an everlajHng Covena7Jt with you ^ev en the fureMercies 
 of David. I might fill a Volume with Quotations from 
 Scripture,that run in this conditional Form. I ih ill only 
 Inftance in fomeof the main Privileges of theCovenant, 
 and fhew from a Text or two of Scripture, that they are 
 propounded and promifed to Sinners, no othcrwife thaa 
 Conditionally -, and the Conditions are Repentance, and 
 Faith in Chrift. E.G. Pardon of Sin, Atl.^.ig. Repenf 
 ye and he converted^that your Sins may he blotted out. Chap. 
 16. 43. To him give all the Prophets witnefs^ that through 
 his Name^ whofoevfr believeth in him fh all receive Remijjion 
 of Sins. Juftification is conftantly annexed to Faith as 
 the Condition. Rom. 4. 22, 23. Now it was not written 
 for his fake alone ^ (viz. Abraham's) that it was imputed un- 
 to hiwybut for us alfo ; to whom itfhall be imputed^if we he^ 
 lieve in him that raifed up Jefus cur hord from the Dead. 
 
 Gal, 2. 16. Even we have believed in Jefus Chrifi^ 
 
 that we might he juflified by the Faith of Chrift. 
 
 Adoption, 2 Cor. 6. 17, 18. Wherefore come out from 
 among them, and he ye feparate, faith the Lord^ — and I will 
 'receive you ', and I will be a Father unto you, andyefhall 
 he my Sons and Daughters. Joh. i . 1 2 . As many as received 
 him, to them gave he Power to become the Sons of God, even 
 U) them that believe on his Name, And the Everlafting 
 Inheritance, Adl. 26.18. To open their Eyes,to turn them 
 \ fromDarknefs to Light — That they may receive For ^ivenefs of 
 Sins,^ Inheritance among them which are fan^fified by Faith. 
 Joh. 6,4.0. This is the Will of him that Jen t me, that every 
 one that feeth the Son and believeth on him, may have ever- 
 i lofting Life. Ail thefe are confeiQcdIy the Fromifes and 
 
 Privileges 
 
2o8 A defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 Privileges of the Covenant of Grace, and are annexed to 
 Repentance & Faith in Chrift, as Conditions of theParti- 
 cipation of them. If a Man be already in the Covenant 
 of Grace, and inftated in a Right to thefe Privileges, it 
 is doing him an Injury to impofe new Terms. But, 
 
 5. All thefe Promifes and Privileges of the Covenant 
 are fufpended, 'till Sinners perform thofe Conditions ; 
 'till they repent and believe inChriil. OurSaviour often 
 declares, Except ye repent^ ye JImll ferijh^ Luk. 13. 3, 5. 
 And except a Man be born again^he cannot fee the Kingdom 
 of God^ Joh. 3. 3. But left any one of Dr. G/7/'s Sen- 
 timents Ihould fay, that is meant of the Kingdom of God 
 being manifefted to them, our Saviour adds, ver. 5. He 
 cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, And if withoutRe- 
 generation no Man can enter into theKingdom of God, 
 then furely not into Covenant with God •, for the King- 
 dom of God,under the Gofpel-Difpenfation, means the 
 fame Thing in Ef!e6l with the Covenant of Grace, which 
 is the great Inftrument of the divine Government in the 
 Hand of Chrift. Again he faith,>^. i^.He that believeth 
 notyis condemned already. And ii.^(>. He that believeth not 
 the Son^fhallnot fee Life-, but the IVrath of God abide th 
 en him. Now, if that may be called a Condition,thePer- 
 formance whereof is required to the obtaining a Benefit, 
 the Beftowment of which Benefit is fufpended 'till it be 
 performed, then furely no Words can more plainly ex- 
 prefs the Conditionality of the Covenant, than thofe here 
 cited ; fince thefe Covenant- Privileges and Benefits are 
 promifed only to believing repenting Sinners ; and all 
 others are in exprefs Terms excluded. 
 
 6. The Covenant of Grace is often fpoken of inScrip- 
 ture under the Refemblance of a Marriage-Covenant. 
 The Similitude is fo frequent and familiar in Scripture, 
 that to refer to particular Texts is needlefs : And every 
 one knows, that the mutual Confcnt and Engagement 
 of the refpeftive Parties to each other, is requifite to the 
 Validity ot fuch a Covenant •, and this mutual Confent 
 is the mainThing in which the Refemblance betwixt this, 
 
 and 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant- Baptlfm. 209 
 
 and the Covenant of Grace, is to be underflood. There 
 is the Promife on God's r^arr, and.Acccpuance o^: Con knc 
 on Man's, to his! erms -, which anfwers aJvL-rr age-Con- 
 trad:. Can a Soul be efpoufed toChrift without i:s owa 
 Confent ? Tho' it is by his Grace this Confent is g.iin'd ; 
 neverthelefs it mufl be the Man's own Aci. in cominf-- 
 into Covenant, elie there is no fpiritualMarriage, Which 
 plainly dcmoniirates the Covenant of Grace to be Con- 
 ditional : And fuch Conditions are often prefcribed as are 
 proper to a Marriage-Covenant,as WQ{.i.^.'Thcu Jhalt not 
 be for a net her Man ^fo will I alfo he for /to.Pra.45. 10,1 1. • 
 
 7. Goipel-Miniilers are appointed by God to oiler 
 Chrift and his Benefits unto all, according to the 1 enor 
 of the Covenant of Grace :■' For they are Minijiers cf the 
 New -'Tefi anient^ 2 Cor. 3. 6. appointed Preachers of. the 
 New-Covenant ; this mull be their Rule and Guide ia 
 all their Preaching : Plence they nnufl take all theirMea- 
 fures,& receive ail their Inftructions. Now Miniflers are 
 warranted by their Commiirion,to offer Chriil, andLiie^ 
 and Salvation by him to all their Hearers, eirher abib- 
 lutely, or conditionally. If abfoiutely,then all that hear 
 them without Diitinction, whe her they confent to the 
 Gofpel-Rule or no •, whether they will take Chrift'sYoke 
 upon them or no •, whether penitent or perfillhig. Sin- 
 ners may claim an Intereft in him. and in all theBtnedt-^ 
 of Salvation as an abfolute free Gilt •, becaufe it is fup- 
 pofed, there are no I'erms or Provifo's in this OuVr, 
 whereby any one is excluded. But if this be accounted 
 abfurd, as indeed it is, and contrary to theirCom million 
 which direds & impowers them to make this Offer onbr 
 Conditionally, Mar. 15. 16. — Preach the Go fpel to every 
 Creature \ he that helrjeth and is haptized^floall he faved : 
 He that believeth not Jh all he damned : — -'i hen the Cove- 
 nant which they preach, muft be Conditional. 
 
 8. If there be no Conditions in theCovenant o'iGv:ic?y 
 then Miniilers and Churches have no certain Rule to 
 proceed by, in admitting Perfons into Church-Commu- 
 nion. The Church of God is founded on theCovcDanr,- 
 
 P and 
 
2IO A Defence of the Divine Right Chap.IV. 
 
 and being a Society confederated in the Bonds of the 
 Covenant, they can have no other Guide in this Matter, 
 than aPcrfon's Intereft in the Covenant, fo far as it can 
 be made viable and evident to Men. But if there be no 
 Conditions in the Covenant of Grace, they have no 
 Warrant to debar any Perfon, of what Charadlcr foever, 
 becaule he is not debar'd by any Conditions or Terms 
 prefcribed. 
 
 9 If there be no Conditions in theCovenant of Grace, 
 than thofe that profefs Covenant-Rehuion to, or Interefh 
 in God, are under no grcaterObhgations to theirDuty to 
 God, than they were before fuchProfefllon : Then their 
 Sins againft God are no more aggravated, than the Sins 
 of others that make no fuch Profeflion •, becaufe, 'tis 
 fuppos'd, they are under no more Ties & Engagements 
 to their Duty, by any Conditions of the Covenant, than 
 others. Which is contrary to found Reafon &Scripture. 
 Therefore the Covenant mufl have Conditions annexed 
 to it. I might multiply the abfurd Confequences of the 
 contrary Opinion : but theReafons I have produc'd are 
 fufncienr, plainly to demonftate theCovenant of Grace 
 to be Conditional. 'Tis therefore idle and erroneous, to 
 talk as Cr. G///does, of iMen's being in theCovenant,or 
 cf the Covenant of Grace being made with them inChrifl 
 theirHead,from Everlalling \ or of a Covenant that can- 
 not be kept by Man', &:c. Which fuppoles noConditi- 
 cns at all unpos'd or requir'd of Men m order to a Co- 
 venant-Intereft. 
 
 I lliall only further obfcrvc, That the main Reafon 
 for which fonie have entertained the Notion of theCove- 
 nant being abfolute without Conditions, is their obferv- 
 ing that there are Promifes of thisCovenant inScripture, 
 th.ii: Ikivc no Conditions annexed to them ; particularly 
 theProniifcsGod makes of the New-Covenant in that re- 
 markable Prophecy, Jer. 31. 3?, — 34. quoted at large 
 by tneApoille, as; fullilled in iheNew-TellamentChurch, 
 l-(cb. 8. 12. — ^I'bis is theCozenant that I will wake with 
 tha ILuf: of IfracI, after ibcfe Dnys^ faith the Lord : I 
 
 ivi:l 
 
Chap. IV. ^/ Infant- Baptlfm. 211 
 
 will put my Laws into their Mind, &c. Wherein, 'tis 
 obfervable, there are only Fromifes of Grace contained. 
 To this let me anfwer, 
 
 1. To all that have read the Scriptures, it is apparent, 
 that it was not the Defign of the Holy Ghoft in any one 
 Text or PaiTage ol Scripture, to give us a compleat 
 Draught of the Covenant of Grace, as to theMatter and 
 Form, and all ihe Requifites of it. But thefe are to be 
 colledled from various Pafiages interfpers'd thro'out the 
 v^hole Scripture : And if Fromifes only are to be found 
 in the forementioned PalTage, 'tis fufficienr, thattheCon- 
 dicions are eliewhere in Scripture exprefly and plainly 
 prefcrib'd. 
 
 2. If the Conditions be not exprefTed in the PaiTage 
 cited, they are plainly underftood in the confederate Sub- 
 je6l, tbe Houfe of Ifniely who were already in Covenant. 
 And this Denomination of the Subjeifl being applied by 
 the Apoitle to the Chrillian Church, or Believers under 
 the Gofpeljthey were*fuch as had actually complied with 
 the Conditions of the Covenant. And 'tis granted, that 
 the Conditions being performed, the Fromifes become 
 abfolute,and are no longer fufpended. 
 
 3. Even in abfolute Fromifes there is fome Condition 
 implicitly required, in Order to aParticipation of them : 
 If an abfolutely free Gift be tendered me in a Fromife, 
 'tis underftood, that I fnould confent to accept it, other- 
 wife I can't reafonably expe6l thePoiTeirion of it ; or any 
 Benefit by it : So thofe Fromifes that feem to run in an 
 unconditional Strain, do yet imply this reafonable Con- 
 dition, that we confent to them, accept them, plead them, 
 and improve them as Grounds of Dependance and En- 
 couragements to Obedience, and if this Confent be cor- 
 dial andfincere, it virtually comprizes^^as was faid}alhhe 
 Conditions of the Covenant of Grace. 
 
 4. The Fromifes in the PaiTage cited, do very clearly 
 hold forthConditions on our Part. The firit of thofePro- 
 mifes, Iwillpui my Laws in their Minds ^ and write them 
 in their Hearts^ implies Matter of Duty imcumbent on 
 
 F 2 us 
 
2rz A Bcfe::ce ,of the Bhlne R'ight Chap. IV* 
 
 us in Obedience to rheLaw of theNew-Covenant ;Faith> 
 Repentance, even ail tb<- Conditions of the Covenant ; 
 and God's i^romife of Grace to direct and incline our 
 Hearts to thofe Duties, which is meant by bis writijig 
 bis Laws in tbem, dues not take away our Obligation to 
 them, or mai^e themceafe to have a conditional Refpedt 
 in the Covenant ; but rather coniirms & eftabHfhes both 
 the one and the other. And that comprehenfivePromife, 
 / vrill be to them a God^ and they foall be to me a People^ 
 makes both God's Part and ours in the Covenant, which 
 is its conftanc Tenor throughout the Scriptures ; and all 
 that can be infered hence, is, That God has promifed 
 Grace to enable us to perform the Conditions, ( which is 
 readily granted) but nothing can be concluded hence, a- 
 gainil the Conditionality of the Covenant it k\L 
 
 3 The Covenant of Grace has been always one and 
 the fame in its efTentiai Conftitution & Tenor, under va- 
 rious outward Forms of Adminiilration, both under the 
 Old and New-Teilament. 
 
 /'}>/?, TheCovenant ofGracehas pals'd undcrvarious 
 Foi'ms of Adminiilration, before & fmce ChriirsComing ; 
 it has been diverHy admiiniifred in the feveral remarkable 
 Periods under the Old-Teif arnent. . (i.) In the Period 
 from Adam to Abraham (not to take Notice of the leiTer 
 Difference of Adminiftration in the Period {vomNoab io 
 A'jrabam) it was adminilier'd by Promifes, Sacrifices, and 
 l'y»;es. It was fummariiy promulgated in the Promife 
 or the Seed cf the Woman. Gen* 3.15. It was typically ra- 
 tified by Sacrifices: ^_y F^///? (iiiith the Apoille) Abel 
 offer d Sacrifice acceptable to God, whofe Faith and the 
 Acceptance of his Sacrifice, neceffarily fuppofes a divine 
 Sacrifice. Ab€i\yiow<^^.2XiOik.x\'c\^of the Ftrftlings. Gen. 
 4. 4. And withRcfped hereunto, it is probable, Chriff is 
 cail'd the Lamb flain from tb.eFoundation of theWorid. 
 (2.) In the Period Irom Arahara to Mcfes^ there was a 
 new Adminiflration of the Covenant appointed. When 
 Mankind aiur theFiood had degenerated intolgnorance, 
 Liipicty, and Idolatry, Q^a called Abraham into fpecial 
 
 Covenant, 
 
Chap. IV. ^/ Infant-Baptifin. 2r^ 
 
 Covenant, promiicd him a Seed, and particularly that 
 the McJJias iliould be of his Seed, in whom all theNations 
 of the Earth fliould be blelTed •, and that theLin'i of the 
 vifibleChurch fliould be continued, &;thetrueReiigion fet- 
 tled among his Race & Poftericy for many Generations, 
 till the blelFed Seed fliould come ; and ordained Circum- 
 cifion to be a Token and Seal of that Covenant. And 
 this may be a Reafon why God now firfl appointed an 
 initiating Seal to hisCovenanr, in Circumcifion ; becaufe 
 theChurchof God, and the true Religion, had been be- 
 fore kept up in pious Families, interfpers'd among the 
 Reft of the World, without any vifible Didinclion ; And 
 becaufe the Promife of the MeiTias, the Seed of the Wo- 
 man, was before left at large among the whole Race of 
 Adam, But now it pleafedGod to confine it to the Seed of 
 Abraham; therefore Circumcifion was appointed to be a 
 difcriminatingBadge of the chofcn Seed irom the Reit of 
 the Nations, till the coming of the i>/[eirias, the promifed 
 Seed. And not only to point out, and afcertain the Line 
 of the Mejfias (for when this Line was again limited to 
 the Tribe oUjudah^ & afterward to the Family o^ David, 
 yet the other Tribes & Families continued theObfervance 
 of Circumcifion, according to theprim.itivelnftitution) but 
 to diftinguiQi the Covenant-People cf God, not only of 
 Abraham's natural Seed, but of the Strangers that fnould 
 join themfelves to them in Abraham's Covenant ; and to 
 be the Means of propagating the true Religion to their 
 Children and Poilerity. ( ^.) In the Period from Mofcs 
 to Chrift there was a differentAdminiftration. When the 
 Seed of Abraham and Ifrael was become a Nation, they 
 were brought out of Egypt under the Conduct of Mcfcsy 
 by whole Miniftry they received the Law from God at 
 Mount ^tnm^ in the Nature of a Covenant, v/hereby they 
 were embodied into a Common Wealth c God himfclf 
 became their King by their own Confent, wh( gave them 
 I.aws and Ordinances for the Government of their civil 
 State, as vvxU as facred Inftitutions for the i emulating 
 their ecclcfiaftical Affairs •,. a new Miniftry & Priefthoocl 
 
 P ; v.a-.5 
 
214 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 was eftahlifli'd, and a Variety of Sacrifices, Feftlvals, and 
 odier Rites inftituced, which were defign'd as Prefigura- 
 tions ot Chrill, and the Gofpei-Beneiits of Redemption •, 
 and Prophets railed up & fenr them from Time toTime, 
 to declare God's Will to them, and to give them fuller 
 and clearer Predidions o^ the Meffias, his Perfon, Offices, 
 and Benefits. And under this Adminiilration the Church 
 of the old Teflament continued till theComing of Chrift. 
 (4.) In the New-Teftament Period, after the Coming of 
 Chrifl, and his having fulfilled the Ordinances andTypes 
 of the Old-Tellament, and aboiifh'd them, he inftituted 
 a new Adminiftration of the Covenant, far more excel- 
 lent & glorious than the former •, and having compleated 
 Atonement for Sin by his own Blood, which all theBlood 
 fhed from the Beginning of the World could not do ; 
 after his Refurredion from the Dead, he inftituted a 
 Gofpel-Miniilry,to preach theDodlrine of thcNew-Cove- 
 nant, and to adminifter the Seals of it, Baptifm and the 
 Lord's- Supper, as the outwardMeans of the Difpenfati jn 
 and Application of the Covenant to the Souls of Men. 
 But no7/, ^ 
 
 Secondly, The Covenant of Grace is one & the fame 
 for Subftance, under all thefe divers Forms of Admini- 
 ftration ; therefore it is called in Scripture the Everlafling 
 Covenant. Ifai. 55. 3. Heb. 13. 20. For though theMan- 
 ner of Adminiftration, which depends on the fupream 
 Will and Wifdomof the Legiflitor, hath been changed, 
 yet the Covenant it felf, in its eifentialConftitution, hath 
 the fame immutable & perpetualTcnor : therefore it may 
 be on good Grounds allerted, that God's Covenant with 
 his People under the 01d-Teftament,in thofefeveral Pe- 
 riods, was the fame for Subftance with that which is 
 made vvirh New-Teftament Believers. Which may be 
 thus proved. — 
 
 1 . The Mediator of the Covenant is the fame : Jifus 
 Chrifl the fmneT'ft~rdcTj,toDay^rnd for Ev(r, Hcb. 13. 8. 
 Chnil's Mediation ever -was the fole Ground of the Co- 
 venant, and the favjng Benefits of it difpens'd to finful 
 
 Men 
 
Chap. IV. ^/ Infant-Baptifm. %t^ 
 
 Men from theBeginning. He was the Lamh fiain from ihs 
 Foundation of the World. And thcApoflle Peter referring 
 to theFathers of the Old-Tellamenr, faith, A6b. 15. 11. 
 We believe that through the Grace of the Lord Jefus Chrifh 
 we Jha'l be faved.,even as they. The Saints therefore of he 
 Old Teftament were faved, no oiherwife than through 
 the Grace of our Lord Jefus Chrift. 
 
 2. The Matter of the Covenant is the fame : I will 
 be your God, and the God of your Seed., and ye fJ: all be my 
 People. This is the Sum of the Covenant, and has been 
 the invariable Tenor of it, under every Difpenfation. 
 Hence the Promife made by God to confederate Ifraely 
 Lev. 26. 11,12. I will fet my 'Tabernacle amcnz ft you ^ — - 
 and I will walk among you^ and will be your God., and ye 
 JJoall be my People -, is quoted by the Apoftle, and applied 
 to the Chriftian Church, 2 Cor. 6. r6. — I'e are iheTeni- 
 pie of the living God., asGod hath (sadyl will dwell in them, 
 and walk in them \ and I will he their God^ and they fhall 
 he my People. As this Promife was made to the wliole 
 People q{ Ifrael.^ including their Seed undeniably, fo it is 
 made to the whole Chriftian Church, the Gofpel-Ifrael, 
 including theirSeed alfo. And it is apparent, beyondCon- 
 tradi6lion,thatChildren have been taken in with their Pa- 
 rents, into every Covenant God has made with Man, and 
 under every Difpenfation of it. Not to fpeak of theCo- 
 venant made with Adam., and all his Children and Pofte- 
 rity in his Loins, which accounts for the Imputation of 
 his Sin, and the penal EfFeds of it, to his Pofterity : I 
 fhall only obferve, that tho' the Covenant of Grace was 
 never made with any meer Man, as a common Head ("as 
 the firft Covenant wais made with Adam) fo as that the 
 Remedy fhould be as univerfally extenfive as theMalady^ 
 yet God has appointed this fecond Covenant to run in 
 the fame Tenor all along, to believing godlyParents and 
 their Seed ; as might be made m.anifeft by a particular 
 Indu6lion of the feveral Editions and Difpenfations of it. 
 Thus, in the firftEdition of it,imniediateiy after thePall ; 
 God's Promife di putting Enmity betv/een the Seed of the 
 
 P ^ Woman 
 
2i6 A "Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV, 
 
 IVcman and \h2Lt of I be Serpent, and that the Woman's 
 Scaijh' tild bruife the Serpent's Head, Gen. 3 . 1 5. The Seed 
 cf the fVoman (as alfo the Seed ot Abraham) intends not 
 only that eminent and bleffed St^d, Chrifl, but being a 
 colledive Term, ii.tends alio a Church-Seed, as diftin- 
 guifli'd from the ungodly World. And not only theA- 
 dulr, but the Infant- Seed is underflood by the Seed of the 
 U onian ;: as upon the Birth of Seth, Eve faid, God bath 
 appointed me a^wther Seed inftead oi Abel, Gen. 4. 25. 
 In the Covenant with Noah, the lecondFather of the hu- 
 man Race. Gen. 9. 8,9. God fpake unto Noah and hisSons 
 *'doiih hinj, faying^ And I,behold,I eftatlijh ?nyCovenant with 
 you, and your Seed after you. In the Covenant with Abra- 
 ham moll: exprefly, Gen. 17.7. In the Coyenant with the 
 whole I loufe of Ifrael from Mount Sinai, As Mofes de- 
 clares to them forty Years after, Deut. 5. 2,3. The Lord 
 cur God made a Covenant with us in Horeb \ the Lord made 
 7iot t hi jCovenant wilh our Fat hers,{Lt.not with them only) 
 but zvilh us, even with us, who are all of Us alive here this 
 Day. Moft of whom then living, Vvrere at the giving of 
 the Law from Mount Sinai Children and Infants, or un- 
 born, yet rhe Covenant was made with them as repre- 
 Icnred by their Parents. And in the folemn Renewal of 
 this Covcnafit arttrwards, their little Ones are exj^refly 
 compiehenced among thole that cntreci intoCovenant with 
 the Lcrd ^bei) Gcd^ \jeut. 29.11,12. And it is moreover 
 cbkivabic, th..t the Apoliie Paul, in Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8. 
 qii<u\^ a i' aflame ircm the following Chapter, Deut. 30. 
 (in v.h.ch Mcfes continues his Difcourfe of God's Cove- 
 ii nt with I/yael, in which their httle Ones v/ere included) 
 to illudrate theNature of tlie evangelicalCovenant : And 
 thereupon adds, Rom. 10. 8. 1 his is the Word of Faith 
 whith we pr tech. Whence 11 may plainly be demonlira- 
 tea, that the Covenant undtr both Adminillraticns is 
 clientially the fame, particLic..rly in Refped of it's F-xrent 
 to the Infant Children of the confederatePeople. Which 
 is alio evident from the Apofflei^^/^r's Words, A(ft.2. 39. 
 The Fromije is unto you and to your Children : As I Iliall 
 iT.cv./ more fully under a foHovv^ing Head. 3, 
 
Chap. IV. ^/ Infant Baptlfm. 217 
 
 3. The Conditions of the Covenant are the fame in 
 general -, the fame Faith and Obedience,\vhich^GQd ever 
 required of his Covenant People -, Faith, as the primary 
 Condition of the Covenant; (Dbedience, as a confequent 
 Condition. Tho Faidi in Chrift was more impHcited re- 
 quired under the Old Teftament, and more exprefly un- 
 der the New, when the promifed Seed was exhibited : 
 Yet God's Promife to his People of Old, did implicitly 
 require Faith, which was the Root of all theirObedience 
 to hiS'Commands. Hence theApoftle brings in the moil 
 eminent Saiitsot the Old-Tefl:ament,into the Catalogue 
 ot Behevers, Heb. 11. and attributes their fmgular and 
 heroick Acts of Piety to their Faith, as the FZvidences 
 and Demonftrations of it ; and he elfewhere plainly in- 
 timates, that the Old Teftament Saints and New-Tefta- 
 rnent Belitrvers, have the fame Spirit of Faith ^ 2Cor.4. 13, 
 
 4. i he Sacraments under both Teilaments,tho' con- 
 fi:r:ng of ditterent Rites, had the fame fpiritual Ufe and 
 Sign .icaiiori. Circumcifion and Baptifm, the initiating 
 Sacraments, reprefented and figniPied the fame iplritual 
 Myftery, as they were both the Signs and Seals of the 
 Covenant ol Grace, Rom.\.ii. Mar. 16. 16. They both 
 figOiiied Regeneraiion, the Mortification of Sin, or the 
 fumng off the Body of the Sins of the Flefh^ Col. 2.1 1,12. 
 The Palchal Farnb reprefented and prefigured ChrifPs 
 Sacrifice ; and the Pafchal Feafb, the holy Supper which 
 is our P'eafbon the Memorials of the greatSacrifice. iCor, 
 5. /,8. They of old had fignificantTypes, which had the 
 general Nature of Sacraments (tho' extraordinary) repre- 
 fenting the fameThing with our Sacraments. T^hey -were 
 all baptized untoMofes in the Cloud^and in the Sea (faith the 
 Apollie) and did all eat the fame fpiritual Meat^ and did all 
 drink the fpiritual Drinky (for they drank of the Rock 
 that followed them, and that Rock v/as Chrifl ) 1 Cor. 10, 
 2,3,4. Our Sacraments differ from their's in Point of 
 Clearnefs and Efficacy, and eafinefs of Obfervance ; but 
 they had the fame fpiritual Intent and Meaning,thefame 
 Place and Ufe v/ith ours, v/ith Reiped to the Covenant. 
 
 And 
 
2 1 8 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV, 
 
 And therefore I need infift on nothing more, to fliew that 
 the Covenant of Grace was fubftantially the fame to them 
 and us. That which has given Occafion to fome, to take 
 up the Opinion, that they were two different Covenants, 
 is the Oppofition which theilpoftle Paul makes between 
 the Law and Faiths and between Works and Grace . yet 
 however that Oppofition be underftood, which it is not 
 my prefent Bufincfs to examine or difpute, I think there 
 are irrefragable Arguments to prove, that the Covenant 
 with Ifrael at Mount Sinai was the Covenant of Grace in 
 Chrift, typically adminiftred ; tho' there was a Reprefen- 
 tation of the rigorous Exa6tion of theCovenant of Works, 
 for evangelical Purpofes : And tho' the Laws given to 
 Ifrael^ as a Common-VVealth or Politick Body, called the 
 Judicial Laws, were interwoven in that Difpenfation,and 
 enforced with temporal Promifes & Threats ; yet taking 
 it in its complexNature, as aCovenant tranfaded between 
 God and Ifrael, it feems evident that it was in its main 
 Intention a Covenant of Grace : For that Obfervation of 
 a judicious Divine is not to be contefted j nat God did 
 not fine e the Fall of Man ever tranfaEl with hi^ in any other 
 Covenant but that of Grac£. And the very Preface to the 
 ten Commandments fpeaks the Language ot the Cove- 
 nant of Grace, in God's revealing and exhibiting himfeif 
 to Ifrael as the Lord their God, Exqd. 20. 2. Can God 
 be the God of any of the lapfed Race o^ Adam (as it im- 
 plies peculiar Favours from him, as a divine and all-fuffi- 
 cient Benefador^ otherwife than in a Covenant ot Grace 
 thro a Mediator ? And all the Sacrifices and Rites of 
 the. Ceremonial Law v,'ere defigncd to aflfift &dire6i: their 
 Faith to the great Sacrifice of Atonement, in which the 
 Covenant hath its compleat & effedual Ratification. But, 
 4. TheCovenant made w'lxh Abraham, \n particular,was 
 the Covenant of Grace, the fame for Subilance which is 
 made with all the Faithful under thcNew Teftament,who 
 are the Chriflian Seed of Abraham, I fay, the Jame for 
 Subftance, in Contradiilindion from the Mode of Admi- 
 niIlration,and fomeCircumdances 6^: Peculiarities annexed 
 
 to 
 
Chap. IV. ^/ Infant- Baptifm. 219 
 
 to it, wherein, 'tis acknowleged, there is a Difference. 
 But the Covenant made with him, in the fubilantial Te- 
 nor of it, is one and the fame under the Chriftian Difpen- 
 fation. This, Dr. Gill, to falve his Hypothefis, ftrongly 
 denies. I {hall therefore lay down the Proofs of it ; and 
 afterwards examine his Objedlions. If fufficient Evi- 
 dence has been given of the foregoing Propoficion, that 
 the Covenant of Grace is eflentially one and the fame, 
 under both Adminiftrations, as I truft, there has been ; 
 This may go a great Way to the Proof of the prefent 
 Point. For this is the only Covenant in v^hxch Abraham 
 walked with God,and trufted for Salvation. But if this 
 Covenant which God made with him, was not a Covenant 
 of Grace, but raiher of Works, as Dr.G/7/ im.agines, then 
 Abraham mud be faved by a Covenant of Works, and 
 not by Faith in a Mediator ; which is contrary to Scrip- 
 ture, which tells us, that by the Works of the Law no Fkjh 
 can bejujiijied^ Rom. '^. 20. And particularly of Abra- 
 ham, that he was juftified by Faith •, as all his believing 
 Seed are under [he Gofpel ; that he believed God, and it 
 was accounted to him for Right eoufnefs, Rom. 4. 3, &c. 
 But let me here briefly add fome further Rtafons and Ar- 
 guments from Scripture, that do evidently demonftrate 
 the Covenant wiihAbraham to be theCovenant of Grace, 
 of pure Grace (which Dr. Gill deniesj the fame which is 
 in Force to all Believers under the Gofpel. 
 
 F/ri?, This is evident from the Nature and Tenor of 
 God*s Covenant wiih Abraham,3.nd the Promifes made to 
 him, par[icularly,Gen. 17. 7. I will ejiablijh my Covenant 
 between me and thee^ and thy Seed after thee, in their Gene- 
 rations, for an everlafiing Covenant, to he aGodunto thee,and 
 thySeed after thee. That this could be no other than theCo- 
 venant of Grace,is evident. For (i.) This is the conilant 
 Stile of the Covenant of Grace, I will be a God unto thee^ 
 Sec. God never was a God to any finful Man, in theSenfe 
 of that Phrafe, but in and through Chrift in a Covenant 
 of Grace. This is the (landing Fromiie of the Covenant 
 under everyDilpenfaiion^particularly theNcw-Teftament. 
 
 Heb* 
 
2 20 A Bcjcncc cf the Divine Right Chap. IV, 
 
 Heb.8. lo. /avV/ he to them a God, Sec — (2.) This Pro- 
 mife is very comprehenfive, and comprizes all the Pro- 
 mifes in the Word of God, and is greater than all : for 
 when all the other particular Promifes fliall be a.ccom- 
 pli{lied,this will remain to be perpetually in the fulfilling, 
 as the Matter of the Saints Happinefs to Eternity. Rev. 
 21.7. He that over Cometh (by Conibncy, thro' all Temp- 
 tations to the End) flmll inherit aimin^s^and I will be his 
 Cod. So the heavenly Reward is exprefs'd ; and it is eafy 
 to fhew5that all the promifed BlefTings of theCovenant of 
 Grace are included in this Promife to Abraham \ tempo- 
 ral,rpiriiual & eternal ; as it is interpreted in diversParts 
 of Scripture. Eet me,for a Specimen,infl:ance in a few 
 PafTages for thisPurpofe. To begin with the loweflKind, 
 temporal Bleffings \ outward ProrcvStion, Provifion and 
 Maintenance. When God renewed this Covenant with 
 Jacobs and promis'd to deal with him according to the 
 Purport of it. Gen. 28. 13. 14. Jacob in theVow he made 
 to God on that Occafion, put this Interpretation upon it. 
 /. 2 o. 2 1 . If God will he with me^ ^keep me in thisWay that I 
 gOi and will give meBread to eat^ andHaiment to put on^ fo 
 that I come again to my Father'' s Houfe in Peace ; thenjloall 
 the Lord be my God. And that fpiritual Bleffings are in- 
 cluded, there needs no other EvidencCj than what the 
 -Apoftle has taught and declared in Gal. 3. Where he in- 
 terprets the Blelfing of Abraham to include, both Juftifi • 
 cation through theMerit of Chrift. V'.S. 9 'The Scripture 
 foreseeing that God would juftify the Heathen throughFaith., 
 preached before the Gofpel unto Abraham, faying^ In thee 
 Jhall all Nations he hkffed •, fo then^ they which be of Faith 
 are bleffed with faithful Ahxdhdm. And the Gift of the 
 Spirit for Sandlification. f, 14. 1'hat the Blejfmg ^/Abra- 
 ham might conle on the Gentiles through Jefus Chriji, that 
 we might receive the Promife of the Spirit through jpaith. 
 Which two virtually comprize all fpiritualBleffings. God 
 had promifed Abraham a Seed., in whom allNations fliou'd 
 be blelied, i. e. Chrift., the Foundation, and meritorious 
 Caufcj the Procurer, i^nd Difpenfcr of ail Bleflednefs to 
 
 Men* 
 
Chap. IV. <?/ Infant-Baptilm. 221 
 
 Men. But the Blefiing it felf, wherewith Abraham Sc all 
 his believing Seed are blelledjis contained in thisPromire, 
 I zvill oe thy God, and the God of thy Seed. — And eternal 
 Liie and Blcffednefs are included in ir, as I have already 
 intimated. Our Saviour proves the bkflcd Immortality, 
 and Reiurredlion of the Patriarchs,from this their Cove- 
 nant- Relation to God, from his Words to Mofes after they 
 were dead, I am theGod of Abraham^ &c. aa he had pro- 
 linifed them when living. ikf(3/^. 22. 31, 32. And the 
 I the Apoftle infers from the fame Relation, the heavenly 
 I Blifs of thofeParriarchs, as necefTary to vindicate the Ho- 
 nour of God's Covenant-Love, Truth, and Faithfulnefs 
 in his Promifes to them, and as a full Compenfation for 
 their Want of the earthly Caraan. Heb. 1 1. 16. — Where- 
 fore God is not ajJoanid to be called their God, for he hath 
 ^prepared for them a City. Therefore this was not a meer 
 carnal Covenant, (as fome of the Antipasdobaptifbs 
 dream) or a Promife to give loAbrahara and his Seed the 
 Land of Canaan, . and long Life, and earthly Bleffings 
 therein : for we fee plainly by the Apoftle's Tefcimony, 
 that it was a better Country than C^;2^^;7,that is, an hea- 
 venly, which the Patriarchs expe5led,and God beftowed 
 on them by Virtue of this his Covenant and Promife of 
 being their God. And fpiritual and heavenly Bleilings 
 were of principal Confideration in thisCovenant, accord- 
 ing to the Explication the Scripture itfelf gives of ir, as 
 \ have fhev/ed. Canaan indeed was promJs'd to Abraham''^ 
 Seed, as the Land of their Flabitation for feveral Genera- 
 ions, uill the Coming of the Meffias, and as typical of 
 the heavenly Canaan, and as fuch it may be truly faidto 
 3e an everlafhing PofielTion -, but being in itfelf of the 
 Nature of temporal Goods, it is to be confidcr'd but as 
 an Additament to the main Bleffings : as all temporal 
 Viercies are in the new Covenant of Chriif. Math. 6. '^^, 
 ^ow one would think, there fliould need no other Proof 
 :hat the Covenant made with Abraham was a Covenant 
 >t Grace, yea, and a pure Covenant of Grace, than 
 :hat it virtuTiy comprehends all the Privileges and Pro- 
 mifes 
 
222 A Defence cf the Divine Right Chap. IV; 
 
 mifes of that Covenant, both according to the natural Im- 
 port of the Promife, and the Interpretation of it in other 
 Scriptures, and that without the Mixture of any Thing, jj 
 ahene to it. Neverthelefs, let me add, (2. J ThisCove- ' 
 nanc with Abraham isi^Wd an ever la ftingCovenant. Which 
 I have Ihewed to be the proper Chara&r of theCovenant 
 of Grace. The firft Covenant was foon broken and laid:i 
 afide, as beiag of no longer Ufe, but to convince of Sin, f 
 and to condemn for Sin ; but the Covenant of Grace is 
 immutable, and indefedible in its Conltitution, being e- 
 ftablilh'd in the Hand of a Mediator, and confirmed in 
 his Blood. Hence called the Blood of the everlafling Co- 
 venant. Heb.13.20. — (4.)Circumcirion,theToken of the: 
 Covenant made with Abraham., was a Sign and Seal of the, 
 Righteoufnefs of Faith. Rom. 4. 11. TheRighteoufnefs of 
 Faith, here, in theApoftle's Language andSenfe, can in- 
 tend no other Thing than the Covenant ot Grace, how- 
 ever Men fet theirWits on Work to pervert his Meaning. 
 This will appear if we let the Apoftie explain his own. 
 Words, as he doth in this Epiftle, and in this Chapter,. 
 by oppofing the Righteoufnefs of Faith to the Law,and: 
 to the Righteoufnefs of the Law. Chap. 4. 13. T^he Pro- 
 mife — was not to Abraham., cr to his Seed^thrcugh theLaWy 
 (i.e. the Covenant of Works J but through the Righteouf- 
 nefs of Faith. It is hence plain, that the Righteoufnefs of 
 Faith ^ as it (lands here in Oppbfition to the Law., is the 
 fame v^ith the Righteoufnefs of the Covenant of Grace, 
 made over to Faith, as it is oppos'd to legal Righteouf- 
 nefs. Kx\dChap. 10. 5, 6, 9. the Apoftie explains the 
 Righteoufnefs which is of the Law., and the Righteoufnefs, 
 which is of Faith., in as direft Oppoficion to each other,, 
 as we can fuppofe the Tenor of the Covenant of Works, 
 and that of the Covenant of Grace to be. Mofes (faith' 
 he) defcnbes the Right eon fnefs which is of the Law^ that 
 the Man that doth thefc Tubings fjall live by them. But the. 
 Righteoufnefs which is of Fait by fpeaketh en this wife ^c, 
 runs in this Tenor, If thou fhalt confefs with thy hdouth 
 the Lord Je'^u^^ andfJ:aU believe in thine Hearty that God 
 
 raifed 
 
Chap. IV. > of Infant- Baptlfm." 22 J 
 
 raifed him from the Dead^ thou /hah be faved. A fid this 
 Phrafe, the Right eoufnefs of Faith ^\^ a very apt & proper 
 Reprefentation of the Covenant of Grace, both as to the 
 Promife on God's Part,and theCondition on ours. Righ^ 
 teoufnefs conveyed to a Sinner, is an A(5l of God's Grace 
 in the Promife, and Faith is the Condition on our Part, 
 whereby we receive that Righ teoufnefs, and obtain 
 an Intereft in the Promife. I know not how the 
 pure Covenant of Grace can be better defcrib'd in fo 
 few Words, and diltinguifhed from all other Cove- 
 nants, Therefore it is evident that Circumcifion was 
 not annexed to a Sort of Covenant of Works, as Dr. Gill 
 groundlefly fuggefts, but to a pure Covenant of Grace. 
 Such was the Covenant God made with Abraham : 
 Covenant, that confer'd Righteoufnefs on a finful Man 
 without legal Works,' through Faith in Jefus Chrift : 
 And Circumcifion he appointed to be the Seal or Token 
 of it. Gen. 17. 11. And Abraham in receiving it ( the 
 Apoflle in plain Terms aflerts ) received the Sign ^ Seal 
 of the Righteoufnefs of Faith, Thus it appears with full 
 and plain Evidence from the Tenor of theCovenant laid 
 down in Gen, ly, with the annexedSeal of Circumcifion, 
 that it was truly and properly a Covenant of Grace and 
 Salvation by Jefus Chrift ; which might be abundantly 
 confirmed by diverfeotherTeftimonies of Scripture. As, 
 Secondly., The Scripture teftifies, that the Gofpel was 
 preached to y^^^r^^^/;? inGod's Promife to him,/rtj)7;/g-, In 
 thee ( or in thy Seed j i. e. in Communion with thee in 
 the fame Covenant-Beffings thro' Chrift, or in ih^Meffias 
 in Union and Fellowftiip with him ( in either Senfe it 
 comes to the fame Efted:) fhall all Nations be bleffed. In 
 the forecited Gal. 3.8. Now the Gofpel is the pure Co- 
 venant of Grace, v/ithout all Doubt -, this, God in the 
 Scriptures preached unto Abraham^ and he received and 
 believed it, and was thereupon blelTed. But what was 
 this Bleftednefs ? In what eife could it confift,but in this 
 Promife, I will he a God unto thee^ i^c ? Which is com- 
 piehenfive of ail the Bkilings we derive from Chrift. 
 
 Thirdlj^ 
 
2 24 A Defence of the DivIne.J^ht Chap. IV. 
 
 "Thirdly, The Scriptures teilify, that Gofpel Believers 
 as the Seed of Abraham, and by Virtue ot their Union to 
 Chrift, the blelfed Seed promifed, are made Heirs of his 
 Covenant. Gal. 3.29. If ye be Christ's, then areyeAbra.- 
 ham's Seed^and Heirs according to the Promife. — The Pro- 
 niife ( as it is called by Way of Eminence ) intends that 
 great Prornife of God to Jhahavi, when he enter'd into 
 Covenant with him : And to be Heirs according to this 
 Promife, is to be Heirs of his Covenant. And who can 
 deny, theCoyenant which Believers are conftituted Heirs 
 of, is the Covenant of Grace ? 
 
 Fourthly, The Scripture teftiHes, that Abraham was 
 juftified in the fame Way and upon the fame I'erms as 
 all believers are now, under the Gofpel •, or rather, that 
 Goipel-Believcrs are juftified after the Example of nbra- 
 ham,^nd upon the fatneTerms on 'which he was juftified ; 
 who was held forth as the great Precedent audExemplar 
 of Juftification by Faith, m Rom. 4. Hence he is ftiied 
 theFather of all that believe^ among the Gentile Nations, 
 as well as the Jews : Which the Apoftle proves y-, 17. 
 from what is written in Gen. 17. / have 7nade thee a Fa- 
 ther of many Nations. Now the Rule or Inftrument on 
 God's Parr, of the Juftification of a Sinner condemned 
 by the L-avv, is no other, nor ever was fince the Fall of 
 Adamy than theCovenant of Grace in a Mediator. Abra* 
 ^<3;;a was juftihed in this'Way, and in the fame Way and 
 no other, mult every fintul Man or W^oman, now under 
 the Gofpel, look ;o be juftiried. Therefore the Apoftle 
 produces theExample 01 A br ah am\]\^&.\?iC'3iX.\on, 10 prove 
 that under the Gofpel we are to be juftified by Faith, in 
 Oppofition to legal Works, which the Jews were fo ford 
 of. Rom. 4. 3, 23, 24. Ah^dh2im believed God, and it was 
 counted to him for Right coufnefs. Now it was not written 
 for his Sake alone., that it was imputed to him, but for us 
 alfo, to whom it fioall be imputed, if we believe on him who 
 raifcd up Jefus our Lord from the Dead. Since therefore 
 Believers now have Communion with Abraham in this 
 great Covenant- Privileoe ofjuftification -, for they which 
 
 bs 
 
Chap. IV. cf Infant-Baptifm. 22 
 
 he of Feitlh ( faith the Apodle ) are b/ejfed zcith faitkfid 
 Abraham : It undeniably follows, that the lame Cove- 
 nant of Grace,in and by which thisPriviiedgc is convey- 
 ed and appHed, may be traiy afiirmed to belong equally 
 to him and them. 
 
 Fifthly^ The Scripture tefl:ifies,that thcCo-jenaitt made 
 with Abraham was confirmed of God in CbrisJ, Gal. 3.17. 
 But no Covenant that God ever made with Man fmce the 
 Fall, was confirmed in Chrifi^ but the Covenant of Grace. , 
 
 Sixthly^ it alfo tediiies, that the Covenant with Abra- 
 ham could not be difannul'd by the L^a'5which was given 
 43oYears after, (ibid.) If this Co^^enant were not annul'd 
 and fuperfeded by the Law, afterwards given \ if it con- 
 tinued in Force during that whole fubfervient Difpenfa- 
 tion of the Law of Mcfes^ 'till theComing of the promif- 
 ed Seed, and the Beginning of theGofjjel-jr'eriod, we may 
 be fure that it is not difannuTd by the Gofpel, v;hich is 
 a compleater and tairer Edition & Promulgation of the 
 fame Covenant, and the Inftrument of conveying the 
 BlefTings of it to all Nations. 
 
 But I think there has been Evidence more than fufH- 
 cient already ofter'd, in Confirmation of this Propofirion. 
 'Tis granted, there were fome Favours promifed by God 
 to Abraham peculiar to him, as he was appointed to be the 
 grandPatriarch of thejewifn and Chriitian Church ; fuch 
 as the Promife of the Multiplication of his Seed as the 
 Stars of Heaven, of a Race of Kings that Ihould defccnd 
 from him, and that he fnould be the Father of many Na- 
 tions, and particularly, and em.inently, the Progenitor of 
 the MefTias : yet ail this makes no fubdantial Alteration 
 in the Covenant it felf, as it was ordain'd to pafs down to 
 Kis Children and Heirs ; any more than, fuppofing one 
 who had the Honour of being the firftin anyAdminiflra- 
 tion, fliou'd have fome fignalMarks of Refpe6t put upon 
 him, or fome peculiarPrivilege vouchfafed him, that this 
 fhould make any real DiiTerence in theAdminiitration ic 
 felf, with Refpecl to his Succeffors in it. What was per- 
 fonal and peculiar to Abraham comes not into Confide- 
 
 Q^ ratioi> 
 
2 25 A Defence of the Divme Right Chap. IV. 
 
 ration of the Covenant of God with him, which was en- 
 tail'd on his Seed and him, and this was purely a Cove- 
 nant of Grace. 
 
 5. T'he Infant-Children of confederate Parents are ad- 
 mitted by God, together with their Farents,into the Co- 
 venant, under theNew-Teftamjent Adminiltration. This 
 our Adverfaries, in the Caufe of Infant- Baptifm, ftiffly 
 deny j but it fhall be prov'd from Scripture. For, 
 
 Firft^ It is a necelTary Confequence of the two forego- 
 ing Proportions, which have been abundantly confirmed 
 by Scripture, 'z;/2;. That the Covenant of Grace has been 
 always efientiaily the fame from the Beginning, under 
 the feveral Adminiftrations, and in particular, that the 
 Abrahamitical Covenant is one & the fame Covenant of 
 Grace, into which allBelievers under theNew -Teilamenc 
 are admitted Federates with God. And it has been evi- 
 dent trom plain Teflimony of Scripture, that the natu- 
 ral Seed of Abraham were taken into his Covenant, and 
 the natural Seed of the Ifraelites were taken into theCo- 
 venant under the Mofaical Adminiftration, and that in 
 their Iniant-Age -, and that in every Covenant God has 
 madev/ith Man, Children have been included. But if the 
 Infant-Children of GofpelBelievers be now fhut out of the 
 Covenant, and debar'd o\ all Interelt in ir, then it is not 
 the fame Covenant, but there is a Change in the fubflan- 
 tial Tenor of it, and a Change for the worfe. SinceGod's 
 Covenant and Promife to Abraham and the Ifraelites ^"Sls^ 
 1 ijinll be a God to thee^ and to thy Seed ; if it be now to 
 Believers, I will be a Gcd to thee^ but not to thy Seed, is 
 not this, a very great and manifeft Alteration, and that 
 much to the Diladvantage of Gofpel-Believers and their 
 Children ? " it a Man have aDeedof Gift of Houfe and 
 «' Land to himkU, and his Heirs forever, and if the Do- 
 " nor fhould recall and vacate the firfc Deed, and leave 
 " out his Heirs in the fecond, were it not an eilentialDif- 
 ** tercnce ? And the latter a lefsFavour than the former.'* 
 In like Manner, if God's Covenant & Promife extended 
 to the Children of the Churcli under thcOid-Teflamenr, 
 
 and 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant-Baptlfm. 227 
 
 and be limited to thePerfons of Believers under theNew, 
 then it is manitefl that there is an eiTeutial Difference be- 
 tween the Covenants under thofe difrerenc Adminiftrati- 
 ons, (the contrary to Vv'hich has been provYl) and then it 
 will foUov/ that not theNew Covenant, but the Old is in 
 this Particular the better Covenant, 
 
 Secondly y Since the little Children of confederate Pa- 
 rents were once admitted by God as Federates in his Co- 
 venant, under the former Difpenfations of it,they are ftill 
 accounted by God and ought to be acknowledg'd by us 
 as Federates in the new Covenant, unlefs there be any 
 goodGrounds or Reafons for their Exclufion. For a Pri- 
 vilege once granted to theChurch,niufL continue through 
 all Ages, unlefs the almighty Donor is pleas'd to revoke 
 it. And that the Covenant-Intereft of the natural Seed 
 of the Faithful is a Privilege, no Man can deny, and an 
 ineftimablePrivilege -, as they are thereby enroii'd in the 
 Number of God's fealed, diftinguiili'dPeople, entitled to 
 fpecial Mercies, fpecial Favours of Providence, fpecial 
 Ordinances and Privileges in the viable Church. How 
 eife could Circumcifion be of much Advantage to the 
 Jews ? Much every Way^ as rhe Apoftie declares, Rom, 
 3. I, 2. David accounts it aPriviiege, and pleads it with 
 God. Pfal. 86. 16. Save the Son of thine Handmaid. And 
 improves it as an Engagement upon him to be God's 
 Servant. Pfal. 116. 16. I ara thy Servant.^ the Son of thins 
 Handmaid^bQ]Dg his Servant born. And if fjch Children 
 die in the State of Infancy, this their Covenant-Intereil 
 and Relation to God is a Ground of Hope concerning 
 their Well-being in a future State. If it was an Argu- 
 ment (as ourSaviour improves it) of the blefled State of 
 the Patriarchs after Death, that God was their God, why 
 fhould not the fame Argument from the Promife, / v:;ill 
 he the God of thy Seed, be admiitted in the Cafe of Infants, 
 or fuch Children of confederate Parents as die young, be- 
 fore they could do any Thing to difinherit themfclves of 
 the BlelTing oi that Relation ^ Now if this be a Privilege, 
 Favoresfunt ampliandi. Privileges are to be interpreted in 
 
 Q^ 2 the 
 
i 2 8 A 'Defence of the Divine Right Ch a P. IV. 
 
 the fulled Extent, where the Donor has made no Excep- 
 tion orLiirjitation,to reflrain them. But in the picfent 
 Cafe there is noException with Refpedl to theCovenant- 
 Iniereft ot tie Children of vifible Believers under the 
 Gofpel, nor any Grounds or Rcafons lor theirExclufion. 
 For^i.)it is evidcnt,thatGod whois fovereignLord of his 
 ov/n Favours, to whom it belongs to admit into, or ex- 
 clude from the Covenant,whom hepleafcs, has all along 
 from the Beginning ot the World, at leafl: from theDays 
 of Abraham to the Coming of Chrifl, receiv'd the Infants 
 of the Church as Federates together with their Parents, 
 and has not given the leafl: Intin-iation that it was ever his 
 Defign to exclude them. Nor is there one Text in the 
 Bible, whence it may be gather'd, either exprefly, or by 
 Confequence, that it is the Will of God that the Chil- 
 dren of the Chriiiian Church Ihould be disiranchis'd or 
 cut off from that ancient Privilege. Nor (2 ) has Jefus 
 Chrift fincehis Ccming,by any Dodrine or Inftitution of 
 his debar'd the Children of vilible Believers from a Co- 
 venant-Intereft ; but has confirmed them in thePofiefHon 
 of their ancientRight (as we fliall fee.)His taking up fuch 
 young Children in his Arms, and putting his irJands on 
 them, and biei]-!ng them, as the Evangeiifts declare, a- 
 mounts to a vinual Declaration of theirCovenantlntereft. 
 >Jor (3.) is there anyl^hing in theNature & Conflitutio.i 
 of the Gofpei-Covenant, that doth exclude them ; But 
 fupporing,what has been already prov'd, that the Cove- 
 fjant is ftill eiTentially the fame, it muft necefTarily com- 
 prehend them. And in Regard of its Adminidration, 
 the Scripture reprefents the Chriftian Ceconomy, as per- 
 fc6tive of the Jewiilijand the moft compleat Accomplifli- 
 ment of it •, and the new Covenant ot the Gofpel, as a 
 better, more excellent, and perfeft Covenant,than the for- 
 mer under theOLl-Tcftanient.//t'i'.7.22. & 8.6. Which it 
 cannot be,unlefs it ccntain'd all the real Privileges of the 
 former, together with feme additioralAdvantakes. And 
 therefore ii the Covenant Interefl; of the Children of con- 
 federate Parents was a real Privilege under the former 
 
 (as 
 
Chap. IV. of Lifanr-Baptirm.^ 229 
 
 (as I have proved) it is rational to conclude, that Privi- 
 lege muft be retained and coniirm'd under the more per- 
 fect Difpenfation of the Gofpel. Nor (4.) is there any 
 Reafon from the Incapacity of theChildren, whofeRighc 
 is pleaded for, that can exclude them. For none can 
 pretend, but that the Infanr-Children of the Chriilian 
 Church are equally capable of the Covenanr,theBleirings, 
 and the initiating Seal of it» with the Children of the 
 Jewifh Church: whatever can with any Pretence be ob- 
 jecled againit the former, as want of Underftanding, or 
 of Ability to chufe for themfelves, and the like, holds 
 fully as ftrong againft the latter. Therefore fince it is 
 undeniable that God has of old receiv'd the Infant-Seed 
 of the Faithful into his Covenant, and has never fmce, 
 either diredlly or confequentially, debarred or cut them 
 off from this Privilege j nor can any Caufe be affign'd, 
 why they ought to be debarred ; we have Reafon to con- 
 plude, that it is his Will that we fhould fl:ill reckon the 
 little Children of Believers as his Federates under the 
 New-Teftament. But, 
 
 Thirdly^ We have more pofitive Evidence from 
 Scripture, that, particularly, God's Covenant & Promife 
 to Abraham and his Seed continues in the fameTenor and 
 Extent to Believers and their Seed, under the Gofpel ; 
 the Promife of his being a God to him and his Seed after 
 him. It is not denied, becaufe it is plainly afierted in 
 Scriptur'e, that Believers in Chrift, of Gentiles as well as 
 Jews^ were intended by God as the Seed of Abraham : 
 Some call them his fpiritual Seed j I choofe to call them 
 his adopted Seed, in the Room of his natural Seed, which 
 were broken off by Unbelief •, Believers being more pro- 
 perly the fpiritual S^^d of Chrijl. But (not toftandupon 
 the Appellation j it is pretended, that as Believers are the 
 Seed of Abraham, the Covenant and Promife belongs to 
 them perfonally confidered, not to them and their Seed 
 too : This, it is furmis'd, was a Privilege peculiar to A- 
 hraham^?.s he was the Father of the Faithfui,but that the 
 Pcomifc hath not the fame Extent to his believing Seed. 
 
 Q. 3 There- 
 
230 A Befence of the Livtne Right Chap. IV. 
 
 Therefore I fhall endeavour to fliew the Vanity of this 
 Pretence, and to prove the contrary, by alledging a few 
 Paffages of Scripture, that are plain to this Purpofe. 
 
 (i.) The Apoflle has plainly declar'd, that/i?^ tilejpjig 
 cf yibraham is corns en the Gentiles through Jefus Chrijt^ 
 Gal. 3. 14. — The Blefling of /ibraham doubtlefs con- 
 lifts in God's Promife of being a God to him and his 
 Stti^ ; which is the Sum of a>iiBleirings which we can de- 
 fire, and which we have in and from Chrift, who is that 
 promifed Seed,?;? z^hom all Nations fhould be biefied with 
 Jbrahain's BlefTing, as he is the Author, Repofuoryjand 
 Difpenfer of all divine Bleffings to Men. This was none 
 of the Peculiarities of the Covenant of Abraham^ or of 
 the Favours and Honours appropriated to him in God's 
 federal Tranfadions with him •, but belongs to the fub- 
 ilantial Tenor of the Covenant through ail Generations, 
 as has been manifefted. And therefore, if theCovenant 
 and Promife of God extends not to the little Children • 
 of believing Gentiles, then the Blefling of Abraham \^ 
 not come on the Gentiles in the full Extent of it,but they 
 are cut off from a great Part of his BlefTing. For the 
 BlefTing of Abraham is not only that wherewith he was 
 blefTed in his own Perlbn, but the BlefTing of his Seed 
 and Family alfo. It was promis'd to him (and it was the 
 iirfl Promife we read of, that God made to him after his 
 Calling) Gen. 12.^.— In thee /hall allFamilies of theEarth 
 he blefjed (i.e. In thy Seed., as it is afterwards explain'd, 
 and in Communion wiih thee in the fame Covenant- 
 Blcflingf,; which is a plain Intimation,thattheBlefTing of 
 Abraham was defign'd to be not a meer perfonal, but a 
 Family-BlefTing, that all believing Gentiles fliould be 
 biefied in him, after the Example of God's blefling him 
 and his Family, that the Gofpel-Difpenfation of this 
 BlefTing fhould extend to the Families and Children of 
 Believers. Therefore Chrift faid to Zaccheus upon his 
 Profeffion of Repentance and Faith, Luk. 19. 9. This 
 Day is Salvation ccvde to this Hcufe : and gives this Rea- 
 fon, forfomuch as he^ alfo is a Son ^/Alraham ♦, and 
 
 being 
 
Chap. IV. <?/ Infant-Baptifm, 231 
 
 being a Son of Abraham^znA Heir of his Covenant in the 
 Gofpel -Senfe, thro' Faith in Chriit, the Bicfiing of Sal- 
 vation is extended by Chrift to him and his Houihoid. 
 In the fame Extent, the Apoftle offers this BlelTing of 
 Abraham to the Jailor at Philippic Ad:. 16.3 1. Believe on 
 the Lord Jefiis Chrift ^and ihou /halt be faved^and thyHoufe, 
 Thus we have good Evidence, that theBlelTingof yfir^- 
 ham^ according to the Extent of God's Promife to him 
 and to his Seed, comes upon the Gentiles thro' Faith in 
 Chrift. 
 
 (2.) Another PalTage in Confirmation of this occurs 
 in the fame Chapter, Gal. 3. 29. If ye be Chrift' s^then ars 
 ye Auraham^^ Seed^and Heirs according to the Promife, I'hs 
 Apoftle here declares, that all Chrittians,of whateverNa- 
 tion, Jew or Gr^^^,of whareverCondition,or Sex, (>^2 8.) 
 being one in Chriii Jefus^ are the true Seed of Abraham^ 
 under the Gofpel, and Heirs of his Covenant, accord- 
 ing to the true Purport & Meaning of the Promife, What 
 Promife can he mean, but thzt, I will be a God to /to,and 
 to thySeed ? 'Tis a grandMiftake,(&'tis the leadingError 
 of the Antipsedobaptifts) to think, that the Covenant and 
 Promife in this Extent was peculiar to Abraham as the 
 Father of the Faithful, but that it extended no farther 
 than to the Perfons of his Seed : whereas it was evident- 
 ly the Deiign of God in the firft Conftitution of this Co- 
 venant,to keep up a Church- Seed, in the Line of Abra-^ 
 bam, from Generation to Generation, even in the natural 
 Generations of his Seed. And Provifion was made ac 
 the fame Time for thexldmifTion of Gentile Strangers in- 
 to the fameCovenant, and to the fame Church-Privileges 
 in the Covenant with his natural Seed. — Any Stranger 
 (faith God) who is not of thy Seed, Gen. 17.12. (See alfo 
 Exod. 12.4.3,4.^.) So that every Jewifh Parent,andevery 
 profelyted Gentile Parent, had this Privilege, of having 
 the Covenant & Promife extended & feal'd to theirSeed, 
 till the Coming of Chrift,and the letting up theAdmini- 
 ftration of theNew-Covenant; in which there vvasnoAlte- 
 ration made as to the federateParties^but theJews&Pro- 
 
 0^4 felyces 
 
2^2 A 'Defence cf the Lrjwe Right Chap. IV. 
 
 lelytcsjwbo came under this new Adminiftration, by be- 
 lieving in Chrift, and receiving Chrillian Baptifm, had 
 the iame Privilege of the Covenant-Intereil ot their Seed 
 continued to them, that they had ever enjoyed -, and the 
 fame had been continued to all the reft to this Day, had 
 they not been broken off thro' Unbelief, as will appear 
 irom the next Pafiage I lliall cite. 
 
 (?.) Another Teilimcny, to prove the Extent of the 
 Covenant ot Abraham to the natural Seed of Goipel-Be- 
 lievers, are the Words of the Apcftle Peter^ du'edcd to 
 Jews & Profelytes at Jerufakm^ at the Commencemenc 
 of this new Adminiftration of the Covenant, which was 
 then confirmed by the Doclrine, Death & Sacrifice, P^-e- 
 furreCtion & Afcenfion of Chrift, and the pouring out of 
 the Spirit in his extraordinary Gifts on the Apoitles,and 
 a full Period was put to the Old-Teflament- Adminiftra- 
 tion : he exhorts them (A5f.2.Q,^.) to repent and believe 
 inChrift, and to receive the initiating Token of the New- 
 Covenant, in being baptized in his Name -, and enforces 
 his Exhortation by this Argument, y-. Q^().Fcr thepromije 
 is unto you and to y cur Children^mtd to all that are afar off^ 
 even as many as the Lord our Godfoallcdll. Whence it is 
 apparent, that the Promife fby v/hlch God's Covenant 
 with his People is exprefted) which had been all along to 
 confederate Parents in the 01d-Teft::ment-Church, and 
 their natural Children, is adopted into this new Difpenfa • 
 tion of Chrift. What Dr. Gill has to objed againft this 
 PalTage, fhall be conlidered and examined more largely 
 hcreatie;. In the mean Time, let me fhew, that thePro- 
 mife here referred to by the Apoftle, is that great Pro- 
 mUe of God to /ihraharn^ o{ tlefjwg ail Nations in his Seed ^ 
 and of being a God unto him and to his Seed ; and not thai 
 Promife in JceU cued f. 16, ly. as our Adverfaries con- 
 tend. For ( I ) The Promife ot God to Abraham was the 
 iTioft known, eminent and remarkable Promife, funda- 
 mental to theJewilhChurch-State,which fee u red all their 
 PiiviL-ges as the peculiar People of God, and which they 
 were f J prone to glory in, as the Seed ot Abraham^ and 
 
 is 
 
Chap. IV. cf Infant- Baptifm. 233 
 
 is therefore often, eminently and emphatically fliled the 
 Prornife^ without anyAddition, as it is here, and in many 
 Places cited in the Dialogue^ Pa. 37, and eifewhere. 
 I'herefore thefe Words being fpoken to the Jev/s, they 
 could underfrand by the Promife here,no other than that 
 noted and moft illulirious Promife made to ^braha?n^ih^ 
 great Patriarch of their Nation. (2) The Apoftle may 
 juftly be fuppofed to take the Promife of God to Abra- 
 ham for his Ground and Warrant in Preaching theNew- 
 Cpvenantjinthe fame Extent to htYitvmgJews ^Gentiks^ 
 and their Children ; for they both run in the fameTenor. 
 The Promife of God to Abraham was not only to him 
 and his natural Sztd^ but to the Stranger that was not of 
 his Seed^v/ho fhould be ioin'd in his Covenant, i.e. to the 
 profelytedGentiiesjCG't'/?. i j.y ^12. Excd. 1 2,48,49.Xo here 
 the Prom'le is to the Jews & their Seed, and to the cal- 
 led Gentiles. (3 j The Promife of the Holy Ghoft was 
 to be received alter Baptifm. Repent and be baptized — • 
 and ye Jhall receive the Gift of the Holy GhoJ}^ f. o^'^. But 
 the Promife here referred to, was propounded as a Mo- 
 tive and Obliofation to them to fubmic to the Chriilian 
 Difpenfiition, by being baptized in the Name of Jefus 
 Chrifti and as that which belong'd to them, previous to 
 Chriftian Baptifm ; which is grounded on and annexed 
 only to the Dodtrines and Promifes of theNew- Covenant, 
 and not to the extraordinaryGitts of theSpirit. (4) The 
 Prophecy in Jcel^ as it is underftood of ihe extraordinary 
 Gifts of the Holy Ghoft, the Apoftle had told them was 
 fulfilled in the miraculous Effuiion of the Spirit on all 
 the Apoftles, f. 16, 17. But we read of no fuch extra- 
 ordinary Gifts poured out upon thefe Convert?,to whom 
 Pete^ preached ; but only the ordinary fanclifyinglnflu- 
 ences and Graces of the Spirit : and therefore it is ratio- 
 nal to conclude, he did not intend that Promife in Joel. 
 Or if the ordinary Gifts and Graces of the Spirit be un- 
 derfto d in the Prophecy cited out of 7^^/,thefe are com- 
 prized in the Bleffing of Mraham^ as ir is interpreted to 
 include, eminently, the Promife of the Spirit^ Gal. 3. 14. 
 
 And 
 
234 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 And this is fuch a Promile, as the Infants of the Church 
 are capable of •, and fuch a Promife is made to them. 
 Ifai. 44. g. / will pour my Spirit upon thy Seed, and my 
 Bleffing upon thine Offspring. (5O The Promife here re- 
 ferred to extends to all Jews and Gentiles called by the 
 Gofpel, without Limitation to Nation, Place, or Time ; 
 to the Jews and their Children, and in like Manner to 
 the Gentiles called into a Church- State, thenceforward 
 during theGofpel-Difpenfation to the End of the World. 
 But how unreafonable is it to fuppofe,that all theChriitia- 
 nized Jews^ and all the called Gentile.^, were then Parta- 
 kers of the extraordinai*y Gifts of theSpirit ? Since thefe 
 were bellowed comparatively but on few, io Refpedt 
 of the Multitudes that believed ^ And how much more 
 unreafonable and abfurd is it, to imagine this of all Be- 
 lievers fince that Time, ior thefe many Hundred Years 
 fince thofe extraordinaryGifts ceafed in the Church ^ For 
 the Promife here propounded by the Apoflle, belongs to 
 thofe that are called in ail Ages without Lin'Jiatiori fto 
 us in America, as well as the ancient Jews) during the 
 Gofpel-Difpenfation, as a Reafon & Inducement * o fub- 
 mit to the Terms of it. (6.) The Promife is explained 
 in the next Chapter by the fame Apoftle, to intend the 
 Promife madeto y/^r^/A-^/y^which he improves in prelTing 
 the fameExhortation on \htJews.Kdi.Q,.2^^26.2^e are the 
 Children of theCovenant^which God made with our Fathers, 
 faying unto Abraham, And in thy Seed fhall all the Kindred 
 of the Earth he hkfjed. Unto you, fir§f, God having raifed 
 up his Son Jefis, jcnt him. to blefsyouficz. OtherReafons 
 might be added, but thefe are fufRcient to demonilrate 
 plainly, that the Promife mentioned, /.39. could not be 
 that in Joel, as interpreted by the ApoRle, of the extra- 
 ordinary and miraculous Gifrs of theSpiric,poured forth 
 on the Day of Pentecoft •, but that fundamental Handing 
 Promife of God to /shraham, and to his Seed for ever. 
 And confequenciy, that God's Covenant- Promiie to him 
 belongs, in its full Exti:nt,toChriiliah Parents, and their 
 Seed. 
 
 (4.) The 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant-Baptifm. 235 
 
 (4.) The next PafTage of Scripture, that gives full E- 
 vidence to the Truth pleaded for, is that of the Apoftle 
 Paul^ Rom. 11. from >\ 16^ to 24 inclufively. If theRoct 
 he bcl)\ fo are the Branches : And if fome of the Branches 
 be broken off^ and thou being a wildOlive-Tree.,wert graffed 
 in amotg them^ and with them partakejl of the Root^ and 
 Fdtnejs of the Olive -Tree^ &c. ThtOiive-lree in this Al- 
 legory of the Apo(lle,can be applied to nothing elle,with 
 any Propriety, thnn the Church of Jfrael \ (Jer, ri. 
 16. ^he Lord called thy Name a green Olive ^ fair and of 
 gcodlyFruit — ) The Root whereof was theCovenant with 
 Abraham^ IfaaCy and Jacobs which v/as the Root of all 
 the vifible Churcli- Privileges of the Jezvs^ fignified by 
 theFatnefs of theOiive-Tree; oneof the principal whereof 
 was theCovenant Incereft of their Seed,with the annexed 
 Seal, whereby they were conftituted Members of the 
 Church of Ifrael. The Jews were the natural BrancheSy 
 many of whom were broken off becaufe of Unbelief ..f. 20. 
 The Gentile Churches v^txtBranches of a wildOlive-TreCy 
 thro' Faith in Chrift grafted into the good Oiive-Tree, 
 i;^r.2i,24. And being grafkd in among the believing 
 Jews, -partook with them of the Root and Fatnefs, of the 
 Olive-Tree , that is, had Communion with them in the 
 Root o{ Abraha'Ajh Covenant, and in the Privileges and 
 Bleffings derived thence. So the Gentiles come to be 
 Fellow-Heirs with the Jews, and Partakers of the fame 
 Promifein Chrift by the Gofpel. Eph.3.6. Whence it un- 
 deniably follows, that under the Gofpel-Difpenfation the 
 Seed of Believers hav& as good a Title to the Covenant 
 and Seal of it too, as ever the Sqq(\ of the JewiihChurch 
 had, by virtue of God's firfb Infiirution ot his Covenant 
 with the Patriarchs of that Church. 
 
 (5.) 1 fhall add but one m.ore Tedimony to this Pur- 
 pofe, which, if rightly explained, I apprehend to be an 
 Evidence of equal Light and Force,wi[h the foregoing : 
 Ir is in the fame Epillle to thei^^;/?<??;.f,Chap.i 5.8,9, &:c. 
 Now J fay ^th at Jefus Chrift was a Minifter of theC^rcun^' 
 cif.on for the Truth of God ^ to confirm the Promifes made 
 
 unto 
 
2^6 A Defence of the Divine Right C h a p , I V. 
 
 unto the Fathers •, and that the Gentiles might glorify God 
 for his Mercy y ^c. The Fathers to whom the Prom-ifes 
 were made, were Abraham^ Ifaac^ and Jacobs the chief 
 Fathers ot the Jewiih Church. And what were thePro- 
 mifes made to them, but thofe mod noted and compre- 
 henfive ones, of BkJJing all Nations in their Seed, and of 
 i^eing a-Gcd to them, and to their Seed? Thefe Chrifl has 
 confirmed, firfl to the Jews, fas he was a Miniver of the 
 Circumcifion, i.e. of the Jewi(liChurch,to which he chiefly 
 coniin'd his perfonal Miniflry) and afterwards to \kitGen- 
 tiles, by the preaching of hisApoftles ; that the Gentiles, 
 together with the Jews, might glorify God for the fame 
 Mercy, the BlefHng oi Abraham being come upon them, 
 according to the Tenor of thofe Promifes. But now, if 
 the Infant- Seed of Belie vers,i:nder theGofpel-ildminiftra- 
 tion, be cut off from theirShare in the Covenant andPro- 
 mife, then Chrift has not confirm'd the Promifes made to 
 theFathers, untoNew-Teftament-Behevers,but extream- 
 ly diminifh'd them. But the Apoflle plainly teftifies the 
 contrary, that he has confirm'd them, and this by his 
 Death and Refurredtion, and by the pouring out of the 
 Spirit, by hisGofpel-Dodrine andlnttitution, by adopt- 
 ing them into his new Covenant, as the principalMattcr 
 of it, and appointing Baptifm and the Sacrament of his 
 Supper to be the Tokens and Seals of the Bieffings of 
 thofe Promifes, whereby they are confirm'd and perpe- 
 tuated, to the End of the World. Thus I have lliewed 
 from divers plain and pertinent Texts of Scripture, that 
 it is the Will of God, that his Covenant with Abraham 
 and his Seed fhould continue,and be confirm'd to Gofpel- 
 Believcrs and their "^i^^d^, thro' all Ages : And conll- 
 quently, that the Infants of the Church are interefled, as 
 Federates with God, under the EvangeHcal Adminiftra- 
 tion of the Covenant. — Let me briefiy add one or two 
 more i\rgumcnts. 
 
 Fourthly, There are divers exprefs Declarations in the 
 New-Teilamenr, that plainly & neceirarily mfertheCo- 
 venantTntereft of the Iniant- Children of the Faithful, 
 
 now 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant- Baptifm. 2^7 
 
 now under the Gofpel. I jfhall mention but three, thac 
 are fuiiicientiy plain, and pertinent to the Purpofe. The 
 two firft I fhall but barely propound, becaufe 1 fhall have 
 Occafion largely to vindicate them, in the next Chapter. 
 
 1. One is that PalTage, particularly recorded by three 
 of the Evangelifts, of Chriit's encouraging littleChildren 
 to be bro't to him, his teftifying his Difpleafure againft 
 thofethat forbad them, his taking them up in hisArms,and 
 bleffing them, and declaring that of fuch is the Kingdom 
 cf God. Matth. 19. 13, 14. Mark. 10. 13, 14. Luk. 18. 
 15, 16. Which is the fame Thing in other Words, as if 
 he had laid, that fuch little Children are Subjedls of the 
 Gofpel- Adminiftration of God's Covenant. And if Men 
 would ftand to thisTeftimony of our Saviour,one would 
 
 j think it fully decifive of the Point in Difpute. 
 
 2. Another plainDeclaration, to the fame Purpofe, Is 
 that of the Apoftle, i Cor. 7. 14. — Elfe "Ji: ere your CbiU 
 dren unclean •, but new are they holy. Thel'erm holy is never 
 applied to any of Mankind in the whole Scripture, but 
 fuch as are in Covenant with God, and feparated to his 
 Service : and by this Term tlie federate People of God 
 are often dillinguifli'd from the uncovenantedand uncir- 
 cumcifed Heathen, who,in Cppofition to them, are f}X)ken 
 of as unclean. Let it fuliice to produce one Text, where 
 the fameDiftinftion occurs, which may ferve to explain, and 
 fettle the true Meaning of thefe Words of theApoille. Ifai. 
 52. 1. — Jerufahn^ the holy City^ henceforth there fhall no 
 more come into thee the uncircumc'ifed^ ^ the unclean. Tak- 
 ing the Words in this Senfe (which is the true Scripture 
 Senfe) we have from this Teflimony of the Apoftle, full 
 Proof of thelnfant-Children of Believers being taken into 
 federal Relation to God ; for on no other Account coul.d 
 they be denominated //d^/y, according to the ufual Stile of 
 Scripture. Thefe twoPalfages are excepted againft byDr. 
 Gi//,but how weakly, will be fliewn in the next Chapter. 
 
 .3. We have a Declaration, or general Defcription of 
 thofe whom God will admit as Federates with him in the 
 new Covenant. Heb, 8. 8. Behold^ the Days corns {faith 
 
 tbi 
 
238 A Defence of the "Divine Right Chap.IV, 
 
 the Lord) that I will make a new Covenant with the Houfe 
 ^/lirael, and the Houfe <?/ Judali, &c. f. 10. This is the 
 Covenant that I will make with the Houfe of Ifrael after 
 thofe Days^ &c. Cited from thePropher, Jer, 31.31,33. 
 The Author or Maker of the Covenant is the Lord Je- 
 hovah^ who has a fovereign Right to declare, whom he 
 will, and whom he will not, accept as Federates in his 
 new Covenant. Whom he excludes in his Word, it be- 
 longs not toMen to admit : and whom he accepts,noMan 
 fhculd dare to exclude. Now the Enquiry is, Who are 
 thofe whom God vv^ill account Federates with him in the 
 new Covenant, under the Denomination of the Houje of 
 Ifrael? If it comprehends in it Infant-Children, this will 
 determine the Point without further Difpute j for thofe 
 feveral Sorts of Perfons that are included in that Deno- 
 mination,. are the federate Party, with whom God makes 
 his newCovenant. And for theRefolution hereof,we muft 
 enquire into twoThings. i. What is meant h^^ the Houfe 
 cj Ifrael? 2. How the antientCovenant flood withT^/r^^f/ ? 
 Firf, What is meant by the Houfe of Ifrael ? The 
 W^ord, Houfe^ as here ufed, is by a Metonymy commiOnly 
 known, put for the Inhabitants, the People,or Perfons of 
 the Houfe : Now if we take it in the iargeil Senfe, for 
 the whole People of IfraeU This, without Controveify, 
 includes all Sorts, Men, Women, Children and Infants. 
 And the Houfe o^ Ifrael here feems plainly to be under- 
 fto d in the Hime Extent with the Houfe of Ifrael whom 
 God bro't outof theLandof£g"}'^/,refeed to,>^. 9. i\mong 
 whom, it is undoubted, theirChildren and little Ones were 
 included. Or if we take it in theftrideft Senfe,for a par- 
 ticular Family, this alfo includes Parents and Children, 
 how Young foever -, yea, the Houfe is manyTimes taken 
 for theRace, the Offspring ^i Poiferity of fuch a Family. 
 As when God promiied by Nathan^to eftablifh theKing- 
 dom in David's Family, to his Sons, &: Pofterity, David 
 thus exprciies his grateful Senfe of the Favour, 2 Sam. 
 ■7. 19. Ihcu haft f^oken alfo of thy Servant's Houfe for a 
 great while to come. ThePhrafe often occurs in thisSenfe, 
 
 in 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant-Baptifm. 239 
 
 in Scripture. So, theHoufe ofl^vd^t^and theHcufe ^/Aaron, 
 Pfal. 1 15.12. mean nothing elfe, but their Children and 
 Poilerity ; and God's blefilng the Houfe of i/r^f/&c. is 
 interpreted to intend them and their Children^ ver. 14. la 
 eitherSenie,the//<i?^y^ takes in theChildren,without excep- 
 tion of any Age or Sex. And if the Covenant be made 
 with the Houfe or Family, none can doubt, butChildren 
 are included with theirParents. If it be faid,that theHoufe 
 oUfrael mu^ be underftood according to theSubjed- Mat- 
 ter treated of.and if this be of fuch a Nature as Childrea 
 and Infants are uncapable of,it is reafonable to underfland 
 it fpoken of elder Perfons only, the Heads of Houfes. 
 Granting that this fometimes may be theCafe, it remains 
 then to enquire, whether Infants are uncapable of beino- 
 entred Federates with God in his Covenant ? If not, this 
 Exception can have no Place here. Wherefore our next 
 Enquiry is, 
 
 Secondly^ How the ancient Covenant flood with the 
 Houfe of Ifrael ? For tho' theNew-Covenant befo called 
 in Refped of a Change in the Mode of Adminiitration, 
 and fome additional Excellencies, wherein it differs from 
 the former ; yet it is not called a New-Covenant in Ref- 
 ped of any Change in the Federates, who were the fame 
 under the Old & New Adminiftration ; I mean not, as 
 to Individuals, but as to the feveral Sorts of Perfons in- 
 tended by this Denomination, The Houfe of Ifrael, The 
 Old Covenant was made with the Houfe of Ifrael \ and 
 God faith, 1 will make a new Covenant with the Houfe of 
 Ifrael — CAnd they were natural Ifraelites and naturaliz'd 
 Strangers, that \%^Jews & Frofelytes,w\i\\ whom the New- 
 Covenant was firil made ; of whom we read, A"?. 2. who 
 were therefore properly theHoufe of Ifrael) — fo that the 
 Federates were the fame in both Covenants, without the 
 leaft Intimation of a Difference, or the leaft Exception of 
 any Sort of Perlbns in the New-Covenant, that were ad- 
 mitted in the Old. Now I have before fnewed, that the 
 Covenant with the Houfe of Jfrael under the Old Tefta- 
 menr, tack in their Children and little Ones, from the ex- 
 
 prcfs 
 
240 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 prefs Words of M?/^j,Deut.29. who addreffing the whole 
 Body of that People, faith, ver. 10. Tejtmd this Day all 
 of you before the Lord your God.dic. (your little Ones, par- 
 ticularly, ver. II J that thou jhculdeft enter into Covenant 
 with thsLord thy Gody3cc.^'.i2, And this,purfuant to the 
 Intention of God's Covenant with /Ilraham a.nd hisSeed, 
 as Mcfes intimates, ver. 13. But left any Wrangler 
 Ihould fay, their little Ones might be fuch as had grown 
 to fome Excrcife of Reafon, fo as to be capable of giving 
 their Confent, Mofes adds, ver. 14,15. Neither withycu 
 cnly do I make thisCovenant — But with him that is not here 
 with us this Day : Which may be fitly underftood of t 'leir 
 Pofterity,Children yet unborn, reprefented in that folemn 
 Tranfadlion by their Progenitors *, and fu rely new-born 
 Infants are not iefs capable of the Covenant. And elfe- 
 where they are fpoken of as Members of the Congrega- 
 tion of Ifrael. Joel 2.15,16. Call a folemn yiffemhly., gather 
 the People, fanftify the Congregation, affemble the ElderSy 
 gather the Children, and thofe that fuck the Breafls, Chil- 
 dren therefore, and fucking Babes, were reckoned of the 
 Church & Congregation of Jfrael. As this wholly takes 
 oft the Objeclion of Infants Incapacity of being entred 
 into Covenant with God, and of becoming Members of 
 his Church, fo it leaves no Manner of Doubt, but that 
 the fame Sort of Perfons were intended by God to be Fe- 
 derates with him, when he declares, that he will make 
 a new Covenant with the Houfe of Ifrael : And confe- 
 quently,that the Infant Children of vifibleBelievers,under 
 the Gofpel, are taken in with theirParents intothisNew- 
 Covcnant : Which was the Thing to be demonftrated. 
 For which Purpofe I have produced abundant Evidence 
 from the Scriptures of theNew-Teilament : But that it 
 may appear, this is not aNew-Teitament Doctrine only, 
 let me add, 
 
 Fifthly, There are plain Hints in the Scriptures of the 
 Old-Teltament, yea and exprefs Predidions, that the 
 Covenant Ihould run in the iameTcnor,with the Faithful 
 .and theirSced^ in Gofpcl-Tirnes,as ever it had done from 
 
 the 
 
Chap. IV. cf Infant-Baptifm. 241 
 
 the Beginning. Let me briefly cite a few Teftimonies, 
 to confirm this. — To begin with Mofes^ in Deut, 30. (in 
 which Chapter there is more of Evangelical Dodlrine, 
 than in any one elfe in the Books of Mofes^ and whicli 
 evidently refers to the Times of the Gofpel, as I have 
 fhewed) there is this evangelical Promlfe, jj, 6. The Lord 
 thy God will circumcife thine Heartland theUeart of thy Seed, 
 to love the Lord thy God^ &c. To circumcife the Heart is 
 to purge it from viciousAffedions, &to incline it prevail- 
 ingly to the Faith &Love of God, &Obedience to him. 
 But why does he ufe the Phrafe of circumcifing the Heart ? 
 Plainly in Allufion to the ancient Seal of Circumcifion,as 
 being the fpiritual Grace of the Covenant, fignified by 
 that federal Rite, which was by divine Infiitution applied 
 to Parents and their Infant-Seed. Which leads us to iin- 
 derftand the Rule and Method of God's Difpenfation of 
 New-Covenant Grace, even to believing Parents & their 
 Seed, according to the ancient Tenor of the Covenant of 
 Circumcifion. Whence we may argue, Thofe to whom 
 God haspromifed to difpeiife che Grace of hisCovenant, 
 are to be reputed fuch as he has taken intoCovenanf with 
 himfelf ; and indeed there can be nogreaterEvidence than 
 thi?,of a CovenantTnterefl : But to Parents & their Seed 
 in Gofpel-Times God has promifed the Grace of his Co- 
 venant, to circumcife their Heart, and the Heart of their 
 Seed, &c. Therefore God defign'd to take Parents with 
 their Seed into his New- Covenant. — Again in Fjal. 22. 
 which contains a Predidion of the Sufrerings of Chriil, 
 and the Glory that fliould follow •, and as Part of that 
 Glory, it is promifed,/. 30. ^ SeedJJoall ferve himjtfball 
 be accounted to the Lord for a Generation, i. e. A Seed a- 
 mong theGentiles (as theEvent manifefts) Hiall be adopt- 
 ed into Abraham^ Covenant, whom the Lcrd will ac- 
 count and accept as his Covenant-People, together with 
 their Seed in their Generations, as the ancientjews were ; 
 and ififtead of the Jews, who were broken oif, and un- 
 churched becaufeoftheirUnbelief&Rejedicn ofChriil. — 
 Another Promife or Predidion to the fame Purpofe, we 
 
 R have 
 
242 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 have in Ifa. 59. 20 As for mCy this is my Covenant with 
 them, faith the Lordy My Spirit that is upon thee^ and my 
 Words ivhich I have put in thy Mouthy fhall not depart out 
 cf thy Mouthy nor out of the Mouth of thy Seed, nor out of 
 the Mouth of thy Sced^s Seed, faith theLord^from henceforth 
 and for ever. That this Promife refers to the Gofpel- 
 Difpenfation, and as fome think, to a particular Period of 
 that Difpenfation, when the Jews fhall be converted, the 
 Apoftle teftifiesi^d?;??. 1 1. 26, 27. If it refers to theCalling 
 of the Jews in the latter Days, this makes no Odds in 
 the prefent Argument •, for we know, the Gofpel -Difpen- 
 fation is invariably the fame both to Jews and Gentiles. 
 And it is a plain Predidion, that theNew-Covenant that 
 fliould be made with them, fhould hold on in the fame 
 Tenor as ever it had done of old, with them and their 
 Seed, from Age to Age to the End of theWorld. — Fur- 
 ther it is foretold, Jtr» 29. when God fhould raife upD^- 
 ^/i their King to them, whom they fhould ferve, who 
 could be no other than theSon o^ David, the Meffiah, to 
 whom the Lord gave the Throne of his Father ID^iVid, that 
 their Children fjjould he as aforetime. Inheritors of the Co- 
 venant-Privileges of theirParents. ^'.9. 20. — A likePro- 
 phecy we have in Ezek. '2^j. 24, 25, 26. My Servant 
 David fjall be King over them, and they all fhall have one 
 Shepherd — And they (loall dwell in the Land that I have 
 given unto Jacob my Servant, — Even they and their Chil^ 
 dren, and their Childrens Children for ever. And my Ser- 
 vane David [hall he their Prince for ever. Moreover I will 
 make a Covenant of Peace with them -, itfloall be an ever- 
 Icijling Covenant, Whatever Reference thefe two Prophe- 
 cies laft cited, may have to theState of the Jews after their 
 return from Captivity,yet certainly they look further,and 
 have their ultimate and compleat Accomplifliment only 
 in the Times of theKingdom of Chrift,wherein it is pro- 
 mifed (though in Language borrowed Irom the Old-Te- 
 fi-ament) that the Covenant- State of Children Ihali abide 
 as aforetime, and that the Inheritance of vifibleChurch- 
 Privilcges, iliaii be tranfmitted from Parents to Children 
 
 in 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant- Baptifm. 24^ 
 
 in fuccelTive Generations, as they had been of Old to 
 the natural Seed of Jacob, I might produce fevcral other 
 PafTages out of the Pfahns ^Prophets^ih^t have the fame 
 Reference and Meaning. But I forbear. What has been 
 alleg'd may fuflice to fhew, that the Old-Teftament is no 
 Stranger to the Doctrine of the Covenanc-Intereft of the 
 Seed of the Faithful under theNev/. But the Teilimonies 
 given to it from the Scriptures of theNew-Tcflament are 
 mofl clear and convi6live,which have therefore been more 
 largely infilled on. 
 
 And for a Conclufion of this Head, let me point out 
 the manifeft and grofsAbfurdities,that follow on the con- 
 trary Opinion, which excludes the Infants of Chriilians 
 from all Right or Intereft in theCovenant of Grace. For 
 hence it follows, (i) That the New-TeftamentAdmini- 
 flration of the Covenanr,which is reprefented inScripture 
 as more excellent and perfedl than the foregoing, more 
 extenfive and comprehenfive in otherRefpeds, as taking 
 in all Nations as well ^sjews, is yet in thisRefpe6l more 
 contradled and diminifhed, as it excludes the Children of 
 Believers, who make up a great Part fif not the greateftj 
 of the Nations, or of thofe Families ot theEarth that be- 
 lieve in Chrift, on whom it was foretold that theBleCHng 
 o^ Abraham fnould come. (2) It follows that all the 
 Promifes of God are not confirm'd by theDeath of Chrift, 
 nor are they in him, Tea and Amen^ but rather Yea and 
 Nay ; for if that moft valuable PromJfeof God's being 
 a God to the Seed of Abraham^ be not in the Subfbance 
 of it, digefted into his New- Covenant, it is abolidi'd by 
 theDeath of Chrift : how then hath he confirmed the Pro- 
 mifes made to the Fathers ? (3) It follows, that though 
 Chrift has on all Occafions exprefs'd a kind Regard to 
 little Children,takihgfuch in his Arms and blefting them, 
 and declaring that oi fuch is the Kingdom of God ; yet he 
 has blotted out their Title to all federal Relation toGod : 
 which implies a Contradiction, as well as an Abfurdity. 
 C4.)It foliows,that thoughChrift has made itourDuty to 
 receive fuch ItttleChildren in hisName,M^s,g,^6,^'j. yet he 
 
 R 2 himfei^ 
 
244 ^ Defence of the Divine Right Chap, IV. 
 
 himfelf has rcjeacd them, and by the Confticution of his 
 New-Covenant has cut them off from the Covenant- 
 Mercies of God. (5) It follows, that a Jewijh Parent 
 could not come over into the New-Covenant at the tirft 
 Preaching and Promulgation of it, or become a Chriftian, 
 without great Lofs and Detriment to his Children, by re- 
 nouncing theirPart in God's Covenant, and cafting them 
 out among Heathens and Aliens, excluding them from 
 all Hope in Chrift (at lead till they grow up to a Ca- 
 pacity of repenting & believing) and by depriving him- 
 ielf (if his Children die young) of all Comfort and Hope 
 in the Promife of their eternal Salvation. How eafy had 
 it been for a Jew to object, I have the Covenant already 
 fealed to me and my Children by the Appointment of 
 God, who are thereby taken in among his chofen diftin- 
 guifli'd People, feparaied from the Heathen World,and 
 intitled to peculiar Favours : but by fubmitting to this 
 new Difpenfation of Chrift, whatever perfonal Advanta- 
 ges I may expe6f, yet in fo doing, I fhall deprive my 
 Children of all the Privileges accruing to them by the 
 Covenant with the Seed of Abraham^ cancel their Title 
 to the Promife, thruft them out from the Inheritance of 
 theirFathers,& leave them to theGod of thisWorld with 
 uncovenantedPagans,as having noPart with theLordGod 
 of Ifracl. Why then do you perfuade me to embrace 
 the Chriftian Religion ? This would have been an invin- 
 cible Obftacle to the Jews coming over to the Faith of 
 Chrift. We find in theNew- Teftament how zealous the 
 Jevvs were (even thofe that believed in Chrift) for the 
 Circumcifion of their Children, that ancient Seal of the 
 Promife -, and how provoked they were at what they had 
 heard of Pat^Ps teaching the Jews that were among the 
 Gentiles ^i\\2ii they ought not to circumctfe their Children. A6f. 
 21. 21. How mucn more had they been provok'd, if 
 Chriftian Baptifm had not been fubftituted in its Room ? 
 And much more ftiil, if by theDodrine of this New- 
 Covenant their Children had been cut off from all Cove- 
 nant-Relation to, and Intercft in God } (6.) It follows, 
 
 that 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant Baptifm. 245 
 
 that the Children of Chriftians are in a worfe State,than 
 the Children of the Jews under the Old-Teftament ; for 
 the latter were confeiTedly taken with their Parents into 
 Covenant with God, and thereby into a Capacity for 
 Salvation ; but the former being left out among Aliens, 
 are without Chrift^ without God in the Worlds and without 
 Hope. Eph. 2.12. For it is certain, that if it be the Will 
 of God, that the Children of Chriftians fhou'd be exclud- 
 ed from the Covenant of Grace, it is his Will that they 
 Ihouldbe excluded from a State of Salvation : becaufe the 
 only revealed Method of Salvation for apbftate Mankind 
 is in the Way of the Covenant of Grace propounded in 
 theScriptureSo Thefe & many the like Ablurdities, that na- 
 turally follow upon the Denial of Childrens Intereft with 
 their Parents m the New-Covenant,are not to be endured 
 by Chriftians, and may ferve to coniirm the foregoing 
 Arguments,offer'd inVindication of the contrary Truth. 
 
 1 have dwelt the longer on this Head, to evince the 
 Right of the Infant-Children of confederate Parents in 
 the Covenant under the New-'Teftament^ becaufe I look 
 upon it as the firm folid Bafis, or Scripture-Ground of the 
 Title of fuchChildren toBaptifm. For fuppofing Chrift*s 
 Inftitution of Baptifm to be the initiating Token & Seal 
 of hisNew Covenant,whichhe has ordained to be preached 
 and fcal'd by his Minifters to all Nations, without Limi- 
 tation to any Sex or Age, nothing more can be required 
 to prove the Validity of the Baptifm of fuch Children, 
 or to make up an unanfwerable Argument in Defence of 
 their Right to it, than God's admitting & accepting the 
 Children of Believers as Federates in theNew- Covenant, 
 and the parental Right and Power of dedicating them 
 unto God : Both which have been fully demonicrated. 
 But before 1 proceed to confider Dr. GiU's Pretenfions in 
 Reply to this Argument, there is one or two Things 
 more to be premis'd. 
 
 6. When we fpeak of theCovenant of Grace, or of any 
 Perfon's Intcreft in, or Exclufion from it, the Covenant 
 of Grace is to be confider'd either inRefped of its vifibic 
 
 K 3 Adminiftra- 
 
24^ A Bejence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 Adminiftration, or in Refped of its internal fpiritual Ef- 
 ficacy. Or thus, we mult diftinguiih between the Co- 
 venant of Grace outwardly adminifter'd in the vifible 
 Church, & inwardly received by a fpiritual Difpenfation 
 of its Grace to the Souls of Men. There is a NecefTity 
 of admitting thisDiftindion -, otherwife v/e fhall run into 
 allCcnfufion,in our Conceptions and Difcourfes on this 
 Subject. The fame Man may be truly affirmed to be 
 in the Covenant of Grace, and as truly deny'd to be in 
 thatCovenanr,which mayfeem an abfolureContradidlion ♦, 
 unlefs we oblcrvejby the Help of fuch a Diftindion as 
 this, in whatRefpect he is in the Covenant of Grace,and 
 in what he is not. A Man may be in the Covenant of 
 GraceinRefpe6lof itsvifibleAdmini{lration,asail are who 
 make a credible Profellion of their Confent to it, & come 
 under theScals of it ; and yet he may not be in the Co- 
 venantof Grace inRegard of its fpiritualDifpenfation and 
 Efficacy. This is the Cafe of all clofe Hypocrites,who 
 cannot be diftinguilli'd by Man from thofe that are fm- 
 cere, and yet their religious Profellion and Behaviour is 
 fuch as entitles them to our Charity, and by the Rule of 
 Charity they are to be accounted and treated as trueCcn- 
 federates,though deftitute of a graclousPrinciple of Faith 
 and Love to God. This Diftindion is fo well known, 
 and approved by all Divines, that it were needlefs to fay 
 any more about it, but that the Want of obferving it 
 fcems the Caufe of all that Indiflindnefs, and Confufion 
 that runs through Dr. G///'s Difcourfeon this Flead, who 
 never tells us clearly what he means by being in the Co- 
 venant of Grace. As far as I can underftand him, he 
 difallows this Didindion, holding that all and only the 
 Eied arc.in the Covenant of Grace. For fays he, P. 47. 
 *' I'he Covenant of Grace was made with Chriif , and 
 <^' his People in him from Everlading." And fo he con- 
 founds the two Covenants,which I have before prov*d to 
 he entirely diftinfl ; and have alio provM that many of 
 the Eled are, in their natural State, Strangers from the 
 Coyenanr^ both as to its outward Adminifl:ration,and in- 
 
 v/ard 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant-Baptifm. 247 
 
 ward Efficacy. And yet he goes on to fay, P. 5 r. Thofe 
 who are in this Covenant " have all of them the Laws 
 *' of God put into their Minds, and written in their 
 " Hearts." Which fecms aContradidion to what he had 
 faid before : unlefs he will aflert, that all that are in the 
 Covenant of Grace, have the Laws of God written in 
 their Hearts from Everlafling, and confequently are 
 fanclify'd as well as juftify'd from Eternity ; which is 
 againft common Senfe. For if it be true,that all that are 
 in the Covenant of Grace have the Laws of God written 
 in their Hearts, then it is certain that the Eledl were not 
 in the Covenant of Grace from Everlafting : For before 
 their Converfion they have not the Law of God written 
 in their Hearts, but the Law of Sin governs there. 'Tis 
 true, indeed, that all who are in the Covenant of Grace 
 in Regard ot its inward Efficacy, have the Law of God 
 written in their Hearts ; but this is not true of all that 
 are in that Covenant in Refped of its outward Admini- 
 ftration. This Diftindion well obferv'd, will help to dif- 
 cover the Sophiftry of moft of Dr. GilW Arguments, as 
 I have, in Part, fhewed already, f fhall endeavour there- 
 fore to make it good in a few Words. 
 
 Firfi;^ It may be made good by a foregoing Obferva- 
 tion, that the Covenant of Grace is^in its ejfential Confiitu- 
 tion^one and the fame under various Forms of Jdminiflration. 
 If indeed this Covenant was made with Men fromEver- 
 lafting, as Dr. Gill imagines, I fee no Need of any Ordi- 
 nances or outward Adminiftrations to bring Men into it. 
 But as I have proved the Covenant to be Conditional, 
 confiftingof mutualStipulations,Promifes&Engagements 
 between God and Men, fo God has feen meet in hisWif- 
 dom and Goodnefs to appoint a Miniftry, & Ordinances 
 in his Church, as the outward Means of tranfading the 
 Covenant between himfelf and his People. And tho' ia 
 Regard of the inward Frame and Conftitution of the Co- 
 venant of Grace, thofe only may be faid to be within it, 
 who have received the Grace of the Covenant, and have 
 true Faith and Piety in their Hearts, yet all thofe may 
 " R 4 * bp 
 
24S ^A Defence oj the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 be truly faid to be in the Covenant of Grace, in Regard 
 of its external Adminillration, who according to theWill 
 of God are broi ght under that Adminiftration, or by 
 profelTed Confent fubmit to it •, whether they have true 
 Faith and Piety in their Hearts,or nor. So all thePeople 
 oi Ifrael cntred into Covenant with God under the Mini- 
 Ilry ot Mofes -, call it a legalAdmini{lration,if you pleafe, 
 yet it was oneForm of Adminiftration of a true Covenant 
 of Grace. So under the Gofpel-Adminiftration, though 
 the Covenant continuing efientially the fame, the fame 
 true Faith and Piety in the Heart is ftill requifite, as an 
 Evidence of an Intereil in the Covenant, in Refped of 
 Its inward Application •, yet the conditional Propoficion 
 of Chriftand Gofpe.'-Beneiifs by the Miniftry he has ap- 
 pointed in his Church, brings all that profefledly confent 
 to ii'jWith rheir Seed, under the outwardAdminift ration ; 
 ■who may therefore be truly faid in that Refpe(5t to be in 
 the Covenant of Grace, tor they have a Right to all the 
 Ordinances & external Privileges of the Church, whether 
 they be truly regenerated, or have true faving Grace in 
 their Hearts, or no, which is not difcernable to Man. 
 Wherefore, 
 
 Secondly i It may be made good frorn its Coincidence 
 v/ith the commonly received Diftindion of the Church 
 into vifible and invifible. 
 
 The invifibieChurch confifts of all, & only realSaints; 
 called invif]ble,becaufe that Grace in the Heart, which is 
 their diftinguijThing Chara6ter, is invifible to the World, 
 and difcernable only to theEye of God. All theMembers 
 of this invifible Church, it will be granted, are in the 
 Covenant of Grace, in Regard of its fpiritual EfHcacy, 
 The vifibleChurch confifts of all that make a viliblePro- 
 felTion of the Chriilian Faith ^Religion, not contradicfled 
 in their Fives ; among whom, it is not doubted, there 
 are many real Hypocrites, yet all thcfc are in the Bonds 
 of the Covenant of Grace. For the vifible Church is no 
 other than a Society of Men confederated in the Bond of 
 the Covenant, for the Service and Woriliip of the true 
 
 God 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant-Baptifm. 249 
 
 God in his Son Jefiis Chrift. But how,or In vvhatRefpedl 
 are all fuch Proteffors in the Covenant of Grace ? Anfvj, 
 In Refped of the vifible Adminiftration of it, according 
 to divine Inflitution. The Church of the Old Tedamenc 
 was founded on the Covenant vifibly tranfaded between 
 God and Ifrael by Sacrifice. Exod. 24. 6, 7, 8. Hence 
 Pfal. 50. 5. Gather my S dints together unto me -, tbcfe that 
 have made aCovenant with me bySacrifice. And theGofuel- 
 Church has no other Foundation than the NewCovenant 
 in the Blood of Chriff^ the great Sacrifice of the New Te- 
 ftament,(M^//. 26.28.) fince it is a profefled Acceptance 
 of, and Confent to the conditional Propofitionof it, that 
 brings all adult Memberswith theirSeed, under its vifible 
 Adminiftration. So that this Diftindtion of thcCovenant 
 is grounded on the fame Rcafon with that of the Church 
 into vifible, and invifible. 
 
 Thirdly^ Ic is further made good by the CommifTion 
 and DiredionChrift has given his Apoftles andMinifters, 
 Matt. 28. 19. Go teach (or dik'ipk) all Nation^^baptizing 
 them^&c. Mar. 16.16. He that believeth and is baptized, 
 fhall be faved. Baptifm is a folemn Covenant-Dedication 
 jof the baptized, to God the Father, Son, andHolyGhoft ; 
 And Chrift has inftru-fled and dire^ed his Minifters to 
 baptize all that profefs themfelves his Difciples and Be- 
 lievers,and appear fuch to ajudgment of Charity. There- 
 fore it can't rationally be denied, that all fuch are, ac- 
 cording to the Will of Chrift,admitted into the Covenant 
 of Grace,outwardly adminiftred. But hasChrift promifed 
 Salvation to all fuch ProfefTors without Diftmdion, when 
 he faith. He that believeth and is baptized^ froall be faved ? 
 No, but CO chofe only vyho alfo believe in their Hearts^ as 
 well as ccnftfs with their Mcuths^^ho are in theCovenant 
 of Grace in Refpe6l of its fpiritual Application. BuiChrift 
 having committed the Adminiftration of his Covenant to 
 fa'lible Men, who have no difcerning of the Mearcs of 
 others, has m.ade it their Duty to accept a credible Pro- 
 feffion, as their Warrant for admitting Perfons to theOr- 
 dinances & Seals of the Covenant. 1 Hiall only add. 
 
 Fourthly^ 
 
250 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap.IV. 
 
 Fourthly, Its NecefTity will appear in Order to the ex- 
 plaining and reconciling feveral Terms and Phrafes of 
 Scripture, e. g. The Apoftle faith, Rom. 9. 6. They are 
 not all Ifrael^that are of Ifrael, How is this to be unrid- 
 dled ? That all Ifrael were a People in Covenant with 
 God, is undeniable,inRegard of its vifibleAdminiflration \ 
 but all were not in Covenant, in Regard of its fpiritual 
 Application. The Kingdom of God,fo often mentioned 
 in the New-Teilament, requires the fame Diftindion for 
 the right underflanding of it. Hereby is intended that 
 gracious divine Government, which is ere(5led over Men 
 in their fallen State, dilpens'd by Chrift as a Mediator, 
 in Order to their Recovery and Salvation. And the great 
 Inflrument or Rule of this Difpenfation, is the Gofpei 
 orCovenant of Grace,which is therefore fometimes called 
 the Ki?jgdomof God. Matt. 21. 43. Now there is nothing 
 more commonly obferved,than that theKingdom otGod, 
 in the Gofpei, fignifies either the divine Rule &Govern- 
 ment in the Souls of Men, which is the fameThing with 
 the Covenant of Grace inwardly difpens'd and received ; 
 or the external Adminiftration of this Government by 
 the Laws and Ordinances of Chrift in the vifibleChurch ; 
 which anfwers to the Covenant of Grace outwardly ad- 
 miniftred. And in either of thefe Refpedts, Men may 
 be truly faid to be in the Kingdom of God, and confe- 
 quently in the Covenant of Grace : And our Saviour 
 gives the Term of the Children of the Kingdom to both 
 thefe Sorts of Subjecls. As wlien he faith, Matt. 8. 12. 
 The Children of the Kingdom fhall be caft out into outer 
 Barknefs -, He means the SubjeCls of the external Admi- 
 niftration only. And when he faith, in explaining the 
 Parable of the Tares, Matth. 13. 38. The good Seed are 
 the Children of the Kingdom^ i. e. the Heirs of the hea- 
 venly Kingdom, f. 43. He fpeaks oF the Subje6ls of the 
 internal gracious Difpenfation. Again, when theGofpei 
 Church is called an holy Nation, i Pet. 2. 9. the fame 
 Diftindion is to he made uk of: it is Holy, either really 
 or relatively ^ either by Covenant-Relation to God only, 
 
 and 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant-Baptifm. -251 
 
 and Separation from the World for holy Services, or alfo 
 by true Sandlification of theHearc, wrought by theGrace 
 oftheCovenant inwardly difpens'd; and fo it correfponds 
 with both Parts of theDiilindion laid down. Thus our 
 Saviour faith, Matt. 22. 14. Many are called^ but few 
 are chojen. — Are called •, to what ? Called to theGofpel- 
 Covenant, called to the Kingdom of God, called into a 
 vifibie Church-State (all which are fynonymous Expref- 
 fions) under the outward Adminiftration oftheCovenant. 
 But few are chofen. i. e. Called by the effectual Grace of 
 the Covenant, purfuant to their eternal Eleclion. Many 
 the likeExpreHions there are,that require the likeDiftinc- 
 tion •, but it may feem fupertiuous, and almoll trifling, 
 to infill on the liiuftration of a Matter fo clear and plain 
 in itfelf : Yet the Necefnty of thisDiftinclion wiU appear 
 in the Sequel, for clearing and fettling the Truth in Op- 
 pofition to Dr. G/V/'j Objedions. I Ihall add but one 
 Thing more. — 
 
 7. That the Evidence of a Covenant-Intereft gives a 
 proper & full Right to the initiating Token of the New- 
 Covenant, which is Baptifm. So that all thofe to whom 
 it appears the Covenant belongs, ought to have this ini- 
 tiating Sign and Seal adminiifred to them. That Bap- 
 tifm is fuch a Sign and Seal of the New-Covenant (tho* 
 deny'd by Dr. Gill) I lliall prove afterwards. Here let 
 me Ihew in ,a few Words, that a CovcnantTntereft gives 
 a juil Right to the initiatingToken and Seal. This alfo is 
 fo clear aFoint,as to admit of no reafonableDoubt. For, 
 
 ( I.) God, when he firit appointed an initiating Token 
 of his Covenant, defign'd it to confirm thePromife to A- 
 braham and his Seed^ to be to them a God, as well as their 
 Obligation to keep his Covenant. So that all Federates 
 have an indifputable Claim to it as aPnvilege. God, who 
 hath given the greaterThing,does not with-hold thelefs ; 
 nay, the greater Thing virtually includes the lefs. The 
 Covenant.with the annexed Token or Seal is infeparably 
 join'd in God's Grant. See Gen. 17. 10,1 1. 
 
 (2.) God has commanded the initiating Token of his 
 
 Covenant 
 
252 A Defence of the JDivine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 Covenant to be applied to all thofe whom hehasgracioufly 
 pleafed to admit as Federates therein -, and that in as full 
 and large Extent as the Covenant it kK toAI?raham^ and 
 his Seed •, and to the Stranger that was not of his 
 Seed, i. e. to the profelyted Gentile and his Seed. As 
 appears from Gen. 17. 10, 11, 12, 13. Exod, 12. 48. 
 And though the Female Seed of Abraham^ by Reafon 
 of a natural Incapacity, receiv'd not Circumcifion in 
 the Fle(h,yec they were virtually circumcis'd in theMales, 
 and reputed, as fuch, to be of the circumcis'd People of 
 God, as they were diftinguifli'd from Strangers and Fo- 
 reiorners •, and as belonging to the Congregation of Ifrael^ 
 who were oblig'd to eat the PafTover, which they might 
 not dojif accounted uncircumcifed. For no uncircumcifed 
 Ferfon could lawfully eat thereof Exod. 12.3,4, 47, 48. 
 Therefore this initiating Token and Seal being equally 
 extended with the Covenant, efpecially to the Males of 
 Abraham^ %Stt<^^2\\ thefeSorts of Federates might warran- 
 tably claim this initiating federal Token,boch by thePro- 
 mife & Command,and ought to have it apply'd to them. 
 (3.) For this Reafon, the Sign is call'd by the Name 
 of the Thing fignified. God calls Circumcifion his Co- 
 venant, Gen. 17. 10. 'This is my Covenant — Every Man- 
 Child among you ftoall he circumcifed. Again y^ 13. My 
 Covenant fh all he in your Flefh^for an everlaflingCovenant ; 
 plainly intimating, that this federal Token belonged to 
 all in the Covenant, and that all the Federate might 
 and ought to be mark'd v/ith it, and diftinguiih'd from 
 the World as an holy People to God •, if they had not 
 the Sign of Circumcifion, they had not the Covenant of 
 God in the true and full Intent & Meaning o\ it. Now 
 if Baptifm has the fame Place and Uje in the New- 
 Covenant of Chrifr, as Circumcifion had in the Abraha- 
 mitical Covenant, if it be a facred Rite of Initiation into 
 the Chriftian Church, as Circumcifron was in theChurch 
 of Ifrael •, tlien the Arguments 1 have here produced 
 from a Covenant-Stare & interefl, hold as ftrong in Be- 
 half of the New Ccvcnani -Federates their Right to Bap- 
 tifm, 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant-Baptifm. 253 
 
 tifm, as of the Federates in Abraham^ Covenant their 
 Right to Circumcifion, And this 1 fhall fhew — 
 
 (4. J OurLordJefusChrift has enjoin'd his Apoftles and 
 Minifters to initiate into his Church and Covenant, all 
 whom by Preaching the Gofpel they Ihould makcDifci- 
 ples and Profelytes to his Religion, by Baptifm, as the 
 Sign & Seal of his New-Covenant. This is evident from 
 the Commiffion he gave them, Math, 28.19. Mark, 16, 
 15, 16. That Baptifm is a Sacrament of Initiation into 
 the Church or Covenant of Chriil,is undeniable, and it 
 may be prov'd from thefeTexts, Joh.^.c,. Tit. 3. 5. i Cor, 
 12. 13. Gal. 3.27. Now Chrift has exprefly enjoin'd his 
 Minifters to apply the Sacrament of Initiation to all that 
 fliould be profelyted to hisNew-Covenant,to all that they 
 fhould make Difciples to him : and therefore all Fede • 
 rates under the New-Teftament have an unqueilionable 
 Right to this initiating Sign and Seal. 
 
 {^.) ThePra6lice ot the Apoftles was agreable to this 
 their Commiffion, in admitting all that were converted 
 by their Miniftry, into the New- Covenant of Chrifb, by 
 this initiatingSacrament ot Baptifm A6t.2.4i. 'Then they 
 that gladly received his l^Vord (i. e. willingly confented to 
 the Gofpel- Covenant propounded to them by theApoftle 
 Pd-Z^r, /.38,39.) were baptized. Which confirms the 
 Right of the New-Teflament-Federates to this initiating 
 Ordinance. 
 
 (6,) The Apoflle Fder propounds the Dodrine and 
 Promife of the New-Covenant as the very Ground and 
 Reafon why thofe that received it, Ihould be baptized. 
 {ibid,) Repent^ faith he, and be baptized every one of you in 
 the Name of Jefus Chrift &c. for the Promife is unto you 
 and to your Children. The Promife, which had been all 
 along, with Jbraham,?Lnd theParents of thejewifh Church 
 and their Children, the Reafon why they Ihouid receive 
 Circumcifion, Chriil here, by the Mouth of his infpired 
 Apoftle, adopts and digefts into his New-Covenant, as a 
 conftituent Part of it. And becaufe the Promife was to 
 them and their Children, therefore they with their Chil- 
 dren, 
 
254 ^ Defence of the 'Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 dren, ought to come under this New- Covenant- Admini- 
 ftration, in being baptized in the Name of Jefus Chrift. 
 
 This is the only proper fcriptural Ground of any One's 
 Right or Claim to have the Covenant feal'd to him •, it is 
 a Covenant- Intereft,evidenc'd to the Satisfadion of the 
 Adminiftrators of the Ordinance,that gives any onCjwhe- 
 ther Parent or Child, a Right to this initiatingSacrament. 
 A Covenant-Intereft, gives a Right in theSight of God : 
 but it muft be evidenc'd to Men, fo far as they are capa- 
 ble of fuch an Evidence, as the Ground and Warrant of 
 the vifible Adminiflration of the Ordinance. And this, 
 I fay, is the only proper Ground of a Right to this initi- 
 ating Seal •, if this does not give a Right, there 
 is nothing elfe can. The Evidence from the Word of 
 God of the Covenant-Intereft of the Seed of the Faithful 
 is unexceptionable. The Antipnsdobaptifts think it bell 
 to put off the Claim that is made for Infants to Baptifm, 
 Cwhether they be in Covenanr,or no)till they are capable 
 ot believing on Chrift, and making a perfonal Profeflion 
 of their Faith, that it may appear, who are, and who are 
 not in Covenant with God : But this is to fet up Man's 
 Wit againft the Wifdom of God. God's Covenant and 
 Promile, in facred Record, extended to confederate Pa- 
 rents and their Infant-Children, is as fure an Evidence of 
 their Inte?eft inhisCovenant,and that he has taken them 
 under the Adminiftration of it, as any adual ProfefTion 
 of adult Perfons can be. And indeed a bare ProfefTion 
 of Faith in Chrift is no Evidence at all of a Covenant- 
 Intereft. The Devil believes there is a God, and he con- 
 fefs'd his Belief that Jefus was the Son of God: And 
 what does it avail, tho' a Man profefs F'aith inChrift, if 
 his irreligious and immoral Life gives theLie ro hisPro- 
 feiTion .? Does fuch Profeflion evidence a Man's Intereft 
 in the Covenant, or give any Right to Baptifm ^ This 
 will not be faid. Therefore it muft be aCovenant-Intereft 
 alone,that gives thisRight : and it is the Manifeftation of 
 it by a credible Profeflion in adult Perfons, that muft be 
 the Rule for Minifters and Churches to go by, in judg- 
 ing 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant-Baptlfm. 255 
 
 ing of this Intereft and Right. And as for the Infant- 
 Children of confederate Parents, their Intereft in thcCo- 
 venant of Grace evidenced, and confirmed by the many 
 Tefti monies of God's Word which I have produced, is 
 as fure a Guide and Warrant for adminiftring the initiat- 
 ing Rite of Baptifm to them, as the other, that of the 
 moft credible ProfefTion in the Adult,can be. Wherefore 
 the Refult of all the foregoing Obfervations is this, viz. 
 That the Infants of confederate Chriftian Parents have^ 
 divine Right (or aRight founded on the Teftimonies and 
 Declarations of the Word of God) to Baptifm, the initi- 
 ating Sign and Seal of the Covenant, under the Gofpel- 
 Adminiftration. For the Argument hence, as it is plain 
 and clear,fo it is undeniable,and unanfwerable ; viz. All 
 thole who have an Intereft in theCovenant of Grace, have 
 a juft and proper Right to the initiating Token and Seal 
 of it, and ought to be fign'd, mark'd, and diftinguifhed 
 by it, as belonging to theCovenant People of God : But 
 the Infants of Chriftian-Parents who are inCovenantwith 
 God, have an Intereft in the Covenant of Grace, under 
 the Gofpel. Thefe two Propofitions ftand firm on Scrip- 
 ture-Grounds, as I have fliewed. The Conclufion there- 
 fore is undeniable, that the Infants of confederate Parents 
 have a Right to the initiatingToken & Seal of theCovenant^ 
 under the Chriftian Difpenfation^ which is Baptifm. 
 
 The major Propofition, viz. That all who have an In- 
 tereft in the Covenant of Grace Jjave a juft and proper Right 
 &r. I have fully confirm.ed under the laft Head of Ob- 
 fervations, fromScripturePromifeSjPrecepts &Examples: 
 And it cannot be denied on any Grounds of Reafon 
 orScripture. The minor ^-^hxch is moft difputed, w^.That 
 the Infants of Chriftian Parents have an Intereft in the Co^ 
 venant of Grace ; This alfo has been abundantly confirm- 
 ed by maniiold Scripture-Teftimonies, under the fifth 
 Head. From both which Propofitions the divine Right 
 of Chriftian Infants to Baptifm neceilarily refults. And 
 hence we are furnifhed with as good a Rule & Warrant 
 for baptizing them, as if it were ever fo exprefly com- 
 
 mauded 
 
2^6 A Defence of the Dhine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 manded. And this was the very Rule that the Apoftle 
 Peter went by, in baptizing Cornelius znd his Houfliold. 
 He had no particular exprefs Order to do it^that we read 
 of i but he concluded it to be the Mind & Will of God, 
 that he fhould baptize them, from this Rule, that thofe 
 of whom it is evident God hath admitted them into his 
 Covenant under the Gofpel, ought to be baptized : and 
 therefore thought he had as good a Warrant to baptize 
 Cornelius & hisCompany, from the Gift of the HolyGhoft 
 conferred on them, which was the great Evidence of God's 
 receiving and owning them in his Gofpel-Covenant, as if 
 he had the moft exprefs and dired: Order for doing it. 
 A 61. lo. 47. Can any Man forbid Water^that thife froould 
 mt be baptized^ which have received the Holy Ghcjt^as well 
 as we ? And tho' he had no other Warrantjthan this E- 
 vidence of God's Acceptance of them into his Covenant, 
 yet if he had refus'd to baptize them on this Ground, he 
 reckons he fliould have been guilty of withfbandingGod. 
 For relating the fame Matter, in the following Chapter, 
 he faith, f. ij. For as much as God gave them the likeGift 
 as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jefus Chrijl ; 
 what was /, that I could wiihftandGod ? For juil the fame 
 Reafon we baptize theChildren of Behevers ; becaufeGod 
 hasin his Word plainly declared his Acceptance of them in- 
 to hisCovenant. It is therefore an impertinentCavil of the 
 Antipsedobaptifts, that there is no exprefs Command 
 for baptizing Infants. We have no Command, it is 
 true, in thefe exprefs Terms, Baptize your Infants ; nor 
 is there any,in the like tx^pitkTtvtn^ Baptize the Adult : 
 But fince we have an exprefs Inftitution of Baptifm for all 
 Sorts of Chriftian Federates, qr Difciples, without Limi- 
 tation or Exception of any Age or Sex j the Infants of 
 Believers having been proved Federates under theNew- 
 Teftament,there is as exprefs an Inftiiution & Comm.and, 
 and as good a Warrant for their Baptifm, as for that of 
 the Adult. What tho' there be no exprefs Command 
 from Scripture for baptizing Infants ? If it be implicitly, 
 or by neceijary ConfequencecommandedjWeareas much 
 
 oblig'd 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant-Baptilln. 257 
 
 obiig'd to it, as if we had the moil exprefs Command 
 for it. What has God given us Reafon andUnderlland- 
 ing for, but ch:?! we might fearch out, know, and deter- 
 mine our Duty, from the Declara-.ions of his Mind and 
 Will in his Word, whether it be delivered in exprefsPre- 
 cepts therein, or by juft and good Con.l'qiience to be de- 
 duced therefrom ? And by the du? Improvement of our 
 Reafon, we may gather our Duty from a virtual or im- 
 plicit Conmiand of Scripture ; and I'uch an impj'cirCom- 
 mand may be perceived & underilood even in a Promife. 
 Paul and Barnabas infer*d a virtual Command from God 
 to turn from the Jews, and to preach the Gofpel to the 
 Gentiles, from a Scripture-Promifc. A61. 13. 46,47. — 
 LoyWe turn to iheGeniiies, forfo hath the Lord ccmmandcd 
 tis^ faying J have fct thee to he a Light to the Gentiles^ &c. 
 Tho' Paul had his CommiiTion to preach to the Gentiles, 
 yet he determines his Duty, in the Execution of it, from 
 the written Word of God, the (landing Revelation of his 
 Will ; and from a Promife in that Word, the Promife 
 of the Meffias to be given for a Light to the Gentiles, he 
 underftands & concludes it to be implicitly commanded 
 him,to turn to the Gentiles. So thePromife of God to the 
 Children of confederateBelievers,contains a virtualCom- 
 mand to dedicate them to him in holyBaptifm. But there 
 is a Precept alio annexed to thePromife,which binds more 
 plainly ; and there are many virtualCommands inScrip- 
 ture for baptizing theChildren of Chrillian Parents. As, 
 (i.) In God's firft Inftitution of an initiating Sea! or 
 Token of his Covenant, his Command to Abraham^ to 
 apply it to his natural '^tti^^ and alfo to the Stranger tliac 
 is not of his S^zdi^ i. e. to che Gentile Profelyte and his 
 Children (as in Gen. 17. 12. Exod. 12. 48. forecited). is 
 a virtual Command to Chriftian Parents to bring their 
 Children to Baptifm. Por though the individual 
 Rite of Circumcifion be chang'd, and Chrifl h.as inftitu- 
 ted Baptifm for the fame Ufe and End in his Covenant; 
 yet the Inftitution of an initiating Seal of the Covenant 
 between God and Man, being of the Nature of moral 
 
 S pcfitivc 
 
25S A Defence cf the Divine Right Chap.IV, 
 
 pofitive Precepts, miifl: continue binding, 'till it be the 
 LegiHaror's i'lealuie to i evoke it •, & Hnce there has been 
 no Kevociition or Repeal o* it to this Day, tho different 
 Rites have been iis'd under the difierent Forms of Admi- 
 nifiration, yet the Covenant continuing fubflantially the 
 fame, under the feveral Forms, it mult be underilood to 
 abide in Force to Believers under the Gofpel, who are 
 thereby virtually required and ccmimanded to apply it 
 to Infant-Ghildren in ChnRian Baptifm. Or to fpeak 
 inore briefly *, An exprefs Command once given by God, 
 and never iince repeaicdjto initiate the Infant-Seed of the 
 Faithful i-nto the Covmant by a folemn ourv/ard Rite, is 
 a virtual Command toChriftians to initiate theirChildrcn 
 into God's Covenant by Baptifn •, which is theRite now 
 inForce by the Authority otChrift tcChriflians,for thefam^e 
 Purpofe, tor which an initiating Rite wasfirfl inllituted. 
 This may be iliuftrated by a parrellel Cafe of the Sab- 
 bath. What Commjand have we Chriflians to keep any 
 Sabbath, or to cbferve the Lord's-L'ay, the iirll Day of 
 the Week, as a Sabbath ? In the firfi Inflitution of aSab- 
 ba'h, the jeventh Day was fandified tor that Purpofe ; 
 and the fourth Commandn:ent exprefly enjoins the keep- 
 ingH!leTeventh Day as an holy Sabbath. I anfwer,7^he 
 fourth Commandment expreHy enjoining the fcventhDay 
 to be kepi as a Sabbath, being ot the Nature of moral 
 pofitfve Precepts, the Appointment of the particularDay 
 is alterable, at the Legillator's Pleafure ; and Chri{l,vvhd 
 is Lord of the Si bbath, hath for good Reafons chang'd 
 it from tliC feventh \tD the firftDay of the Week, but 
 not abolished the Subftince of the Command, which is 
 ru(;r,!l,and confifls in cbferving oneDay in feven,as Holy 
 to God. 1 heretcre the fourth Comjmandment doth flill 
 vjrriially oblige Chriflians to keep (he Lord's-Day as an 
 holy Sabbath. The very fame Reafon may be return'd 
 to the Qiieftion, What Command have we Chriflians lor 
 baptizing cur Infants ? r/z. God havirg in the firfl In- 
 fiitutionof an initiating'] okcn of his Covenant, com- 
 manded Abraham to apply it to his natural Seed, and alfo 
 
 to 
 
Chap. IV. cf Infant-Baptirm. 259 
 
 to the Stranger profely ted, and to his natural Seed ; tho* 
 the particularRite ofCircumcilion be abrogated byChrill, 
 yet he has not abolifhed the Inilitution of an initiatinc^^ 
 Token of the Covenant, but only chang'd it, and ap- 
 pointed Baptifm for. the very fame Purpofe ; therefore 
 the Covenant remaining fubliantially the fame, and the 
 Inftitution of the faid iniciadng Token remaining fub- 
 liantially the fame, the exprefs Command of God to 
 Abraham to initiate his Infant-Seed^ and to the Profelyte 
 to initiate his Infant- Seed byCircumcifion, does virtually 
 oblige Chriftians to initiate their Inl^ant Seed byBaptifm. 
 That as the Law of the fourth Commandment concern- 
 ing the keeping of aSabbath,is not abrogated, but chang'd 
 by Chrill frorrj the feventh to the firft Day of theWeek, 
 and ftili binds in the Subftance of it : So the Law con- 
 cerning an initiating Sign and Seal of theCovenanc is noC 
 abrogated by Chrift, but changed Iropxi Circumcifion to 
 Baprifm •, and fbill binds as to theSubftance of it. And if 
 Chrift had not abolifhed Circumcifion, and fubflituied 
 Baptifm as the initiatingToken and Seal of hisCovenanti 
 we had been oblig'd to circumcife our Children to 
 this Day, by Vertue of that Claufe in the fird InRitution, 
 which requires theStranger that is not of /jbrr.hanisS^ftLi 
 to be circumcifed, and alfo to circumcife InfantMaleSeed, 
 being profelyted to ^^r^i^.-^^/z'sCovcnant j who was there- 
 upon to be reputed as a Na:ive Ifraelire wish Refpe-ft to 
 all Church- Privileges. For we who were originallyG^;;- 
 tiles^ by coming into Covenant with the God of Ifrael, 
 are no more Strangers and Foreigners^ hut F ell ov) -Citizen 3 
 with the Saints^ and cf the Hcujhold of God, Eph. 2,19. 
 Even as if Chrift had not chang'd the feventh into the 
 firft Day of theWeek, to be obferv'd as theChriftianSab- 
 bath, we had ftill been oblig'd to have kept the feventh 
 Day as an holy Sabbath, by Virtue of the fourth Com- 
 mandment. Thus it may appear, that God's Inftitution 
 and exprefsCommand forthcApplication of the initiating 
 Token of hisCovenant, to the Infant-Seed of theChurch, 
 does virtually oblige Chriftians to baptize theirChildren. 
 
 S z (2). Chrift 
 
2^0 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 (2.) Chrifl's Command, that Infant-Children fhould 
 come unto him, and not be ibrbidden, (Luk. 18. 15, 16 J 
 is a virtual Commiand to Chriftians to bring their Chil- 
 dren to his Baptiim. But of this more hereafter. 
 
 (3.) llie CommiiTion Chrift gave hisAportles (Matth. 
 28.) to dijciple and baptize all Nations^ is an implicit, it 
 not an exprefs Command to baptize the Infants of the 
 chridianiz'd Nations. Chrift gave his CommifTion to dif- 
 ciplc all Nations unto him, purfuant to the ancient Pre- 
 clidion and Fromife to Ahrahayn^ of blefiing-^?// 'Nations 
 in his Seed; and it this CommifTion was as extenfive to 
 the Apoftles and fucceeding Mmifters, as that promifed 
 BleiTing ('f ail Nations, (as we may rationally conclude it 
 was) then either Infants mufl be included in that Com- 
 miiTion, or eife all dying Infants muft be left to perifh 
 v/uhout Remedy, as having no Interell in the BleiTing of 
 Chrift \ notwithftanding Chrift has faid, that of fuch is 
 the Kingdom of God. But it the Infants of the Nations, 
 believing in Chrul,be included in, that CommifTion, they 
 are, at leaft implicitly commanded to be baptized. 
 
 (4.) The Apoftle Peter s Exhortation and Command 
 to the Jews to be baptized upon this very Ground, be- 
 caufe the Promife is to them ^ to their Children (in the 
 iorecited A5i. 2. 38,39.) is an implicit, if not exprefs 
 Command for the baptizing thcirChildren : for the fame 
 Ground and Reafon of Baptiim is made to extend both 
 to Parents oc their Children. It cannot therefore be truly 
 faid, there is no Command or Diredlion in the Word of 
 God for I ntant- Baptiim ; for a virtual or implicit Com- 
 mand ot Scripture has the Force, and ObHgation ot a di- 
 vrc Command on ihe Conicience : And there are many 
 i\ti> ot Worihip,of which there are no Difputes among 
 Chriftians, whether they are warranted by any divine 
 Comrnand,and yet are not exprefiy commanded, but only 
 implicitly. What Chrift ian makes any Doubt, that pub- 
 lick VVorihip is a commanded Duty y yet where is there 
 any formal exprefb Command for it in' the New-Tefta- 
 ment? that which com.es neareft to fuchCommand,isthac 
 
 Cauliai 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant-Baptifm. 261 
 
 Caution of the Apoftle, Heh. 10. 25. Not forfaking the 
 ajfembling of our f elves together. But this is aNegativePre- 
 cept : theAiilrmative requiring us to affemble our felves 
 for pubHck divine WorPaipjis but an implicitCommand. 
 Yet even fuch Commands are a fajBcient Warrant tor 
 the PraClice, and infer an ObHgation on Men's Confci- 
 cnces to rhe Obfervation thereof. 
 
 But thus we have feen, how theArgument {lands from 
 the Covenant for the divineRight of Iniani-Baprifm. If 
 both thefe Fropoiitions be true, vi-z. Thac a Co crnant- 
 Intereft gives a Right to the Seal \ and that the in i ants 
 of BeUevers have fuch a Covenant-Interell;, both which 
 I have proved at large -, I can fee nothing more necefiary 
 to fettle the Mind and Confcience of any ibbcr unpreju- 
 dic'd Perfon in the Perfuafion of the Warrantablenefs of 
 Infant-Baptifm. And Chrill's Infiitution oi Baptifm for 
 the initiating Token of his Covenant, induces an Obliga- 
 tion on Chriftians to offer up their infant-Children with 
 themfeives to God in this Way of his Appointment. 
 There are divers other Ways of proving Infanis Plight to 
 Baptifm, and that very fohdly : but thisArgument from 
 the Covenant, which takes in all or mofb of therefbjhas 
 nev^er been confuted, and I believe never can be. What- 
 ever Cavils orObjeftions have been raifed againft it,they 
 have appear'd trifling & impertinent. The feveralTexts 
 of Scripture that ferve to corroborate and coniirm this 
 Argument, will be ccnfider'd and vindicated in the fol- 
 lowing Chapter. 
 
 I am now to examine what Dr. Gill has to fay in Op- 
 position to thisArgument from theCovenant. And there 
 will fcarce need any Thing more for the Refutation of 
 ail his Objections, than our refledling on the foregoing 
 Obfervations •, by which the mod Material have beeii 
 fully obviated. 
 
 //>y?. He enters on aDifcufTionoftheQiieilion, ''Wlie- 
 ^' ther the Covenant made with ^braham^ Gen. 17. was 
 '' theCovenant of Grace, the pureCovenantof Grace,in 
 ^' Didinflion from the Covenant of Works." Pag. 44. 
 
 S 3 This 
 
26 z A Defence of the Divine R'tghi Chap. IV. 
 
 This,he rigluly obfcrves, is "the leading Enquiry": for if 
 this Enquiry be refolved in the Affirmative, as I have 
 prov'd it ought to be, then it will follow, x\-\?iX Abraham^ 
 Seed were i^iven with him into aCovenantot Grace,& the 
 Covenant being euea'dally and invariably the fame under 
 every z-dminiftration, it will hence foHow,that Believers 
 and their Seed under the Gofpel are taken into the Cove- 
 nant of Gr.^ce -, and being in the Covenant of 'Grace, it 
 will alfo follow, that the Infant-Seed oi Believers have a 
 Right to the initiating Sign and Seal, as Abraham's Seed 
 had to that inllituied Token of the Covenant, Circum- 
 cifion. But what fays our Author to this leadingQueflion ? 
 He jiiys, P. 45. " It m-uft be deny'd that it was the Co- 
 ^' venant of Grace." It mujl^ becaufe elfe the Caufe of 
 Antipnedobaptifm mu§i fall to theGround. But why muil 
 it be dei.y'd ? 
 
 (i.) He fays {ibid.) f' It is never called the Covenant 
 of Grace." Let him tell us then, what it is he' calls by 
 the Name of the Covenant of Grace: and I will prove by 
 the fameReafon that it cannot be the Covenant of Grace ; 
 for it is no where in Scripture fo called in exprefsTermSo 
 But what Divines have generally called a Covenant of 
 Grace, agrees to the Covenant with Abraham., or to no 
 Covenant miCntioned in the Word of God. But when he 
 fays, '* It is not called by any Name v/hich fnews it to be 
 fo," he is flrangely miftaken : Strange indeed. That a 
 Man v/ho talks fo much of a Covenant of Grace bein<^ 
 made with Men from Everlafling, fhould not be able to 
 difcern the Character of the Covenant of Grace in this 
 made v^ixhAbrahmn., v/hich God calls an everlafling Cove- 
 nant \ which I have fiiewcd to be the Property of the 
 Covenant of Grace, tho not in his midaken Scnfc, yet I 
 can find no other Pretence for that Miffake in Scripture, 
 than the Covenant of Grace being fo often called an Ever- 
 Infling Covenant. But he fays, '' It is called the Cove- 
 '' nantof Circumcifion, Achy^^.''' But to what Purpofe 
 is this objected ? Is it becaule the Covenant of Grace 
 can admit no Token cr Seal annexed to it? Or becauf- 
 
 God 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant- Baptifm. 263 
 
 God might not appoint Circumcifion to be the Token 
 of thatCovenant ? He fay^, " Circamcifion, and Grace 
 '' are oppos'd to one another; Circumcilion is a Work of 
 *' the Law, which they t'lat fought to be juilify'd by, 
 " feil froniGrace.G^/. 5. 2, 3, 4.'' Anfw. i. Here's a Fal- 
 lacy ; Circumcifion was never oppos'd to Grace, while 
 that Ordinance was in Force, during the whole CEcono- 
 my of the Old-Teftament. But there was infinite Grace 
 fhew'd to Abraham and his Seed in the Covenant of Cir- 
 cumcifionjtill theComing ofChriil & hisDeath, (wherein 
 ^11 thofe ancient Types, and bloody Rites were falnlled 
 and aboliTn'd) and the fetting up the New-Covenant Ad- 
 miniflration. The carnal Jews indeed underilood and 
 adhered to Circumcifion, and the other legal Obfcrvan- 
 ces, as a Sort of Covenant of Works,contrary to the De- 
 fign of their Inftitution, and fo excluded thenifelves from 
 the Grace of Chrift. And this was their LtaiError, vvhich 
 theProphets & Apofties conftantly warned them againft; 
 and when the New-Covenant was confirm'cl in theBlood 
 of Chrift, and preached by the Apofties, the believing 
 Jews were for keeping up Circumcifion, and the Rites 
 of Mofes his Law, in Conjunflion with the Gofpel of 
 Chrift : Therefore thefe Judaizers, the Apoille very 
 fmartly,as well as juftly reproves in feveral of hisEpiftles, 
 particularly in that to the Galaiiai^.s^ for theirFondnefs of 
 retaining thofe antiquated Rites, Vv^hich pointed atChrift 
 ^p come, and Hied his Blood •, for in {i) doing they im- 
 plicitly denied thatChrill had already come,and virtually 
 renounced the Benefit of Redemption in his Blood, and 
 in Eficift, Subverted the whole Gofpel : And fo, their ad- 
 hering to the Ordinances of the Old-Teftament (v/l^ich 
 were of great Ufe to the Church before, in Subferviency 
 to the Covenant of Grace) was inconfiftent with their 
 Participation of the Grace of the New-Covenant, v/hich 
 is all that is proved fi'om GaL 5. 2, 3, 4. But v;hatdoes 
 all this fignify, to prove that the Covenant vv^ith Abraham 
 was not a Covenant of Grace ? Circumcifion in thePlace 
 it had in AhYahim'% Covenant by divine Inftitution, had 
 
 & 4 an 
 
2^4 A Dsjence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 an Evangelical Meaning, and Intention, tho' it was per- 
 verted by the carnal Jews to a contrary Purpofe. It fig- 
 nified Chrift to come of Abraham's Seed, the fliedding of 
 his Blood, as alio Regeneration, the Circumcirion ot the 
 l:ieart,tneMorti[icaiion ot the Flefli,& was OiSign^cwdSeal 
 of the RightSDufrfs of Faith. Rom. 4. 11. And what Re- 
 lation does all this hear ro aCovenant o\ Works ? Again, 
 2. In laying, Circumcifton is a IVork of the Law^ mean- 
 ing the Law of Mofes^ (which, I imagine, he takes for a 
 Covenant of Works,and fo wou'd prove Circumcifion to 
 belong to that Covenant) he is under a plain Miftake : 
 For tho' Circumcifion was ad(ipted i.ito x\\tM(faic Con- 
 flitution,yet it was not originally an Inftitution ot Mofes \ 
 but God appointed it in his Covenant with the Fathers 
 of the Jewifn Church, Ahrahamjfaac^ and Jacobs to be 
 a Sign and Seal of the Covenant of Grace. Our Saviour 
 tells us, that Circumcifion is not of Mofes^ but of the Fa- 
 thers'^ Joh. 7. 22. So feeble is his firft Reafon. 
 
 (2.) Another Reafon he gives is (Ibid.) " It feems 
 *' rather to be a Covenant of Works, than of Grace, 
 " tor this v/as a Covenant to be kept by Men -, Abra- 
 " ham was to keep it, and his Seed. — Something was to 
 " be done by them." — By which, it feems, his Notion 
 is, that a Covenant given by God to be kept by Men, is 
 not a Covenant of Grace,but of Works : then the Rea- 
 fon muft be, either i . That theCovenant of Grace which 
 God has given unto Men, is fuch as cannot be kept by 
 them : which retleds on theWiiHom,Juftice & Goodnefs 
 of God, in giving Man fuch a Covenant as is impoffible 
 for him to keep. Or elfe 2. That in this Covenant of 
 Grace God has made with Men, there is nothing to be 
 done on Men's Part, no Duties required of them -, which 
 is contrar-y to Scripture, which teaches, that theCovenant 
 of Grace may, and ought to be kept by Men ; and that 
 the Beneiits of it belong only to the fincere Obfervers of 
 it i and that it is not inconfiftent with the Grace & Mer- 
 ry of God in his federal Tranfad"ons with Men, ro re- 
 quire fcmethiiig to be done on their Part,that they might 
 
 keep 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant-Baptifm. 265 
 
 keep his Covenanr. Docs not theScripture fay ? Pral.25. 
 ^.o. All the Paths of the Lord are Merc)\ and Truths unto 
 Juch as keep his Covenant. And again, Pfal. 103.17,18. 
 'The Mercy of the Lord is from Everlafiing to Everlafiing 
 upon them that fea^^ him^and his Righteoufnefs untoChildrens 
 Children^ unto fuch as keep his Covenant. Do thefe Ex- 
 preflions " favour nothing of a Covenant of Grace ?'* 
 Does the Covenant of Works fpeak a Word of Mercy to 
 the Obfervers of it ? Is not, the Mercy of the Lord from 
 Everlafiing to Everlafiing to fuch as keep his Covenant., a 
 Promife pecuhar to the Covenant of Grace ? And is this 
 fuch a Covenant as is not to be "kept by Man" ? How 
 unfcriptural a Notion is this, as well as abfurd ! 'Tis 
 contrary to the Conditionahty of theCovenant of Grace, 
 which has been folidiy proved, that is to fay, that there 
 are Duties, and Conditions to be perform'd on our Part, 
 on which, the Privik^ges of the Covenant are fufpended. 
 But are Men to be toki, that in the Covenant of Grace, 
 God requires nothing to be done by them, that there are 
 no Terms enjoin'd, no Precepts to be obferv'd ? I am 
 fure, on good Scripture Grounds, whatever Dr. Gill ima- 
 gines, no Miniiler of the Gofpel can be faithful to the 
 Souls of Men, who does not tell them, that theCovenant 
 of Grace muit be entered into, by an hearty Confent to 
 the Propofitions and Terms ot it, and kept too, in fome 
 Me afu re Of fin cere Obedience; otherwife they frame a 
 Notion of aCovenant on vv^hich they can have no ground- 
 edHope of Salvation. David faith, Pfal. 1 19. 166. Lord^ 
 I have hoped for thy Salvation., and have done thyCommand- 
 ments. Did David then expedl to be faved by a Cove- 
 nant of Works ? Did he not ground his Salvation en- 
 tirely on the everlafiing Covenant God had made vcith him., 
 ordered in all Things ^and fure ? 2Sam.23.5. Was not this 
 a pure Covenant of Grace } The Salvation whereof yet 
 he could not expedl withoutdoingGod'sCommandments. 
 ( f ) Me fays, P. 46. " This was aCovenant that might 
 " be brcken, — but theCovenant ot Grace cannot be bro- 
 l^ ken." yf,'7yl:c?.TheCovenant of Grace being conditio- 
 nal 
 
266 A Defence of the Bivine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 nal, as it may be kept by Men, fo it may be broken by 
 Men. I have before Ihevved, in what Rcfpedts the Co- 
 venant of Grace may be broken, and in what it fhall not. 
 God will not break it, on his Fart -, which is all that he 
 
 E roves from Pfal. 89. 34. And granting that it fhali not 
 e totally, and finally dilfolv'd with Relpecl toBelievers, 
 who are Subjeds of its faving Efficacy •, yet by thofs 
 that are in the Covenant in Regard only of the Bonds of 
 its outward Adminiftration, it may be, and often is bro- 
 ken, and wholly made void by theirApoftacy & Perfidy ; 
 and even true Believers, in the Examination of ftrid 
 Jufticc, would be found often guilty of breaking Cove- 
 nant with God : and it is owing only to his free Mercy, 
 and Grace, that he doth not break Covenant with them, 
 and caft them off everlaftingly. His Conceit that the 
 Covenant cannot be broken, without anyExplanation, or 
 Rcftridion, tends to nourilh Profefibrs in Security. 
 
 (4.) AnotherReafonhe offers, is, "There were tempo- 
 " ral Things promifed in thisCovenant." (ibid,) There- 
 fore it was not theCovenant of Grace •, why not ? Does not 
 the Covenant extend to the whole Man, Body, as well as 
 Soul ? And is not the Lord for the Body , in its dueSubor- 
 dination ^ [iCor. 6. 13 J How elfe could our Saviour 
 argue the RefurredUon of the Bodies of the Patriarchs 
 from God's Covenant Title, / am the God of Abraham, 
 &c. And doubtlefs temporal Things concern theBody : 
 and God would have his People truft in him for thefe 
 Things,that all his Difpenfaions to them in this V/orld, 
 might be Mercy and Truth (Pfal. 25. 10.) i. e. Mercy 
 according to the Promife. And are not temporal Things 
 contain'd in the Goipel-Covenant ? And will this prove, 
 that it cannot theretore be a Covenant of Grace ? Doth 
 not the Apodle tell us, that now under die Gofpel, God- 
 linefs hath the Promife of the Life that now is, as well as 
 of //^^/ which IS to come? iTim. 4.8. And that they that 
 are Chriil's have aNew-Covenant Right to thcCrearures, 
 andThingsof thisWorld .^ i-Cor.^. 21,22,23. MThings 
 creycurs^whetherthcWcrld^orJJfe.o. Death xrihingsp-efcnt^ 
 
 er 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant-Baptifm. 267 
 
 or 'Things to come^ &c. Tho' the BleiTmg ot Jlbraham\ 
 Race,and the PolTeflion of Canaan, were promiied in die 
 Covenant with him, yet thefe are to be conceiv'd of, but 
 in a lecondary Rcfped, and as additional to the main 
 BleiTing of the Covenant, I will he thy God ; as ail tem- 
 poral Things are now promifed in theCovenantof Chrift. 
 Math. 6.33. One would think our Author fcarce awake, 
 when he im::igin''d this to be a Reafon againft the Cove- 
 nant with Ahraham^ its being the Covenant of Grace. 
 
 (^5.) He inftances in Ijhmael & Ejau^ " who v/ere in- 
 " eluded in thisCovenant made ^mihAbraham^' of whom 
 he fays, '' It cannot be tho't they were in the Covenant 
 *' of Grace." Anfw. 11 he had attended to theDiftinclion 
 Cbefore laid down, and confirmed by Scripture) of being 
 in the Covenant of Grace, either in Regard of its exter- 
 nal AdrniniftraLlon, or inRegard of its fpiritual Efficacy, 
 he had been under no Diincuky of conceiving how thefe 
 Perfons might be truly faid to be in the Covenant of 
 Grace. In the former Refped',both Jjlrmael & Efau were 
 in the Covenant of Grace outwardly adminiiler'd in the 
 Families of the godly Patriarchs ; v;hether they were in 
 it, in Refped of its fpiritual Etiicacy, is not fo certain. 
 However, there is no good Evidence to the contrary. On 
 the other Hand, he indances in fome o^ Aoraham\ Pre- 
 deceflbrs, and Contemporaries, fuch zsArphaxad, Melchi- 
 zedek, and Lot^ who (he fays) " were not in this Cove- 
 " nant, yet were in the Covenant of Grace." i^ibid.) Let 
 us fee the Force of this Reafoning. The Covenant with 
 /ibraham was not the Covenant of Grace, becaufc: there 
 Wire fome good Men living about that Time, who were 
 in the Covenant of Grace under a former AdnjiniRration, 
 that were not taken into this Particular nev/ Adminilira- 
 tion of it, begun in the Family o{ Abraham : hence he 
 concludes ("and it is furprizing that he conckidcs in fo 
 ftrong I^erms from fo weak a RealonJ "Whereiore this 
 *' cin never be reckoned the pure Covenant of Grace." 
 D)d the AutiKvr of the Dialogue ever put any Tiling in 
 the Mi^th of his weakNeighbour more mean & trining, 
 
 (as 
 
268 A Defence of the Divine Right Cwap. IV. 
 
 (as Dr. Gill complainsj in Defence of the Principles of 
 Antipaedobaptifm ? I find, indeed, more Words in Dr. 
 G/7/, but rather lefs Strength in moft of his Objeftions. 
 
 His 6th & 7th Reafons have been fully obviated, viz, 
 *' That theCovenant ot Grace was only made withChrifl, 
 *' as the federal Head of it ; and that the Covenant of 
 *' Grace was made with Chrift, and with his People, as 
 *' confider'd in Him, from Everlafting." I have clearly 
 fhewed, and by diversScripture- Reafons fully proved,that 
 the Covenant made with Chrift the Mediator,before the 
 Foundation of the World, concerning theRedemption of 
 fallen Man,whateverTerm be given it, is intirely diftindl 
 from that which is called the Covenant of Grace, made 
 with his People in Time : and have alfo fhewed the Ab- 
 furdity and ImpolTibility of a Covenant being made with 
 any of Mankind from Eternity. I fhall only make two 
 or three Remarks on what occurs under hisy^.v/^Objedtion. 
 I. He reckons it an Abfurdity, that the Covenant of 
 Grace fhould be faid to be " made with Abraham as the 
 *' federal Head of his natural & fpiritual Seed, Jews and 
 GentiJes\^ for, faith he, " Then there muft be twoHeads 
 *' of the Covenant of Grace." I conceive it an Impro- 
 priety, to fay, \.\\2it Abrahayn was the Head of the Covenant 
 of Grace : Nor is it imply'd in God's making thac Co- 
 venant with him, and his Seed, both natural & adopted •, 
 but that Abraham fliould be called the Head of the con- 
 federate People *, not as the Z/^-^i fignifies either anHead 
 of Government, or an Plead of Communication, which is 
 proper to Chrilf -, but as Head fignifies the chief, or firft 
 in order of that Adminiftration of the Covenant, and the 
 great Pattern ^z Precedent to the Faithful in ail fucceed^ 
 ing Ages ; I fee no more Abfurdity in this, than his be- 
 ing calTd in Scripture, the Father cf them that believe : 
 for as both thefe Terms may be differently explained, the 
 confederate People rnay as properly be faid to have two 
 Heads as two Fathers. 2. tie adds, " No meer Man is 
 *' capableot Covciianting with God, — for what has Man 
 '' £0 rei.lipi'latc wifh God r" By which (.^lefliOn he 
 
 fcems 
 
Chap. iV. of Infant Bapttrm. 269 
 
 fecms to imagine, that a Reflipulation on Man's Part im- 
 plies fomething equivalent to God*sPromire,& that there 
 can be no Covenant between God and Man, unlefs Man 
 could otFer unto God an Equivalent. I fliouli be forry 
 to have any Reader who fhould think, that fuch undi- 
 gelled Stuff ncededjOr deferved a ferious Reply ; for this 
 Notion of his militates againft plain Fad •, to what Pur- 
 pofe, elfe, is it that the Scripture fpeaks fo often of a Co- 
 venant entred into between God and Man ? But he for- 
 gets we are fpeaking of a Covenant of Grace^'m whichGod 
 is pleafed moil gracioufly to condefcend to enter intoAr- 
 ticles and Stipulations with Man for his own Right. Or 
 if he does not mean the Offer of anEquivalent by Man's 
 Reftipulaiing^ common Senfe didates, every Man hath 
 wherewithal to reftipulate, viz. Himfelf, Soul and Body, 
 in all his Capacities, to beemploy'din the Service of his 
 Creator. Rom. 6.13. ^ ii. i. Which is all thatGod re- 
 quires,and which he is gracioufly pleafed to accept.. They 
 Jhall he to me a People. 3. He tells us what he conceives 
 is meant by the Scriptures fpeaking fo often of a Cove- 
 nant's being made with Men. " When atanyTime we 
 read, (fays he, P.47.) of a Covenant of Grace made with 
 *' particular Perfons, it mufb always be underffood of 
 " making it manileflto them, of a Revelation of theCo- 
 " venant, & of anApplication of the Covenant-Bleffings 
 " to them." What an odd Conceit is this of any Cove- 
 nant made with Men,without any Confent orAgreemenc 
 on their Part ! The Covenant of Grace can in no Pro- 
 priety of Senfe be faid to be m.ade with any Perfon,only 
 by the iVlanifeRation of it, or by the Application of it's 
 Bleffings. Firfty It cannot be made only by the Mani- 
 ieftation of it : which in the Nature of the Thing goes 
 before the making of it ; and it may be, and often has 
 been revealed and manifefted to many, with whom it ne- 
 ver has been made. Chrifl is called the Mejfenger of the 
 Covenant^ Mai. 3.1. And was he not the Meffenger of 
 the Covenant ot Grace ? And was it not theTendency 
 and Scope of all his Sermons and Difcourfes recorded in 
 
 the 
 
IJO A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV*. 
 
 the Gofpel, to reveal and piiblifli this Covenant to the 
 Jews, 16 open the Do(51iine of his New-Covenant,to fettle 
 the Terms,and offer the Privileges of it to that People ? 
 Was this Covenant then made with the Jews, when ic 
 was thus revealed and maniieiled to them (even byChrill 
 himfelO while at the (ameTime they were prejudiced a- 
 o-ainft his Perfon and Dodrine ? The Evangeliil tells 
 us, Joh. I.I I. He came to his own, and bis own received 
 him not. They reru(^:.'d his Meffage, agreed not to his 
 Terms, would not believe in him -, therefore, with them, 
 furely, no Covenant of Grace was made,notwithn:anding 
 the Revelation of it. But thofe with whom this Cove- 
 nant was made, were fuch as complied with theConditiori 
 of it, thofe that believed in his Nmne, f.ii. and not only 
 had it manifefted to them. Oi if he means a fpirirual 
 Manifeftation of the Covenant, by imvard Illumination 
 of the Mind, even this, in theorder of Nature,goes before 
 Covenanting. Men mud under ^a-nd with their Hearts^ 
 SLnd (o i?e converted. Mat. 13. 15. They mull confent, 
 with a prevailing Inclii-iation of their WiliS (implied in 
 their Converfion) as well as underfland with theirHearts, 
 before anyCovenant can be properly laid to be made with 
 them. What ilrahgeDoctrine does thisMan fet forth, in 
 aiferting the Covenant of Grace to be made with particu- 
 lar Perfons, when it is but nianifefted to them ? Yea,and 
 how datigerous too, teaching Men to believe,' they are in 
 the Covenant of Grace, only becaufeof its Manifeftation 
 to them ! Nor Secondly^ Can it .with any Propriety be 
 faid to be made with any one, by the Application of the 
 BlefTuigs of it ; which prc-fuppofes the making of the 
 Covenant, or a previous Agreement to the Propofition 
 and Terms of it. What is Prefumpfion,but a Man's Ap- 
 plication of the Bleffings of the Covenant to himfelf, be- 
 fore,or without the Confent of hisWill to the Conditions 
 required ^ What he talks of" an Original Contradl with 
 particularPerfons," {ihid,) I pretend not to aflert any fuch 
 'Jhing ; unlefs the Covenant made Vvith the firftP.arents, 
 or Headi* of a godly Race n^ay be fj term'd. But God's 
 
 Promife 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant-Baptifm. 271 
 
 Promife annex'd to his Command, makes up the whole 
 Matter of his Covenant with r^en j and leaves no Room 
 for Men to indent with God, by putting any Articles,or 
 Exceptions into his Covenant fas isufual with contra6l- 
 ing Parties among Men) and their Confent and Agree- 
 ment is requifire to the FormaUty of this Covenant. Plis 
 faying "I'he original Contradt was made with them only 
 *' inChrift," is but a Repetition of his form.er Error,in 
 confounding the Covenant of Grace, with that of Re- 
 demption, which I have before fufficiently refuted. 
 
 (8.) OurAuthor goes on to fay in the laftPlace, P.48. 
 " It will be allowed that the Covenant made withyf^^r^- 
 " hayn v/as a peculiar Covenant, fuch as was never made 
 '^ with any before or fince." /infw. That there were 
 fome fpecial Favours and Prerogatives granted by God 
 to /ibraham-, in his Tranfadions with him ♦, And 
 that the Covenant made with him had a particular Form 
 of Adminiftration, has been allowed already ; but that 
 this Covenant, in the main EiTentials of it, was peculiar 
 to him, fuch as was never made with any before^ or fince^ 
 will not be allowed ♦, being contrary to the Tenor of 
 many plain Texts of Scripture, whereby I have proved 
 particularly, that the Covenant made with Abraham is 
 the fame Covenant of Grace, for Subftance, with thac 
 v/hich fubfifts under the Gofpel-Adminiftration. And 
 therefore it is certain, that the fame Covenant has been 
 made fmcc the Time of Abraham^ both with the natural 
 Seed of i/r^f/, and v/ith the New-Teflament Ifrael. And 
 that the fame Covenant was made with thePatriarchs be- 
 fore the Time of Abraham, is eafily proved. TheCove- 
 nant with Abraham was a Covenant of the Eightecufnefs 
 of Faith. For fo the Apoftle interprets and defcribes 
 the Covenant of which Circumxifion was the Token and 
 Seal. Rora. 4. 1 1. And the Covenant wiihNoah hath the 
 fame Interpretation and Defcription given of it in the 
 New Tedament, lieb. 1 1. 7. By Faith Noah — became 
 Heir cf the Right ccufnefs which is of Faith ; and that ic 
 was in Being before theDaysof Noah^\i\% being called the 
 
 Heir 
 
272 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 Heir of this RighteoufnefsjintimareshisSucceflion to it in 
 the Line of the Church : And indeed the fameCovenanc 
 of Grace has always been the Church's Heritage from 
 the Beginning. But how does it appear, that this Cove- 
 nant was pecuhar to Abraham ? He fays {ibid.) " It was 
 " of a mixed Kind, that it had Promifes and Mercies in 
 *' it of a temporal Nature,to his natural Seed ; & others 
 *' of a fpiritualSort,to his fpiritual Sczd^. '^Anfw. Then 
 the Covenant of Grace is of a 7nixsd Kind •, for I have be- 
 fore prov'd,thac the Promifes of temporal Mercies belong 
 to the Covenant of Grace, ( under his fourth Plead of 
 Reafons, which is the fam,e in Effecft; with this ; and the 
 fameAnfv/er may be returned to it.)So that if this proves 
 any Thing to his Purpofe,it will prove too much : That 
 there is no Covenant of Grace at ail extant in Scripture. 
 But what a ifrange Diflribution does he here make of 
 the promifed Mercies of the Covenant ? Thofe of a tem- 
 poral Nature belonging to his natural Seedy thofe of a jpri- 
 tual Sort to his fpiritual Seed. Were there not many of 
 thofe whom he calls his fpiritual Seed. among his natural 
 Seed ^ And did not fpiritual Promifes belong to them, 
 becaufe they were his natural Seed ? Again, did not tem- 
 poral Promifes and Mercies belong to his fpiritual Seed, 
 as v/ell as natural ? Uniefs hy fpiritual he means difem- 
 bodied Spirits. Did not God take the v/hole Man inco 
 Covenant, Body as well as Soul, and therefore particularly 
 fet the Mark of his Covenant on the Body ? And is the 
 Body left unprovided of temporal Mercies .^ Did not pi- 
 ous Jacob ib interpret the Covenant, as the Ground of 
 hirTIope and Plea for temporal Mercies ^, Gen. 2^.20^21. 
 WhatWarrant then had our Author for this Diflribution ? 
 Yet this he makes the Ground of his following Inquiry. 
 But here again let me oblei ve, the Promifes of a tempo- 
 ral Nature in this Covenant, he fays, " are more nume- 
 rous, clear and diftind," and feems to thruft down the 
 fpiritual Promifes into a lower Clafs, as they ftand in 
 Abraham's Covenant : Whereas the Reverfe is true, that 
 fpiritual Promifes are the primary, manifeftly principal, 
 
 jnoft 
 
Chap. IV. cf Infanr-Baptifm. 27^ 
 
 mofl: excellent, and glorious, comprehenfive, and lailincr 
 Promifesin thisCovenant: to which thetemporalPromil'ci 
 of Canaan is annexed, as an Appendage of theCovenant, 
 and this, confidered as an additional temporal Bleiring, 
 comes under the Title ot that great Promifc, / will be 
 a God to thee \ as all temporal Bleflings do now in the 
 New- Covenant. 
 
 Thel'e are all his Reafons, which occur '^x\^^z\ the Icad- 
 ingEnquiry, (which I have fairly reprefented,and not de- 
 fignedly fupprefs'd any Thing that may be tho't to be 
 of the leafl Force) whereby he endeavours to prove, the' 
 Covenant with Abraham vj-3i% not a Covenant of Grace. 
 And I leave it ro the intelligent and impartial Reader to 
 judge, how little ihey avail to make out the Point he 
 would conclude from them, or whether they do not ra- 
 ther leave the oppofite Truth more firmly eiliiblillied. 
 
 Secondly^ I proceed to his next Inquiry, "With whom 
 " thisCovenant was made :*' and thus heflates theQueili- 
 on, " Whether thisCovenant, fo far as it may be reck- 
 '' oned a Covenant of Grace, or a Revelation of It, or 
 " refpeded fpiritualThings,was made with alLf/r^A-^/^/s 
 " Seed after theFlern,and with all the naturalSeed of be- 
 " lievingGentiles ?" — I except againii feveral Things in 
 thisState of theQueftion. (i.)Againft the limitingClaule, 
 So far as it may be reckoned a Covenant of Grace. For I have 
 proved this Covenant v/ith Abraham to be purely a Co- 
 venant of Grace, in DiftinCtion from the Covenant of 
 Works, v;hich is inconfiftent with that of Grace : Nor 
 doth the Mixture of temporal Prcmifes make it a lefs 
 pure Covenant of Grace. (2.) Againft his Explanation 
 cf theCovenant of Grace ; meaning thereby, i. A Reve- 
 lation o[ ih^i Covtmcii only. 2. Its refpe^ftng only fpiri- 
 iual Things, lioth w^hich abfurd Notions of theCovenanc 
 of Grace I have before refuted. Whereas, the Queflion 
 ihould be thus dated, Whether theCovenant of Grace 7nade 
 with Abraham, extended to^ and comprehended all his natU'" 
 ral Seed^ and all the natural Seed cf believing Gentiles, un^ 
 der the vifible Adminijfraticn cf it j //// by their Apof^acy^ 
 
 T Infidelity 
 
2 74 ^ Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 Infidelity or Profancnef^ they cut thernfehcs off^ and are 
 excluded by God ? I add this Limitation, Ftrft, Becaufe 
 theCovenant, in the outward Adminidration of it, is no 
 ablblutc Security againflApoftacy -, whether we refped 
 Infants who are admitted into it with their religious Pa- 
 rents, in Infancy, or grown Perfons in their folemn cove- 
 nanting withGodjhow credible focver theirProfefficn be in 
 the Sight of Men, and how unqueftionable foever their 
 Right may be to the Ordinances of the Church : and it 
 is not denied, that Apoftates forfeit all Right they had in 
 the Covenant, and may juftly be turned out of it. 5^- 
 r(?;?J/v, Becaufe though it be anA.ct of Sovereignty inGod 
 to admit whom he will into his Covenant, yet tis not a 
 meer A61 of Sovereignty to exclude thofe whom he hath 
 once admitted j but an A6t of Juftice alfo, upon a For- 
 feiture committed. Neverthelefs there is much to be af- 
 crfbed to theSovereignty of God, in taking, or not taking 
 this Forfeiture. Some have a longer Space for Repen- 
 tance indulged them under their Degeneracies, and for 
 that End are continued longer under the external Admi- 
 niilration of the Covenant, than others. And therefore 
 in order to their Exclufion, there feems requifitean A(5t 
 of God5declared by his\Vord,or by hisProvidence. Hence 
 it v/as,that when the Ifraelites had degenerated into Ido- 
 latry in AbaFs l^ime, and lb forfeited theirRight in the 
 Covenant, Goddid not wholly call them off,but prolong'd 
 their Space of I^epentance, and fent Elijah to turn back 
 their Heart to the Lord God of Ifrael i Kin. 18.3 7, 38, 
 39. And though. the Jev^^s had become exceeding dege- 
 nerate and wicked about the Ti.me of Chriil's Coming, 
 yet God did not prefently difcovenant them, but fenc 
 John the Baptift to turn tnany of the Children <9/Ilrael to 
 the Lord their God. Luk. i. 16, The Covenant-Relation 
 ilill fuhfifted, till their Rejedion of Chrift and the Gof- 
 pcl, and the Difiblurion of their Church and Comm.on- 
 Vv'cakh that followed thereupon ; when God wrote Lo- 
 ammiuvon them, and diffolved the Relation. But upon 
 an Offence commiited by IJImael^ the Son of the Bond- 
 won i a n> 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant-Baptifcn. 275 
 
 woman, he was prefently turned out of Ahraham''^¥2im\- 
 ly, and that by the exprefs Order of God (fien. 21.12.) 
 who took Occafion thereupon to declare Ifaac the Heir 
 ot his Covenant, in whofe Race the Line of the Church 
 fhould be continued, and the Blefilngs of the Promife 
 tranfmitted to his Seed, till the Coming of Chrifb. In 
 Ifaac jJjall thy Seed be called. Yet I think, it cannot hence 
 certainly be concluded, that IJhmael was cut off from all 
 perfonal Intereft in the Covenant of Grace,but only from 
 the Privilege of having it entaii'd on his Seed or Pofte- 
 rity, as it was on the Seed of Ifaac^ who was conftituted 
 Heir of theCovenanr, according to the full Extent of the 
 Promife to his Seed -, from thisHeirfliip Ifbraael was ex- 
 cluded : as the Apoille quotes the Oracle, Gal. 4. 30. 
 Caft out theBond-jooman and her Son ; for tbeSon cj the Bend- 
 woman Jhall not be Heir with the Son of the Freezvcman, 
 And hence I would obferve. That there was a twofold 
 Limitation of the Covenant to Abraharas natural Sct^, 
 Firft^ It was limited to Ifaac ; Ifhraael being cafi: out : 
 And afterwards it was limited to Jacob •, Efait for his 
 Profanenefs in contemning the Birth-Right, and thereby 
 forfeiting the patriarchal BiefTing, being rejected : And 
 fo it was confirmed u}} try a io\^n<l hisPofl:erity,/^r^;;rrfr- 
 lafiing Covenant^ (Pfa. 105. 10.) without any further Li- 
 mitation till the Coming of Chrift ; unlefs we will fay, 
 it was limited to the Houfe of Judah, when the itvi 
 Tribes were excommunicated, being driven out of their 
 own Land, for their Breach of Covenant, by their Apo- 
 ilacy and Idolatry. So that the Covenant v;ith Abraham^ 
 Ifaac and Jacobs was the Root of the Church-State of the 
 Jews, till they were broken off for their rejecting Chrill 
 the promifed Seed, and the Gentile Churches ingrafted 
 in their Room. — This being premis'd, and the Queflion 
 ftated as aforefaid, 1 maintain the Aflirmative, vi%. that 
 the Covenant of Grace made ^^Kh. Abraham^ extends to, 
 and comprehends all his natural Seed, (under the Limi- 
 tations abovementioned ) and all the natural Seed of be- 
 lieving Gentiles under the vifibleAdminiftrationof it,till 
 
 T 2 they 
 
2 7^ A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 they cut off themrelves by Apodacy, &c. And I might 
 difmifs all his Arguments and Exceptions againft the 
 Truth laid down in this Proportion, with this only Re- 
 mark, viz. That thry all proceed on this miftaken Sup • 
 pofition, that none can be faid to be in che Covenant 
 of Grace, but thofe that participate of the Grace of the 
 Covenant, or are truly regenerate and fandiiied : which 
 wholly overtums theDiftindjon of rheCovenantof Grace 
 outwardly adminifter'd, and inwardly applied in its fpiri- 
 tualEfRcacy -, which 1 have fhevv'ed has a folidFoundation 
 in Scripture. And there needs nothing more than the 
 Application of this Diftinftion, to difcover the Fallacies 
 andDeleds of our Author'sReafoning ♦, as by a brief View 
 of all that he has objeded under each Branch of the In- 
 quiry, may appear. Sj^efi, i. Whether this Covenant 
 ■ was inadcwitb dl Abraham's Seed according to the Flefh ? 
 His Reafons for thcNegative are, 
 
 (i.) " If it was made with all the natural Seed of yf- 
 " i?rabam^ as fuch, it miUft be made with his more ini- 
 '^ mediate Offspring, with a mocking and perfecuting 
 " Ijhmael — And with a prophane Efatt. P. 49." Anfw, 
 I have already obferved, that Ijhnael and Efau were ex- 
 cluded by a divine Direction •, however, before Iflomael 
 appeared to be *-'- z mocking and perfecuting Ilhmael," and 
 iLjau ihewed himfelf a fro fane Efau ; Both the one and 
 the other were Subjtds of the outward and vifrble Admi- 
 nifbraiion of the Covenant, in the religious Families of 
 the Pariiarchs, and had the Token of the Covenant ap- 
 plied to them, equally with//?/^^, theChild of thePromife, 
 and with " a pla;n-hearted J^fi?^." 
 
 (2.) 71ien, he fays, [ibid.) ''It muff be made with all 
 " his remote Poflcricy, and ffand good to them in their 
 " moft corrupt Slate." And he iiiftances in the Unbelie- 
 ver.^, " whofe Carcafes fell in the Vv^ildernefs," and in 
 '^ the ten Tribes v,'ho revolted from tlie pure Service of 
 " God,"&c. and in " the Scribes and Pharifees in our 
 " Saviour's Time, that wicked, adulterous, and hypocri- 
 '• licai Generaiion ol Mey, &c." KvA then concludes 
 
 Vvith 
 
Chap. IV, of Infant-Baptirin. 277 
 
 with an Exclamation, '^V/hat Man that: ferioufly confl- 
 " ders theie Things, can think that the Covenant of 
 " Grace belong'd to thefe Men ?" Anfw. It is evident 
 from Scripturejihat theCovenant of Grace, in Regard of 
 its external Adminiftration, belonged to all thefe 
 Men; notwithftanding their Degeneracies and Im- 
 pieties. And though God threatened once and again 
 to difmherit that unbelieving and mjurmuringGeneration 
 in the Wildernefs ; yet upon Mofes's Interceffion, he ilill 
 bore with them. And when yet he pafTed Sentence, 
 that the Carcafes of thofe Murmurers Ihould fall in the 
 Wildernefs (which was Part of the Difcipline of his 
 Covenant, to bring them to Repentance) their Children 
 and littleOnes were exprefly excepted if iY^/«^. 14.28,-3 i.j 
 to fhew that he defign'd not to cut off the Entail of his 
 Covenant from their Children. And when the teaTribes 
 r-evolted from the pure Service of God to Idolatry, and 
 fo had broken Covenant with the God ot" IjrasU?^^ Elijah 
 complain'd, i Kings 19. 10. The Children of IJrael have 
 forfaken thy Covenant : Yet Gcd did not prefently break 
 his Covenant with them., nor wholly disfranchize them, 
 as he might judly have done ^ but exercis'd long-fuffer- 
 ing for many Years towards them,&: fent his Prophets to 
 teftiiy unto them, that he might reclaim them : particularly 
 Elijah was lent to reflore the true Worfnip of God among 
 th.em. And in the Kingdom oF Jiidab^ when the People 
 renewed the Covenant under the reforming Kings, after 
 a foregoing Breach on their Part, in the Reign of JJa, 
 Joaflo^ and J ofiah ^x\-\txz v/as noDoubt of God's Readinefs 
 to accept them., and make good theCovenant on his Part. 
 When they fought hym^he "doas found of ths::i. iChron. 1 5. 15. 
 And in calling them by his Prophets unto Repentance, 
 he pleads hisCoven^ntRelation to them,]jndcr theSimili- 
 tude of a Marriage-Covenant. Jer. ? . i ^..Tum, backfiiding 
 Children^ faith the Lord, for lam married unto you. For in 
 the Covenant he made with them, when he bro't them 
 out oiEgypt^hQ took upon him theRelation oi anlJujland 
 unto them. Jer. 3132. And he dire^fts them in their Re~ 
 
 T 3 turn 
 
278 A Defence of the Bivine Ri^ht Chap. IV. 
 
 turn to him to plead their Covenant- Relation. Jer.3.22. 
 -^—Bebold^we come unto thee^ for thou art the Lord ourGod. 
 All which amounts to a manilett Evidence, that even in 
 their greateil Degeneracies, and in their moll corrupt 
 State, they were Subjects of the external Adminiftration 
 of the Covenant. And even the wicked Jews in our Sa- 
 viour's Time, the Scribes and Pharifees, that confpir'd 
 his Death, though exceedingly corrupt, yet were in /Ibra- 
 harrt's Covenant -, though they were prone to boaft pre- 
 iumptuoufly of that Privilege, that they v^ere not as yet 
 difcovenanted. Chriit allows them to be Ahrabarr's, Seed 
 by natural Defcent, and inRegard of the vifible Admini- 
 ftration of his Covenant j though they difcover'd aSpiric 
 andTemper mofl oppofite to that of /ibrahmn, Joh.^.'o^j. 
 And in the Beginning of the New-Teftament-Miniftry, 
 after the Death, Refurredlion, and Afcenfion of Chrilr, 
 the Apoille Pf/fr -declares to the Jews, that they were the 
 Children and Heirs of Abrahams Covenant. Ad. 3.25. 
 Te are the Children — of theCovenant^ whichGod made with 
 cur Fathers-, fay iny^ unto Abraham^ &c. And for thisRea- 
 fon they were privileged with the firft Offer of Chrift, 
 and his New-Covenant-BleiTings, as it follows, y. 26. 
 Unto you firfl^ God having raifed up his Son Jefus^fent him 
 to blefs you^^Q. And their rejecting this Offer through 
 Unbelief, was the Caufe of their final Exclufion and Ex- 
 communication from thcNew-Teftament-Adminiftration 
 of theCovenant. And the Paffige our Author cites from 
 Rom. 9. 6, 7. might have taught him the ufe of fome 
 juchDiRindionjas I have propos'd : for it is evident from 
 the exprefs Words of Scripture^that God's Covenant and 
 Promile was to all the natural Seed of Abraham (in the 
 Line of Ifadc and Jacob) in their Generations'^ Gen. 17.7. 
 which muft be underwood according to the vifible iiifti- 
 tuted. Adm.iniftration of it •, though all his natural Seed 
 were not for this Reafon the genuine,or regenerattdChil- 
 drcn of God, by a Participaiion of the faving Grace of 
 theCovenant. And tis as evidenr.that ?i\\Ijrael were taken 
 intoCovi-nnnt v/irh God j and this, purfuant to theCove- 
 
 rianc 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant-Baptifm. 279 
 
 nant with Abrahamjfaac ^ Jacobs Dc'«/.2 9.i3.-thouo-h 
 all of that holy Nation and peculiar People were not in- 
 ternally & really fanftified by theGrace of theCovenanr, 
 fo as to anfwer that diftinguilliingTitle/m being Ifraelites 
 indeed. 
 
 (3.) He further fays, P. 50. " Then it muQ be made 
 " with IJhmaelites^ and Edomites^ &c/' Anfw. The Con- 
 fequence is here to be denied ; for thePofterity of Ijhmael 
 and Efau w^ere excluded by divine Order and Direclion, 
 as has been faid, ('efpecially fuch of them as apoftatized 
 from the Covenant of Abraham) and the Line of theCo- 
 venant was limited to the natural Seed of Ifaac & Jacob. 
 
 (4..) But if this Covenant with r.br ah am mu^ht the 
 Covenant of Grace, he has found out a Way to evade 
 the Force of the Argument from it, by having Recourfe 
 to his former exploded /i/y/><?/^^j, " That it could be no 
 " more than aRevelation, Manife(lation,Copy or Tranf- 
 " cript of iti" And therefore " can never be thought to 
 " comprehend more than the original Contracfi:, the 
 *" eternal Covenant between the Father and the Son." 
 Anfw. Enough, I think, has been faid to confute this un- 
 found and unfcrlpturalNotion of the Covenant of Grace, 
 which makes it the fame with the Covenant tranfadled 
 between the Father and the Son before the World was, 
 or only aManifeftation of that Covenant •, fo that all and 
 only the Ele6t are interefted in the Covenant of Grace, 
 and that from Everlafcing. But how Dv. Gill will here 
 clear himfelf from a plain Contradidlion, when he adds 
 this as the Chara^er of all that are in the Covenant of 
 Grace, P. 51. " They have all of them theLaws of God 
 " put into their Minds, and written in theirHeartSjthey 
 '• have new Hearts and new Spirits given them, &c.*' I 
 confefs,! am not able to difcern : uniefs he vouches it as 
 his Opinion that they all have the Law^s of God v^rittea 
 in their Hearts, and have new Hearts given them from 
 Everlafting \ which is fo extravagant aWhiinfy, as mull 
 give Difgufl to the common Senfe and Reafon of Man- 
 kind. Or if he has any fober confiftent Meaning, and 
 T ± iatended 
 
2 So A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 intended only to fay, that all that are in the Covenant of 
 Grace from Everlafting, have theL^'K;i of God written in 
 their Hearts^ in Time (i, e. fomc Time or other of their 
 Lives) then it wiilfolIow,according tohisov^/nHypothe- 
 fis, than rhis Charafter of having theLaw of God written 
 in the i ieart, is not difLindive, and proper to all that arc 
 3n Covenai t-, for ii" they be in Covenant fromEverlafting, 
 then furely they were fo, all the Time of their Lives be- 
 fore the Lavv of God is written in their Hearts, and they 
 have new Hearts given them ; and fo Men may be in 
 Covenant without being regenerated or fandified. Why 
 then does he make this Objection againft all A'braham'''^ 
 natural Race their being in the Covenant of Grace, be- 
 caufe many of them were wicked & unholy ? When ac- 
 cording to his own Scheme of Notions he muft either fay, 
 that many are in theCovenant of Grace before they have 
 newHearts given them,or that they have fuch newHeart3 
 given them from Everlafting. Now becaufe all this can- 
 iiot be laid Cand no Man in his Senfes pretends to fay it) 
 of all the natural Seed of Abraham^ that, all of them are 
 eternally chofen, regenerated, fandified, &c. therefore 
 he concludes, that all the naturalSeedof //i;r^>6^;;2 could 
 not be in the Covenant of Grace. He had talk'd more 
 intelhgibly, if his Enquiry had been, Whether all the 
 natural Seed of Abraham were truly regenerated ? And 
 hisArgument for theNegative had been fomething more 
 pertinent : but then he might know,thatnoPcTdobaptift, 
 in Confequence of his Argument from theCovenant with 
 Abraham^ would have b(;en obliged to oppofe him. But 
 for a Man f taking it for granted, that none can be faid to 
 be in the Covenant, but the Eled; and truly Regenerate, 
 V;ithout Proof) to run on hi a declamatory Stile, inveigh- 
 ing againft the contrary Tenet, without ever takingNo- 
 rice of the Diftin^ion that ought to be made in thisCafe, 
 is not to explain or fettle the Truth, but to involve it in 
 greater Darknefs & Confurion,and can fcarce be thought 
 to have any other Defign than toamufe and miflead iche 
 vulgar Reader. 
 
 As 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant-Baptifm. 281 
 
 As to the Sentiments and Principles of theGentleman, 
 who was the Author of theDialogue, which Dr. Gtll here 
 repeats his Reflexions upon, I have fhewed already how 
 confiifent thofe Principles are (as exprefs*d in the Dia- 
 logue) with the true Scripture-Docirine of Election, &c. 
 as it ftands in Oppofuion to .irmiman Tenets •, fo that he 
 had noGrounds tor his Confidence, that that Author was 
 uncapable of writing withPropriety &Succer5,and "with- 
 out Contradidion to himfelt," a^ainfl: thofe Tenets. 
 
 ^^eft. 2. " Whether this Covenant with Abraham was 
 *' made with all the natural Seed of believing Gentiles V* 
 The Dillindlion between the adual and virtual makino- 
 
 o 
 
 of the Covenant being fuppos'd (for adually it could not 
 be made with thern before they came into ExiftencCjOuc 
 virtually it might include or comprehend the natural 
 Seed of believing Gentiles) I hold the Affirmative, and 
 have proved ir. Dr. Gill endeavours to prove the Ne- 
 gative; but his Arguments run in the fame Strain, and 
 are grounded on the lame falfe and confuted Elypothdis 
 with the former. 
 
 I. He allows, "That thisCovenant refpe61:s^^<?rz7/^.^;;/s 
 " fpiritual Stt:^ among the Gentiles^ even all true Belie- 
 " vers, — but not the natural Seed of believing Gen- 
 " tiles'' P. 53. So here is a (IrongAffertionjbut no^roof. 
 I have fully demonflrated from Scripture,that the Cove- 
 nant with At>rabam and his natural Seed runs in the fame 
 Tenor,with believing Jews and G entiles ^\>.x\<^^\ theGofpel, 
 and their Seed, and lo have anticipated all hisObjedions 
 under this Enquiry. But here he adds a Stroke that ac 
 once cuts o?i d\\Abraham\ nacuralSeed, & all the natural 
 Seed of believing Geniiles^i'rom having any Share in the 
 Covenant. For he hys^ibid. " That to none can fpiritual 
 " Bleffings belong, but to a fpiritual Seed, not a natural' 
 '' one." But I prefume, this was fpoken unawares, 
 from his Aifeclation oF ftrong Terms, when he meant 
 to fay, ?iot a meer natural Seed -, for furely be will 
 grant, that thofe whomi he calls a fpiritual Seed, were 
 moll numerous among the natural Seed of Ahakam^^'Cid 
 
 among 
 
2 82 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap, IV. 
 
 among the natural Seed of Chiiftian Gentiles. Why then 
 does he fo indiftindly oppofe a natural Seed to a fpiritual ? 
 
 But here he makes aChallenge, "Let it be prov'd5if it 
 •' can, that all the natural Seed of believing G^;?///^j are 
 " the fpiritual Seed of Abraham^ and then they will be 
 " admitted to have a Claim to thisCovenant. Anf. If he 
 means, by i\\q fpiritual Seed of Abraham, ^ truly regenerate 
 Seed, no iVIan pretends the Proof of it ; and it is imper- 
 tinent, and proceeds on his confuted Miftake, that no 
 Perfon can be faid to be in Covenant but the trulyRege- 
 nerate. \Vhereas,it is not requifite to a Perfon's vifible 
 Title & Claim to the externalPrivileges of theCovenant, 
 that he fhould be truly Regenerate,or a fincere Believer : 
 but only give credibleEvidence in the Sight of Men that 
 he is fo •, iince theAdminiftration of theCovenant is by di- 
 vine Inftitution committed unto Men : and fuch a credi- 
 ble Evidence is the vifible ProfelTion of the Adult ; and 
 it is an equally fufiicient and credible Evidence & War- 
 rant to the Church to proceed by, in admitting Infants 
 to the vifible Privileges of the Covenant they are capable 
 of, that God is pieafed to extend his Covenant and Pro- 
 mife to the Infants of fuch profeffingBel levers. Of their 
 Right and Claim to fpiritual Blefrmgs,not Man,butGod 
 mud judge. But x^hj fpiritual Seed^ he means the Seed 
 of /Ibraham, according to the fpiritual Intent of the Co- 
 venant, in Contradiilinftion from the literal, which I 
 choofe to term his adopted or ingrafted Seed, I have alrea- 
 dy proved by divers Scripture-Teflimonies, that the be- 
 jieving Gentiles, with their natural Seed, are the fpiritual 
 Seed o^ Abraham^ being comprehended in his Covenant. 
 And in my Turn', I may challenge Dr. G///,orany of his 
 Party, to difprove, if they can, thofe Tcflimonies, by 
 any found Arguments from Reafon or Scripture. 
 
 He afl<:s, " Though believing Gentiles are in this Co- 
 " venant, what Claufe is there in ir, that refpeds their 
 " natural Seed ? Let it be fliown, if it can." I anfwer, 
 (not to fpeak of the fubilantial Tenor of the Covenant 
 and Promife of God, to be a God unto him and his Seed, 
 
 which 
 
Chap. IV. cf Infant-Baptilm. 28^ . 
 
 which I have fhewed to be invariably the fame toGofpel- 
 Believers and their Seed) there is that Claufe — tor a 
 Father of many Nations have I made thee^ Gen. 17. 4, 5, 
 Which the Apollie apphes to the Chriilian Seed oiAi^ra- 
 ham,Rom.4..i6^iy. But how could he be the Father of 
 many Nations^ or cf any one Chrijlian Nation^ if their In- 
 fants were excluded ? Or if the Infant-Children of a 
 Chriftian Nation v/ere not to be accounted the Seed of yf- 
 h'aham, as well as grown Ferfons ? Are not Nations-, in 
 the Language & Senfe of holy Scripture, as well as of all 
 otherWritings, underftood to comprehend Ch!ldren,who 
 commonly make up the greateft Part of Nations ? Let it 
 be fhown^ if it can^ where Infant-Children are excluded 
 from Nations,or from any Privileges of Nations, as fuch. 
 Again, There is that Claufe that adopts theStranger that 
 is not o^ Abrabamh Seed into his Covenant {ibid, ii.ii.) 
 whofe Seed, born in r^hrahani^ Family, are exprefiy or- 
 dered to be circumcis'd, v;hen they were eighc Days old, 
 as well as his natural Seed. And thisLaw was afterwards 
 given to the Stranger that would join himfeif in fullCom- 
 munion with theChurch of Ifrael \ Let all his Males bs 
 circumcised^ Exod. 12.48. And it was, in Conformity to 
 this Law, the known Cuftom of the Jews all along to ad- 
 mit Profelytes from Gentilifm, by the Circumcifion of all 
 their Male Seed. And fo they were, by divine Appoint- 
 ment, to havetheToken of Abraham's Covenant in their 
 Fleih : Whence it follows, that theCovenant with /jbra- 
 har/i and his Seed held in the fame Tenor to the Gentile 
 Stranger profelyted to it, that is, to him and to his Seed. 
 For fuch IS the Sacramental Union and Relation betv.'een 
 the Thing fignified and the Sign, that the Sign is often 
 in Scripture put for theThing lignified •, and the Thing 
 fignified, for the Sign \ fo that theArgument holds good 
 both Ways, from an Intered in the Covenant,to a Right 
 to the Sign ; and fiom a Right to the Sign, to anlntercll 
 in the Covenant. Now of what Covenant or Promife 
 was Circumcifion theToken to theStranger that was not 
 or abrahairh Seed,cr the profeJytedGentile and hisSced t 
 
 ' • it 
 
^84 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 It could not, furely, be a Token of a meer temporal Co- 
 venant, or of the rromife o^Caitaan for their Poifcfiion ; 
 for this was appropriated to the natural Seed of Abraham 
 by Ifaac and Jacob : nor do we find that theChildren of 
 Ijrael ever divided anyPortion of the Land to Strangers.*. 
 It remains then, that it mufl be a Token of the great 
 ftanding Promife of the Covenant, I will a God to thee 
 (imi thySeed \ ?ind confequently of theCovenant of Grace, 
 in the moft fpiritual Senfe of it,the fame that is in Force 
 to Believers under theNew- Teftament. Which fuggefls 
 another Argument for the Intereft of the Infant-Children 
 of Chriftians in theCovenant of yf^r^i7^;;?5and theirRight 
 to the New-Teflament Sign & Seal of it. For if God, 
 in the firft making of this Covenant, and in the firft In- 
 Iticution of an initiacing Token of it, made Provifion for 
 the AdmilTion of Gentile Strangers into it,who were not 
 o't Abraham's Seed, together with their natural Seed, and 
 cxpreily appointed and commanded the initiating! okcn 
 of it to be apply'd to their natural Seed,which is evident 
 from undeniable Teilipionies of Scripture \ it neceflarily 
 
 follows, 
 
 * In EzfkicrsSf'iiiovL of theDlftribution of the hoIyLand, there is im^eed 
 Provifion made for the Inheritance of Strangers and their Children. 
 Chap. 47. 22. And it pall come to pa/s^ that ye pall di'vide it ky Lot 
 for an Inheritance unto ycu, and to tbeStrangers that fcjcum among you^ 
 'zvhich/hall begft Children among you^ and they Jhall be unto you as born 
 in the Country amonp; the Children o/I/rael, th<y Jhall ha'ue Inheritance 
 ^■ithym among theTrihes of I/rael. But this vifionnryDillrlbution of 
 theLand being on this,& divers othcrAccounts,fo very different from 
 the realDivilion of it MvAzxJojkna to theTrihes of /y/-^? J, when they 
 frll tookPoffeffionofit; & confidering thelnnprobability, if notlm- 
 pofiibility of Itshaving a literal Accornplilhment,Interpreters therefore 
 have been generally inclined to undcrlland it in amyiticalSenfcrc- 
 ferring it to the Gofpel-State of the Church, which perhaps may 
 have a more g'orious Accompllfhment in feme future happy Period. 
 And in this Reference, whatclfe can the Words cited import,than 
 that the Gentile Strangers lliould in the Times of the Gofpcl be ad- 
 milted to Communion with the natural Seed of Jbraham a.nd I/ratl 
 in their church- Privileges, which fhould be tranfmitted, as ever of 
 old, from Parents to their Children ? And this is no more than what 
 is expc6ted, by many pious and learned Men,from divers Scripture- 
 I'rophccies, when Jews and Gentiles fnall be united in the Gofpel- 
 Church, in the lutcr Davs. 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant- Baptlfm. 285 
 
 follows,that believing Gentiles under theGofpel, by join- 
 ing themfelves in Covenant w^ith the God of Ifrael thro' 
 Faith in Chriil, are v;ith their natural Seed taken mtoA" 
 braham's Covenant, and under the Evangelical Admini- 
 ftration of the Privileges and Bleffings of it, and by the 
 Ordinance of God ought to have the initiating Token 
 applied to them and their Infant-Seed. For, i. Gentile 
 Believers come into thisCovenantjand are accepted in it, 
 upon the fame Footing with the Strangers that were not 
 of Abraham's Seed, to whom the Covenant and Token of 
 it belong'd by divine Inftitution,in the fameExtent,even 
 to their natural Seed, as to Abraham & his natural Seed. 
 2. Becaufe thisCovenant \N\t\\^ibraham aiorefaid, was or- 
 dain'd by God to be an Everlafting Covenant^ thro all the 
 Generations of the Faithful. Which Covenant (as has 
 been proved) Chrift has taken into his New-Teftament- 
 Adminiftration, as the principal Matter of it, under his 
 New-Teftament Sign and Sea],which isBaptifm,and that 
 in as full Extent, without Exception of any Perfons for- 
 merly received into it, and intitled to the iniciatingToken 
 of it, and lo has eftablifhed it to endure to the End of 
 the World. In a Word, believing Gentiles, now, with 
 their natural Seed, are the very Strangers that are not of 
 Abraham^ s Seed yX.o whom, by divine Warrant inthefirft 
 Inflitution, the Covenant, with the initiating Token an- 
 nex'd, belongs. And let this be difprov'd, if it can. Btt 
 I'm pretty fure,it never can be difprov'd •, unlefs it could 
 be lliewed,by good Evidence from theWord of God,that 
 the Children ot believing Gentiles are excluded and de- 
 barred from ihe Covenant and annexed Sign&Seal,v;hich 
 they formerly enjoyed. But where is the Textjthat doth 
 either exprefly or confequentially exclude them ? So that 
 our Author may fee, if he pleales, (in Anfwer to his De- 
 mand, " By whatRightand Authority can any believing 
 '' Gentile pretend to put his natural Seed mionbrahanis 
 " Covenant ?"J That it is by divineRight & Authority 
 this is done •, God has put them there : and it is no un- 
 warrantabiePretence in them5buc a Duty, to acknowlege, 
 
 and 
 
2S6 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. , 
 
 and claim, and thankfully to improve this Covenant-In- 
 tereft and Right, which God has gracioufiy vouchfated 
 to their Children. 
 
 Secondly^ He fays, P. 54. " The Covenant v/ith' 
 " Abraham and his fpiritual Sttdi^ takes in many of the 
 *' Seed of the unbelieving Gentiles, who being called by 
 " Grace, and openly believing Chrift,are Abraham^ fpi- 
 " ritualSeedjWith whom theCovenant v/as made." Who 
 denies it ? But what does he mean by openly believing ? 
 What elfe can he mean but an open ProreQion ot Faith ? 
 And if he will (land to this, he mud give up his Notion 
 of the fpiritual Seed of Abraham^ that the Covenant of 
 Grace is made with none but true Believers, or the truly 
 regenerate ; for how will he know, that thofe that openly 
 believe in Chriil are Abraham's fpiritual Seed{m thisSenfeJ 
 with mhcm the Covenant was made ? Do not many openly 
 believe, that do not truly and inHeart believe ? Did not 
 Simon Magus openly believe,when he was all the while an 
 Hypocrite in Hear: r '' On the other Hand ( he flays ) 
 " there are many born of believing Gentiles, who do not 
 *' believe in Chriil^ are not ParcaKers of his Grace •, on 
 " whom the fplrirualBleiTings of Abraham do not come, 
 *' and {1^ not m his Covenant." That is to fay, If all the 
 Children of believing Gentiles do not partake of the 
 faving Grace of the Covenant, are not truly regenerate 
 and fan6tified, then they can on no other Account be 
 faid to be in his Covenant : Let him prove the Confe- 
 quence. According to this Gentleman'sConceit, noPer- 
 fon living is capable of the Ordinances, and vifiblePrivi- 
 leges of the Church, upon any Grounds of CovenantTn- 
 terell -, becaufe Men to whom the Adminiftration of the 
 Ordinances is committed, are uncapable of that infallible 
 difcerning of the Hearts of others, which is requifite to 
 their judging who are trueBelievcrs, or truly regenerate, 
 and who are not, without a Revelation from God. 
 
 mrdly^ His next is but aRepetition of the fame Argu- 
 ment he had ufed againft all the naturalSeed o^ Abraham j 
 their being in theCovenant of Grace •, becaufe they are 
 
 • noc 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant-Baptifm. 287 
 
 not all " Elefl, Redeemed, effeaually called, &c." And 
 the fame Anfwer mayfuiHce for the Confutation of it. 
 
 Fourthly^ He thinks it beft " to put off the Claim of 
 " the Infant-Seed of believing GentileSjto any Privilege 
 " fuppos'd to arife from Covenant-Intereft, till ic 
 *' appear they have one." But is not this to correal the 
 Wifdom ot God,who has otherwiTe ordained theMethod 
 of the Difpenfation of hisCovenant to Men ? And they 
 that will not reft fatisfied in the EvidenceGod has given 
 of the Covenant-Intereft of the Infant-Seed of Believers, 
 do but befool and deceive themfelves in expeding any 
 better Satisfaction from other Evidence. Dr. Gill fays, 
 P. ^^. " It cannot be known who are in this Covenant, 
 *' till they believe in Chrift." But how or when can it 
 be known,that they do believe in Chrift ? That is, truly 
 believe, " and fo appear to ht/lbraham''% fpiritual Seed." 
 Will a ProfefTion made at adult Age manifeft this ? 
 which he feems to take for granted. Nov/ fuch Profef- 
 fion is either a certain and infallible Evidence of true 
 faving Faith & Regeneration,the Charaderifticks of the 
 fpiritual Seed in his Senfe, or it is not ; if it be a certain 
 and infallible Evidence, then all that make fuch a Pro- 
 fefTion are true Believers and Regenerate,&: confequently 
 all the Members of the vifible Church are real Saints. 
 But no Man in his Wits, furely, will pretend to defend 
 fuch a Paradox. — But if it be not fuch an Evidence,why 
 fhould not the Teftimonies and Declarations of the 
 Word of God, concerning all the natural Seed of the 
 Faithful indefinitely ( that of fuch is the Kingdom of God:, 
 that the Promife of his Covenant, under the Gofpel-Ad- 
 miniftration, extends to theirChildren •, and that on that 
 Covenant they are Holy^ fo as the Children of Infidels are 
 
 I not) be as good Evidence of a Covenant-Intereft, and as 
 good a Warrant for admitting them to the Ordinances 
 
 ii and Privileges of the vifible Church, as anyProfeffion of 
 
 \\ the Adult can be ? 
 
 j Fifthly, He adds, ibid, " After all Covenant-Intereft 
 I*' gives no Hi eh t to any Ordinance, without apofitive 
 
 Order 
 
zSS A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 " Order and Dire6lion from God." /Infjo. What is an 
 Ordinance of God in the Church, but a pofuive Order 
 and Diredion from God, to obferve -certain Rites and 
 Modes of WorlLip ? So that to fay, Covenant-Intcre^ 
 gives no Right to any Ordinance^ without a pofttive Order 
 and Direction from God^ is to fay, I'hat it gives no Righc 
 to any Ordinance, without an Ordinance of God. But 
 finee all the Members of the vifible Church are Subjeds 
 ot the Ordinances, and have a Right and Obhgation to 
 receive & obferve them ; And the ]iifan«s of vifibleBehe- 
 vers having been proved to be ^^enlbers of the vifible 
 Church,fofar as theirlnfantState&Capacity willadmii(be- 
 ingcomprehendedwith iheirParents in theCovenant)they 
 are fo far, undoubtedly, Subjeds of the Ordinances, and 
 need no new pofitive Order and Diredion from God, 
 to give them a Right thereunto. As for his Inilances^ 
 they make nothing tor his Purpofe. Particularly, as to 
 Circumcifion, his Inllances in f4rpha>:ad & Lot have been 
 anfv/er'd above : They were in the Covenant of Grace, 
 under a former Adminiftration -, before the Inflirution 
 of Circumcifion in yf^r^/.?i2;?i's Family. And if the Co- 
 venant with Ahrahani was a Covenant of Grace, as has 
 been proved, his AiTenicn is falfe, That " many were 
 *' oblig'd to ufe it, who were not in the Covenant of 
 " Grace." And as to Baptifm, he fays ( ibid. ) '' If it 
 <' could be proved, as it cannot, that all the Infant-Seed, 
 " of Believers, as fuch, are in the Covenant of Grace, it 
 «' would give them no Right to Baptifm, without apo- 
 *' fitive Command for it." Anfw. I have already fufiici 
 ently prov'd, i. 1 hat Infants are capable of the Ordi 
 nance of Baj)tifm •, and that there is no Incapacity or 
 their Part, of having it adminiilred to them. 2. Tha 
 all the Infant-Seed of Believers, as fuch, are in the CovC' 
 nanc of Grace outwardly adminiffred. 3. ThatChrifl hai 
 inditutcd Baptifm for all his New-Tcila,ment -Federates! 
 without Exception of any Age or anySort of Pcrfons,wh( 
 were the Subjedls of the Oid-Teflament-Adminiflration 
 And that a vifible Covenant-Intereft gives a Kight t< 
 
 th< 
 
Chat. IV. of Infant- Baptlfm. 2 89 
 
 the initiating Token and Seal ; and fohath fully antici- 
 pated his Objection on this Head •, and therefore ail che 
 Infant^Seed of Behevers have a Right by divine InRitu- 
 tion to the Ordinance ot Baptifm. But what is his Rea- 
 fon ? " Becaufe (he fays) a Perfon may be in Covenant, 
 and a-; yet not have thePre-requifiie to anOrdinance,even 
 Faith in Chriif, and a FrofelTion of it." Anf-d:^. 'IhisFre- 
 requifite is indefinitely laid down by our Saviour, Mar. 
 1 6. 1 5, 1 6. — Preach the Gofpel to every Creature^ He that 
 believeth and is baptized Ihall be faved^ c*.rc. (which I fup- 
 pofe he refers to) and muft be determined by the Subjed: 
 fpoken of, which can be underftood of no other (as the 
 immediate Subjed) dian adultPerfoio^vvlioby thePrer^ch- 
 ing ot the Gofpel are converted to cne F.:.irh andRel'g'ion 
 of Chrift. And when Parents being Cliriftianized have 
 this Requifite of Faith in Chrift, and a i^rofefilon ot it, 
 how weakly is the Want of it urged as a Bar t-o their In- 
 fants, who being included in the Profedloa ci their Chri- 
 ftian Parents, and comprehended m theGofpel Covenant 
 with them, have on that Account, a clear Right to Bap- 
 tifm. And, in Effe«51:, this Pre requifite, is nottimgeire, 
 but a Covenant-State, which can be no otherv/ife entred 
 into by adult Perfons, brought up in a headienidi & pro- 
 fane State, than byFaith in Chriit, and a Prot'uTionof ir. 
 And this is, confeiledly requir'd of fuch Perfons, before 
 they themfelves, or their Children, can have a Right to 
 Baptifm. And having themfelves thus entred into a 
 Covenant State, their Children (if any they have) are by 
 the divine Conllitution of the Covenant, brought in with 
 them, and have equally with theirParents, a Right to this 
 iniriatingOrdinance. OurAuthor therefore, had noRea- 
 fon to fuppofe the want of a Pre- requifite in any that are 
 already in a Covenant-State,that Ihould debar them from 
 the Ordinance. 
 
 But fince this is fo often in the Mouths of theAntipcc- 
 dobaptilts, which they imagine an invincible Objcdtu 11 
 againft Intant-Baptifm : Chrilf \\^'i.{■^^^i^ He that believeth 
 amiis baftized Jljall be faved^ therefore Faith is pre-re- 
 
 V quir'd 
 
290 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 quir'd to Baprilm, which Infants are uncapable of : And 
 iince it is frequently referred to by our Author, and re- 
 lied on, as his dernierRefort^ (to ufe his own ExprefTion) 
 on all Occafiofis : let me in a few Words obferve, once 
 for all, that in this Pallage, cur Saviour, in laying down 
 tbeCor.ditions of Salvationjdoes indeed require Faith and 
 Baptifm in order thereunto. ButFaith is niore indifpen- 
 fabiy required, and greater Strefs laid upon it as a Fre- 
 requifite unto Solvation, than unto Baptifm. But it is 
 not pre-requir'd untoBaprifm otherwife,than in the order 
 of the Words : Chrifl does not i^yjle that believeth fhall be 
 baptized, but he that believeth and is baptized^ jhall be 
 faved. Whence nothing more can be concluded, than 
 that both Faith & Baptifm are pre-requir'd to aPerfon's 
 being; admitted into a State of Salvation. Suppofe an 
 aduk Heathen to profefs Faith in Chrif!:,but does not be- 
 iiev e with his Heart, or has not the Grace of Faiih that 
 will fave him, yet upon his ProtefTion is baptized -, and 
 fuppofing him afterwards to become a true penitent Be- 
 liever, has not fuch a Perfon the Pre-requifues of Salva- 
 tion ? May it not truly be faid, that he believes and is 
 baptized^ and therefore has a Title to Chrift's Promife of 
 Salvation, tho he is baptized betore he believes untoSal- 
 vation. Now to apply this to Inlants baptized inlnfancy, 
 not to fpeak of the Habit ot F^aith (whicli the Infants of 
 the Church muft be allowed capable of in their Regene- 
 ration, or be excluded from a State of Salvation by the 
 peremptory Declaration of our Saviour, Joh.'T^.^.) If we 
 take i'aith here for a6lual believing, which coniifts in the 
 explicit Acts of Knowlege, Aflent, and IVutling in 
 Chrift, which, 'tis granted. Infants, as fL]ch,are uncapable 
 of i yet being baptized in Infancy, aftd growing up to the 
 Age of Diicretion, they may thus believe m Chriil ; 
 and in fo doing fully comply with his l>rms of Salva- 
 tion i that is,iT;ay be properly faid both to beheve and be 
 baptized : tho theAtIs ot cheirFaith follow aiterBaptifm : 
 tor this Propofirion of Chriil does not make it necefTary 
 to Salvation, that Fjith fi^ould eo before Baptifm. 
 
 Or 
 
Chap. IV* &f Infant-Baptifm. 291 
 
 Or to bring the Matter to a Head, one of thefe three 
 Things mult be laid to the Objccrors, concerning the 
 Infants of thofe to whom' the Gofpel is preached, who 
 hear, and beheve it, and are baptizedjcither, Firfi^ That 
 fiich Infants are included in rhe ProfelPjon of their believ- 
 ing Parents. Or Secondly, They are to be nuinber'd with 
 the Unbelievers. Or l^hirdly^ This Propofition does not 
 ac all concern Infants one Way or other, but relates 
 only to the x'^dult. If the/ri? be faid, Cwhich I hold to 
 be- the Truth) that Infants are included in the ProfefTion 
 ot their believing Parents, being comprehended in God's 
 Covenant with them, then they have an equal Right with 
 their Parents unto Baptifm by thisConftitution of Chrifb. 
 if it be faid,/^fW/y, They arc to be rank'd withUnbelie- 
 vers,then,feeingtheSentenceisperemptory,^^//:7^/i'r/OT^/i> 
 not Ihall be damned^ all that die in Infancy muft unavoida- 
 bly be damned. Which is a Tenet fo inhuman, uncha- 
 ritable, and unfcriptural, that few or none, I believe, fince 
 the Days of the Petrobrufians^-^iW affirm it. If the third 
 Thing be afierted, that our Saviour intended not to de- 
 clare any Thing at all of Infants in this Propofition, one 
 Way or other, but had anEye only to the Adult Hearers 
 of his Gofpel, who fhould embrace it or refufe it, then, 
 as no Argument can be drawn from thefe Words for 
 Infant-Baptifm, fo no Objciftion againfl it can be taken 
 from them •, but notwithllanding what is here afTerted, 
 if there be good Grounds for the Baptifm of the Infants 
 of Chriftians from other PafTages & Teftimonies of facred 
 Writ, they ought to be baptized. And this is fufficienc 
 to flop the Mouth of this Objcdion. 
 
 Thirdly^ His next Enquiry is, *' Whether Circumcifi- 
 *' on was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace to Abraharn^ 
 ** natural Seed ?" One would think, that the plainTefti- 
 mony of Scripture fhould leave thisMatcer out of Quefti- 
 on. I fnall briefly fugged the Proofs of it, and then 
 examine his Reafons againft it. 
 
 I. God himfelf expreily calls it the Token cf his Co- 
 venant. Gen, 17. J I. Te Jhall circumcife the FkiJj of your 
 V 2 Fore-Jkin 
 
292 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 Fore jkin^ itfJjall be a Token of the Covenant letwixt me and 
 you. Now though a Token fimply confider'd, docs not 
 neceffarily imply a Sea), yerthe Token of a Covenant or 
 Froniife can be nothing elfe. A Token annexed to a 
 Promife or Covenant mull be a certifying Token, and 
 what is a certifying Token but a Seal ? So the Rainbow 
 was a Token of God's Covenant and Promife, that he 
 would not again overwhelm the Earth with a Deluge. 
 Gen. 9.13. I do fet ?n\Bow in the Cloud (faith God) and it 
 fhall be for a Token between me and the Earth, How was 
 the Rainbow a Token ot this Covenant, but as God was 
 pleafeci to appoint it to be a Sign to confirm theFaith of 
 J>^oah and his Sons, in the i^romife that he would not 
 ag.iin bring a Flood upon the Earth •, and a Token or 
 Sign to conlirm Faith in a Pio.'iiie,hath the Nature of a 
 Seal. And fuch a Token wasCircunicifion,and therefore 
 a Seal of the Covenant ot Grace made \^\i]\Abraham and 
 his Seed. Yea, 
 
 2. God calls Circumcifion, i?/j O^T;?^;;/. Gen. 17. 13. 
 — My Covenant Jhall be in your Flefl: for an everlafiing 
 Covenant. And in what other 'Stn^^ could this pollibly 
 be faid of Circumcifion, that it is the Covenant of God in 
 their FlefJj^ than as it v/as appointed by God to be a 
 confirming Token or Seal of that Covenant ? 
 
 3. The Apoffle plainly tells us, that Circumcifion the 
 Token of Airaham\ Covenant,\vas a Sign and Seal of the 
 Rightecufncfs of Faithyllom.^. 1 1. Which has been made 
 evident beyond all reafonable Exception, to intend the 
 Covenant ot Faith, in Oppoiition to the Covenant of the 
 Law, or ot Works. What Dr. Gill excepts againfl this 
 Tefcimony, will prefently come to be examin'd. There 
 is no dinnterelled Ferfon, but would think theApoftle's 
 Tedimony in this Cafe fliou'd be decifive of theQ^ieftion. 
 But what fays our Author? '^ This mull be denied;" He 
 lays, f the Caufe of Antipitdobaptifm makes it necefiary 
 that it fliould, though the Denial be a down- right Con- 
 tradidlion to the Apolfle) *' Circumcifion was mj Seal 
 
Chap. IV. cf Infant Baptifm. 29^ 
 
 " of the Covenant of Grace." Let us hear his Reafon?, 
 
 1. He fays, p. r^6. " If it Wc.% the Covenant of Grace 
 " before that took Place muft be v^lthout a Seal." 
 Anf. Why fnould tills be thou:5ht t^Matcerfo abfurd and 
 ftrange, as he feems to accouhit ir, th?.c :he Covenant of 
 Grace fnould be for any Tu^ne wuhout a vifible Sign or 
 Seal ? Which is a meer oofu've Iniiituilon, that depends 
 on the fovereign Will of the LavvHver, io appoint at 
 whacTinne he pieafes ; and it beicng.j not tc us to require 
 an Account of him, why he appointed it nofooner.Eut why 
 fhou'd it feem more abfurci, rhai the Coven?inc ot Grace 
 fhould be for anyTime without a Seal,'.han that it fhould 
 be fo from Everlafting -, as it mull be according to Dr. 
 Gillh Notions,who admits no other Seal of this Covenant 
 than theBlood of Chriil,and the Holy Spirit in theHearts 
 of the Faithful. However, I have berore given anliin: 
 at the Reafon whyGod firff appointed an initiating Sign 
 and Seal to his Covenant in theDays of -^/;r^i?/?;;?,becaufe 
 the Line of the Church, and theMelnas, was then limited 
 to his R act', whxh was left at" large before : Neverthelefs 
 the Covenant of Grace can't be faid to be without a Seal 
 before the Inftitution of Circumcifion, fince from theBe- 
 g'nning, Sacrifices were appointed to ratify Covcnant- 
 Tranfaitions betweenGod and his People ; and asTypes, 
 they had the general Nature of Seals to confirm thcFaith 
 of God's People in the Promife of the great Redeemer, 
 and Redemption in his Blood, prefigured thereby. 
 
 2. " Circumcifion (he fays) in the Infiitution of it, is 
 '* called a Sign, but not a Seal." And here he tells his 
 Reader, what the Hehre uoSN uvd is for a Token or 6'/^77,and 
 what for a Seal. If our TranQators haa render'd the He- 
 brew Word in Gen. 17. a Seal of the Coven^nr, his Qucr 
 ration of the Original had been fomething to hisPurpofe : 
 But the original Word fignifies, ^Tckeri or^'/V;?, and our 
 TranQators have render'd it a Token -, therefore I can't 
 guefs at the Reafon,why he fnould quote the Original fo 
 iurmally, but to let his Reader knov/ that he underfbood 
 liebrezVy and could tell what tiie feveral Hebrew Words 
 
 V 3 were 
 
294* ^ Defence of the Divine Right Ckap IV. 
 
 were for aToken,and a Seal. But he fhould know withal, 
 thac a Token or Sign of a Covenant is a confirming Sign 
 (as I hav^e obferv'd) and il" this be agreed to, the Thing 
 is granted, and Words and Syllables are not to be ftcod 
 upon : For 1 fee noDifference between a confirming Sign 
 annex'd to a Fromife or Covenant for the Ratificaticn of 
 it, and a Seal. But here are feveral Things added, that 
 require fome briet Animadverfions. i. He fays, '' Cir- 
 *' cumcifion was typical of the Pollution of human Na- 
 *' ture, propagated by natural Generation." /Inf. That 
 Circumcifion reprefented the Impurity of Man's Nature 
 to be done away by Regeneration, as doth Baptifm alfo, 
 is granted : But how was Circumcifion typical of this 
 Pollution ? Types are generally underftood to refer to 
 Things future, not to Things paft •, but was not the hu- 
 man Nature thus polluted irom the Fall of Adam ? 
 2. That it was typical " of cieanfing from it by theBlood 
 *' of Chrifl,and of the inwardCircumcifionof theHcartj 
 *' bui did not feal or confirm any fpiritualBlefiing of the 
 *' Covenant to chofe on whom this Mark or Sign wasi 
 " fet." But, I. Are not cieanfing by the Blood of Chrifl:, 
 and the inward Circumcifion of the Heart fpiritual 
 Bleffiiigs, and therefore undoubtedly Bleflings of theCo- 
 venant of Grace ? This cannot be denied. 2. He owns 
 that Circumcifion which God inflituted for a Token of 
 his Covenant was a Sign, f though a typical one, he fays) 
 of thefe fpiritual BlefTmgs, and confequently a confirming 
 Sign of the Covenant of Giace, by the foregoing Rea- 
 fonmg'. But, 3. To deny that this Sign confirm'd any 
 fpiritual Bleffrngs In theCovcnant- Adminiilration of it to 
 thofe, on whom it was fet, is irrational and abfurd,upon 
 the two former ConcefTions. And how does it reiiecl on 
 theWildornjGoodnefs, & Truth of God, to fuppoie him 
 to appoint a folemn Token of his Covenant, wichout any 
 Meaiiin^-^ or Delign that it ihould confirm any 'J hing of 
 •which it is a Sign, unto thofe to whom, by hisCommand, 
 it ought to be adminifter'd ^ How it confirms the Co- 
 venant to the Subjeds of itsAdminKtraiicn, I fliall fhew 
 
 afier wards 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant-Baptiim. 295 
 
 afterwards, in difcovering our Autlior's Miflakes about 
 it. 3. He fays, P.57. *' it is never caiJed a Seal thro'ouc 
 " the whole Old-Teftament." Anfjv. But if it be fo cal- 
 led in ExprelTions tantamoant in the Old-Teftament, as 
 when it Is called a 'Token of God*s Covenant, which the 
 Nature of the Thing requires to be underftood, as a cer- 
 tifying Token -, and when it is exprefly called a Sign and 
 Seal in theNew-Teilument ; one might think this would 
 lerve to filence all Cavils. 4. He adds, " So far. is there 
 " from any exprefs Command, that the Covenant of 
 " Grace fhould be fealed to Infants by it,that there is not 
 " the leafl: Hint of it given." Anjzt\ Confident Afier- 
 tions, withoutProof, deferve no Regard, and can have no 
 Force but upon weak Minds. The Covenant with A- 
 hraham having been prov'd to be the Covenant of Grace, 
 and Circumcifion, the Seal of it,there is more than a bare 
 Hint, even an exprefs Command of God, that it fliould 
 be apphed to Infants, Gen, 17.12. 
 
 3. He proceeds to tell us,how he underftands CircuVa- 
 cifion to be the Seal of the Rtghteoujmfs of Faith. He ob- 
 ferveSjP. c.j. '' It is not faid to be a Seal of theCovenant 
 " of Grace." Anf. I^hat it is not faid fo in exprcfsTerms, 
 is granted \ nor is the Covenant of Grace, as it is com- 
 monly called, ever mentioned in exprefs Terms in Scrip- 
 ture, but has various Denominations given it. It is call- 
 ed the Promife^ Gal. 3. 1 7. and Grace^Kom.6 ,1 4.. the Law 
 of Faith^Rom.^.2-/.th;Law of the'Spirit o/L?/>,Rom.8.2. 
 So the Right soufnefs .of Fatth, in Oppofition to ih.t Righ- 
 teoufnefs of the Law^ has been demon ftrated to be one of 
 the Scriorure-Terms or Characters .of thisCovenant. And 
 it being faid, that Circumcifion was a Seal of the Righte- 
 cufnefs of Faith ^ the fame Thing is intended in different 
 ExprefTions, as if it had been faid to be a Seal oi the Co- 
 venant of Grace. Bur he adds,/i^/V/. " The plainMean- 
 *' ing of the Apoftle is, that Circiimcifion was a Seal to 
 " Abraham^ and aflured him of, or confirmed his Faith 
 " in this, that he fliould be the Father of manyNations, 
 " in a fpiritual ^zvi{z ; and that the Kighieoufnefs of 
 
 V 4 " Faith 
 
2^6 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV." 
 
 " Faith which he had, when he was an iincircumcifed 
 '' Perfon, Ihould a'fo come upon, and be imputed to the 
 *' uncircumcifed Gentiles &c. Anfw. i. Were this In- 
 terpretation adi-!jirted,(as in a found Senfe it may,efpeci- 
 ally if tr.at Turn of rhe Words be received, which Dr. 
 Ugbtfoot h:^s given, by fupplying the Ellipfis in the Ori- 
 gina' with theWords, which Jhould he hereafter ^^ and thus 
 rendering them ; a Seal of the Righteoufnefs of Faith 
 "Which fbouH be \\^x^2iix.txinUnctrcumcifion^\.^, in theGen- 
 tiks, which ihould hereafter believe inChrift,) it does but 
 coniirm the Truth, that has been all along pleaded for ; 
 That- the fameRighteoufnefs of Faith \^\\\q\\ Abraham had 
 in his Uncircumcuion,comcs upon his Chriilian Seed, a- 
 mofig the uncircumcifed Gentiles •, and confequently it 
 is the fame Covenant of Grace in which this Privi ledge 
 was di/pens'd bjth to him & them \ which it is the Scope 
 ol" the Apoftle in this whole Chapter to prove : And this 
 indeed is the BlefTing of Abraham which is come upon 
 the Gentiles, thro Faith in Chrifl ;* This Righteoufnefs of 
 Faith the Apoftle declares, was feaPd to Abraham byCir- 
 Cumcifion. 'But, 2. If he means by this Interpretation, 
 that Circuiticifion was a Seal to Abraham^onXy in theNa- 
 tureofaType, to confirm him in theBeliet that this Pri- 
 vilege of the Righteoufnefs of Faith, fliould be conferred 
 hereafter upon his, believing Seed among the Gentiles ; 
 but that it was of no Sacramental Ufe to him to ratify the 
 Covenant, or Seal the Righteoufnefs of Faith to his own 
 Perfon, it is groundiefs and ftrain'd. For thisRi^hteouf- 
 fiefs of Faith was not a meer Matter o-f Promifc under the 
 Dld-Teftamenr, referv'd to be fulfilled in theDays of the 
 Gofpel to the believing Gentiles, as a Privilege peculiar 
 to them \ but has ever been the Privilege and Heritage 
 of the Church from the Fall of /Jam^ and the firft Pro- 
 rnife of a Redeemer. All theOld-TeilamentSaints were 
 Sharers in it ; which is particularly affirm'd (as has been 
 obferved) of Noah^ Heb. ii.j. and of Abraham the fame 
 is tefLiiicd, Gf«. 1 5.6. And of thisCovenant-Privikge, 
 
 Cicum- 
 f Hor. Hebraic, in 1 Cor, j. 19, 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant-Baptifm. 297 
 
 Circumcifion was appointed 10 Abraham & to all hisnaru- 
 ral Defcendants/vvho were Heirs of the Promife,foraSeai. 
 Moreover, I grair, it was defigned for the Confirmation 
 of all God's Promiles to him, and among the rell,that of 
 his being a Father of many Nations ; and being himfelf 
 pollefs'd of this Privilege of tlie Righteoufnefs of Faith 
 in hisUncircumcifion,he may be faid to be-the Exemplar, 
 or Type of his adopted Seed, among the uncircumcifed 
 Gentiles,their flianng in the famePrivilege,being juRified 
 throughFaith in Chrifl-jwithout Circumcifion in theFlefb, 
 which the judaizingChrillians were fo fond of retaining; 
 againft whom the Apoftle difputes : and in this Refem- 
 blance between the Type and the Antitype in the Point 
 of Juftification by Faith in Chrift, or of having Faith 
 imputed to them forRighteoufnefs, whilfb uncircumci^'d, 
 lies the whole Force ot his Reafoning in the PalTage un- 
 der Confideration, and in the whole Chapter. Neverthe- 
 lefs, that Circumcifion was to Abraham & hrsSeed a Seal 
 of the Covenant of Grace, wherein thisPrivilege of Julli- 
 fication by Faith is confirmed and conveyed to Believers, 
 cannot with anyShadow of Reafon be deny'd. And 'tis 
 granted, in Effecft, by our Author, wi:h Refpe^fl to the 
 Perfon of Abrahara \ tho' he adds, '' Could it be tho't 
 ^' that Circumcifion was a Seal to others befides him ? 
 " It could at moll be only a Seal to them that had both 
 " Faith and Righteoufnefs, and not to them that had 
 " neither/' But here he fhews his Miilake about the 
 Nature of Circumcifion, as it was a Seal of the Righte- 
 oufnefs of Faith ; he fuppofes Circumcifion to be a Seal 
 cf the Faith, or Righteoufnefs of the Subje6l that receives 
 it, which IS evidently a Miilake : Though /,braham had 
 both F.iitli and Righteoufnefs, yet Circumcifion was nei- 
 ther a Seal of his Faith, nor of his Righteoufnefs, but of 
 the Righteoufnefs of Faith, or of the Covenant ot Grace, 
 which gives Sinners a Right to theMerciesof God, Par- 
 don, Life, & Salvation,thr6 Faith in a Redeemer. And 
 what is here faid of Circumcifion,. agrees to the general 
 Nature uf ail Saaaments, even thole of theNew-Tetta- 
 
 ment 
 
298 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV, 
 
 mcnt, Baptifm and the Lord's Supper ^ they are not 
 Seals of the Faith of the Receiver, or of his perfonal In- 
 tereft in the fpiritual Bleillngs of the Promife, but Signs 
 to reprefent, and Seals to ratify the Promife of BlefTings 
 on God's Part, and Obligations to Duty on ours. They 
 are primarily defign'd to feal the Truth of God in his 
 Promife, for the Confirmation of our Faith •, and fecon- 
 darily to feal our Obligations to theConditions & Duties 
 requir'd. That the Sacraments do not abfolutely feal 
 the Faith, Righteoufnefs, or fpecial Intcreft of particular 
 Receivers, buc are Seals to confirm both Parts of the Co- 
 venant, that is to fay, God's Promife to our F^aith, and 
 our Obligations to be his People, to keep his Covenant 
 and Commandments, is evident : F'or, i. The Covenant 
 is God's Ad, his Deed of Gift,whereby he makes a Con- 
 veyance of all goodThings conducive to trueBleflednefs, 
 efpecially of the comprehenfive BiclTing of Juiliticatioa 
 by Faith, onCondition of an humble, believing, obedient 
 and thankful Acceptance. Hence the Covenant tranl- 
 a(fled with Abraham^ God calls bis Covenant^ all along. 
 Gen. 1 7. 2, 3, 7, 9. &c. I will make my Covenant between 
 me and thee^ &c. He has graciouHy condefcended to hu- 
 man Methods, not only in tranfading with hisPeople in 
 a Way of Covenant, but \n annexing Seals for the folenin 
 Ratification of it. Thus he appointed Circumcifion to 
 be the Seal of his Covenanr5not to afTure them they had 
 Faith and Righteoufnefs, but to make fure the Truth of 
 his Promife to their Faith, and to confirm their Obliga- 
 tions to believe the Promife, and to keep his Covenant, 
 So that Circumcifion did not leal a Blank, though the 
 Subjeds of its Adminittrarion had neither Faich nor 
 Righteoufnefs : But it feal'd the Truth of the Covenant 
 as God's Ad, and thcObligaions thereby laid upon them 
 to the Duties of it. 2. I'he Sacraments feal according 
 to the Tenor of the Covenant, which 1 have prov'd to 
 be Conditional -, therefore the Sacraments do not feal the 
 Grace of the Covenant abfolutely, bar conditionally, on 
 SuppoUtion the Receiver h?,s the Condition rcquifire to 
 
 his 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant-Baptifm. 299 
 
 his Int^refl in the fpiritual Privilege. If the Sacraments 
 did abfolutely ieal the Grace of the Covenant to all that 
 are vifibly qualified to receive them, then it will follow, 
 cither that ail luchReceivers mud have favingGrace,and 
 be certainly faved ; or that God'sSeal is,by hisAppoint- 
 ment, many Times to be fet to a Blank. Both which are 
 manifeftly abfurd. But as the Sacraments feal the Cove* 
 nant conditionally, fo all the Subjects of their vifibleAd- 
 miniftration are alike capable of receiving them. And To 
 the Covenant may be fealed to ^auU or Judas^ as well as 
 to Abraham^ Peter or Pcml. 3. If Sacraments were de- 
 figa'd to feal the Faith of the Receiver, they could not 
 be adminiftred by Men, according to divine Inftiturion. 
 For the Power of fealing the Faith of another muft de- 
 pend on theKnowlege of his interior State,which belongs 
 only toGod : A.nd therefore theSpirirof God who fearch- 
 eth all Things^ is the foleAuthorof this Seal toBelievers. 
 Eph. I. 13. which is of a very different Nature from the 
 vifible Signs and Seals of the Covenant. 4. If the Sa- 
 craments were Seals of the Faith of the Receivers, then 
 no Unbeliever in Heart would have a Plight to make 
 ufe of them : But many Unbelievers in Heart have a 
 vilible Right to the Sacraments,and ought to have them 
 admiaiifred to them, according to the Rule of Church- 
 Adininiftruions. Ail that- make a vifible ProfelTion of 
 tne true Faith and Covenant Dedication toGod, notcon- 
 tradidv. u in their external Converfation,are intitled to the 
 Charity c: the Church, and have a juft Right /pri) Ecck- 
 fijc to the Sacrarneats,as Seals of the Covenant : Among 
 whom, yer, no iVlan doubts there are many Hypocrites 
 in Heart, deifitute of a truly faving Faith. And hence 
 it appear?, that our Author is much out of the Way, in 
 juppoling Circumcifion could be a Seal of the Covenant 
 to none but thofe who had Faith and Righteoufneis, as 
 Abraham had. 
 
 And \iis fourth Reafon flrands upon the fame ground- 
 lefs and mjltaken Suppofition, That Sacraments Seal the 
 Covenant ot Grace to none but true ^eiieveri. For he 
 
 thinks 
 
300 A Defence cf the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 thinks he has perplexed and puzzled the Caj(^ with this 
 Dilemma^ " That it it was a Seai of the Covenant of 
 " Grace to Abraham's^ natural Seed, it muil be ei;her to 
 *' fonae or all. P. 58." I anfwer, without HefiLation, 
 to all^ according to the foregoing Reafons : " To a 
 *' mocking IJhmael^ to a profane Efau^lo Corab^ Dalhan,' 
 " and Abiram^ &c." The Covenant was feaied to each 
 of thefe by Circumcifion in Infancy, as well as to Ifaac 
 and Jacobs Mofisand Aaron, It only follows, that the 
 forn-iCr were guilty of the Violation of the Covenant, by 
 their Apoitacy andDidoyalty : But how then was it feaied 
 to thein ? I anfwer, not in this Senfe, "that they were 
 *' affured of an Intereft in it:'* i. e. in the fpirituai Privi- 
 leges of it, as Dr. G/// explains the Sealing of the Cove- 
 nant, contrary to what has been alTerted and proved. 
 But Circumcifion feal'd to them the Truth of God's 
 Promife, and their Oblif^ation to the Conditions andDu- 
 ties of his Covenant, and it feal'd their Intereft in pro- 
 mifed BlefTings, no otherwife than conditionally,or upon 
 Suppofition ol the Conditions antecedent, concomitant, 
 or confequent, wrought in them, or performed by them. 
 Fifthly^ He concludes, that fince " the Covenant was 
 " not made, as we havefeen," He fays, " with all the 
 *' naturalSeed of yfir^^^;??, therefore Circumcifion could 
 " not be a Seal of it to them." But we have 'itQn alfo, 
 all his Notions on this Head confuted : Though here 
 he comes in again wirh his Limitation, " as far as it 
 *' was a Covenant of Grace." But we ought not to 
 diftinguifh, where the Word of God does not : I have 
 proved it to be purely and entirely a Covenant of Grace, 
 and not partly a Covenant of Grace, and partly a Cove- 
 nant of Works, as Dr. Gill imagines, which are utterly 
 inconfiftcnt with, and fubverfive of each other. And 
 that Circumcifion was a Token and Seal of this Cove- 
 nant, to all Abraham^ Poifcrityjimited as aforefaid, can- 
 not withoutContradi(5tion to the exprefs Words of Scrip- 
 ture, be denied. Or if by his Limitation, as far as it 
 yoas a Covenant oj Grace^ he means to fay no more than, 
 
 in 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant- Baptifm. 301 
 
 /;; Regard of the' fpiritiial Elefp.ngs of the Covenant^ it is 
 impertinent, and concerns not the prefent Argument ; 
 for we are now fpeaking not ot the fpiritual Apphcation, 
 buc oi' the external Adniiniilration of the Covenant, to 
 which the Sacraments as vifible Sig-ns and Seals beloncr . 
 and ought to be applied, as <uch,to all the vifibie Subjeds 
 of its Adminill:ration, and fuch were all the natural Seed 
 of Abraham^ Ci..E.D. So I come to his next Inquiry. " 
 
 Fourthtj^ " Whether Baptifm fucceededCircumcifion, 
 " and fo became the Seal of the Covenant of Grace 
 " to Believers, and their natural Seed." This (fays our 
 Author) " Mult be anfwered in theNegative ; " Ic muft 
 in Defence of Dr. GtWs Hypothefis : But I fliall under- 
 take to prove the Affirmative of both Parts ot the En- 
 quiry. Fif'ft^T\\i\t Baptifm fucceeds Circumcifion. And 
 Secondly^ That Baptifm is aSeal of theCovenant of Grace 
 toBelie vers, and their Seed. And under each Part, ihall 
 .fhew in a few Words, the Weaknefs and Impertinence of 
 Dr. GiWs Exceptions. 
 
 Firft^ That Baptifm fucceeds in theRoom of Circum- 
 cifion, under the New-Tellament-Adminiftration. 
 
 I. The Teftimony of the Apoftle is full to this PiJr- 
 pofe, that we fcarce need any otherEvidence, that Bap- 
 tifm to Chriftians comes in the Room of Circumcifion 
 to the Jews of Old. His Words are, in Col. 2. 11,12. 
 In whom ( i. e. Chrift ) ye are circumcifedwith the Circum^ 
 cif.on made withont\Hands^in putting off the Body of the Sins 
 of theFle/h^by theCircumcifion of Chrijt : Buried with him /;? 
 Baptifm^ &c. The Jews that embrac'd the Gofpel ( we 
 find in the J^s of the Apoftles, and divers Paflagcs in 
 Paurs Epitlles ) were great Sticklers for retaining the 
 Ufe of Circumcifion, and annexing it to theDifpenfation 
 of Chrift : The Apoftle in the cited Paffage, in EfFed, 
 tells the Colcffians,who were troubled with iuchjudaizersy 
 that they had noNeed of it, being ccmpleat inChrifl,^\ 10, 
 And having in theK'ew-TeftamentSacrament of Baptifm, 
 that which fully anfwers the Defign of that ancient Rite, 
 and which he terms the Circumcificn of Chriji; or as it 
 
 migl t 
 
302 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 might be rendered the Chrifiian Circumcifion, And that 
 nothing elfe but Baptiim can be intended by the Circum- 
 €tfton ofChrift^ or the Chriftian Circumcirion, plainly 
 appears •, For i. It can't rationally be underllood of the 
 Circumcifion which JefusChrift received when aninfant : 
 For how could xh^ Coloffians be faid to be circumcifed 
 with that Circumcifion ? 2. Nor can it with anyRealon 
 be underftood of thefpiritualCircumcifion of theHeart *, 
 for he had fpoken of that in the foregoingClaule,calling 
 it the Circumcifion made without Handsy in putting off the 
 Body of the Sins of the Flefo. This is the fpirituai Cir- 
 cumcifion : And what a Tautology would fuch a Senfc 
 caufe in theWords ? 'Te are circumcifed with the fpirituai 
 Circuracifion. by the fpirituai Circumcifion of Chrijl. But 
 the evident &: plain Meaning is •, Ye have the full myfti- 
 cal Intent ot the jewifh Circumcifion in the Circumctfion 
 cj Chrifi, i. e. Baptifm, which Chrift in his New-Cove- 
 nant has appointed to be to us Chriftians, inftead of Cir- 
 cumcifion to the Jews under the OldLaw -, which being 
 a bloody Rite, and (befides its Sacramental Nature) tipi- 
 fying and prefiguring Chrift to come and Hied hisBlood; 
 he hath fince his Coming and Bloodfhed, abolifhed, and 
 fubftituted Baptifm with Water in its Room. And ^^ 
 The Apoftle has put ic out of Doubt, that this is his 
 true Meaning -, tor having mentioned the Circumcifion of 
 Chrif^he immediately adds in Way of Explanation, beino- 
 hiried with him in Baptifm, This is full Proof But iec 
 me add. 
 
 Secondly^ It is further evident from the manifeft Ana- 
 logy or Refemblance between Circum.cifion & Baptifm. 
 As, I. Circumcifion was the firft Token or Seal of the' 
 Covenant. Gen. 17. 11, 12. None might eat the Paffover 
 hut thofe who were firft cir cum cis'd^ Exod. 12.48. So 
 Baptifm is the firft & initiating Token, as I have proved, 
 and without it none are to be admitted to theLord'sSup- 
 per. We are firft baptized into one Body, and then mad€ 
 to drink into one Spirit^ i Cor. 12. 13.-^2. Baptifm hath 
 the fame fpirituai Signification with Circumcifion, viz. 
 
 Ihe 
 
Chap. iV. of Infant-Baptifm. 303 
 
 The inward Circumcifion of theHeart,Regeneration,the 
 Mortiiicaticn of Sin •, which is prov'd by the Teftimony 
 oftheApoll:ie,abovecited,C(?/. 2.ii,i2.Seeairo/^^w.2.29. 
 and Cbap. 6. 3,4 3. Baptifm ferveth now to the fame 
 Ufe and Purpofe under the New-Teftament, whichCir- 
 cumcifion did of Old. As, i. Was Ciicumcifion the 
 Sacrament of Admifnon into the Church of Ifrael^Exod, 
 12 48. And is not Baptifm the fame with Refpe6l to 
 the Chriftian Church & Covenant ? Mattb. 28.19. J^s 
 2, 38. 2. Was Circumcifion a Badge of Relation to 
 the God of Ifrael. Was it not by this inflituted Rite, 
 that the Sons of the Stranger joined themfehes to the Lordy 
 and took hold of his Covenant^ irai.56.6. And is not Bap- 
 tifm aBadge of our Relation toChrift ? Gal.'^.iy, 3. Was 
 Circumcifion a Sign and Seal of the Covenant of Grace, 
 Rom. 4. 1 1 . And is not the fame to be faid of Baptifm ? 
 Compare Rom,io.6^^. with Mar. 1 6.16. — 4. Was Cir- 
 cumcifion a necelTary Qualification for Accefs to God's 
 Sanduary ? Was it not accounted and charged as a pro- 
 fane Intrufion, and Pollution of the Sanduary, for any 
 to enter into it, who were uncircumcifed in Flefh ? Ezek, 
 44.7,9. So Baptifm with Water is requlfite to a confi- 
 dent and acceptable Approach to the fkcred Ordinances 
 of God's Houfe under the Prefidency of our great High- 
 Prieil Jefus Chrift, Heb.io.ii^ii. Now confideringthe 
 Refemblance and Correfpondence between Circumcifion 
 and Baptifm<, in fo many material Points, and I might 
 add more •, and confidering withal the CeiTation of Cir- 
 cumcifion under the Gofpcl •, and the Inftitution of Bap- 
 tifm for the fame Ufes & Ends, for which Circumcifion 
 fer^ed under the Law *, does not all this plainly fpeak 
 the Succefilon of one to the other ? VTis granted, that 
 being different Rites, agreeing to the \jifferent Difpenfa- 
 lions of the Covenant, before and fince Chrift's Coming, 
 there werefome accidental Differences between them ; yet 
 as Signs and Seals of the Covenant, they both aim'd at 
 the fame Thing, without any fubilantial Difference at all. 
 Let me only further obferve, 
 
 "Thirdly^ 
 
304 A Defence of the Bivine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 thirdly ^ EitherBaptilm fucceeQsCircumcirion,or there 
 is nothing at all inftituted in its Rooip. -, but the Chri- 
 flian Church, by the Coming of Chrirt,has been depriv^d 
 ot a Sacrament, which was reckoned oF lingular Advan- 
 tat^e to the Jewiih Church, i^fi*;?;. 3. 1,2. To theQijellion, 
 What Profit is there in Circuracifion ? The Apollle anf- 
 wers, much every IVay. And if fo, the ChrilVian Church 
 in being deprived of it, has loft much every Way,if no- 
 thing be appointed in its Stead. And if any other Or- 
 dinance befides Baptifm under the New-l>ftament fuc- 
 ceeds to it, let it be named if it can. And if it be ab- 
 furd to fay, that nodiing is appointed inftead of Circum- 
 cifiojT, fince all the mott eminent & valuable Inftitutions 
 of the Old-Teftament, tho abolifhed at the Coming and 
 Death of Chrift, have yet had fcmerhing anfwerable ap- 
 pointed in the New : Inftead of the Pairover, we have 
 the Lord's -Supper, which is a Fcaft upon the Sacrifice 
 of Chrift our Fafchal Lamb, i Cor. 5. 7. Infteadof the 
 Jewifli Prieithood, we have a Gofpel-Miniftry : Inftead 
 of the meeting of the I'nbes at the Temple,we have the 
 ChriftianAffemblies inftituted •, & inftead of the feventh 
 Day Sabbath, we have the firft Day of the Week, the 
 Lord's Day, for our Chriftian Sabbath : And fince therq 
 is no other Ordinance of the Nev/-Teftament, that bids 
 for the Succeftion to Circumcifion, we rightly conclude, 
 that Baptifm,and that alone, is its true Succelfor. Now, 
 if Baptifm fucceeds in the Room of Circumcifion, and 
 hath the fame Signification, Ufe & Place, in theChriftian 
 Chu ch, that Circumcifion had in the Church oi Jfrael\ 
 it is a reafonable and undeniable Inference hencc,that the 
 Infants of Chriftian Parents ought to have it adminiftrcd 
 to them, as Circumcifion was cuftomarily and conftantly 
 by divine Appointment, adminiftrcd to the Infants of 
 Jews and Profelytes, unlefs they were by fome plainEx- 
 ceplion debarred •, but no fuchException can any where 
 be found. Nor could the Teftimony of the Apoftie 
 P^/^/,above-cited, give the leaftSatisfadion to the chrifti- 
 anized Jews, when he tells them, that they had the Cir- 
 cumcifion 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant-Bapcifm. 305 
 
 cumcifion of Chrifl ia being baptized, or had Baptifni 
 appointed to them by Chrift, inllead of Circumcifion, if 
 their Children were excepted -, and Chriftian Baptihn 
 \vere only for grown Men and Women : For that which 
 made the JewiOi Chriftians fo zealous for retaining Cir- 
 cumcifion, was their Concern lor their Inlant-Children, 
 that they might have the Mark of God's Cbvenant iec 
 upon them, which they had ever had. We have obferv'd 
 before, how bitterly enrag'd the jews at Jenifalem were 
 at Paul^ when they heard that he taught the Jezvs which 
 were among the Gentiles^ that they ought net to circumcife 
 their Children, Act. 21. 21 And his telling them they 
 had Baptifm inilead of Circumcifio.n, had been nothing 
 to the Furpofe, and could by no Means have fatisfied the 
 Jews, if this Baptifm was only tor adult Perfons j nor 
 could the Jews have received it as an Ordinance anfwer- 
 ing to their Circumcifion. Therefore there can be no 
 Doubt but that the Apoftle intended this Chriftian Cir- 
 cumcifion, to fucceed the Jewiih, in its Adminiftratioa 
 to Infant Children, as well as to grown Perfons ; other- 
 wife he had given no Anfwer to the Jews Plea, for keep- 
 ing up their old Circumcifion. Now let us attend to 
 what our Author has to fay for the Negative. 
 
 His three firft Exceptions are taken from the Diffe- 
 rences between Circumcifion and Baptifm, as to their 
 Subject, Ufe and Manner of Adminiltration. Circum- 
 Itantial Differences have been allowed, and none elfe can 
 he make good. 
 
 fi.) Pie fays, P. 58. " There is no Agreement be- 
 " tween them in the Subjects to whom they are admi- 
 *' niftred." But none of his Inllances wherein they dif- 
 agree, will be yielded, but that of Male and Female \ and 
 this Difagreement has been accounted for already : 1 he 
 Diili^6tion between Male and Female, which obtainM 
 under the Old Teftament, in the Ordinance of Circum- 
 cifion, is taken away by the Dodrine ot the New-Tefta- 
 ment. When the Apoftie had told theGalatians, thaf.^^ 
 many cf them as had t^een baptized into Ctriji^ had fut on 
 
 X Chrijt, 
 
3o6 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 Chrift^ Gal. 3. 27. He plainly intimates in the following 
 f. That among thofe who are thus baptized under the 
 Chriftian Difpenfation, there is noDiftindion to be made 
 hetween Male and Female^ as there had been of Old. But 
 there being a perfect Silence throughout theNew-Tefta- 
 nient, as to any fuch Diflindlion between Old & Young, 
 Aduk and Infants, wiih Refpedl to the Privileges o\ the 
 Covenant, is a fufficientDocument to us,that there oughc 
 to be no Difference in this Refped betweenCircumcifion 
 sind Baptilm, as to the Subject of their Adminiftration. 
 
 (2 J The Dilference he notes between them as to their 
 Ufe is not real but in Words & Exprefiions only. "The 
 *' Ufe of Circumcifion (he fays) was to diftinguifh the 
 ** natural Seed of Jhrabam from others." And not that 
 only,but (he fhculd have added)alfo to diftinguifliG entile 
 Profelytes, and their natural Seed,who joined themfelves 
 in Covenant with the God of Ifrael, from Aliens &: Ido- 
 laters. And is there not the fame Ufe of Baptifm to 
 Chriftian Profelfbrs, to diftinguifh them from Heathens 
 and Infidels ? Why elfe are baptized Chriilians called 
 ^he Circumdjion, Phil. 2' 3* but becaufe by Baptifm they 
 are diftinguilhed as the peculiar People of God, as his. 
 circumcifed People were of Old ? But what does he mean 
 by afrigning this Ufe of Baptifm, as different from that| 
 of Circumcilion, viz, " I'hat it is to be a diflinguifhing' 
 ♦' Badge of the fpiritual Seed of Chrift, fuch have be-' 
 *' lieved in him, &c.'' If he means by the fpiritual Seed| 
 of Chrifb true Believers only, or truly regenerate Perfons,, 
 y:\urh is the S^niQ he had before given of the fpiritual 
 Seed, and in v;hich Senfe only it can be different from^ 
 Circumcifion, I deny that Baptifm is a diftinguifhing 
 Badge of fuch a fpiritual Seed -, for many befides the 
 ?ruly Regenerate wear this Badge, as our Author him- 
 felf conkP/es; P. 60. Or if he means it to be a diftinguifh- 
 ing Badge of all that come to Chrift by a Gofpel-Pro< 
 ftriiion o\ Faith in him, it differs nothing from the Ufe 
 of Circumcifion, which was defigned to mark out a pe- 
 culiar Covenant- People of God. Agamhefays, P. ^g, 
 
 " 1 h(J 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant-Baptifm. 307 
 
 " TheUfe of Circumcifion was to fignify theCorruption 
 '** of humane Nature, the Neceflky of Regeneration,— 
 *' and of Cleanfing by the Blood of Chrift." And isnoc 
 all this fignilied in Baptifm, when it is called the tVafmng 
 of Regeneration^ and when it is faid that Chrifi gave him^ 
 felf for his Churchy that he might fanEtify and deanfe it 
 with the tVafhing of Water — ? And what but the fame 
 Thing can be meant by the Anfwcr of a good Confcience 
 towards God ? Which he makes to be a different Ufe of 
 Baptifm. And does Baptifm " reprefent the Sufferings, 
 *' Burial, andRefurredion of Chriit ?" And didnotCir- 
 cumcifion (in its typical Nature) reprefent and prefigure 
 the Sufferings and Bloodfhed of Chrifi ? But indeed it 
 is not the Sacramental Ufe of Baptifm, to reprefent the 
 Death, Burial, or Refurredion of Chrift •, which it may 
 do to all that attend the Adminiftration, to whom it is no 
 Sacramental Sign orSeal of anyGofpelPrivilege : But tho 
 Biptifm {"as all the other Sacraments) hath iieference to 
 the Death of Chrift,in which theNew- Covenant is found- 
 ed and confirmed, yet the Ufe proper to it as a Sacra- 
 ment, is to fignify and feal the Benefits of Chrifl's Death 
 to the Receivers, and to reprefent and ratify a fpiritual 
 Conformity thereto, in the MortiScatioa ot Sin, or the 
 putting off the Body of the Sins of the FkfJj^ and walking 
 in Newnefs of Life, wherein it fully correfponds witli 
 Circumcifion. CoL 2. 11, 12. Rom. 6. 3, 4. — Laflly he 
 fays, *' It pre-requires Repentance and Faith." Anfw. 
 It does fo of all unbaptized adult Perfons ; and fo did 
 Circumcifion of all adult Profelytes to the Covenant of 
 the Godof Ifrael. If a. ^6. 6. And as their Infant-Chil- 
 dren were circumcis'd upon their Parents Profeffion, {o 
 jareall the Infant Children of Chriilian Profeffors now 
 ! to be baptized. In all his Inflances, tliere is no real 
 jDifference in the Ufe &Defign ofthefe two Sacraments, 
 but only in the different Turn of Exprcflion he has 
 given to each of their Ufes. 
 
 (3.) The third Difference Dr. Gill mentions, is in the 
 MannerofAdminiftration, which has been allowU "The 
 
 X 2 "one 
 
30 8 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IVo 
 
 " one. (he fays J is by Blood, the other by Water, the one 
 *' by an Incifioi), — the other by an Immerfion, &c." 
 All meer accidental Differences proper to theAdminiflra- 
 tion of thole diftcrent ilites : This Reafon, inftead of 
 making any Thing for his Purpofe, ferves rather to con- 
 firm the contrary, that Baptilm truly fucceeds t(>Circum- 
 cifion : For that' which fucceeds muft be diftind: from 
 that which went before, otherwife it is the fame and not 
 a SuccelTor , and if there were no Differences between 
 them, Baptifm could not be faid to be the Succeffor of 
 Circumcifion, but the fame Thing with it. And yet he 
 concludes with his ufual Confidence, that " Ordinances 
 '' fo much differing — the one can never be thought to 
 " come in the Room and Place of another." Let the 
 Reader judge. 
 
 (4.) He adds, " That which puts it out of all Doubt 
 '' thatBaptifm can never be faid to fucceedCircumcifion, 
 *' is" (now he prepares his Reader for a Demonftration, 
 let us hear it) " That Baptifm was in Force & Ufe before 
 *' Circumcifion was aboiifh'd, and' its Practice difconti- 
 " nued, or ought to be difcontinued." Anf,T\\\s Reafon, 
 inffead of corning up to a Demonftration, falls fbort of 
 the loweft Kind of Evidence, even a bare Probability : 
 'Tis as il: one fl:iould go about to Y>\-ov(i^i\\2iiSolomon could 
 never be faid to be Davidh Succeffor, becaufe Solomon be- 
 gan his Reign before Dazid expired, and his Reign was 
 difcontinued. Would not fuch an Argument appear ri- 
 diculous ? Yet It is no better Argument that i3r. Gill 
 brings againft Baptifm's fucceeding Circumcifion. If he 
 could have prov'd that Circumcifion had been all along 
 contemporary with Baptifm, and that neither of them had 
 furviv'd the other, he had done fomething to the Pur- 
 pofe : But from Baptifm's being brought into Ufe a few 
 Tears betorc Circumcifion expir'd, to infer that it can 
 never be faid to fucceed Circumcifion, proves nothing, 
 but that frivolous Pretences will pafs with fome Men for 
 Demonftration, when ftrongly pre- pofiefs'd in Favour of 
 fume darling Scheme. But whv may notBaptifm be faid 
 
 t© 
 
Chap. IV. of Infant-Baptlfm. 309 
 
 to fucceedCircumcifion now it has fnrviv'd it thefe feven- 
 teen Hundred Years,and ftood alone for all the miin fub- 
 ftantial Ends and Ufes for which Circumcifion ierv'd be- 
 fore Chrift's Coming md Death ? — But in Truth, tho' 
 Baptifm began to take Place, and was adminiftred b^ 
 John^ and our Lord's Difciples, fuppofe three or four 
 year> before his Death, yet it was not fully fettled as the 
 Door of AdmiiTion into theChriflianChurch, tojews and 
 Gentiles, till after our Lord'sRefurredion. Mattb.2^.1^. 
 Where we find the firft CommilTion recorded, as given 
 by Chrift to his Minifters, to baptize ; at which Time,' 
 I fuppofe, our Author will allow, Circumcifion ought to 
 be difcontinued, having expir'd atChriil\sDeath ; though 
 the Pradice of it, and of other Rites of Mofes^ was tole- 
 rated, in Compliance with the Weaknefs of the Jews,till 
 theDeftru6lion of their Temple. 
 
 (5.) Our Author goes on to fay, P. 60, " That It has 
 *' been prov'd already, that Circumcifion was no Seal of 
 " the Covenant of Grace to Ahraharas natural Seed," 
 (and what Sort of Proofs they are v/hich he has aliedg'd^ 
 and how little they avail to his Purpofe, we have alfo 
 {ttn already) therefore he adds, " Could it be prov'd 
 " thatBaptifm fuccecds it, it would not follow that Bap- 
 " tifm is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace." It is no 
 Wonder our Author is led by his erroneous Principle 
 before noted,to deny that the Sacraments in general, and 
 particularly Baptifmsire Seals of the Covenant of Grace. 
 His Notion is, that the Sacraments (if admitted to be 
 Seals of the Covenant) mufl feal abfolutely fcontraryto 
 the Tenor of the Covenant, as I have proved} and that 
 :hey aiTure the Receiver, of his pnrricular Interefl in the 
 Blelfings and Privileges of it : Which Notion has ht^xx 
 fuoiciendy refuted. I fiiill therefore now proceed, as v/as 
 propos'd, to prove the lecond Part of the Quellion, viz. 
 
 Secondly That BaptUm is a Seal of the Covenant of 
 Grace to Believers, and their Seed. This I fhall make 
 'vident in a few Words. 
 
 (i.) If Baptifm fucceeds Circumclfioa in the general 
 
 X Nature 
 
'3 10 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap, IV. 
 
 Nature of an initiating Sacrament, then Baptifm is a Seal 
 of the Covenant of Grace. This Confequence is here un- 
 reafonably denied by our Author; but fincc it has been 
 prov'd that Circunicifion was a Seal ot the Covenant of 
 Grace, and Hievved that one Inftance of the Analogy or 
 Similitude between Circumcifion & Baptifm is,that they 
 are both Signs and Seals of the Righteoufnefs of Faith \ 
 it unavoidably follows, that Baptifm, fucceedingCircum- 
 cifion, is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace. He might 
 with more Reafon denyBaptifm to be a Sacrament of the 
 New-Covenant : for theTerm Sacrament is not fcriptural, 
 but that of a Sign and Seal is exprefly in Scripture apply 'd 
 to Circumcifion. Which Term fas all Divines agreej 
 5s exprelTive of the general Nature of Sacraments, and 
 applicable to thofe of the New-Teftament, and particu- 
 larly to Baptifm. 
 
 (2.) If Imiflake not, Baptifm has the Denomination 
 of a Seal in theNew-Teftament. Joh. 3. '^'^.He that hath 
 received his Tejlimony, hath fet to his Seal^that God is true. 
 The Context before and after this Paragraph, that con- 
 tains thefeWords o^John the Baptift, fpeaks of Men's re- 
 ceiving Jefus his Baptifm. That which occafion'd this 
 Difcourfe of John^ v/as a Queflion about Baptifm, and a 
 Complaint that the greater Number reforted to the Bap- 
 tifm of Jefus^ f. 25, 26. and the Evangeliil continues 
 hisNarration, in giving the Reafon why Chrifl Mtjudea, 
 becaufe the Pharifefs had heard that Jefus made and bap- 
 tiz'd more Difciples than John^ &c. Chap. 4. i, 2, 3. So 
 the Meaning of the Baptill's Words feem to be. He that 
 receiveihChn'iih Teffimony byFaith,is thereupon baptiz'd, 
 which is as x.\\t fettiyig to his Seal, that he believes God is 
 true. Chrifi's Teflimony furely was nothing c\^Q but a 
 Publication of the Covenant of Grace ; and the Believer 
 gives Honour to the Truth of God in this Covenant,hy 
 a publick Acknowledgment of it in his Baptifm, and fo 
 doth as it were/f/ to his Seal, &c. For Baptifm is a mu- 
 tual Seal, and on the Part of the baptiz'd, it is -a folemrt 
 Declaration of his being perfuaded of the divine Truth 
 
 of. 
 
Chap. IV, ^/ Infant-Baptifm. 311 
 
 of the Gofpel, and that God is true in all hisPromifcs of 
 Pardon and eternal Life by his Son Jefus Chriil: •, and a 
 folemn Engagement toanfwerable Sincerity & Faichful- 
 nefs in the Obfervance of Gofpel-Duties. So the Words 
 may be underftood, without flying to a Metaphor : and 
 when the confirming Work of the Spirit in Believers is 
 fo often exprefs'd by the Metaphor of fealing, particu- 
 larly I Eph. i^. In whmn after that ye believed^ ye were 
 fealed with the holy Spirit of Promife ; I fee noReafon why 
 the Allufion may not be to Baptifm, the outward vifible 
 Seal of the New-Teftament. Though I am far from lay- 
 ing the Strefs of the Proof on this Interprecation. 
 
 f 3.) Nothing lefs may be argu'd from Chrid's annex- 
 ing Baptifm to his Gofpel- Covenant, (Mark. 16. 16.) 
 than that it was defign'd to be the Seal of it : He that be- 
 Ueveth and is baptized, (hall be faved, — He that believeth 
 fhall befaved^ is, the Subftance of the evangeHcal Cove- 
 nant ; but why mufl he be baptized ? Why is Baptifm 
 annex'd to this Covenant ? What other Account can be 
 given, but that Chrift defignM it as a vifible Token or 
 Sign for the Conlirmation of the Covenant ? Now a vi- 
 fible Token inftituted to confirm a fpiritualCovenant or 
 Promife, is nothing elfe but a Seal ; as was argu'd before, 
 and the fame may be argu'd from A^, 2. 38, 39. 
 
 (4 J The Form of Adminiilration prefcrib'd by Chrift 
 to hisMinifters, plainly determines Baptifm to be a Seal 
 of the Covenant. Matth. 28. 19. Baptizing them in the 
 Name of the Father^ and of the Son^ and of the Holy Ghofi, 
 WhichForm of Words is to be underftood, (i J On the 
 Minifl:er'sPart,ro declare his adting in theName or in the 
 Power and Authority derived from the Father^ Sen, and 
 Holy Ghofl. (2.) On the Part of the baptized, as import- 
 ing their Belief in and Acceptance of this bleflfedTrinity 
 of Perfons, in their feveral Relations, and Operations in 
 the Work of ourRedemption, together with the devoting 
 and dedicating themfelves to the Faith,Worfhip, Obedi- 
 ence and Service of thefe divine Perfons fas the Greek 
 Phrafe, into theNamc^ &c. imports) and wh^t otherCon- 
 
 X 4 ftrudioa 
 
312 'A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 flru6llon tan be made of the Adminifi:ration of this 
 ChritiianRite, as is i: here prefcrib'd by ourSaviour,than 
 that it is a foktnn vifible Tranfaftion of the Covenant 
 between God and Believers ? Wherein God offers him- 
 felt, rather, Son, and Holy Ghofb, and foiemnly engages 
 to be their God and Father, Redeemer, and Sam^^htier •, 
 and Believers in being baptized into his Name, foiemnly 
 dedicate themfelves to him, and reciprocally engage to be 
 to him a People : Now if all this does not fpeak Baptifm 
 to be a folemn Confirmation or Seal of theCovenant thus 
 tranfaded, it can have no Meaning at all, but mufl (land 
 ior a meer infignificant Ceremony. 
 
 f 5 J I: may be further argued from its being a folemn 
 Obligation on the baptized unto covenanted Duties. 
 I Pe:. 3. 21. ne like Figure whereunto^ even Baptifm doth 
 now a[fo fave us^ not the putting away of the Filth of the 
 FlefJj^ but the Anfwer of a good Confcience towards God. 
 NoaFs Ark was a Figure or Type, andBaptifrn is a like 
 F'igure, vifible Reprefentation, or Sign of the Privilege 
 of Salvation. And in thef^ Words the Apoflle (hews 
 ■wherein the favingEfBcacy of Baptifm confifts. (i.) Ne- 
 gatively, not in putting away the Filth of the Flefh : Not 
 in the meer outward Slgn^ the wafning the Body with 
 M^ater. (2.) Pofitively, in the Anfiver^thc Interrogation, 
 the Stipulation, the Covenant, the 1 eftimony, (as it is 
 variously rendered) of a good Confcience towardsGod. Take 
 it according to our FranQatlon, this pre-fuppofes God's 
 Interrogation or Demand of the Party to be baptized ; 
 Doll thou renounce the Flelh, theWorid,and theDevil } 
 dofb thou believe in, and take me for thy God inChnil ? 
 And it is a folemn Confent to this Demand,with an up- 
 right Intention, follow'd with a confcientious Difcharge 
 ot the baptifmal Vow, which is the Anfwer cf a good 
 Ccnjcience towards God., that entitles the baptized unto 
 Salvation. Whence it appears, that in Baptifm there 
 pafies a Covenant between God and the Party to be bap- 
 tized ; who enters into an Engagement, Stipulation, or 
 Vow of F>.ith and Dedication to God throui^h Chriil -, 
 
 which 
 
Chap. IV. c/ Infant-Baptifm. 313 
 
 which connotes or implies a Promife or EngagemcRt on 
 God's Part, to make good his Covenant of Salvation. 
 And if this be the I'hing fignified in Baptifm (as is 
 plainly to be gathered from the Apollle's Words) then 
 Baptifm mud be a coniirming Sign or Seal of this Co- 
 venant. 
 
 (6.) It may be argued from its being the Sacrament 
 of Admiflion into the vifible Church, i Cor. 12.13. Fcr 
 by oneSpirit we are all baptized into one Body. By theSpirit 
 as the internal operative Principle, and by Baptifm as 
 the vifible Symbol, all Chriftians are congregated and 
 joined together in one myftical Body under Chnfl the 
 Head •, that is, in one Chriftian Church. Now theChri- 
 ftian Church has no oiher Foundation, as I have fliewed, 
 than theCovenant oiGrace inChrift vifibly tranfaded & ap- 
 ply 'd to particularPerfons,whofe Acceptance of,&Conrent 
 to this Covenant,is requifite to their AdmifTion with their 
 Infant-Seed, as Members of the vifible Church. So that 
 to be admitted into the vifible Church, is the fameThing 
 in other Words, with being admitted into the Covenant 
 of Grace, in it's vifible Adminiilration. And to deny 
 that Baptifm is an outward Sign & Seal of thisCovenant, 
 is in Effect to deny it to be a Sacrament of Admiffion, 
 or Initiation into the vifible Church. — And I may add, 
 that whateverSignification.whatever Place in theChriftian 
 Scheme be confiilently with the Docftrine of Scripture 
 afiign'd toBaptifm,! doubt not to make it appear thence, 
 that Baptifm is aSeal of theCovenant. OurAdverfaries, 
 I hope, will grant it to be a Sign or Symbol, IVlark or 
 Badge ot the Chriftian ProfelTion •, tho' they greatly err 
 in making it a bare Sign. Now theChrillianProfeilion 
 includes in it the Covenant of Grace, as it is a Profefilon 
 of Faiih and Obedience to the Lord Jefus Chrift : Faith 
 rela'-es to thePromifesof theCovenant •, Obcdience,ro the 
 Terms and Precepts of it ; fo that our Chriftian Pru- 
 fefnon is an Acknowle2:ement of the Covenant in borh 
 Parts of it ; the Promifes that make God's Part,and the 
 precepts ours. And Baptifni being own'd to be a vifible 
 
 Symbol 
 
314 ^ defence of the Divin Right tn ap. IV. 
 
 Symbol or Token of this Acknowlegement, it moft Cer- 
 tainly follows, that it is not only a Sign to reprefentjbut 
 a Seal to ratify Covenant-Promifes to our Faith, and our 
 Covenant-Engagements to theDuties required ; for being 
 granted to be a Token of the Chriiiian Profeflion, it 
 can be no otherwife fo confideredjthan inRelation to the 
 Covenant of Grace, which is the whole Matter of the 
 Chriftian ProfefTion, and therefore muft be a confirming 
 Token -, and if this be granted too, I think it not worth 
 while to contend about Words ; when (as I faid before) 
 I take a confirming Token of the Covenant to be of the 
 fame Nature with a Seal. And from what has been faid, 
 I think it fufficiently evident, that Baptifm now is, what 
 Circumcifion once was, a Sign & Seal of the Covenant 
 of Grace to Believers and their Seed. Bur our Author, 
 it feems, is not of the fame Mind : Baptifm f with hitn) 
 is no Se^l ©f the Covenant of Grace. But he fcarce 
 pretends to offer any Reafons for the Negative •, all he 
 fays, is, ( i ) *' There are manyPerfons who have been bap- 
 " tized,and yet not in theCovenantof GracCj^ to whom 
 *' it was never fealed." P. 60. The Reader will foon 
 perceive, that this AfTertion proceeds on his falfe Princi- 
 ples, before rejeded and confuted, (i) On his miffaken 
 Notions about the Covenant of Grace, and an Intereft in 
 that Covenant, that none but the Ele6t, the Regenerate, 
 and fpiritual Seed are in Covenant with God ; as if God 
 had inftituted no vifible Adminiifration of his Covenant 
 with Men. (2 J On his groundlefs Suppofition, that the 
 Covenant is fealed abfolutely, and the Receiver thereby 
 afTured of his perfonal Interefl in thePrivileges of it. The 
 Error and Abfurdity of both which Conceits have been 
 fufHciently expofed. — But here,his Reader mufl have the 
 Candour to over-look the Contradidtion he runs into, to 
 what he had faid in the foregoing Page, That Baptifm is, 
 " a dift-inguifning Badge of the fpiritual Seed of Chrifl •, 
 " BeHevers who have put him on." Thefe, and none but 
 thefe he will allow to be in the Covenant of Grace : And 
 if Baptifm be the diftinguilhingBadge of thele,how comes 
 
 it 
 
I Chap. IV.- ^/ Infant-Baptlfm. 315 
 
 I it to pafs, that many Perfons may be baptized, and yet 
 not in the Covenant of Grace ? Or let him try his Skill 
 to anfwer this Argument, 'viz. As many as have put on 
 Cbrijf, are in theCovenant oj Grace : But as many as have 
 been baptized into Chrift^ have put on Chrift, The major 
 Propoficion is his own, tho not in Terms,yet undeniably 
 in Senfe, for he makes the putting on Chrift one Cha- 
 rader of the fpiritual Seed, who are, with him, the only 
 Perfons that are in the Covenant of Grace : The minor 
 is the Apoftle's, Gal, 3.27. How then will he avoid the 
 Conclufion, Therefore as many as are baptized into Chrijly 
 are in the Covenant of Grace. Diredlly contrary to his 
 AlTertion. (2.) He fays, " On the other Hand, aPerfon 
 " may be in the Covenant of Grace,and it may befealed 
 " to him, and he may be comfortably aflured of his In- 
 *' tereft in it, tho as yet not baptized." ibid. Anf {\.) 
 What maybe in the extraordinary Difpenfition of God, 
 is not to be difputed ; but he would be hard put to it,to 
 produce an Initance in Fad, df an unbaptizedPerfon un- 
 der the ordinary Difpenfation of the Gofpel, having the 
 Covenant fealed to him, in his Senfe, that is, his having 
 a comfortable AfTurance of his Inrereft in it : and the 
 Suppofition hereof does but tend to leiTenMen's Regard 
 to God's Ordinance of Baptifm. But (2.) Suppofing 
 this may be the Cafe by an extraordinary Difpenfation, 
 yet it does by no Means follow, that Baptifm is nor the 
 vifible Seal of theCovenant •, for we muft be govern'd by 
 ordinary Rules ; and that inward comfortable AfTurance 
 he fpeaks of, is improperly & metaphorically calledy^^/- 
 ing., and that rather of the Grace of the Covenant, than 
 of the Covenant of Grace, and is -a Thing quite diftincl: 
 from, and no Ways inconfillent with the ordinary in- 
 fl'ituted Seal of the Covenant in Chriliian Baptifm, which 
 is enjuin'd as Matter of Duty on our Part ♦, whereas the 
 other is Matter of pure Difpenfation on God's Part. — - 
 Thus I have very minutely and particularly confidered 
 and diicufs'd all hisArguments & Objections,and l>iewed 
 them to be impertinent,groundlefs and inconclufive \ and 
 
 Kave 
 
^i6 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 have vindicated thcArgumentforlnfantsRight toBaptlfm, 
 from the Tenor of God's Covenant Wixh Abraham and his 
 Seed, with the annexed Seal, from all his Exceptions. 
 
 But Confidence, I fee, is a mafterlefs Thing, and not 
 to be dealt with or put to Silence by Reafon. Our Au- 
 thor, as if he were now Mailer of the Field, throws Con- 
 tempt about him, upon all that are not of hisSentiment. 
 ■ The Minifter in the Dialogue had not heard of fuch a 
 Man as Dr. G/V/, when heobferves " That it is allowed 
 *' on allHands, that Baptifm is a Token or Seal of the 
 *• Covenant of Grace." (Dial. P. 20.) Our Author re- 
 citing that PaiTage,fays P. 60. " It is apopularClamour, 
 *' a vulgar Miftake, that either that or the Lord's Sup- 
 " per are Seals of the Covenant of Grace." This is a 
 iLrangeDifcovery, and New,'; ( if not borrowed, as I am 
 apt to think, from the Socinians ) all FroteHayit Divines 
 have hitherto fppken of the Sacraments of the New-Tef- 
 tamenr, as Seals of the Covenant, particularly Baptifm 
 ( which is alfo termed by the ancient Writers, a 6V^/, and 
 a Mark) and have thought they had fpoken according to 
 the common Senfe of the Vulgar, as well as agreably to 
 the Do6lrine and Language ot the Holy Scripture. But 
 here comes this fuperiour Gentleman, and corrects their 
 Miflake,and tells them they are all carried away with po- 
 pularClamour, and a vulgar Error ! But the word is,he 
 involves the Apoftle Faul in the fime Cenfure, who was 
 the great Patron and Maintainer of this vulgar Error •, 
 when he fpeaks of Circumcifion as the Sign and Seal of 
 the Righteoufnefs of Faith •, which is exprefTive of the 
 general Nature of all Sacraments, even thofe "of theNew- 
 I'eflament, as has been (hewed. But what are his Rea- 
 fons ? You will find them as weak, as his AiTurance is 
 llrong. He fays, P. 61. *' The Blood of Chrifl is the 
 " Seal & the onlySeal of it. — And the Holy Spirit is the 
 " only Earneil, Seal and Sealer of the Saints." But(i.) 
 The Blood of Chrift is no where in Scripture called the 
 Seal of the Covenant of (irace : which Term is yet ex- 
 prefly applied to one of the Sacramcntjv, and fpeaks the 
 
 g;cncral 
 
Chap. IV. ^/ Infant-Baptifm. 317 
 
 general Nature of all. (2 J The Covenant of Grace can- 
 not be fealed by the Blood of Chritl only, in the Senfe of 
 our Author, who fuppofes the Sealing of the Covenant 
 to be the afTuring the Perfon of his fpecial Intereft in it. 
 But does Chrift's lliedding of his Blood for theConfirma- 
 tion of the Covenant, afTure any particular Perfon of his 
 Intereft in the foecial Privileges of it ? (3.) The SeaHng 
 of the Covenant, in this Senfe, is the Work of the Holy 
 Spirit ; which he calls the Seal^ or Sealer of the Saints. 
 Whence it follows. That the Blood of Chrift is not the 
 only Seal of the Covenant y and ^o we fee, there may be 
 two Seals confiftent with each other, & why not a third ^ 
 And then what is the Force of the Reafon, theBlood of 
 Chrift is a Seal, therefore Baptifm and the Lord'sSupper 
 are not Seals of the Covenant of Grace ? W^herefore (4.) 
 His Confufion and Weaknefs lies in not diftinguifhing as 
 he ought, between the Blood of Chrift, the Holy Spirit, 
 and the Sacraments, in their feveral Relations to theCo- 
 venant of Grace. The Blood of Chrift may in a large 
 Senfe be called a Seal of the Covenant, with Refped to 
 its internal Frame and Conftitution, which is ratified and 
 confirmed thereby. The HolySpirit is an inward Seal,to 
 confirm the fpiritual Application and EfHcacy of theCo- 
 venant, to the Hearts ot particular Believers. The Sa- 
 craments are outward fenfible Signs and Seals of this Co- 
 venant, annexed to the vifible Adminiftration of it,tothe 
 feveralMembers of theChur-ch. And thefe are all fo con- 
 fiftent with each other,that there is no arguing from one's 
 being a Seal, to the Exclufion of the other i when each 
 of them may be faid to Seal the Covenant, under diffe- 
 rent Relations & Views. It was foretold of Chrift, that 
 he iliould ^<?;/^^';7/ the Covenant with ma7t)\ Dan. 9. 27. 
 (which our Author refers to for Proof,that his Blood was 
 the Seal of it. ) But this he did by his Dodrine, Mira- 
 cles, Refurredion^ and pouring out of the Spirit, as well 
 as by his Death. It is true, as the Covenant is called 
 the New-Teftament of Jefus Chrift, fo the Death of the 
 Teftator was necefTary to the Validity of ir, as theApoftle 
 
 argues 
 
3^3 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV, 
 
 argues from a Man's laft Will and Teftament, which is 
 not in Force till his Death. Heb.g.i6,iy. So the Blood 
 of Chrift may in a large and general Senfe be termed the 
 Seal of his Teftament, which renders it an everlailing 
 Covenant, of perpetual Force and Validity. Heb. 13. 20. 
 But becauie the Blood of Chrili: has fo feaied or confirm- 
 ed the New-Covenant, as to render it a valid Conftituti- 
 on for the Salvation of Sinners, to argue thence. That 
 the Sacraments of Baptifm and the Lord's Supper can- 
 not be vifible Seals of the fame Covenant, is juft as if one 
 fhould argue, that becaufe a Man's laft Will and Tefta- 
 ment is confirmed by his Death, therefore there is no 
 Need that it Ihould be otherwife confirmed by a proper 
 Signing and Sealing of it. 
 
 The Minifter in the Dialogue having afT^rted, that it 
 is the felf fame Covenant that is feaied, both byCircum- 
 cifion and Baptifm, in Proof that Baptifm ought now to 
 be adminiftred to Infants •, illuftrates it to hisParifhioner 
 by a familiarSimilitude,of the famePatent of Lands feal'd 
 in the fuccefTive Reigns of two feveral Kings, with two 
 different Seals,a Red, and aWhite One. Dr.Giil fays, it 
 is " a fine Piece of Wit." I confefs, I did not takeNo- 
 tice of that before, fo much as of the Reafon and Judg- 
 ment fhewn in applying the Similitude to illuftrate the 
 Point in Difcourfe ; and perhaps on the other Hand, 
 Dr. Gill v/as fo dazzled with theFinenefs of the Wit,that 
 he did not mind that the Reafoning in it was too folid 
 and weighty to be blown away with a Puff. I am fure 
 (whatever becomes of the Wit, yet as to what concerns 
 the Argument) he had no Reafon for his Boaft, that ic 
 *' is fpoiled and loft," but that frivolous one laft men- 
 tioned, the Weaknefs whereof has been fufficiently de- 
 teded. Nor has he one Word in Reply to the Scripture- 
 Arguments produced in the Dialogue^ that Baptifm is now 
 a Seal of the Covenant of Grace,as Circumcifion was for- 
 merly. 
 
 Wherefore, upon the whole, fince it has been made 
 to appear, that the Covenant God made with Abra- 
 ham 
 
Chap, IV. ^/ Infant- Baptifm. 319 
 
 Ibam and his Seed, was the Covenant of Grace, and that 
 it remains ftill inForce in the fame Extent, withRefpedt 
 I to Gofpel -Believers, the Chriftian Seed of Abraham^ 
 under theNe\v-Teilament-Admini{lration,and that Cir- 
 cumcifion was anciently appointed to be the Token and 
 Seal of thisCovenant ; and that Baptifm, under theChri- 
 ftian Difpenfatioa, fucceedsCircumcificnjas the initiating 
 (Sign and Seal of the fame Covenant, which was formerly 
 feai'd by Circumcifion to the Infants of the Faithful ; I 
 freely leave it to any judicious,unbias'd Reader to judge, 
 whether the Evidence from Scripture, for the Right of 
 Chriilian Infants to Baptifm, and that from the primi- 
 tive Inftitution of the Covenant with Abraham^ which 
 required the Token and Seal of it to be adminifter'd to 
 Infants, without anyRepeal of it ever after,does not Hand 
 good, notwithftanding all Dr. G///'s Exceptions : And 
 whether he has been able to make out any one of hisPre- 
 tenfions to the contrary : And whether theSophilf ry,Con- 
 fufion and Error, ("and I may add the Blunders andCon- 
 tradidlionsj which his m.iflaken Principles about theCo- 
 venant have led him into,in his Arguings on thisSubjed, 
 have not been fufKciently detedled and expofed. 
 
 I fhall clofe this Chapter with a few Remarks on our 
 Author's Endeavour to vindicate himfelf, and his Party, 
 from the Charge that has been juftly exhibited againft 
 them, of abridging and lefiening the Privileges of the 
 Gofpel-Difpenfation, with Refpe(5l to InfantSjwhich they 
 formerly enjoy'd, by cutting them off from their Cove- 
 nant-Right, and depriving them of the New-Tefiamenu 
 Seal. This our Author calls, " a clamorous Outcry." 
 I believe, it does not carry a Sound that is grateful to 
 them. For it does not appear from what our Author 
 has faid already,nor from what he has here added, that the 
 Accufation is unreafonable or unjufl : but his Vindica- 
 tion appears lame and infufficient. The Minifterin the 
 Dialogue has reprefented it as " a great & glorious Pri- 
 *' vilege granted to Children under the legal Difpenfa- 
 *' tion, that they fhould enjoy the Seal of theCovenant :'* 
 
 And 
 
320 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IY. 
 
 And demands, " How,why,and when were Children cut 
 *' off from this Privilege?'* Dial. P.19,20. And fhews, 
 that in this Cafe the Opinion of the Adverfaries is en- 
 cumbred with this Abfurdity, that '' the Gofpel is a lefs 
 " glorioLisDifpenfation, with Refpecl tolnfants, than the 
 *' tormer. Dial. P. 30 " Our i\uthor has taken Notice 
 of thefe Particulars, and pretends to reply to them. P. 62. 
 (i) He fays, " The Covenant of Grace was never feal'd 
 *' to Infants byCircumcifion." This I fhall pafs over, as 
 one of his conlutedErrors. (2.) " Nor was that bloody 
 *' and painful Rite accounted a rich and glorious Privi- 
 *' lege, far from it &c.'* And does he imagine, that the 
 Author of the Dialogue plac'd the glorious Privilege of 
 Children under that Difpenfation,in that bloody Incifion 
 made in the Flefh by Circumcifion, ^bftrading from its 
 Sacramental Relation to the Covenant ? '(^.) That "It 
 " is a rich Mercy and glorious Privilege of the Gofpel, 
 '' that the Jews and their Children are delivered from it, 
 " and that the Gentiles and their Children are not ob- 
 " lig'd to it." And can he perfwade himfelf, that the 
 Pnsdobaptifts are not as fenfible of this rich Mercy and 
 glorious Privilege, as himfelf? (4.) "As for theDemand 
 '' how, why, and when Children were cut off from it, 
 ** it is eafily anfwered, that this was done by the Death 
 " of Chrift, and at the Time of it &c." The Reader 
 will eafily perceive, that all this is meer Shuffling -, for 
 does he believe, that the P^dobaptifls plead for theCon- 
 tinuance of Circumcifion and other typical Rites of the 
 Old-Teftament, fince the Coming and Death of Chrift ? 
 To what Purpofe then is this confufed Ramble of Talk? 
 It feems to have no other Aim orTendency,than to dar- 
 ken and hide the Truth, both from himfelf and his Rea- 
 der, or to fhift tjie mainQueftion where it pinches. We 
 do not charge the Antipasdobaptifts with diminifliing,or 
 annulling the Privilege ot Infants which they had under 
 the 01d-Teftament,by not retaining Circumcifion,or not 
 circumcifing their Children •, but by depriving them of 
 thdr Covenant- Privilege, and of the inftitucedSealof the 
 
 New- 
 
Chap. IV. ^/ Infanc-Baptifm. 321 
 
 Nevv-Teftament, which anfwers to Circumcificn, as it 
 v/as a Token of the Covenant, which was thereby feal'd 
 to the Infant-Seed of the Church under the Old-Tefta- 
 ment. Nor do we Demand of them how, why,c)r when, 
 was Circumcifion abohfhed,& the Children of theChurch 
 dehvered from that burdenfom painful Rice : We know- 
 very well,that this was done at theDeath of Chrift, which 
 fulfilled & put anEnd to all the bloodyRitesof theLaw, 
 which pre- figured a Redeemer to come Sc fhed hisBIood. 
 But we demand of them, how, why, and when, were rhe 
 Children of God's People cut oft from their Share in his 
 Covenant, and from the Privilege of having it fealed to 
 them which they once enjoyed ? And this they cannot 
 Anfwer. 
 
 Wherefore, to clear die Truth from the Darknefs and 
 Miff of Error, which he has mvolv'd it in, we mull difbin- 
 guilh of the general & pariicuIm'N^tUYQ oi: Circumcifion, 
 as of all other Sacraments If we confider it in hsparli" 
 cular Nature^ as it confifts in the cutting of the Elefh, 
 caufing fome Eiiufion of Blood, proper to that typical 
 Difpenfation, *tis g? anted, that " it was aYokc of Bon- 
 " dage, and an unfuppoitable One. Acf. 15. 10. And 
 'tis acknowledg'd to be a rich Mercy and Privilege to 
 the Chriftian Church, to be delivered from it,and to have 
 the more eafy and gentle Rite of Baptifm inftituced in 
 its Room. But confidering it in its general Nature, as 
 ail inltituted Token and Seal of the Covenant, which 
 marks out a diitinguifhed People,intitled to pecuiiarPri- 
 viieges under the Difpenlations of divineProvidenceand 
 Grace •, fo it was a very rich and valuable Privilege of 
 theChurch of the Old- Tcdament, and as fuch it was 
 efteem'd by the ApoHle PW,when he puts the(>Liefi:ion, 
 What Profit is there of Circumcifion^ to the Jews ? Rom, 
 -3.1. He Anfwers, f. 2. Much every Way •, chiefly bfcaufe 
 that unto them we^e committed the Oracles of God, Which 
 divine Oracles compriz'd thoie excellent Prerogatives 
 which he mentions as pertaining to the Jews •, Ch. 1 1.4. 
 \'iz. I'hs Adopion^ and the Glory ^ and the Covenants^ and 
 
 Y tbs 
 
322 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. IV. 
 
 the giving of the Law^ and the Service of Gcd^ and the 
 Promtfes. And being confider'd as fuch a Pnvilege,the 
 Chiidien of the New-Teilanicnt Church were not cut 
 off from it by the Death of Chrift ; fince he immediately 
 thereupon infiituted hisNew-Teframent-Seal of Baptifm, 
 in the Room ot Circumcifion, having the fame Jpiritual 
 Signiiication with that antiquated Rite, and anfwering 
 to the fame Purpofes, and therefore, we fay, to be 
 adminiflred to the fame Subje^ls. Wherefore it is 
 meerly trifling, and evafive, to fay, That Children were 
 cut off from the individual Rite of Circumcifion, when 
 Chriil aboiilh'd that, & all other legalCeremonies at his 
 Death -, feeing Chrift has not left his New-Teffament 
 Church deilitute of an initiating Rite, that fully corref- 
 ponds with that of Circumcifion, in its facramiCntal Ufe 
 and Signification •, inRefped: whereof it was neither weak j 
 nor unprofitable, but a choice and excellent Privilege. | 
 And of this the Children of Chriftians are no lefs capa- 
 ble, than the Jews Children were of that ancient Sacra- 
 mental Rite : Nor can it be pretended, that the Infants 
 of Believers are by the Death of Chrift cut off from 
 this Privilege, but are rather confirm'd in it. See Eph,^, 
 25, 26. If Infants are any Part of that Body of which 
 Chrift is the Head and Saviour, it is evident from the 
 Words of the Apoftle, that it was the Defign of Chrift's 
 Death to fanthfy and cleanfe them vcith the Wafljing of 
 Water. I'is added by our Atuhor, [ibid.) That " as for 
 " the Gofpel-Difpenfation, that is the more glorious for 
 **^ Infants being left out of its Church-State,that is to fay, 
 " For its being not national and carnal as before, but 
 " congregational and fpiritual, for its confifting not of' 
 " Infants wiihoutUnderil:anding,but of rational & fpiri- 
 " tual Men, of Believers in Chrift, and Profeffois oi his 
 " Nime i and thefenot in a (ingle or fmall Country, as 
 '^ Jiideii^vM in all Paitsof the World,"&c. Let me add 
 here a lew Remarks, on ihefe bold and confidentExpref- 
 .fions, 
 
 (i.) What dees it fignify, but to divert the Mind of 
 
 the 
 
Chap. IV. cf Infant -Baptifm. 323 
 
 the Reader from the main Thing that ought to be in 
 View, to tell him of the Advantages and Excellencies 
 of the Gofpel Difpenfation in other Refpeds, while in 
 the parricularCafe oF Infants, which is the principalThing 
 underConfidera:ion,noAdvantagesatallareallow'd? And 
 notonlyfo,but they areaccountedas fccluded bytheGofpei 
 from the Advantages they enjoyed under the formerDif- 
 penfation, in being admitted into the Jewifh Church by 
 Circumcifion ; and in this Refped, at ieaft, the Gofpel is 
 made a lefs glorious Difpenfation : v^hich is the miin 
 Charge our Adverfaries are concerned to acquit them- 
 felves from. That the Gofpel is a more fpiritual Difpen- 
 fation of greater Clearnefs, Efficacy and Extent, both to 
 Jews and Genriles, is confefs'd by the P^dobaptifls, and 
 improved to aggravate theAbfurdity of their Adverfaries 
 Opinion, which curtails and diminifhes the Privileges of 
 Infants under theGofpel; when it is granted, that the E- 
 vangelical Difpenfation is on all other Accounts more 
 glorious, particularly in Regard to its Extent and Com- 
 prehenfivenefs. 
 
 (2.) How unreafonably is it affirmed, "hat theGofpel- 
 Difpenfation is the more glorious for Infiints being left 
 out of its Church-Srate ? Is it then a Blemifli or Im- 
 perfe6lion of any Church-State,that Infants are admitted 
 into it ? Was it no Part of the Glory of God's Grace 
 and Condefcenfion to JjraeU that he was pleafcd to take 
 their Infant- Children in:o Covenant with himfelf, to pro- 
 mi fe to be the God of their Seed, and to appoint the 
 Mark of his Covenant to be fet upon them ? Or is there 
 one Syllable in Scripture, that intimates that former Dif- 
 penfation to be, for this Reafon, the lefs glorious ? Our 
 Author el fewhere grants, th.at Infants dying in Infancy, 
 are capable of Salvation by Chrifl:,and are introduc'd by 
 him into the Kingdom of Heaven : P. 70. But may he 
 not with equal Modefty & Juftice affirm, that the King- 
 dom of Heaven will be the more glorious for having In- 
 fants excluded thence ? For though the Capacities of In- 
 fants are fuppos'd to be enlarg'd and advanc'd, in their 
 
 y 2 ' A.dmifikMi 
 
324 ADefsnce of the Divine R'ight Chap. IV. 
 
 Admifiion into the Kingdom of Heaven, yet tbeDifpen- 
 fation of the Kingdom of Grace is Chrift's preparative 
 Inttitution for all that Hiall in the revealed Method of 
 God's Grace be admitted into the Kingdom of Glory. 
 And a Man that allows Infants to be Heirs of the King- 
 dom of Heaven, cannot without a maniteH; Inconfiftency 
 deny them to be Swbje6ts of the Kingdom of Grace, or 
 Members of the Chriftian Church. Why then fiiould the 
 Reception of Infants into theGofpel-Church be any more 
 a leffeningof its Glory, than their Admiffion to Fleaven, 
 a diminifhing of theGlory of the heavenly State ? But, 
 
 (3.) Lee us fee wherein he places the greater Glory of 
 the Gofpel Church, (i.^ In its being (he fays) " not 
 ^' National5butCongregational." But how does it appear 
 that theGofpel Church is the more glorious for its being 
 Congregational and not National ? The Covenant of 
 Peculiarity (^as it is called^ and the Laws &: Ordinances 
 whereby the Jews were dift inguifhed and feparated from 
 otherNationSjdid not fo properly coiUiicute them aChurcb 
 as make them the onl-^ Cburch God had in the World. 
 And the greaterExceiiency of tl^eGofpel-Church confifts 
 not fo much in its being Congregational (for may not a 
 whole Nation confiit of many Chrift ian Congregations, 
 and in thatRefpedl become a national Church.^) as in its 
 being Catholick, or diffus'd among all Nations. So that 
 under the Gofpel a whole Nation, yea and many Nations 
 embracing the Chriflian Faith may become the Church 
 orChurches otChri{f,comprchendingParents & Children. 
 [^) \n its being " not carnal but fpiritual." Anf. That 
 the Ordinances of the Oid-Teftament-Church are called 
 carnal^ confilling or a Multiplicity of corporal Rites, is 
 well eno' known : but that ever thatChurch was fo called, 
 I nevek* knew before. Were the holy Patriarchs & Pro- 
 phets, and all the pious liraelites the Members of that 
 Liiurch carnal & not fpiritual } Or if tfeere were Abun- 
 darice of carnal People in the vifibleChurch of the Jews, 
 is not the fame too plainly verified of the Chriftian vili- 
 bic Church I Or if he means this DLftinciionj of the fe- 
 
 veral 
 
Chap. IV. of Infiint-Baptifm. 325 
 
 veral Difpenfations, that theEvangelicai is more fpiritual 
 in its Ordinances and Way of Vv^orlliip than the legal, 
 this has been allowed before, and 'tis nothing to his Pur- 
 pofe. (3.) The Gofpei Church is more glorious (he fays) 
 " For its confiding not of Infants without UnderPcand- 
 " ing, but of rational & fpiritual Men, of Believers in 
 *' Chrift, &c." This is the only Thing to his Purpofe, 
 if he could make it good, that rational and fpiritual Men 
 only (exclufive of Infants) are theMembers of theGofpel- 
 Church ; and that on thisAccount there is a greaterEx- 
 cellency <k Glory in it. I confefs, if Men fet their Fancies 
 to work, they may fhape out a glorious Church, coniill- 
 ing only of rational and fpiritual Men •, and if fuch a 
 Church be no where to be found, but fubfifts only in 
 Imagination, yet the Idea is pleafing. Sol perceive,Dr# 
 Gill is for having a Church fomething like, not confiiting 
 of poor filly Babes, or Children without Underflanding, 
 or not receiving fuch into itsBofom -, but a Church made 
 up only of unuerftanding rationalMen : J\nd it had been 
 more excellent flill in that Reg:^rd, ir he had made it to 
 confiO-only of aCollege of Doctors,& learnedMcn, or of 
 the politer Fart of Mankind, exclufive of the ignorant, 
 raw, illiterate Vulgar. But our v/ife ti- merciful Saviour 
 knew better what Choice to make of the Materials, of 
 which he defign'd to compofe his Gofpel-Church, than 
 any of our Antipa^dobaptiils could 'dire^ him ; and hi^ 
 Grace has often prefer'd Babes in Underilanding and in 
 Age too before the wife and prudent — I'he great and 
 compafTionate Shepnerd owns the Lambs of his Flock as 
 belonging to his Charge, no \t^% than the Skesp^ Job. 21. 
 15,16. and is tenderly affected towards them. And on 
 feveral Occalions recorded in the Gofpei, v/e find him 
 fhewing his Condefcenfion and Favour to Infants & little 
 Children, by taking fjch into his Arms & bleHing them, 
 and has very plainly lignified his Will that they fhouid 
 be acknowledg'd& received as theMembers of hisChurch 
 under the Goipel-Difpenfation, fo far as their infantile 
 State and Ca^^acity will admit, when he declared that tf 
 
 Y 3 fuch 
 
326 A Defence of the Bivin Right Chap. IV. 
 
 fuch is thcKingdom of God. Of which more fully hereafter. 
 But how can aril thu confift with hisexcludingthem from 
 his Gofpel-Church .? Does it not rather fpeak the dired 
 contrary ? There is much of the Glory of God's Grace 
 and Compaflion towards the apoftate Race of Men in 
 receiving lintle Children wi.h their confederate Parents 
 into his Church and Covenant. Though Men are apt 
 to defpife them as having but little Worth or Excellen- 
 cy in them, yet God who is mighty and defpifeth not an\\ 
 has undeniably extended this Favour to them in his for- 
 mer Tranfadions with his People ; and their Meannefs 
 and Wtaknefs does but ferve the more to illuftrare and 
 magnify his fovereign rich Grace in its Difpenfation to 
 them i and Chrifl.the Minifterof his Father's Grace,has 
 receiv'd themjand willed us to receive them in hisName, 
 as has been obferv'd. Has our Author never read., Out 
 of tbeMoutb of Babes & Sucklings thou haft perfe5tedPraife? 
 Match. 21. 16. But the Glory of Gofpel-Grace in this 
 Inilance had been obfcured and loft, if Children who for- 
 merly fliared in the Covenant & Seal, were now cm off 
 from both : So far is it from being true, that the Gofpel 
 is a more glorious Difpenfation for leaving out Infants, 
 
 Our Author goes on, P. 63^ *' As for Infants, their 
 ** Cafe is as good, and theirPnvileges as many,& better 
 ^' than under the legal Difpenfation." But how can this 
 poffibiy bejif they be fhut out,and left out of thcGofpel- 
 Difpenfation ol the Covenant ? God's Covenant & Pro- 
 mile to the Seed of his ancient People to be their Gcdy 
 left Hope of their eternal Salvation when they died in 
 Infancy : but in this Cafe their Condition is deplorable 
 under the Gofpel, if they be cut off from the Covenant- 
 Ivlercies of God •, fince there remains noG round of Hope 
 in divine Revelation of their well being in a futureState. 
 Pie proceeds to fay,v/itb as muchAffurance,as if he were 
 privy to rhe fecret Counfels ot Heaven, that '' Their Sal- 
 *' vation is not at all afFc6ted — through Want of Bap- 
 *^ tifm to fucceed Circurncifion/' I'hac is, their bein,g 
 bap'.iz^dj or not baptized, does act help or hinder their 
 ' ' Saivatioii* 
 
Chap. IV. cf Infant-Baptifm. ^27 
 
 Salvation. But what Revelation has Dr. Gill for this ? 
 .Surely none in theWord ol God, if the Infants of Believers 
 be cut off from the Covenant & Seal under the Gofpel : 
 and therefore there is noSafety in relying on his confident 
 Afiertion. For,being out of Covenant5they muft be with- 
 cut Cbriif^ and without Hope^ by the Teftimony of the 
 Apoftle. Eph, 2. 12. I hope, Dr. Gill does not expe(5t 
 the Salvation of Infants otherwife than by the Grace of 
 God through the Merit of Chrift's Blood •, and not as a 
 natural Right belonging to them, as they are of the hu- 
 manSpecies : therefore he muft acknowledge, that it be- 
 longs to God as the free fovereign Difpenfer of his own 
 Grace, to appoint theTerms & Means of itsDifpenfation. 
 And fince Baptifm is Chrift's Inftitution and Means of 
 Salvation,vvhich Infants are capable of (as has beenprov'd) 
 it is high Prefumption in any Man to perfuade himfelf, 
 or others, that their Well-being is not at all affev5led by 
 the Want of it, efpecially through their Parent's Negle6t. 
 This is to abufe Grace, by making it a Pretence for the 
 Neglect of the Means of Grace. It is as if aParent fliould 
 argue at this Rate againft praying for his Tick and dying 
 ChildjThat its Salvation is not at ail affeded by my pray- 
 ing, or not praying for it. Whatever God's Mercies may 
 be (v/hich are not revealed) towards the Soul of an In- 
 fant departing this Life, without Prayer, or baptifmai 
 Dedication to God ; yet fuch an irreligious Parent, for 
 his Part, can have no comfortable well grounded Hope 
 of its Salvation. What he adds, of the greater Privilege 
 of Infants in " having a Chriftian Education, and theAd- 
 " vantage of hearing theGofpel, as they grow up," does, 
 not mend the Matter -, for befides that if Death felze 
 them before they are grown up to aCapacity for Inftrix- 
 tion, their State is as bad as the Children of the uncove- 
 nanted Pagans -, Befides this I fay, when grown up they 
 are no more under a Promife of the f^ifpeniaticn and In- 
 fluence of the Spirit, (as the Children of the Covenant 
 arc, Ifai. 59. 21.) than many Heathens who may have 
 the Opporiunity and Advantage of hearing the Gofpel 
 
 y 4 preached. 
 
^2S A Defence of the Divine Right Chap, V. 
 
 preached. From the whole therefore it appears, that 
 notwithflanding all our Author has faid to filence the 
 clahiorous Gut-cry^ (as he terms it) there remains dill as 
 much Reaibn for it as ever, in charging our Adverfaries 
 (while they deny and renounce the Intereft of Believers 
 Children in the Covenant, and their Title to the New- 
 Teftament-Seal) with contradling and diminifhing the 
 Privileges of the Gofpel, and rendring it a lefs glorious 
 DifpenTation, with Refpecl to Infants, than the former. 
 And fo I fhall proceed to his next Chapter. 
 
 Chap. V. 
 
 The feveral Texts in the New-Tejlament^ 
 alledg'd as confirming Evidences of the 
 Divine Right of l72fa7it-Baptifm^i^Vi{ki?i-' 
 ted, and vindicated. 
 
 ^lllllaHE main Argument for the divine Right of In- 
 ^6^ T^l fant-Baptiim from the Covenant-Intereft of the 
 ^^IIIFs Children of the Faithful under the Evangelical 
 Difpenfaticn, having been largely and fully clear- 
 ed up, confirmed, & vindicated, in the preceedingChap- 
 ter, there remain divers Texts of the New-Teftament, 
 which are pi'operly, and pertinently brought in as con- 
 fir4r.ing Evidences of this divineRight ; andjas fuch, im- 
 prov'd in the Dialogue, v/hich are objeded againft byDr. 
 GilL li is therefore the Burinefs of this Chapter to vin- 
 dicate itioli Pafrag(rs from his Exceptions : And I (hall 
 maice no long Bufincfs of it, having already cited, ex- 
 plain'd, & apply'd the moli of them for theConfirmatioa 
 of the main Argument infilled on in the loregoingChap- 
 tcr. Ail therelore that I here propofe to do, is to clear 
 up tbt Force of our Argument for the Right of Intanc- 
 
 Baptifm, 
 
Chap. V. vf Infant-Baptifm. 329 
 
 Baptifm, from thofe feveral Texts, by affigning their ge- 
 nuine Meaning, and to make Reply to the Objeftions 
 which Dr. Gill has thrown together in this Chapter. 
 
 I. T\\t firft is that notedText in A6l.2.38,39. Repent 
 and be baptized every one of you in the Nawe ofJeJusChrift^ 
 for the Remiffion oj hins^ and ye fhall receive the Gift cf the 
 Holy Gkoft. For the Promife is unto you and to your Chil- 
 dren^ and to all that are afar ojf^ even as many as theLord 
 ourGod fkall call. ThisPafTage was before noted to con- 
 tain an impHcit, if not exprefs, Command for baptizing, 
 the Infant Children of Chriftians. We may obferve in 
 itjF/r/?, TheCcmmand orExhortation propounded,;?^. 3 8, 
 Repent and be baptized in the Name of Jefus Chrifl, &:c. 
 Secondly^ The Argument and Obligation to aCompliance 
 with this Command, contain'd in >''. 39. For the Promife 
 is unto you end to your Children &c. And hence the Ar- 
 gument is very clear and flrong, that thofe to whom the 
 Keafon of the Duty orMotive to it extends,are warranted 
 and obliged to comply with the Duty commanded and 
 exhorted to : But the Reafon of theDuty extends to Pa- 
 rents and theirChildren. The Promife is unto yen & to your 
 Children. AndbothParents ^Children beingincluded in 
 theArgument&Obhgation, itundeniably follows, theymufl 
 both be underllood as included in the Commandjor in the 
 Duty recommended & enjoin' d^ Repent & be baptized -, fo 
 tar as they are refpecflively capable of it. It is not only 
 a0erted,rhat God's Promije or Covenant belongs to them 
 and theirChildren ; which alone had been fufficient to give 
 them and their Children (upon theParents embracingthe 
 Faith of Chriif) a Right and Title to Baptifm,the New- 
 IVftament Token and Seal of the Promife; but this is al- 
 iedg'd & improv'd as a Reafon &:Motive to engage them 
 and their Children to come under the ChritlianDifpenfa- 
 tion, by being baptized in the Name o'i Jefus Chriiljthac 
 they might partake of the Bleifings of the Promife, Re- 
 million of Sins, and the Giit of the Holy Ghofl:. Wtv^. 
 is a Command for Baptifm annexed to the Covenant un- 
 der the Gofpel-Difpcnfation. Thus the Apofile was di- 
 rected 
 
330 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap.V. 
 
 redled by the Holy Spirit, in the very Beginning of the 
 New-Tcftament-Adminiftration, to determine a Point, 
 which is yet fo much controverted (for want of an un- 
 prejudiced Attention to the Senfe &Scopc of his Words j 
 viz. Whether the Covenant and Seal of it fliould be as 
 extenfive under the New-Teftament, as they were under 
 the Old, that is, to Parents and their Children. And as 
 I have fhewed, that the Promife here referred to 
 can be underftood of no other than that eminent 
 Promife to Abraham and his Seed. So we mayob- 
 ferve much of a Parallel between God's firft Inftitution 
 of his Covenant and Token of it with Atraham.^ind thefe 
 Vv^ords of the Apoftle in the firft Adminiftration of the 
 New-Teftament-Token of the Covenant after ourLord's 
 Death and Refurredion. For (i.) As then, God's Pro- 
 mife to Abraham was, to be a God to him and to hisSeed ; 
 fonow, the Promife., faith the Apoftle, is unto you and to 
 your Children, (2.) As then, God appointed the Token 
 of his Covenant to be of equal Extent with his Promife 
 to Abraham and his Seed ^ and for this Reafon, becaufe 
 his Covenant belong'd to them, therefore the Token or 
 Sign of it mufl be {ti upon them inCircumcifion.Gu^/1.17. 
 9,10. 60 here, for the fam.e Reafon, the Apoille urges 
 upon his Hearers the Reception of Baptifm,rheChriftian 
 Circumcifion, becaufe the Promife belong'd to them and 
 their Children, which therefore gave their Children as 
 good a Right to Baptifm, the initiating Token of the 
 Chrillian Covenant, as the fame Promife gave the Old- 
 Teftament-Seed of Abraham to Circumcifion, theToken 
 of the Abrahamitical. f 3.) As then, God ordained the 
 Token of his Covenant to be applied to the Sons of the 
 Stranger,that were not of/y/'r^/.YZ/w'sSeed,whoIhouldcome 
 into his Family &Covenant, GV«. 17.12,13. So here, the 
 Apofllenotonlyafcertains thisPrivilege to thejews&their 
 Children (the natural Seed of Abraham) under the Chri- 
 flian Difpenfation, but alfo extends the Promife,with all 
 the Rights,Privileges, andBleilings of it, to them that are 
 ^faroff^ when called by the Goipt;i into a yiiiblc Church- 
 State, 
 
Chap. V. of Infant-Baptifm. ^31 
 
 :5tate, that is, to the Gentiles who by believing in Chrifl: 
 become the adopted Seed of Abraham^ and Fellow- Heirs 
 with the believing Jews oj ibe fame Promife. (See Eph. 2. 
 I9.&3,6J From all which it appears how ftrongly the 
 Argument concludes from thelcVVords of theApoflle,for 
 the Right of Infant-Children of Believers to Baptifm. 
 And if this Text had been the demier Refort of the Au- 
 thor of theD/tf%^(?,as Dr. Gill terms it, it appears he had 
 inade a wifeChoiceof hisDefence,and that ffor anyThing 
 I have yet {^.^w) impregnable againtlall Aflaults. A.nd 
 if it be the Sheet Anchor of the Caufe of the Pnedobaptifts, 
 fas he calls it in Contempt^ it (fill abides fure, and un- 
 movable, (as I truft, the impartial Reader will perceive) 
 notwithftanding the feeble Attempts of Dr. Gill and his 
 Party to unfix it. In the mean Time,he is greatly mifta- 
 \ ken, if he thinks it the main or onlySupport of the Caufe 
 iof thePaedobaptifts. I (hall make fome brief Remarks 
 on his Objedlions, which are indeed too trivial to require 
 an elaborate Confutation. 
 
 Firfi^ He pretends, there is aContradiflion the Pasdc- 
 baptift Writers are chargable with, (particularly theWriter 
 of the Dialogue) while, it fcems, he finds them afferting, 
 *' ThatPerions are by Baptifm brought into theCovenant 
 " of Grace-," and at other Times, '^ That an Intereft 
 " in the Covenant gives a Right to Baptifm." A Cove- 
 nant-Interefl is indeed fuppos'd, as previous to Baptifm. 
 But where is the Contradidion between thefe two A(!er- 
 tions ? Has our Author never known or heard of a Con- 
 tra«5l, or Promife in Word, or Writing, giving a Perfon 
 a Right to Lands or Goods, previous toSigning, Sealing 
 and Delivery of the Inftrument of Convey..nce, which 
 g'<ves a6uai PoiTeiTion } Or is it fo unufual aThing,thac 
 he fhould need to be told, that a Perfon by Eleftion may 
 have a Right to a certain Ofiice, and an Incereft in the 
 Rights and Privileges belonging toir,before he is actually 
 inftail'd, or by fome Ceremony folemniy inverted in it ? 
 God's Covenant or Promife to the believing Parent to 
 \^ the God of his Seed, gives his Child an Intereft in his 
 
 Coven;inr, 
 
33^ • A Difence of the Dhine Right Chap. V. 
 
 Covenant, and this gives him a Title and Claim to Bap- 
 tifm as the Seal of it, which is his folemn Inveftiture in 
 his Covenant Right, fo that here is no Appearance of a 
 Contradi6lion. 
 
 Secondly^ He fays, P. 64. " ThePromife here obferv'd, 
 " be it what it will, is not takenNotice of, as what gives 
 *' a Claim and Right to Baptifm, but as an encouraging 
 •* Motive to Perfons pricked in the Heart — to repent 
 ** and be baptized, and as giving them Hope of receiv- 
 " ing the Holy Ghoft." Anf, Tiie Promife, as it has 
 been explain'd to intend the main (landing Promife of 
 God's Covenant, to be a God to believing Parents and 
 their Seed, may be well underilood both as a Warrant or 
 Ground of Claim to Baptifm, and as an encouraging 
 Motive thereunto, as the Means of obtaining Remiffion 
 of Sins, and the Gift of the Holy Ghofl, which are the 
 great Blefiings compriz'd in thePromife loAbraham ; as 
 I have in the former Chapter Ihewed. Baptifm here may 
 be confider'd both as a Privilege, (and it is undoubtedly 
 a Privilege to h ive the Covenant feal'd ) and a Duty in- 
 cumbent on all that are admitted into Covenant. The 
 Promife to believing Parents and their Children, gives 
 them a Right or Claim to Baptifm, in Behalf of their 
 Children, as it is aPiivilege -, and ask is a Duty, it gives 
 them good and fufficient Warrant for baptizing them,or 
 is the Reafon why they ought to be baptized. Waat 
 Reafon then had our Author for making fuch an Oppo- 
 fttion between an encouraging Motive, and aWarrantor 
 Right to Baptifm ; as il ii^t one being afTerted, the other 
 njuft bq excluded ? Since there is noManner of Inconnil- 
 ency between them •, but the Promife here may be aptly 
 interpreted to imply both the one and the odier. It I 
 find in the Word of God a Motive to any Pradice 1 am 
 concerned in, I may rightly conclude, 1 have a good 
 W^arrant for it. I am not furc, but charitably fuppofc, 
 that Dr. Cill needed no other encouraging Motive to 
 embrace the Periwafion of the Antipriidobaptift.s, than 
 ( when he thought, hoNvtver crroneoufly, he had found ) 
 
 fonie 
 
Chap. V. of Infant-Baptlfm. 335 
 
 fome Argument orMotive in theWord of God to induce 
 him to it. Every divine Motive to a Duty, either is, or 
 neceflarily fuppofes, adivineWarrant for th<i Obfervance 
 of it. But when he goes on to obferve, " Repentance 
 "■' and Baptifni were urged in order to theEnjoyment of 
 " the Promife, and confequently can be underftood of 
 " no other than adult Perfons:" I deny hisConfequence, 
 (i.) Becaufe Infants are as capable of Baptifm, and of 
 the Obligations & Benefits of it, as the Adult, though 
 not of the Exercife of Repentance. And though thisRe- 
 pentance be requir'd,as well as Baptifm, in the Exhorta- 
 tion, and theAduk only are capable of it, which our Ad- 
 verfaries objed as a Bar ( they think ) to the Baptifm of 
 Infants, becaufe they cannot repent •, yet it is to be ob- 
 jfervM, That as Repentance is coupled with Baptifm ia 
 j the Command or Exhortation, fo the Adult are coupled 
 with Infants, Parents with their Children, in the Argu- 
 ment from the Promife \ and therefore the Duties ex- 
 horted to, muil be accommodated to their refpedive 
 Capacities •, and the. Parents having by Repentance 
 and Faith in Jefus, qualified themfelves tor AdmilTion 
 into the Chriilian Difpenfation, their Infants being com- 
 prehended with them in the Argument, had for that Rea- 
 fon an equal Right to, and were capable of receiving 
 i Chriftian Baptifm. ( 2. ^ Though Infants are not imme- 
 jdiately capable of Repentance, m the explicit Acts of ir, 
 ! as the Adult are, yet they are capable of being laid un- 
 i der Obligations to Repentance and all other Duties of 
 I the evangelical Covenant (as they grow up to a Capacity 
 I tor fuch Duties/ by being baptiz'd m their Infancy. 
 
 mniiy,HQ fays, P. 65. ''TheChildren here fpoken of do 
 " not def]gnlnfants,but thePofterity of thejews,and fuch 
 " who might be caIledChildren,th6grown up. --"But what 
 Reaion or Warrant has DrtG///for excludinglnfancsfroin 
 being the Poiierity of the Jews ? Why might not their 
 Infants be called Children ? Does not this general Term 
 comprehend Inlants, as well as Children of greater Ma- 
 turity P Is there a Syllable in theText, that retrains the 
 
 1 erm 
 
334 A Defence cf the Divine Right Chap. V. 
 
 Term to grownChildren ? But it mud by no Means in- 
 tend Infants, bccaufe that Senle ot the 1 erm makes a- 
 gainft his Hypothefis ; in Maintenance whereof,it feems, 
 thejews Infants mufl be denied to be theirChildixn ! He 
 tells us indeed that " DrJiammond and Ibme others,havc 
 *' given up theArgument hence forPiEdobaptifm," But 
 tho' Dr. Hammond (who was a llrong AlTerter of Pasdo- 
 baptifm^ laid lefs Strefs on thisText, than on fome others 
 fparticularly i Cor. 7. 14.) which he was more fond of, 
 as being more agreable to the peculiar Notions of that 
 learned Man ; yet it is held by the generality of Divines 
 and Commentators as a good Proot of Infant Baptifm. 
 But if we mull: be held inSufpenfe concerning the Mean- 
 ing of any Faliage oi Scripture, 'till all learned Criticks 
 are agreed about it, we muft defpair of finding out the 
 Senfe but of few Texts in the Bible. The Argument 
 from the Words under Confideration is plain and obvious 
 to Men of commonCapacity, without theHclp of critical 
 Learning. He adds, ^' SomeMen, when ever they meet 
 *' with the Word Children., it imniediately runs in their 
 ^^ Headsjthat Infants mud be meant." Thisisfpoken ac 
 Random : No Man (he knows) can have it runniitg in 
 his Heady whenever the Word Children is ufed, that In- 
 fants mufl be meant, becaufe the Context often plainly 
 rcftrains it to grown Children. But I fear in good Ear- 
 ned, thefe Men muft have a wrong Turn given to their 
 Heads by their prejudicate Opinions, who will by no 
 Means allow Intants to be meant, whenever they meet 
 w\A\ the Term, Children, if it contradids their beloved 
 Scheme, but radier anyThing elfe that a* working Fancy 
 influenc'd by Bigotry can invent. Children inExperience 
 and Knowledge, Children grown up to be Men, whatever 
 Violence be otfer*d to the Text by fuch a Senfe. The 
 Meaning of the Word Childrcyi,in this Pafrage,is not left 
 dubious, but it is plainly determined by the condantSenfe 
 and Tenor of God's Covenant and Promife, which had 
 ever been to that Moment extended to Parents & their 
 Infant- Children ; as has been prov'd beyond Contra- 
 
 didion ; 
 
Chap. V. of Infant- Baptifm. 3^5 
 
 didion : So that under this geiieralTerm Children thtxT 
 Infants muit at lead be included. ButDr.G?// and thofe 
 of his Perfuafion, by their Interpretation of this Text, 
 make the infpired Apoille to fpcak Nonfenfe, while they 
 give the Senle thus, 'J'he Promife is to you ^ to your Chil^ 
 dren, but not to your Children, z% ycur Children^ or as 
 they have any natural Relation to you -, but when they 
 fliall be grown up and called by the Gofpel, then the 
 Promife is to them ; which is no more than might be faid 
 !of the Children of the ^Ethiopian. One would think, 
 ithat no Man who is not blinded by Prejudice, but muft 
 'fee,that theApoftle fpeaks of a prefentPrivilege the Jews 
 Children then had above the uncovenanted Gentiles, and 
 |not of what they fhould have hereafter, when grown up ; 
 ;for fo the Promife might never belong to them, in the 
 jSenfe of our Adverfaries, if they continued to rejed the 
 Call of the Gofpel, as the Body of the JewifhNation did ; 
 land this Interpretation intirely dellroys the Diftindlion 
 iwhich the Apoftle evidently makes between the Jews 
 thiidren, and them that were afar off^ i. e. the Gentile 
 Nations to whom thePromife fliou'd belong, when call'd 
 into aGofpei-Church-State,and if no more were meant of 
 the Children of the Jews, what need of the Difl:in6lion 
 3ctween them and the Gentiles as yet uncalled P The 
 5ld Evafion of the Anabaptirr?,mentioned and refuted by 
 ^ahin^ is not more abfurd, that the Place is to be inter- 
 >reted of their fpiritualChildren.*' The Obfervation now 
 nade may fuffice to obviate his next Exception. 
 Fourthly^ He fuggefts C/^/W.) " That the Promife is 
 reffrain'd to as jnany as the Lord our God fhall Call \ 
 whether they be Jews or Gentiles. — And therefore 
 ( fays he ] can furnifh out no Argument for Infant- 
 Baprifm, &:c." Anf. Common Senfe,and theRules of 
 arrammar dictate that limitting Claufe, as many as the 
 Lord our God floall Call^ to be underftood in Reference 
 mly to that Univerfal, all that are afar cff\ \. e. all the 
 entile Nations, which alone was that in the Apoille's 
 
 Words, 
 
 * Qahin in loc. 
 
356 A Defence of the Bi-vhje Right Chap. V. 
 
 Words, which requir'd a Reflriftion. The Gentiles are 
 in Scripture-Language iaid to be afar off^ not fo much 
 in Rtgard of local Diitance, as of their State and Condi- 
 tion^ their Diftance from God, being out of Covenant, 
 and in Way of Contradiftindtion from the Jews, who 
 were called^ People near to God^ Pf. 148. 14. And God 
 is faid to be nigh unto them ( Deut. 4. y. ) in Regard^ of 
 the Covenant-Relation between them and him. But the 
 Gentiles, by believing in Chrill & coming into his New- 
 Covenant, were made as nigh to God as the Jews, thro' 
 the reconciling Blood of Chrift:. Eph. 2. 13. But nczv in 
 Chrift Jefus^ yeivho were fometimes afar ojf\are made nigh 
 hy the Blood of Chrifi. The meaning of thePhrafe being 
 thus fettled to intend the uncircumcifed, uncovcnanted 
 Gentiles, the Senfe of the Apoftle is plain and obvious, 
 viz. ne Promife is unto you] t^s^ the natural Seed of A- 
 braham,. and to your Children-, and to as 7nany of the Gen- 
 tile Nations, as the Lord our God (ball call intoFellowfhip 
 with you in a Gofpel-Church-Scate. And admitting, that 
 an Interefl in the Covenant gives a Right and Claim to 
 the initiating Token and Seal (which is ilrongly intimat- 
 ed in thefeWords of the Apoftle, his whole Reaf, ning in 
 this Place is grounded on the Suppofition of it •, and it 
 has been abundantly proved already,c.nd cannot with any 
 fair Pretence of Reafon be denied) the Promife here fur- 
 niihes out a tuli and convidive Argument for Infant-Bap- 
 tifm. Fcr the Covenant and Promife had all along run 
 in this Tenor, to the Jews and their Children. Where- 
 fore fince theJewifliClnldren ever had, till then,anlnterell 
 in the Covenant of their Parents, to lay, that their Chil- 
 dren were cut off from this Intereft, by their Parents be- 
 lieving in Chrilf,and wholly excluded trom theCovenanc 
 tinder theChriftianDifpenfation, upon theirParents com- 
 ing over into it, as our Adverfanes pretend, is to make 
 the Apoftle in thefe Words to delude his Plearers, while 
 he propoundsMarter of Privilege to induce them to come 
 over into this Difpeniation of Chrifl:,and fucha Privilege 
 as ihey had, ior the Subftance, ever enjoy'd, which their 
 
 Compliance 
 
Chap. V. of Infant-Baptifm. 337 
 
 Compliance with his Counfel and Perfuafion would de- 
 prive them of intirely with Refpedt to their Children : 
 And what would this have been lei's than a grofs Cheat 
 and Impofture ? — But if this mud nor be faidjbut that the 
 Apollle ferioufly intended that theirChildren fhould Rill 
 continue polTefs'd of their ancient Right and Privilege 
 upon their becoming Chriftians, and be taken in with 
 them under the New-Covenant-Difpenfation, the Con- 
 fequence is inGonte(lable,that the Fromife, as belonging 
 to their Children, gives them a good Right and Claim 
 jj to Chriftian Baptifm, the initiatingToken & Seal of this 
 New-Covenant. Nor is it a Thing to be contefted, that 
 theGentiles being cail'd intoFellowlhip withthe believino- 
 Jews, are inflated in the fameCovenant-Right ^Privileges. 
 
 Fifthly^ Our Author denies the Promife here to be 
 *' the Covenant made with A raham •,*' and yet owns, ic 
 may be " the Promife of the MefTiah," or " thePromife 
 of the RemiiTion of Sins, — or of the Gift of the Holy 
 Ghofl." P. 66. As if the Covenant snd Promife of God 
 to Abraham did not comprize all ihersPiomifcs I I have 
 fully obviated this ObjeCtion,by proving from Scriptures- 
 Evidence, that the Promife here mtended by the Apodle 
 can refer to none €i{t but the great Promife of God ta 
 Abraham^ in eftablifhing his Covenant with him and his 
 Seedywhich is comprehenfivc of all the fcliowingPromifcs 
 both of the Old- Teftament, and the New. Yet after all 
 if the Promife of the Spirit, in Joel^ be intended in this 
 PalTage, as fome contend, ic would but very lictle alfcd 
 our Argument Irom it for theRight of Infants toBaptifm ; 
 fince it muft be interpreted according to the E^'tent of 
 the original Promife to Ahrabanty which was fundamen- 
 tal to the Jewifh Church State ; and the Promife of the 
 Holy Spirit in his ordinary fandifying Influence is fuch 
 as the Infants of the Church are capable of, which has 
 been prov'd, and cannot be denied without excluding 
 them from a Capacity of Salvation. 
 
 II. The next PalTage excepted againfl by our Author 
 is the Account the Evangelifl gives of our Saviour's Re- 
 
 Z eeption 
 
238 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. V. 
 
 ception of little Children, that were brought to him. 
 Matth. 19. 14. Suffer little Children and forbid them not 
 to come unto me^ J or of fuch is the Kingdom of Heaven^ Or 
 the Kingdom of God. So Mark 10. 14. & Luk 18. 16. 
 Now thefe Words of our Saviour, we think, are a plain 
 D-cifion of the Cafe, Whether it be agreable to hisMind 
 that little Children (yea Infants^ as Luke terms them. 
 Chap. 18.15.) fhould be brought to him tor hisBlefi.ng ? 
 And who are mod acceptable 10 Chriil, and do a 1 hing 
 moft pleafing to him, 1 hey that prefent their Iniant-Chil- 
 drcrn to him in his own appointed Way, or they that 
 withhold them and forbid their being brought to him ? 
 Our Lord was much difpleas'd with hisDifcip]es,who re- 
 buked thofe that brought them, faith iV/i^r^. Ch. 10. 14, 
 They thought it unworthy of their Mailer (who had 
 greater and higher Employment) to take Cognizance of 
 JittleChildrcn ; or that it would Occafion a greatDeal of 
 Trouble to him, if this Example were followed ; or for 
 whatever other Reafons, not knowing his Pleafure in the 
 Matter,they foibad the bringing ot littieChildren to him. 
 But now fince Chnft has declared his Will, iiuffer little 
 Children and forbid them not^ he. how much more may 
 it juftly be thought, will he be difpleas'd with thofe that 
 ftill forbid them ? TheForce of our Argument hence lor 
 Infant-Baptifm does not lie in thefe Things, either (i.) 
 The bringing of little Children or Infants to Chrlft ; Or 
 (2.) Their bringing them to him inOrder to be baptized 
 by him -, Or (3.) 1 hat he baptized them : for this is not 
 faid. Tht firft we lay no great Strefs upon. The two 
 lad we do not affirm. And yet the mainObjediions ot the 
 Antipasdobaptifts militate againft thefel hings, which do 
 not enter into the Argument. But we argue from the 
 Command Chrift gave on this Occafion concerning the 
 Infant- Children oi his People, together with the keaioii 
 of it. 
 
 Firfl., From the Command given by Chrifl on this 
 Occafion both Pofitive bi Negative. Suffer little Children^ 
 and forbid tlim net tw ccnie to mc^ i.e. to become my Pro- 
 
 felytes 
 
Chap. V. of Infant-Baptifm. . 339 
 
 felytes f according to the Etymology of theGreekWord, 
 which is compounded of thePrepoiicion c-f.?,and theVerb 
 «Mw, which {\<y^^\'i^ to come to) for in this Senfe co7ningtQ 
 Chnlt is elfewhere underltood ; as in the rext 1 hadOc- 
 cafion to cite before, Joh. 3.26. ^bey came tojchn^ and 
 Jaid unto him^ Rabbi ^ be tbat was witb thee beyond Jordan 
 — baptizetb^ and all Men come to bim ; i. e. become Fro- 
 felytes to him, and that by receiving Baptifm. In the 
 fame Stnic our Saviour requires littleChildren & Infants 
 to come to h'wciyStiffer tbem to come, is as much as to fay. 
 Admit them Profelytes to me, and forbid tbem rot, do 
 nothing to hinder or difcourage their coming to me, 
 in any Way in which they are capable of Profelytifm. 
 Hence we are taught (1,) That little Children are capa- 
 ble of being made Profelytes toChrift ♦, which is the fame 
 Thing inEifed with being Difciples of Chrill. And why 
 fliould they be lefs capable of this, than the youngChil- 
 drenof Strangers were of old capable of beingProfelytes 
 to Mofes ? What can be objected againft the former, that 
 does not hold as ftrong againft the latter P (2,) Chrift 
 has moreover plainly declared his Will, that the In- 
 fant-Children of hisPeople fhould be admitted Profelytes 
 to him, and folemnly initiated into hisReligion,and pre- 
 fenced to him for receiving hisGrace and BlefTing. And 
 finceBaptifm is his only Inllitution and appointed iVIeans 
 for thisPurpofe, to enterPerfons into his Religion ; there- 
 fore this Command of our Saviour, that little Children 
 fhould be fuffered to come to bim^cis thofe did who became 
 his Profelytes by Baptifm, is a virtual Command for bap- 
 j tizing them : How elfe can they be brought, or be faid 
 ! to come to him ? Since Chrifl is no more bodily prefent 
 I onEarth,but in Heaven, we mud either fay, This Com- 
 I mand of Chrift is out of Date fmce his Afcenfion, and 
 that no Regard is to be paid to it by Chriftians -, which 
 is contrary to his Authority & Grace in his New-Tefba- 
 ment ; or elfc admit, that there is fomeWay ftill left, in 
 which little Children are now capable of coming to him, 
 and in which it is hi?- Will that the Infants of his New- 
 
 Z 2 Covenant 
 
3 ^o. A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. V. 
 
 Covenant- People fhould be brought and offered to him 
 for his BleiTing. But what other Way can this be, than 
 the Way of hisOrdinances (in which he is ftiU fpiritually 
 prefent onEarth) particularly the Ordinance ot Baptifm, 
 which he has appointed lor initiating Profelytes to his 
 Religion ? And that this is the IVieaning and Defign of 
 this Command of our Saviour is evident, 
 
 Sccondl)\¥ rom tl^eReafon added to enfoice it, — For of 
 fuch is tbeKingdom of Heaven, To underlland theForce of 
 which Reafon, we need noD curiouQy inquire, Whether 
 by tbeKingdom of Heaven is meant theKingdom ofGrace, 
 the Gofpel- State of the Church, or theKingdom. of Glo- 
 ry, the heavenly State ; fince both thefe are one and the 
 fame Kingdom, under the Adminiftration of Chrift, the 
 fupream Head and King ; differing in the Place of Re- 
 fidence, the Kingdom of Grace on Earth, and the King- 
 dom of Glory in Eieaven : As the Diftribution is ^Mq- 
 where made of the whole Family of Chrift into thofe ia 
 Heaven^ and thofe on Earthy Eph. 3. 14, 15. Of whom 
 the whole Family in Heaven and Earth is named. And we 
 learn from the Author to the Hebrews^ That both the 
 Kingdom of Grace & that of Glory make up one facred 
 Community -, when he tells them, they were fc;;?r^inFaith 
 and Fellowlliip — to the heavenly Jeriifalem^ to the innu- 
 merable Company of AngeU^ to the General Affembly and 
 Church of the Firft-born that are written in Heaven^and to 
 God the Judge cf all^ and to the Spirits of ju§i Men made 
 ferftti. Heb. 12. 22, 23. All the Difference lies in the 
 Degree of Pcrlection ; this Kingdom in its imperfect 
 Beginnings \\\ this\Vorld,is called rheKiiigdom rf Grace; 
 in its lull PeriVdion and Confummarion hereafter, the 
 Kingdom of Glory. The ImperteCtion of Chriit's vifi- 
 ble Kingdom of Grace in this World, lies in two Things. 
 { .) in a Mixture of carnal Profeffbrs Vv'ith fincereSaints. 
 (2.) In a Mixture ofGrace and Corruption in thofe th^^t 
 are ffncere. But he Kingdom of Glory confills of only 
 Saints, and thofe made periccl. '] he Kingdom o! Grace 
 is a preparatory Inrf odacUon to the Kingdom of Glory *, 
 
 ' or 
 
Chap. V. of Infant- Baptifm. ' 541 
 
 or the Nurfery from whence cheSubjeds of the heavenly- 
 Kingdom are tranfplanted. I'his divine and heavenW 
 Government of theMediacor, called fo often in iheGofpel 
 theKingdom of God and of Heave n^hc'm^ one and the fame, 
 begun in this prefent State of Trial, and perfcditd in the 
 future State of Reward and Happinefs, is fometirnes to 
 be undcrflood more eminently of the Kingdom or Grace 
 in this World, fometirnes more eminently of the tuture 
 K'ngdom of Glory. Henceitto}lows(i)That theKingdom 
 of Grace being a State of preparatory Di cipline lor the 
 heavenly Kingdom, but diffeiing from it with Regard tq 
 its Impertedion, though all the vifible Subjeds of this 
 Kingdom of Grace fhali not inherit the Kingdom of 
 Glory, but many fhall be excluded through a D^thd. of 
 the necelfdry Qualifications ; yet all thofe of whofe Title 
 to the heavenly Kingdom there is good Evid^^nce, are 
 undoubtedly the Subjedls of the Kingdom of Grace. (2.) 
 If the littleChildren of Believers are fuch as belong tothe 
 Kingdom of God, then they are capable of Regeneration 
 by the Spirit, and of the outward Sign and Seal of the- 
 New Birth, which is Baptifm with Water •, for without 
 this Regeneration there is no Entrance, for any that are 
 born of a corrupt Stock, into the Kingdom of God -, by 
 the Teftimony ol ourSaviour, Joh. 3. c^^6. Except a Man. 
 be Korn of Water and of 'he Spirit, he cannot e?Uer into the^ 
 Kingdom of God. That which is horn of theFlejh^ isFleJ/j,6:.c\. 
 This quite takes off all the Objedions of the Antipasdo- 
 baptilts from Infants Incapacity ,either of the Thing fig- 
 nified in Baptifm, or of the outward Sign : Yea, and 
 moreover fhews the NeceiTity of Baptifm of fuch Infants, 
 as Chrift's ordinary appointed Means of Salvation. And 
 (3.) Hence thefe Words of ourSaviour,0//?/r/? n theKing- 
 dom of Heaven^-diXt a (IrongAfrertionoftheChurch'V^ ember- 
 ihip of thelnfants of Believers under theGofpel •, whether 
 we underftand by the Kingdom of Heaven^ the Kingdom 
 of Grace, or of Glory. If the former, his Words are aa 
 exprefs and direct Declaration of hiS owning fuch Chil- 
 dren, as the Subjeds of his Kingdom in this World, or 
 
 Z 3 (which 
 
342 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. V. 
 
 ('which is the fame) Members ot his Gofpel- Church. If 
 the latter, if his Words be under ftood to aflerc their Ti- 
 tle to the Kingdom of Glory, it follows by undeniable 
 Evidence, according to thePurportof the foregoingRea- 
 foning, that they are to be acknowledged and accounted 
 Iviembers of the Kingdom of Grace •, for there can be no 
 furer Demonftration of a Perfon's Interefl in the Rights 
 and Privileges of the Kingdom ol Grace, or ot his being 
 conilituted a Member of the Gofpel Church, than the 
 Evidence of his Title to Glory. And i[ thefe Words of 
 our Saviour afford fuch an Evidence on the Behalt of the 
 Infant-Children of Behevers, furely he would have them 
 owned as the Subjeds of his Kingdom in this World, or 
 the Members of his vifible Church : and then who (hall 
 dare to deny them the Badge of their Subjection to him, 
 or deprive them of the vifible Sign and Seal ot their 
 Church- Mcmberihip ? For all the Members of the vifi- 
 ble Church are, by the Appoinrm^ent of Chnft, to be fo- 
 lemnly initiated by Baptifm. So that tho' our Saviour 
 does not in this Paifage fpeak a Word of the Baptifm of 
 Infants, yet he has very clearly laid down theReafons and 
 Grounds of their Baptifm, and has implicitly command- 
 ed them to be brougfit and. prefented to him by that de- 
 dicating Ordinance, when it Ihould be fettled as the or- 
 dinary folemn Rite of Admilfion into hisGofpel-Church, 
 as it was after hisRefurredion. Therefore this Paffage, 
 among many others, affords a good Warrant for Infant- 
 Baptilm. All Dr. G/7/'sExceptions to this E'^^idence are 
 impertinent, and prove nothing, to the Prejudice of the 
 main Argument hence. 
 
 (i.) The firft Thing he has to fay, is, P. ^6, *' Thefe 
 *' little Children don't appear to be new-born Babes.** 
 Anf, But Luke fiys5they were Infants^ that were brought 
 unto him, Lw;^. i8. 15. Tho* the other Evangelilts] ufe 
 the W^ord Paidia^ of a more large Signification, ior'liuk 
 Cbildreti^ which may be applied to fuch as do fomewhat 
 exceed the Age of Infancy, as well as proper Infants •, yet 
 the Word BrefkeCj ufcd by Luke^ pins down the Signifi- 
 cation 
 
Chap. V, ^/ Infant-Baptifm. ^45 
 
 cation of the Term ro thofe of the Infant-i^ge, and pro- 
 perly figniBes an Infant or new-born Babe, i\nd \q it is 
 rendered, i Pet. 2. 2. Mr. Leigh faith ( (ritica Sacra ) 
 " The Word fignifieth Sucking- Babes, which they car- 
 " ried in their Anns." Therefore rhere are none of the 
 Texts, quoted by Dr. G77/,at all pertinent to his Purpofe, 
 but one which hath the Word, rendred Infants in Luke, 
 which is 2 Tim. 3 15. where Paul faith ol Timothy., thai 
 from a Child (or Infant) he knew the Holy Scriptures. But 
 even this is nothing to his Purpofe : For theApoftle does 
 not fay, that adually while a Child (or when an Infant J he 
 knew the Holy Scriptures ; hut from a Child., (or from his 
 Infant- Age ) as foon as he was capable of knowing any 
 Thing, he knew the Holy Scriptures, being inftruded 
 therein by theCareofhis piousMother and Grandmother. 
 (Chap. i.5.;NordoesChrift*s calling them to him, ''prove 
 " that they were able to go alone." For he may pro- 
 perly be faid to call them unto him, when he called thofe 
 that brought them. Luk. 18. 15, 16. They brought unto 
 him Infants., that he would touch them : but when his Bif- 
 ciples faw it.,they rebuked them. But Jefus called them unto 
 him. Whom the Difciples rebuked, Jefus called : and 
 in calling them unto him, he Cilled their Infants which 
 they bro't in their Arms. And what is faid of ontpnjfefl 
 of the Devil., his being bro't to Chrift, Matt. 12. 22. And 
 of aLunatick, Chap. ij. 16. is no Way parallel to t\\t 
 prefent Cafe : For of thefe little Children it' is faid, that 
 Chrift took them up in his Arms. Mar. 10. 16. and the 
 Child ht took into his Arms, Mar. ^. '^6. for ought that 
 appears to the contrary, was an Infant-Child. 
 
 (2. J He fays, P. 67. *' It is not known, whofe Chi!- 
 " dren thefe were." But whatisihis to the Purpofe .? The 
 Names indeed of the Parents of thefe Children arc not 
 recorded : but that they were the Children of fuch as be- 
 lieved in Chrifl:,is pad all reafonableDoubt ; the'r bring- 
 ing iheir Infants unto him for his Prayer and BlefTing, as 
 Matthew, declare*, Chap. 19. 13. was an;Expreffion of 
 the high Efteem they had of him, a$ an extraordinary 
 
 Z 4. Perfoflj 
 
344 ^ 'Defence of the Divine Right Chap.V. 
 
 Perron,as a divine MelTenger or a Prophet ( according to 
 the Evidence they had oi his divine MillionJ if not as the 
 Mefiias. But Lbrift out did their Expe6tations,in tak- 
 ing up their Children in hisArms, putting hisHands upon 
 ibem^ and bleffmg them^ and giving ageneralRule on that 
 Qccafipn ior the Reception oifuch little Children, as the 
 Members of his Church and Kingdom. And we may- 
 be fure, theUnbelievers of thatNation,thofe that rejedcd 
 his Perfon and Doctrine, would never bring their little 
 Children to him for that Purpofe. He proceeds to fay, 
 
 (3.) '■ It is certain, that they were not brought toChrift 
 ^' to be baptized by him." (ibid.) Who affirms it } This 
 is nothing to the Argument : which is, thatChrift took 
 this Occafion to cjc'clare their Right to Baptifm, as has 
 been Ihewed ; and though theEvangelifls do not fay,that 
 Chrifl baptiz'd them, or order'd his Difciples to baptize 
 them, yet they fay that which fufficiently authorizes our 
 baptizing them. The Evangelill Mark tells us, that 
 Chnft put his Hands on them, and blefled them. He 
 conier'd his BlelTing on them, The Thing fignified in 
 Baptifm ; and he made ufe of a vifible figniiigant Cere- 
 mony, in conveying the Bleffing, He laid his Hands on 
 them. Whence it appears, (i.) That our Children, yea 
 little Infants are capable of the Redeemer's Grace and 
 Pleflirg, and fome are actually the Subjeds of ic : And 
 it is the Will of Chrift, that Believers fhould bring all 
 their Infants to him to receive his Bleffing. (2.) That 
 they ^re capable of the outward Sign, as well as theThing 
 fignified, and had it applied to them in Chrift's putting 
 his Hands upon them. And fince Baptifm is now the 
 vifible iriftitgted Rite of Dedication to Chntt, and the 
 appointed Means of his Grace and Bleffing ♦, when this 
 is adminifter'd to our Infant-Children by an Officer of 
 Chrift according to his Inftitution, what is it mere than 
 pu'tin^ his Hands upon them ? Chrift's Bleffing is the 
 greater Thing, which we read he actually ccnter'd on 
 thefe Children ; and the Collation of the greater Thipg 
 virtually includes a Grant of the kfs. It is utterly im- 
 probable 
 
Chap. V. of Infant-Baptifm. 545 
 
 probable,that thefe Infants might be brought toChrift to 
 be cu ed of any Difeafe, as Dr. Gz^ imagines ♦, if they 
 were fo, we can't inReafon think,that theDifciples would 
 have rebuked them ; lince this would have been to adl an 
 inhumanParc towards them ; buttheircoming toChrill fof 
 thisEnd,would have been for theHonourot theirMafter, 
 giving himOccafionfortheDifplayof hismiracuionsPow- 
 er. BefideSjtheEvangeliftA/^/Z^^w tells us,as was obferv'd 
 h€\Q\^Shey hrcught them to him that he luouldput hisHands 
 on them and pray \ which the other Evangelifts exprefs by 
 touching them \ by which they feem to mean no more 
 than the Ceremony of BlefTing, in Ufe among the Jews, 
 by touching, or laying Hands on thofe, on whom they 
 prayed tor a BlelTing. But he goes on to fay, 
 
 (4. j " This PalTage concludes againft PaedobaptiJrn,- 
 *' and not for it."P.68.Let us hear his far-fetch'dReafon, 
 *' Poritfeems by this,that it had never been thePradice 
 *' of the Jews^ nor of Johyi theBaptift, nor of Cbriil:,and 
 " hisDifciples,to baptize Infants : for had this been then 
 " in Ufe, theApoftles would have fcarcely rebuked and 
 " forbid thofe that brought thefe Children, fince they 
 *' might have concluded they brought them to be bap- 
 *' tized," &c. This looks plaufible, and perhaps may 
 take with the inconfiderate. But has he fo foon forgotten 
 what he had fo ftrongly afierred under the lad Head ? 
 " Certain it is, that they were not brought toChrift to be 
 " baptized by him." But that " probably being difeafed 
 *' they were brought to him to be cured " But if this 
 were io certain, why fhould not the ApoRles know ir, as 
 well as Dr. Gill ? But that which fpoils all this fair Flou- 
 rilh, is this oneConfideration, that our Lord baptized not 
 any, Iniants or Aduks^but hisDifcipks. Joh. 4. 2. Which 
 our Author himfelf takes Notice of under the former 
 Head ; and furely this could not be unknown ro theDif- 
 ciples •, who therefore could never imagineorconclude,that 
 tfjey brought their Children to Chrill: to be baptized. 
 Truch only IS feh-confiilent: butError,we fee, often clalhes 
 with itfeit. But that it was the Cultom of the Jews many 
 
 Ages 
 
34^ A Defence of the Divin Right Chap. V. 
 
 Ages before theDays of our Saviour,to baptize the young 
 Children of Profelytes, whether Male or Female, as well 
 as to circumcife the Males, is fo well known, and attefted 
 by fo many learned Men who have been converfant in 
 the Jewifh Writings, * that we mud renounce theFaith 
 of all humanTeftimony, if thisFad be denied. And there 
 is no Reafon to think but that the Jews bro't their Chil- 
 dren to John's Baptifm, according to what was cufloma- 
 ry in theirNation-, though theEvangelift in the brief and 
 general Account he gives of his Baptifm, contain'd in 
 but three or four Verfes, palTes it over in Silence : and if 
 Imagination may do thcBufinefs of Argument, why may 
 not I imagine, that thefe very Children had been baptiz- 
 ed, and as it was a Cuflom in the primitive Church for 
 the Apoftles to lay Hands on thofe who were baptiz'd, 
 as a fignificant Ceremony of conferring fome peculiar 
 fpiritual Gifts on them, efpecially if,as Dr. fVail thinks f 
 '* There is good Reafon to believe that the Jews had 
 *' before u fed this Ceremony of laying on of H .nds on 
 " this Occafion •, for it was a Thing ufed by them on 
 *' almoft all Occafions that were folemn.*' Therefore the 
 Parents of thefe Children, having had them baptized, 
 might bring them to Jefus,defiring him to put hisHands 
 on them and pray : which the Difciples might think too 
 great Prefumption, and for that Reafon rebuke them ; 
 and fo their forbidding them may be eafily accounted lor, 
 notwithfhanding their knowing the Baptifm of Infants to 
 have been in Ufe in that Nation long before. But to 
 return to our Author. 
 
 5 He thinks thisPaflage alledg'd befide the Purpofe, 
 bccaufc it is not alledg'd, " to prove that Infants were 
 '' brought to Chrill in order to be baptized by him." 
 But he might know,the Psedobaptifts do not lay theStrefs 
 of the Argument on the Intention of thofe that brought 
 their Infants to Chrift, whatfoever it were •, but on his 
 Reception of them, his putting his Hands upon them, and 
 
 blefTing 
 
 * Vid. Dr. UghtfoGt, Hor. Hebr. &Talm. m'Matth. 3. 6. X>x,lVali\ 
 Imrod, to the MiU. of Infant- Baptifm. f Ihid, § 7. 
 
Chap. V. of Infant-Baptifm. 347 
 
 bleffing them •, his taking that Occafion to declare them 
 the Members of his Church and Kingdom ; and fignify- 
 ing his Will, that luch little Ones fliould ht fuffered to 
 come to him, or admitted into his vifible Church, and that 
 his People fliould not be forbidden or reflrained from 
 offering them up to him in any Way fuitable to that Pur- 
 pofe. And in whatWay can they doit,more fuitable and 
 proper, now he has withdrawn his bodily Prefence, than 
 in the Way of his Ordinances, wher^ he is ftili fpiritually 
 prefent (as has been faid) and particularly in the Way cf 
 Baptifm, which is his initiating & dedicating Ordinance. 
 To elude theForce of theReafon ourSaviour gives, /<7r of 
 fuch is the Kingdom of Heaven •, he flys to a metaphorical 
 ijenfe, which he has found more than once to be of Ufe 
 to him to help him out at a Plunge, when the plain literal 
 Senfe ot Words makes againft him. He would have it 
 underftood " of fuch as are comparable to little Children 
 " for Modefty, Meeknefs,and Humility &c." But this 
 Meaning can't be put on our Saviour's Words, without 
 {training them : For {i) ThefeW^ords of Q\ir\%Offuch 
 is tbeKingdom of Heaven^^vQ fcarce intelligible, unlefs they 
 refer to little Children in a proper literal Senfe ; and 
 they can reler to none elfe in theirConnedlion : they were 
 fuch little Children as were brought to Chhfl, fuch as he 
 itook in his Arms, of fuch ('faith hej is the Kingdom of 
 \Heaven, No Man furely can deny the literal Senfe, but 
 !in Favour of fomeHypothefis which can't confift with it. 
 iWhen our Saviour goes on to fpeakof fuch as are to be 
 jcompar'd to little Children for a mild and humbleDifpo- 
 jfition, he ufes a Note of Comparifon, Mar, 10. 13. — 
 '^AS a little Child, OurAuthor indeed quotes the ^yriac^ 
 I and Perfic Verfion, as favouring his Senfe,in rendring the 
 I Words, Who are as thefe. But this only ihewsthat there 
 iare feme faulty Tranflations : the authentickGreek Ori- 
 jginal has no fuch Note of Similitude. • (2.) It is further 
 jeviden'-, that our Lord intendsInfant-Children in a pro- 
 ■per, and not a figurative Senfe in thefe Words, becaufc 
 . ihty are given as a Reafon wh.y little Children Ibould be 
 
 broughc 
 
345 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. V. 
 
 brought to him, and not forbidden : And the Reafon is 
 very pertinent and cogent •» Let littleChildrcn be prefen- 
 ted to me, for 1 receive fuch as the Members & Subjeds 
 of my Kingdom. But of what Force is the Reafon, My 
 Kingdom confifts of meek & humble ChriftianSjthat are 
 like Httle Children, therefore let little Children come to 
 me ? It only aRefemblance ot little Children inVleeknefs- 
 andHumility,&c. were intended, "chat might have ferv'd 
 " for a Reafon why Doves &Lambs fhould be brought to 
 *' him," as Mr. Henry well notes. For the true Subjedts, 
 of Chriil are in Scripture compar'd to thofe Animals for 
 a meek and humble Difpofition, as well as to little Chil- 
 dren. But if this be a Reafon why little Children inAgc 
 fhould be brought to him, who can doubt his Meaning 
 to be, that of fuchChildrenjin a proper Senfe, is theKing- 
 dom of God. Nor can we make any Doubt but that the 
 offering our Infant-Children to him in the Way of his 
 Appointment,on theWarrant of this his graciousDeclara- 
 tion on their Behalf, will be accepted as a gratetui Obla- 
 tion to him. Ouri\uihor fuggefts, that " it the Words 
 be literally underftood of Infants belonging to the King- 
 dom of Heaven, interpreted of a Gofpel-Church-Stace, 
 they'i prove too much, namely, that they have aRight to all 
 theFrivileges of it, to theLord's Supper as well as toBap- 
 tifm." F.69. But this is not proving too much ; not more 
 than thePsedobaptifts are wiilingto grant. The littleChil- 
 dren of confederate Believers beir.g in v ifibleCovenant with 
 God, and confequently Members of the vifible Church, 
 have an undoubted Right to all the vifible Privileges of 
 it, fand ought to be admitted to theEnjoyment of them, 
 as far as their Capacity goes) even the Lord's Supper, as 
 well asBapiifm. They have aRight totheLord'sSupper, as 
 a Ferfon inMinority has to an Inheritance.whom nothing 
 but Incapacity hinders from aclual Pofieflion. And if 
 our Adverfaries could prove, that Infants are alike inca* 
 pable of Baptifm, as they are of the Lord's Supper, we 
 might be content to deter their Baptifm till riper Years. 
 The Ordinance of the Lord's Supper does in the Nature 
 
 of 
 
Chap. V. of Infant -Baptifm. ^49 
 
 of it require fucb A6ls of the Receivers,as adult Chriftians 
 only are capable of •, who have fome competent Meafure of 
 Chriftian Knowlege, the Exercife of Reafon and Under- 
 flanding, and of their adive Powers : They muft take 
 tne facred Elements, eat and drink^ and do this in Remem- 
 brance of Chrift •, difcern the Lord's Body &c. (fetting a- 
 fide theConfideration of the necefTaryPre-requifiteof Self- 
 Examinarion) all which Infants are incapable of,'till they 
 come to Years of Underftanding ; and when they do fo, 
 they ought to claim their Right to this Privilege of the 
 vjfible Church, by profeffing their Adherence to the Co- 
 venant of their Baptifm. But thefeWordsof our Saviour 
 were immediately defign'd as aReafon for littleChildren's 
 coming to him in the Way they are capable of ; and I 
 have fully prov'd that Infants are Subjects capable of the 
 initiaringSacrament of Baptifm, theAdminiftration where- 
 of does not nereflarily require the Exercife of Reafon and 
 Refledtion in the Subje6l recipient ; but it may beadmi- 
 niftred (and the Adminiftracion valid) to aSubjed more 
 pailive j fo that there is no Incapacity on the Part ofln- 
 fants,that can be objeded as a Reafon againft their Bap- 
 tifm, but what might with equal Reafon be objected a- 
 gainil the Circumcifion of Infanxs under the Law. 
 
 Dr. G/7/, it feems, is willing to admit the literal Senfe 
 of the Words, if interpreted ot " the Kingdom ot Glory," 
 P. 70. For, fays he, " The eternal Salvation and Happi- 
 *' of Infants,dying in Infancy.is not denied by us." And 
 he fuppofes that " theSouls of Infants are faved byChriil, 
 " ^nd that they are introduc'd by him into theKingdom 
 " of Heaven." Then I afk, Are Infants introduc'd by 
 Chrift into theKingdom of Heaven, purely becaufe they 
 are Infants, without Regard to Redemption through his 
 Blood, or without theApplication of that Redemption to 
 them t This, I am perluaded, will not be faid. Now 
 then, fince it is evident from theWord of God,that none 
 of the apoftate polluted Race of Men, young or old. In- 
 fant or Adult, ever were,or (hall be admitted to theKing- 
 dom of Glory, but thofe who are purified and prepared 
 
 and 
 
35^ A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. V. 
 
 and made meet for it by the Application of the Redee- 
 mer's Grace in this Life ; and this ordinarily in the Ufc 
 of fuch outwardMeans as he has thought fit to appoint ; 
 it undeniably follows,that Infants are Subjedls of the Ap- 
 plication of Chrift's Redemption in this Life,in Order to 
 their Entrance into Heaven, and therefore belong to his 
 Kingdom of Grace : and one of the outwardMeans of this 
 Application, appointed by Chrift, & of which Infants are 
 capable,is the wafloing of Heater inBaptifm. So theApofllc 
 teaches us, Eph. 5. 25, 26, 27. Chrill loved his Churchy 
 and gave him f elf for it \ that he might fan^ify and cleanfe 
 it mth the wa/hing of Water by the Word ; that he might 
 p^efent it to himfeif a glorious Churchy &c. From whence 
 it appears (ij That all who are faved and bro't at lall 
 to theKingdom of Glory, are fuch as belong to theChurch 
 of Chriit in this World, for v/hich he gave himfeif in 
 hisDeach, to fandify & cleanfe it. {2) That Baptifm or 
 baptifmal w afhing of Water h one of Chrift'sOrdinanceSjOr 
 appointed Means of the Application of the faving Bene- 
 fits of his Death for their Sandtification and Cleanfing. 
 (3.) If the Souls of Infants be faved in the Way of Re- 
 demption through the Blood of Chrift, if they be intro- 
 duced by him into the Kingdom of Heaven, then fince 
 Infants are not born free trom the Pollution of human 
 Nature, they muft be the Subjefts of the Application of 
 theDeath of Chrift for their cleanfin*g in this Life, prepa- 
 ratory to their Introduction into theKingdom of Glory. 
 And Dr. Gill by his own ConcefTion muft be forc'd to 
 yield to this Conclufion : for he acknowledges "thePol- 
 *' lution of human Nature propagated by natural Ge- 
 *' neration," which needsRegeneration and " cleanfing 
 *' by theBlood of Chrift," of which he confefTesCircum- 
 cifion was a Sign, P. 57. And no lefs is Baptifm, as wc 
 have feen. And furely it will be granted, that no un- 
 clean Thing fliall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven : 
 Therefore Infants being naturally unclean, they muft be 
 the Subje6ls of the cleanfing Vertue of Chrift's Blood, 
 before they can have Admittance thither. But now to 
 
 fay. 
 
Chap. V. ef Infant-Baptifm. 351 
 
 fay, that Infants are Subje6i:s of the preparatory Difpenfa- 
 tion of the Rederner's Grace in this Lite, is as much as 
 to fay, they are Subjeds of his Kingdom ot Grace,or be- 
 long to his Gofpel-Church, tor which he gave himfelfin 
 his l;eath, tfrnt he might farMify and cleanfe it, &c.(4j If 
 Infants can't be denied to be the Subjects of the Difpen- 
 fation of the Grace of Chrift, in their Regeneration and 
 fpiritual Cleanfing,how unwarrantable is it to deny then^ 
 the outward Sign and Means of this Cleanfing ; which 
 . Chrift has appointed for the Application of the faving 
 1: Benefits of his Death, or of the fandtifying and cleanfing 
 Vertue of it, to all the Members of his vifible Church ; 
 and which Infants appear to be capable of, which is the 
 Baptifmal l^Fa/hing of Water ? 
 
 Dr. G;7/, on Suppofition that the Kingdom of Glory 
 
 3s here intended, thinks it an Argument of greater Force 
 
 why our Saviour fhould cure thefe littleChildren of their 
 
 bodily Diftempers ^ and fays, P.70. '' According to this 
 
 " Senfe, our Lord's reafoning is ftrong, that feeing he 
 
 *' thought fit to fave the Souls of Infants, why fhould 
 
 *' they be forbid being brought to him to be touch'd by 
 
 " him, and healed ot their Bodily Difeafes ? TheArgu- 
 
 *' ment is from the greater to the lefs." — But,I confefs,! 
 
 fee no Force at all in this Reafoning : for theArgument 
 
 muft run thus, Becaufe the Souls of dying Infants are 
 
 jfure to be faved by ChrifV, thereforeChrift was willing to 
 
 prevent the dying of thefe Children in their Infancy, by 
 
 healing their Difeafes / And fo their Salvation would be 
 
 left to an Uncertainty. If our Saviour had not healed 
 
 thefe Children,but left them to die ot their fuppofedDif- 
 
 eafes. Dr. Gill makes noDoubt but that they would have 
 
 llbeen introduced into theKingdom of Heaven ; but being 
 
 ij healed of their Difeafes, and living to adult Age, they 
 
 jimight have forfeited theirRightby adualTranfgrefTions, 
 
 Ijand fo finally might have mifs'd of Heaven : and there- 
 
 ijfore theCcrtainty of their Salvation inCafe of dying inln- 
 
 jjfancy, feems rather an Argument againft healing them. 
 
 But indeed it is a ^roundlefs Imagination, cither that 
 
 1; thele 
 
35^ A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. Vr 
 
 thefe Children were brought to Chrifl to be healed of any- 
 bodily Difeafe, or that he improv'd this as an Argument 
 ior theirHeahng, that of fuch is the Kingdom of Heaven. 
 
 I have now particularly confidered all that is material in 
 Dr. Giir% Objections againft the Argument trom this 
 PafTage in Behalf ot Intant-Baptifm,and have fufficiently 
 fhewed how weakly and impertinently they are urged. 
 Yet he concludes after his ufual Manner,with faying,this 
 Argument " furnifhes out nothing in Favour of Fsedo- 
 " baptifm." Confidence, I fee, in denying theConclu- 
 fion, when the Premifes cannot be overthrown, muftftill 
 fupply the Defedl of Argument. 
 
 111. Another Text produced in the Dialogue, which 
 ourAuthor has tho't fit to reply to,is, M ath. i8. 6. but 
 whofofiall offend one of thefe littleOnesthat believe in me^^c. 
 The main Argument and Conclufion defign'd in theDi- 
 aiogue to be drawn from thefe Words,having been fully 
 vindicated under the foregoing Head, there will be the 
 lefs Need of faying much to this : nor fhall I infill long 
 vpan it. For tho' I think it hath its Weight, to the 
 Purpofe for which it was alledg'd^yet fineelnterpreters are 
 divided in their Sentiments about thefe little 0;^^j,which 
 Chriftfpeaks of as believing in hiwyit may be the lefs con- 
 vidive to a wrangling Ad verfary. Some by ihtklittleOnes 
 underftand weakChriil:ans,little Children in a figurative 
 Senfe,fuch as are little in their ownEyes,Gr little inKnow- 
 lege& Grace : OcherSylittleChildren inAge,in the proper 
 Senfeof theWord,in whichSenle theContext feems plainly 
 to carry it. TheDifciples being at thatTime full of afpir- 
 ing Thoughts and Defigns, our Saviour, to check iheir 
 Ambition and Emulation, (the Evangelift tells us, y^ 2.) 
 ^ook a little Child^ and fet him in the midjl of them, as an 
 Emblem of Humility : and having made an Appli- 
 cation of it for that Furpofe, to teach them a LefTon 
 of Humility, ver. 3,4. he proceeds to fay, ver. 5. 
 • JVhofo fhall receive one fuch little Child in myName^ receiv- 
 eth me. To what can thatExprefrion,^;;^///^:^ littleChild, 
 refer in the proper Grammatical Conflrud:ion, but to the 
 
 little 
 
Chap. V. cf Infant-'Baptifm. J53 
 
 littleChlld which he had fct before them ? And which he 
 then had in his Arms, faith A/<:zr^' j the Conneclion of 
 whofe Words do more clearly determine this to be the 
 Senfe. He took a Child — and when he had taken him in 
 his Arnis^ he faid unto them^ tVhofoever [hall receive one of 
 fuch Children in my Name^ receiveth me. Mar. 9. 36, 37. 
 The Phrafe oi receiving a Child in my Name^ imports 
 the receiving it becaufe it belongs to Chrifl : So ourLord 
 himfelf explains it in the following Context, f.^iWhofo- 
 ever jhallgiveyou aCu'p\of Water to drink in myName^hecaufe 
 you belong to Chriji. And having fpoken of receivino- a 
 little Child in bisName,he immediately addsthe Words 
 quoted, fVhofo JJja' I offend one of thefe little Ones that be- 
 lieve in me \ q. d. One fuch little One as this which I 
 hold in myArms. This feems the genuine literal Senfe ^ 
 tho it be granted, that our Saviour might have a further 
 Reach in thefe ExprefTions, and infenfibly Aide into the 
 metaphorical Senfe, as he did on other Occafions, in his 
 Admonitions andCautions againft offending or defpifing 
 themeaneft&weakeltChriftians. And truly 1 fee noReafon, 
 why thofe two Interpretations mentionM,fhould be fetin 
 Oppofition to each other,as inconfjftent ; forlitcleChildrea 
 in Age belong to Chrift*s Family, (no lefs than thofe 
 Chriftians who are more grown, being yet comparable ta 
 little Children in Point of Meannefs, or Humility^ and 
 are to be received in his Name, becaufe they belong ta 
 Chrift : and he bears a tender Affeclion towards them, 
 as theLambs of his Flock, and takes it ill, that either one 
 or theother Ihould be wrong'd or defpis'd : And becaufe 
 they belong, to him, and are the Subjects of his Grace,th6 
 in its weak Beginnings, he reckons them in the Number 
 of Believers. — Nor is there any greatWeight in Dr. Gill\ 
 Obje:tions. — (i.) He grants that ''Uhe little Child mtn- 
 tioned, f. 2, was in an Infant-State," P. 71. yet denies 
 they were "little Ones in Age," whom Chrift fpake of in 
 the following Verfes ftho' his Words plainly relate to fuch 
 a little Child as he held in his Arms at the fame 7 ime) 
 becaufe fuch little Ones are not "capable oi exercifing or 
 A 4 becaufe 
 
354 ^ Defence of the Divine Right Chap. V. 
 
 a6llng Faith." But their being denominated Believers in 
 Chrift, does not neceflarily luppole the prefent ading of 
 Faith J othervviie a true Chriftian, when he ceafes to adt 
 Faith, or when he is afleep, ceafes to be Behever. And if 
 an Infant may be properly termed a rational Creature, on 
 Account of the naruralGiit of Reafon,th6 at prefent it lie§ 
 dormant •, why m.ay not fuch an Intant be denominated 
 aBeliever, on the Account of the fupernatural Gift of re- 
 generating Grace : Which includes Faith, as tar as the 
 faid natural Gift includes Reafon, that is, in the Seed and 
 Principle of it ? And if Chrift will fo interpret theWork 
 of his ownGrace inJnfants,whoihall object againft it ? — 
 AnotherReafon he gives, is, becaufe fuch little Ones arc 
 " not capable of being offended, in the Senfe theWord is 
 here ufed." But what greater Offence or Injury can be 
 done thern, than to cut them off from their Right in the 
 Covenant of Salvation, which God has gracioully granted 
 them, and from ail Intereft in the Privileges of the Gof- 
 pel ? Would it not be look'd upon as an high Offence 
 committed againft Clirift's little Ones ffuppcfing them 
 fuch as are grown to feme Maturity of Underftanding) if 
 they fliould be debarred Communion with the vifible 
 Church in the Ordinances of the Gofpel, which they have 
 a iuftClaim ro, and be excluded among Aliens, who have 
 no Hope in Chritt, and driven out from abiding in the In* 
 heritance of the Lord ? As David fpeaks of the Offence 
 committed agai.nft him, and pronounces a Curfe on th€ 
 A'juhors oi it, i Sam, 26. 19. And tho our Adverfaries 
 fijcw by their Opinion and Practice, that they efteem it a 
 light Matter,and even no Offence at ail, if the fame Thing 
 be done to Infants, becaufe they are not capable of refent*- 
 incr it : yet they don*t confuicr that Chrift refents it,who 
 has ftriifly caution'd his Difciples againft offending ot* 
 dv.-fpiring iiny Sort of his /////<? Ones^ Match. 18. 10. I'h'e 
 Angels refent ir,~ior (as our Saviour there faith) Their 
 Angels do akvays tehcid the Face of my Father ivhich is 
 in Heaven. Anil our heavenly Father refents it ; for it is 
 noci'/i IFiil^ that om of tbeje littU Ones fjculd fen ffO^ /• H* 
 
 nuf 
 
Chap. V. of Infant- Sapdfm* ^2;^ 
 
 nor that any Thing Hiould be faid or done prejudicial to 
 thelrSalvacion. (2J He fiiys, {ibid.) " By theDifcjples of 
 Chrid are meant his Apollles." But the Dilcipfes of 
 Chrill could not be meant by thefe little Onts : for they 
 were then contending for the Preheminence in hisKing- 
 ,dom,and thereby dilcovered a Temper of Mind moll op- 
 pofite to that of iittleChildren ; which our Lord rebukes, 
 by fetting a httle Child in the midft of them, as an Em- 
 blem of Humility and Meeknefs, which he makes the ne- 
 GefTary Qualification of the Subjeds of his Kingdom* 
 Therefore the Difciples are here manifeflly diftinguinied 
 from thefe little Ones, both by the afpiring Diipofition at 
 that Time prevailing in them ; which made th( m unlike 
 to IittleChildren \ and by theSimiiitude taken from fuch^ 
 which ourLord makes ufe of for theirCorredtion. (3.jHe 
 fays moreover, P. 72. " Admitting that Infants in Ag,c 
 ." have thePrinciple of Faith in them, yet this vi^ould not 
 *' juilify their Claim to Baptifm ; — fince ac^ualFaithand 
 " aProfeiTion of it is a neceifaryPre-requifite toBapcifm..'* 
 ,Anf. Though adual Faith and a Proleflion of it be a ne- 
 ceifary Pre-requifite in all adult Perfons, who, are bro*C 
 up in other diiferent Religions, Jews and Heathens, 
 in order to their being entred into the Chriftian 
 Religion by Baptifm •, fuch as his Inilance of the^/ZV^- 
 pan Eunuch, A61.8. 32. yet fuch adual Faith and Pro- 
 feilion is no where in the New-Teflament pre required 
 to the Baptifm of Children born of baptifed Chrilbans : 
 And it is obfervable^ there is no Infbance or Example in 
 all theNew-Teftament, of any one born of fuch Chrillian 
 Parents, who was left unbaptized in Infancy, and aftcr- 
 , wards upon the ProfefTion of his Faith baptized. (4.)He 
 is greatly miftaken, if he thinks thePaedobaptiftsare fny 
 of owning, tbatFaith inChrift is pre required inBaptifm, 
 when he obferves, that the Writer otihcDialogne ''feems 
 £onfciou5 of it to himfelf", and fancies that he had no 
 other Way of getting rid of the Ohje6tion taken thence, 
 againft Infant-Baptifm, than by fuppofing " that Infants 
 ;hayG Faiih/* For taking Faith even in his Scnfe, for 
 A a 2 aduai 
 
35^ ^ "Defence of the Divine Right Chap. V. 
 
 actual Faith, and a Profeffion of it, the Pa^dobaptifts o- 
 pe Illy protefs it as their Opinion and Belief,that it is pre- 
 rtquir'd to Baptifm j and in their Pradice as flrenuoufly 
 infiit upon it as any of their Adverfaries, fo far as the 
 Scripture warrants and requires it, that is,from all unbap- 
 lized acuk Perfons y becaufe luch a Faith is neceflary to 
 bring thenn into the Covenant of Chrifb under theGoipel- 
 pel IJifpenlation, which gives them a Right to Baptifm. 
 And if their Infants be denied to have fuch Faith, they 
 are at no Lofs tor Proof of their Title to Baptifm,fo long 
 as they are able to prove them comprehended in theCo- 
 venant with their believingParents •, and inConfequencc 
 thereof to have an equal Right with them to Chriftian 
 Baptifm. However, upon the Suppofition here made, 
 that Chrift fpeaks of little Ones in Age, that believe in 
 hiiriy it may ierve at leaft as anArgument ad Hominem^^ox 
 the Conviction of the Antip^dobaptifts, who make this 
 their great Objedion againft the baptizingof Infants,that 
 Faith IS pre requir'd thereunto. For if by theLaw ofChrifl 
 all Believers are to be baptized •, and if by this plain 
 Teftimonyof his, the little Children of bis believing con- 
 federate People are to be accounted fuch as believe in him, 
 they ought then tobe baptized asBelievers inChrifl. And 
 'there is no Ground or Warrant here for diftinguifhing 
 Faith into the Habit, and theA6ting of it : for thisDiftin- 
 dion makes no Difference with Refped to thePrivileges, 
 Faith may be faid to give a Title to, for he that hath 
 Faith in theFlabit orPrinciple of it •, and he that hath ic 
 in the Exercife or Acting of it, have both of them preci- 
 CMS Faith. 2 Pet. i.i. Like precious Faith •, becaufe it in- 
 titles all that have obtained it,to like precious Privileges 
 in {he Covenant of Chrift. (5.) His fifth Objection, 
 viz. " Either all Infants have Faich, or only feme", has 
 been anfweied above The Declaration & Teftimony of 
 our Saviour fbiticiently warrants our palling this charita- 
 blejudgment on all Inlanti-, ind^fiiitely^v^ho are prefented 
 to Chnlt by, rheir pious Parens, that they have Faith 
 according to their Infant CapacitieSj that is, the Grace gI 
 
 Regcnera- 
 
Chap. V. of Infant-Baptirm. s^^'] 
 
 Regeneration, without which they are uncapable Subjeds 
 of the Kingdom of God ; tho' all, univerfally yxmy ^ot be 
 affirmed to be theSubjeds of this favingGrace. And this 
 is aGround of Baptifm,no more precarious than thefup- 
 pofed Faith of adult Profeflbrs. For who can afTure Dr. 
 G/7/, that all fuch Profeflbrs do "truly & adually believe 
 in Chrift ?" or if they do, '* how comes k to pals that fp 
 many of them" afterwards prove no better Men ^han 
 their Neighbours ? — I come now, 
 
 IV. To make fomeRemarks on his Exceptions againli 
 anotherText cited in the Dialogue^ which is that remarks 
 able one in i Cor. 7. 14. For the unbelieving Hufoandts 
 fan^iffd by the iVife^ and the unbelieving Wife isfanifijyd 
 by the Hujband : Elfe were your Children unclean^ but nowi 
 are they Holy, This Text has been refer'd to more than 
 once already, for Proof of the Covenant-Intered • of thq 
 Children ot Believers, and their Title to Baptifm ; and 
 it ftill appears,after the moft deliberate & impartial En-i. 
 quiry, notwithftandmg all that has been faid againft ir,- 
 to be a good and validproof. To clear up & eftablifh the 
 SenfeofthefeWords,we need only to enquire into the true 
 Scriptural Import &Signification of theTermZ/^/y in the 
 latter Claufe. The Word in theOld-Teftament, contopt- 
 ly fignifies (according to its Notation in the Hebrew 
 Language) that which is fet apart ^ fi:ted ^ prepard for 
 fome fpecial eminent Ufe orPurpofe-, chiefly that which is 
 defign'd to fome religiousUfe,&hath a fpecial Relation to 
 God, his Service and Worfhip. Being applied toPerfons 
 or Things, it-imports a Difcrimination, or Separation of 
 them from common to facred Ufes, their fpecialRelation 
 to God, and his fpecial Propriety in them above all other 
 Perfons or Things. With Regard to Men, it fignifies 
 thefe twoThings in general, (i.) A vifiblerelativcHoli- 
 nefs, or a vifible Separation from theReft of Mankind, and 
 peculiar Relation to God as his yifible People in Cove- 
 nant, and in whom he hath a fpecial Interelt orPropriety 
 above all other People. Hence the whole People of 
 I/rael have this Denomination of Holy given them,foleiy 
 A a 3 en 
 
35^ A Defence of the Divine Ri^ht Chap. ¥♦ 
 
 on the Accour.t of their being taken into Covenant with 
 Goti, and by this Relation difcriniinated from all other- 
 People. This is vtrj ^pldAViUomExod, 19.5,6. aibrecired^ 
 and ftom Lev. 20. 24. — I am the J^ordycur God^ which 
 kdve^fepar at cd yctt frorn ether People, f. 26. And ye pall be^ 
 hcly'untome \for I thtLord am holy^& have feparatedym 
 fich ctberBecple^th'at ye fbeuld be mine. *Twere tedious to 
 recitfe all the places #liere the whole Nation of Ifrael ^re- 
 tei m'd Holy., as they v/ere vifibly feparared from other 
 Nations', and taken into vifible federal Rehltion to the 
 true God as his peculiar People, diftinguilh'd & dignifi- 
 ed by fpecial Ordinances and Privileges. So that all the 
 Members of theChurch of Ifrael werfe vifibly holy, being 
 5n Covenant with God, Children as well as grownPeople, 
 iand are therefore filled the holy Seed in Diftindion fi-dm 
 the Heathen Nations about therp. Ezra ^.2. Though 
 perhaps,but few comparatively were inwardly fandiji'ed. 
 (2.) It figniiies a real inherent Hohnefs, or an inward 
 Pifpofition anfwering the outward vifible Separaiion and 
 Covenant-Dedication to God, and confining in a prevail- 
 ing Inclination and Tendency of the Mind & Pleart to- 
 wards God, as their laftEnd and chief Good ; and is ef- 
 feded by theGrace of the holy Spirit j the Author of our 
 Sandification. The Subjeds of the former Kind ol Ho- 
 Jineft are oppofed to Infidels and Aliens from theChurch 
 and Covenant of God. Ifai. 52. i. The Subjeds of the 
 latter are oppofed to fuch even in the viiible Church, 
 as are dellitute ot the Spirit of Grace, and live in reign- 
 ing Sins andLufts. 1 Cor. 7. 34. i Pp. i. 14, 16. Rev. 
 22. II. And as both vifible and real Plolinefs are often 
 exprefs'd in Scripture byCleannefs and Purity, fo the op- 
 pofiteUnholinefs is ascomrnonlyterm'dUncleannefs.Lev. 
 16.10. Tl hat you may putDifference between holy &' unholy^ 
 and between unclean and clean. The fame Terms occur in 
 ^cclef 9r 2. y//. I. 15. and in many otherTexts : which 
 may account for the Oppofition between holy and unclean 
 in the Text under Confideration. Novv there are two Ex^ 
 pcfuions of thefe Words ot^ the ApofUe ( — Elfe were your 
 i ■ ' Children 
 
Chap. V. of Infant-Baptlfm. ^ 35:5, 
 
 Children unclean^hut now are they holy) far wide of hisSenfe. 
 The firft is, that of thofe who underftand by Holinefs of 
 their Children, an inherent Quality^ or inward real Ho- 
 linefs, in Oppofition to Sin and Vice. But this can't be 
 the Meaning. For (i.) It does not tollow from the 
 Faith & Holinefs of either or both the Parents,thac their 
 Children are holy, becaufe born of holy Parents ; for 
 though external Privileges & Honours may be tranfmit- 
 ted from Parents to their Children, yet inherent gracious 
 Difpoficions are not : The moral Qualifications of Wif- 
 dom, Juftice, and Sobriety,are not always propagated or 
 derived from Parents to Children by naturalGeneration ; 
 Much lefs true Holinefs, which is the Eifefl of fuperna- 
 tural Grace. (2.) Becaufe their Children are faid to be 
 boly^ in Oppofition to others that are unclean •, but if true 
 Holinefs be here meaat, it mull be underibood in Oppo- 
 fition to the common Pollution of the human Nature, 
 by which all the natural Race of Adam are defiled -, and; 
 fo theChildren born of Parents within theChurch,as well. 
 as of thole without, are unclean. For hozv can he be clean^ 
 that is born of a IVoman F Job. 25. 4. — ^3.) This Sehfc 
 of theApoftle's Words would not have been a facisfailory 
 Anfwer to (what may be reafonably fuppos*d to bej the 
 Scruple of the Chriftians at Corinth •, v/hich cannot be 
 fuppos'd to be. Whether their Children were real'y, or 
 yifibly holy ? But when one. of the Parents was an Infidel 
 orHeathen,and the other a Believer,a Chriilian, or Saint, 
 whether their Children were to be reputed a? Heaihens, 
 or reckon'd among Chriilians, or vifible Saints (as the 
 Word Holy fignifies,and is often render'd Saints, as i Cor* 
 1.2.) whether they were to be efteemed within the Verge 
 of. the Chriilian Covenant, (and fo federally holy) 
 or out of it among the unclean Gentiles r Now fup- 
 pofing this to have bce(\ theQue(lion,theApo{lle's Words 
 are a pertinent and full Anfwer to it, if v/e underfland 
 him to intend by theWord Holy, only, a vifible Covenant- 
 HoUnefs •, that if either of the Parents were a Believer, 
 and fo in Covenant with God, the. Children were net t<,' 
 
 A a 4 ■ ' '^ ■ hr 
 
5^0 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. V. 
 
 be caft out as unclean, but reckon'd asFederates together 
 with the believing Parent, and in Regard of their federal 
 Relation toGod vifibly holy. But 5^fW/y,AnotherExpo- 
 fition of thefe Words, that comes as far below the true 
 Meaning of the Apoftle, as the former carried it too high, 
 is that ot thofe who underftand a matrimonial Holinefs here 
 intended ; as if the Apoftle had faid, Elje were your Chil- 
 dren Baftards, but now they are Legitimate. Which 
 fuch a St(\^t of the Word Holy as is utterly un- 
 known to th€ facred Pages. This Senfe is embraced by 
 Dr.Gill^ as it is generally by the Antipaedobaptifts j \ 
 Senfe,that favours ftrong of Popery, as it favours theNo- 
 tion of Marriage being a Sacrament. The Confutation 
 of this abfurd Tenet, I fhall referve to a followingHeado 
 There is a third Interpretation, which, if admitted, 
 might put an End to the Controyerfy. "Which is that of 
 thofe wJio underftand the V^ordfin^ifed in the former 
 Claufe, to fignify baptized (and in fucH a Senfe it is very 
 often us'd in the Writings of the Fathers) and the Word 
 Holy in the latter Claufe to intend Chriftians baptized 
 (and it is certain that the Denomination oi Saints or Holy^ 
 which is the lame Word in the Original, is comrrionly 
 given in the New Teftament to baptized Chriftians •, as 
 the Infcription of moft of Paul\ Epiftles to theChurches 
 v;itnefieth^ To the Saints in fuch a Place, at Corinth^ at 
 Ephefus^zt Philippi,&cc. That is,to the Churches in thofe 
 Places, confifting of baptized Chriftians) and fo they give 
 iht Senfe •, theApoftle in advifing the believing Wife or 
 Huft^and to dwell with the unbelievingYoke- Fellow, tells 
 thern for their Encouragement, The unbelieving Hufband 
 has been Jauolifed^ i. e. brought over to the ChriftianFaith 
 and Baptifm by the believing Wife •, fo likewife the un« 
 believing Wife, by the Hufband, by Means of their 
 dwelling together in co.njugal Relation •, otherwife (faich 
 he) your Children had remained in Heathenifm, unclean, 
 but now they are brought to Baptifm, and fo made 
 Chriftians, or vifible Saints. This Interpretation is efpouf- 
 t^ by many, particularlyDr, //^wwffW, andD-r.^^/^who 
 ■ tell 
 
Chap. V. <?/ Infant-Baptifm. 361 
 
 tell us that the ancient Writers generally went into it. 
 And though there are Tome Realbns to fupport it, ( and 
 therefore I objed not to it ) yet I prefer the commonly 
 receivedSenre,whichisprefer'dby many found Expo fi tors, 
 becaufe it is moil conformable to the Scripture-Dialed, 
 who underRand their Children being Holy^ in the fame 
 Senfe in which the whole vifible Church and People of 
 I/rael are faid to be an holy People, The holy Seed^ &c. by 
 Vertue of their federal Relation to God whereby they 
 were discriminated from the Heathen Nations, and vifi- 
 blyfeparated to theService of the trueGod,as his peculiar 
 People. On the very fame Account, I have fhewed, the 
 fameDenomination is given to theNew-Teftament-7/?^^/, 
 the vifibleChriitian Church -, An Holy Nation^A peculiar 
 People. I Pet. 2.9. This then is the true and plainScrip- 
 ture-Notion of Plolinefs, which Dr. Gill looks upon as 
 h myflerious a Thing ; it confifts, I fay, in a Difcrimi- 
 nation from what is common and unclean, or in a Sepa- 
 ration from the Infidel- Heathen- World, and Dedication 
 to God, and peculiar Relation to him in Covenant : And 
 this either external and vifibJe, common to all the Mem- 
 bers of the vifibleChurchjwho are therefore vifibiy holy; 
 or interna] and real, proper to thofe in the vlfible Church 
 who are truly regenerated & fandlified by theHolySpirit. 
 So the Senfe rum^ The unbelieving Hufl?and is fanofified by 
 or zothe M/ifc^ being a Believer ( admitting the Turn 
 Dr.G/7/ gives to the Greek Prepolition «;;, rendring it/(?) 
 as all Things are pure to them that are pure. (Tit. i . • 1 5. ) 
 And all Creatures, Relations and Enjoyments, are faid to 
 be fan^lified to Believers (i Tim. 4. 4, 5,) v/ho have a 
 gracious Covenant-Right to the Creatures,& ail Things 
 reftored to them by Chrid. (i Cor. 7,. 21, 22, 23.) AH 
 Things are for their Ufe and Benefit : whatever they be 
 in their own Nature, the Believer hath a lawful and holy 
 Ufe of them. So the unbelievingYoke-fellow \^ fantltficd 
 fo far as concerns the believing Party, that is, for lawful 
 Cohabitation, conjugal Society,and thePropagarion of an 
 holy Covenant Seed \ that the believing Hufband or 
 
 Wife, 
 
3^2: A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. V. 
 
 Wife may lawfully, and with a good Confcience, dwell 
 with the unbelieving Confort, even while he or fhe re- 
 mains a Heathen ; it not being theDefign of Chriftianity 
 to duTolve the Bonds of any civil Relation : Elfe^ if the 
 believing Party could not with a good Confcience dwell 
 with the Unbelieving, but they ought to feparate, then 
 the Children born ot fuch a Marriage, ought to be put 
 away as unclean, as HeathenifliChiidren \ as theCafe was 
 refoived in Ezras Time, according to the jewifh Law, 
 Ezra. 10. 3. — But now^ fince the Coming ot Chrill, and 
 the national Difference is abolifhed, the Chi]4ren of fuch 
 Parents, of whom the one is a Believer, the other an 
 Heathen, are to be accounted Holy, becaufe fuch Chil- 
 dren are taken into God's Covenant, with the believing 
 Parent ; for if theRoot be holy, fo are the Branches. Rom. 
 II. 16. When the Queftion is. Whether fuch Children 
 aieto bereckon'd to theBelieving,or thelnfidel Parent,aS; 
 being either of the holy Seed, or of the uncleanGentiles ? 
 the abounding Grace of the New-Covenant carries it for 
 the Believer : So the Apoilie has determined. And the 
 Argument hence for baptizing the Infants of Chriftians, 
 is as itrong as if it were ever fo manifeft, that the Word 
 //(^/yfigniiied fuch as were baptized ; for all that were 
 vifibly Holy, being in Covenant with God, all vifible 
 Saints either are, or ought to be baptized. What Dr. 
 Gill has to object againit this Argument, is as follows : 
 
 (i.) He would have " it told what thefe Covenant- 
 *« PriviLrges are, thatChildren have a Claim unto by vir- 
 *' tue of their Covenant-Relation. P. 73, and " if Bap^ 
 *' tifm is -one of them, that muil be denied (he fays) to 
 *' be a Covenant-Privilege." But for what Reafon ? 
 " For then (he fays) all the Covenant-Ones in all Ages 
 *' ought to have enjoyed it ; whereas they have not.'* 
 
 Let us try the P'orce of this F^eafon, the Suppofition it 
 goes upon, is, 7'hat can't be aCovenant-Privilege,whiGh 
 ail the Covenant-Ones have not enjoyed in all Ages : 
 Hence it follows, there can be no New-Covenant- Privi- 
 leges : But was not the Exhibition ol Chriif in theFlefh, 
 
 and 
 
Chap. V. ^/ Infant- Baptifm. 363 
 
 and the clear, fpiritual, and heavenly Difpenfatlon of the 
 Gofpei a Covenant- Privilege ? Was it not the grearBlef- 
 fing prordifed to Abraham r" And did the Covenant- Ones 
 enjoy it in all Ages ? Did not Chrill fay to his Difciples, 
 Macth. 13.1-6,17. BhjJ'cd are your Eyes^ for they jee^ and 
 your Ears, for they hear •, for verily I fay uvJo you^ that 
 many Prophets and r{^hteous Men have defirtd to fee thofe 
 "Thingsu'kicb ye fee, and have not feen them, '&c ? And 
 were not thefdPropht;ts& righteousMen Covenant-Ones ? 
 And doth not the. Apollle fay ('after he had been.fpeak- 
 jng of the Covenant- Ones,the Believers of theOld-'J'efta- 
 nientJ Heb. II. 39, 40. Thefe received fjot the Promifes ; 
 God having provided fame better 'Thing for us, that they 
 ivithout us pould not be made perfet^ ? Was not Liberty 
 horn the Burthenfom Rites of the Mofaic Lav/ an emi- 
 nent Privilege of theNevv-Covenant of Chrill- ? Does not 
 Dr. Gili affirm-, that it is a rich Mercy and glorious Privi- 
 lege oj the Gofpei, to be delivered from the unfuppcr table 
 Toke of Circiimcifion I Pa.62. And was this enjoy 'd by 
 the Covenant-Ones in ail Ages ? Why then may notBap- 
 tifm be a Privilege of the Gofpei Covenant, tho' but a 
 vifible one .'' But fmce the Covenant of Grace is, both in 
 the Conftitution and Difpenfation of it. Matter of free, 
 arbitrary Vouchfafement, it is incumbent on Dr. Gill, in 
 order to maintain hi3Airertion,to prove that theAlmighty 
 has any where tied up his Hands from enlarging or add- 
 ing to the Privileges of it. " We have feen already (he 
 faysj thatCovenant-Intereft gives noRight to any poficive 
 Inlfiturion, without a divineDiredion •, and that Ba[)tifm 
 is no Seal ot the Covenant." P. 74. And we have now 
 ktn too, on what weak and flighty Grounds fuch Para- 
 doxes are buik, and how eafiiy they are ovcrthiown. 
 
 (2.) He would have it "-cold, what this Covenant- 
 Holinefs is, whether real .or imaginary" /zVii. I ha^^e 
 told him what it is ; and it had been plainly enough 
 told him in the Dialoi^ue •, only he had a Mind zo 
 make a Myftery of it, and to amufe& perplex the Rea- 
 der, by fecking a Knot in a Bulruih, or by a pretended 
 
 ' Mifrakc 
 
364 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. Y. 
 
 Miftake o[ the Meaning, to avoid giving a diredAnfwer 
 to it. It is fucli a Holinefs as is intended, when the whole 
 Church and People o{' Ifrael arc called hoiy^ Pfal. 50. 5, 
 Gather my Saints together unto we, thofe that have made a 
 Covenant with me by Sacrifice. They were Saints, holy, 
 vifibly fanditied and difcriminated from others, and let 
 apart for God in their coming into Covenant with him, 
 by the Solemnity of Sacrifice. It confifts in a vifible 
 Difcrimination from the Unclean and Profane World, 
 and a facred Relation to God,as his vifibleCovenantPeo- 
 pie, as has been laid. And this is a real Holinefs ("as op- 
 pofed to imaginary) confiding in a real vifibleTranfadli- 
 on of the Covenant between God and his People by fo- 
 lemn Rites and Ordinances : Tho* as real is oppofed to 
 meervifible or reputed Holinefs,it is not rcal,which con- 
 firts in true Santtitication of Heart and Life : 'tis 
 not fuch an Holinefs as the Covenant requires as a 
 Qualification for the fpecial fpiritual BlefTings and Privi- 
 leges of it, but an Holinefs which the Covenant in the 
 very Nature of it deriv«es on thofe that are taken into it, 
 or come under the Engagements of it. It is a vifible, or 
 (if he will) a reputed Holiaefs, which qualifies for fuch 
 a vifible Privilege as Baptifm. " But fuch an Holinefs 
 (he faysj can never 'quahfy for a New-Teftament Ordi- 
 nance." I Anlwer, ■ Pis a vifibleHolinefs,and that only 
 [in for Eccleftce) that qualifies for the Ordinances of the 
 vifible Church. Can Dr. Gill deny, that Perfons pro- 
 felTing Dedication to God, or Faith ^ Repentance, are to 
 be reputed holy ? And if they have no other than fuch 
 a rcputedHolinefs founded in a credibleProfeflion (which 
 ought to fatisfy a Judgment of CharityJ) can he deny fuch 
 Perfons to be qualified for the Ordinance of Baptifm ? 
 Real inherent Holinefs, or fandifyingGrace in the Heart 
 can be known only to the Pleart-fearching God ; nor is 
 fuch Knowlege required of .hofc whom God has appoint- 
 ed to adminifler the Ordinance, as it muft have been, 
 if true Holinefs in Heart were made a neceflary Quafifi- 
 carion for Admiflion. He fays /(^/W. ^'Whert this real in- 
 ward 
 
Chap. V. of Infant- Baptifin. 2>^^ 
 
 ward Holinefs appears, fuch have an undoubtedRight to 
 the Ordinance ol Baptifm." I hope,Dr. Gf/fs Meaning is, 
 where it appears to a charitable Judgment (which is the 
 fame Thing with a reputed HoHnefs) otherwife if he in- 
 tends its being made diilin61;iveJy evident in the Sight of 
 Men, before a Perfon can have a Right to Baptifm, he 
 n^iuft either forbear to admit any more Profelytes to his 
 Mode of dipping, or pretend to the Faculty of infallibly 
 difcerning Men's Sincerity, or of reading the Characters 
 of the Law ot God written on their Hearts. 
 
 (3.) He pretends (ibid,) that " Holinefs appertaining 
 to the Covenant of Grace can never be meant, fince it is 
 fuch an Holinefs as Unbelievers, yea asHeathens are faid 
 to have.'* But this is to be denied : For if the unbelieving 
 Hujband v^tx^ fan5lified to God,in the proper Senfe of the 
 Word, and either really or vifibly brought over to the 
 Chriilian Faith & Profeflion, by Means of his believing 
 Wife, he may be faid to be made holy, but not to be the 
 Subje6t of thisHolincfs as anUnbeliever or an Heathen, 
 but as a Chriftian Convert. But the unbelieving Party 
 is not faid to be fandlified in Relation to God, but only 
 in Relation to the believing Hufband or Wife. ThePri- 
 vilege is theBeliever's. TheSandification of the unbeliev- 
 ing Hufband or Wife relates to and depends on the 
 Faith and Holinefs of the beiievingRelative ; it imports 
 no Change of Nature or State in the Heathen Wife or 
 Flufband, but remaining Heathen, it is the Privilege of 
 their refpedive believing Yoke-Fellows,that the Relation 
 is fanditied for them,to their lawful and holy Ufe •, that 
 their embracing the Chriftian Religion does notdif- 
 folve the Marriage-Relation, but fandifies it to the 
 Chriftian Party ; that they might enjoy the Comforts of 
 it in a more pure and holy Manner, though it be not 
 thus fandified to the Unbeliever. It is therefore a grand 
 Miftake in our Author,to affirm that " their's and their 
 Children's Flolinefs muft be of the fameKind & Nature." 
 For the Words imply no Hohnefs at all in the unbeliev- 
 ing Heathen Parent, any more than in Meats^ when they 
 
 are 
 
S^6 J Defence of the Divhe Right Chap. V. 
 
 are faid to h^ fan^ified to them that believe, i Tim. 4.3, 5. 
 'Tis purely wit]^ Regard to the believing Party, and as a 
 Privilege accruing to hini or her by Faith in Chrifl, that 
 the Apoftle faith, 'J^be uiibelieving Hufband or Wife is 
 fandified by,or to, the beheving Wile or Hufband. But 
 when he fpeaks of their Children, he doth not fay, their 
 Children are fandified by^ or to their Parents ; hiM^they 
 are holy^ and that in Oppofition to the Children of the 
 Heathen, the unclean. He fpeaks of it as a Privilege thac 
 terminates in their Children,/i'^_y ^r^ i^^/y, not in Relation 
 to any other but God only, who challenges a Propriety in 
 them, being comprehended in his holy Covenant. Thjs 
 is a very different Manner of Exprefiion, and plainly re- 
 quires a different Interpretation from thac in the former 
 Claufe, of the Sandification of the unbelievingHufband, 
 which cannot be underflood in Relation to God, nor has 
 he,being anHeathen.fo much as a vifible Coyenant-Ho- 
 linefs, but in Relation only to the beiievingWjie, as has 
 been obferv'd therefore the fuppos'd Holinefs ,of the un- 
 believing Parent, and that of theChildren, are of a very 
 different Nature and Kind. And this one Obfervation 
 entirely obviates, and overthrows, 
 
 lA\s fourth Objection, which is founded on this mifla- 
 ken Suppofition, that the Holinefs of the unbelieving 
 Parent, and that of the Children, of whofe Parents one 
 is a Believer, is the fame, and thence argues, " that if 
 " Children by Virtue of this Holinefs have a Claim to 
 *' Baptifm, then much more their unbelieving Parents 
 "who were fa ndi lied before them."'^«/w. The unbe- 
 lieving Hufband be^ng faid to be fandified by the believ- 
 ing Wjfe,can't be underftood to import his deriving any 
 Holinefs from the believing Wife (efpecially while he 
 continues unbelieving) by Virtue whereof he can i^y 
 Claim to Baptifm. Tho*, it may be granted, that he is 
 id far fan6tified by his Relation to his Chhllian Wife, 
 that nothing hinders his receiving Baptifm, but wilful! 
 Refulal of his Confent to the Chriftian Covenant. But I 
 have already fuff^cieatly expiaia'4 ^^^5: Phrafe. The Ho- 
 linefs 
 
Chap. V. of Infant-Baptifm. 367 
 
 linefs that qualifies for Baptifm, is the Prerogative of the 
 ^t^(\^ as Terluilian fpeaks.* God's Covenant is with the 
 Believer and his Seed, not with the Behever & his Hea- 
 then Wife, or with the Heathen Hufband. How far 
 " the Holinefs of the Children depends on the Sanclifi- 
 *' cation of the unbelieving Parent,'* I fnall fnew under 
 the next Head. 
 
 (5.) He proceeds to lay down his own Opinion con- 
 cerning the Holinefs here fpoken of : *' Thefe Words 
 (he fays) are to be underflood of a matrimonial Holi- 
 nels." This Interpretation has been before rejeded : and 
 I fliall now give the Reafons why it cannot be admitted. 
 {i ) Neither the ^Q\'Ajan5lified in the former Claufe, 
 nor the Word holy in the latter, do ever occur in this 
 Senfe in Scripture. Tho' both thefe Words are moft fre- 
 quently ufed therein, and applied to God, to Chrift, to 
 Men, and to otherThings in different Senfes •, yet are no 
 where found in facred Writ to have fuch a Mean- 
 ing as that the oae fhould fignify married^or efpoufed,and 
 the other legitimate. Neither theHebrev/Word Kadajh in 
 I any of its Conjugations ftho* of a very largeSlgnification) 
 I nor the Greek Word Hagiazo that afcfwtrs it, and figni- 
 fies X.0 fan5lify., have ever fuch a Senfe as this put upon 
 them inScripture. And ourAuthor might be confcious of 
 i this,and therefore for the Support of his Opinion, has re- 
 I courfe to the Jewifh Do6lors, in whofeWritings,it feems, 
 i he 'hvi^'^Marriage or Efpakfal exprefs'd by aW^ord in their 
 Language, which fignifies x.o [arMify^ and he produces a 
 large Citation from the Mifmia^ which contains the tra- 
 ditional Law of the Jews, wherein (he fays) " the W^crd 
 fancfify is ufed no lefs than ten Times for marrying or ef^ 
 foufin;/" But if he could have found it once to have 
 that Signification in the riolyScriptures, that would have 
 been of more Weight and Value, than if he had found it 
 an hundred Times in the Jewifh Writings of laterTimes» 
 
 fuch 
 
 * Apodolus ex fanclificato alterutro Sexu San£lo3 procreari ait ; tzm, 
 €x Se minis Fr<erogaii^-ja (juaai cx inilituclonis Dilcipiiiia. Tcriull* 
 
 ♦De-A:;ir.;a. 
 
36$ A Defence ef the Divine Right Chap.V. 
 
 fuch as the Mifhna is. But tho' there are fame Phrafes 
 of Scripture, fome proverbial Speeches and the Hke, thaE 
 more rarely occur, which may be illuftrated by the Ufe 
 of tiie Words in Rabbinical Authors : Yet when a Text 
 is fufficiently clear, of it felf, and befides is confirmed by 
 the conftant Ufe of the Words in other Scriptures, as are 
 the Words under Confideration *, it is perfedlly needlefs 
 to have Recourfe to the Writings of the Rabbies^ which 
 perhaps may rather darken, than explain theSenfe : And 
 it argues a defperate Caufe,to have Need of fuch a Sup- 
 port : Nor is it probable, that the Apoftle makes Ufe of 
 Words here in any other than their commonly known 
 Senfe in Scripture. But whatever be the Meaning of the 
 Word San5iified^ the main Difpute turns upon the Mean- 
 ing of the Word Holy^ as applied to the Children of the 
 Believer : Does that mean efpoufed too^ For thatit iliould 
 mean Legitimate^ he cannot prove from Scripture, nor 
 does he attempt to prove it from any Rabbinical Autho- 
 rities. But if Scripture- Authority may be bed vouch'd ta 
 explain itfelf, the Cafe plainly appears to be this. The 
 Corinthians had written to the Apoftle, for his Rcfoluti- 
 on of fev^eral Cafes of Confcie nee ; one whereof was this 
 {as appears by his Anfwer to it from /. 12. to;^'. 17. — ) 
 Whether Marriage- Society between a Believer & an Un- 
 believer, between a Chriilian Profeilbr and an Heathen, 
 Ihould be continued,or dififolved ? It was a Cafe that fre- 
 quently happened in thofe prirnttive Times of theGofpeJ, 
 that one of the Partners in Marriage, the Hufband, or 
 Wife, embrac'd the Chriilian Faith, while the oiher re- 
 main'd an Infidel ; and thcGround of the forementioned 
 Scruple might be the Jewifli Law, which forbad Marri- 
 age with the Idolatrous Heathen •, according to which 
 Law, it was refolved in Ezra's Time, that the Worlhip- 
 pers of the true God, called the Holy 6eed,\\ho had join'd 
 in Marriage with the unclean Gentiles, fhould put away 
 their H^'iveSy and fuch as were born of them, Ezra 10. 3. 
 The Apoftle refolves theCafc thus -, That Marriage-So- 
 ciety (hould continue between the Chriftian & the Hea- 
 then 
 
Chap. V. of Infant-Baptifm. 2^9 
 
 then, and that the Chriftian Hu (band, or Wife, fliould not 
 feparatefrom the Heathen Wife,or Hufband, as long as 
 the Heathen were content to hve with the Chriftian. f, 
 12, 13. And he gives this Reafon, >'. 14. Fcrthcunbe- 
 licvingHujhand^'is fancfified hj the ( behevi ng) IVife^ 8zc, 
 Not only is the Marriage lawful, and not to be difTolved, 
 as the Jewifh Matches with Heathens were •, but more- 
 over, the Relation is fandlified to the believing Partner, 
 (through the Faith of Chrift,) to whom all Things, Per- 
 fons, and Relations ^r^^«r<f, and may be polTeiVd and 
 us'd with a pure Confcience : And it is iandtiiied by 
 Means of theBeliever'sPrivilege in theCovenant ofChriO:, 
 to the Propagation of a holy Covenant-Illue. El/e (faith 
 the Apoftle } if the Cafe ftood as ic did in the Days of 
 Ezra and Nebemiab^you muft not only be feparated from 
 your Inlidel Heathen Yoke-FellowSjyour MarriageSo- 
 ciety with them being unfandlified, unclean and defiiincr 
 to you (therefore theSeparation of theHolySeed is called 
 cleanfing them from their ftrange Wives. Neb. 13. 30 ) 
 but your Children alfo muft be put away, as not beino- 
 of the Holy Seed, but as the unclean Children of the Gen- 
 tiles ', as the Cafe was then determined, Ezra 10.3. Bui 
 now under the Difpenfacion of theGofpel(fince thejewilh 
 Inclofure is taken down, and the Gentiles admitted into 
 the vifible Chriftian Church, who before were efteemed 
 unclean -, for whofeAdmiffion therefore theApoftleP^/tr 
 was prepar'd by a Vifion from Heaven, which taughc 
 him not henceforth to call theGentiles, Common or Un- 
 clean, being to be received to the Ordinances of the 
 Chriftian Church inFellov/fliip with thejews,/fj?. 10 28.) 
 Now (faith he) your Children areHoly, i.e. vifiblyHoly, 
 being within the Church and Covenant, and appertain- 
 ing to the Holy Seed ^ and not to be fhut out as unclean. 
 This Interpretation is'analogous toScripture,and we need 
 not feek elfewhere for the Senfe of the Text. (2.)It feems 
 cvident,that the Holinefs of the Children, is made to de- 
 pend on the believing Parent's Privilege and Intereft in 
 she Covenant ; And theSandiiication of the unbelieving 
 
 B b Partner, 
 
370 A Defence of the Bkine Right Chap. V. 
 
 Partner, relates only to theBelieving,as aPrivilege accru- 
 ing to him or her thro'Faith in Chrilt. And in thisSenfe 
 it is granted, that '.heSacdtificatlon ot the unbelieving Fa- 
 rent is neceirary 'to the Holinefs ot the Children •, for 
 ii the Heathen Yoke-fellow were as muCh unfandified 
 and unclean to the Believer, under the Gofpel, as under 
 the Jewiih Peculiarity, the Children would not be holy, 
 but unclean. But what a poor lame Senfe is put upon 
 the Apoftle's Words, (according toDr.GV//, and hisParty) 
 ]£ the meaning were no more, than that the uyihdieving 
 liufhand is married to thelVife \ and thenjwho rould doubt 
 it, the unbelieving Wife is married to the Hufband ? 
 Elfe^ i.e. if their Parents were not lawfully married, they 
 might eafily conclude, if the Apoftle had not told them, 
 that their Childre?i zvers BaBards -, but their Parents being 
 married, they ^'Qr^Legitimate \ what great^Myilery does 
 the Apoftle reveal to them in all this ? But in the Senfe 
 above given, he declares to them a preciousGofpel-Truth 
 and Privilege, that the National Diflindion of Jews and 
 Gentiles, as of clean and unclean, is now taken away by 
 Chrifi: •, fo that the Children born of Parents, whereof 
 one is a Believer, the other an Infidel, are to be reputed 
 as of the Holy Seed, the Marriage-Relation and Society 
 being fanclified to the Believer. (3.) Taking matrimo- 
 nial Holinefs to be here intended, this could not remove 
 the Scruple of the Corinthians -, they knew already, as 
 well as the Apoif le could tell them, that they vvere law- 
 fully married, and that their Children born in fuch Mar- 
 riage, were Legitimate •, this was not their Scruple, but 
 fuppofing this, the Qiieftion was. Whether one of the 
 Farmers continuing in Paganifm & Intidelity, were not 
 a Reafon fufficient tor dilTolving the Marriage ^. Or whe- 
 ther, the believingPartner could with a go d Confcience, 
 and without Sin, cohabit with fach an infidel in that Re- 
 lation ? And the Apoftle's Anfwer in the Words, as they 
 have been explained, is dired, perrinenc and fatisfactory : 
 Eut if we underftandhim fpcaking of a matrimonialHo- 
 linefs, he leHV(?s the main Queilion unrefolv'd.(4.jl1ieir 
 
 Children 
 
Chap. V. of Infant -Baptifm. 3^j' 
 
 Children are faid to hzHoly^\x\ fuch a Senfe as is oppos'd 
 to Unclean. Now the Term Unclean^ is mod commonly 
 given in Scripture, either to Heathens without the viii- 
 ble Church, and Strangers from the Covenant ; or to 
 thofe in the viribleChurcb,who v/ere under fome ceremo- 
 nial Pollution, that rendred them unfit for facred Ordi- 
 nances, or under the guile of moral Tfanfgrerrion -, but 
 it is never given to illegitimate Children ; and therefore 
 the Oppofition between the Terms of Unclean and Holy^ 
 makes it manifefl: that theHolinefs of Children here fpo* 
 ken of, muft intend a vifible federal Holincfs & Fitnefs 
 for the Ordinances of the Church, as far as their Capaci- 
 ties will admit : And it need not be repeated, that Bap- 
 tifm is fuch an Ordinance as the Infants of Believers have 
 this Capacity and Fitnefs for. fLaftly.j He endeavours 
 to confirm his Opinion by fome Authorities. ^\Mjerom.^ 
 who is one of his Authors, is reprefented Wj GvQiius {^\Vi 
 his Comment on the Place jas having. a diRerentThought ; 
 and underltanding their Children to be called Holy^ for 
 this Reafon, becaufe they were Candidates cf the Faith^ 
 and horn and educated without the Defder/ients cf Idolatry. 
 And Mufculus who is another.is noted for being finguiar 
 in this Opinion among the Reformed. But not to exa- 
 mine the Authors he refers to, only by giving us their 
 Names, how lar they conceeded to his Senfe, and with 
 what Views and Limitations ; it will readily be granted 
 to Dr. G/7, that this is no new or finguiar Fancy, but 
 had been ilarted long before heWrote •, but the Queftion 
 is, What Reafon is there to Support it ? This I have 
 never feen.and therefore rejed it as a groundlefsConceir, 
 for the Reafons by which 1 have confirm'd the oppofice 
 Interpretation. 
 
 I lliall only further add, that finceour Author hasfaii'd of 
 producing anyAuthority from his/^^/^/'/'j,todetermme the 
 Meaning of the Word Holy, which is the main Thing in 
 Qacilion ; I ihall endeavour in fome Sort to fuply thac 
 Defet^\bya(^iotationiromDr.L/^^//<?i?/,ourEnglil}i./^^i'/^/, 
 B b 2 who 
 
472 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. V, 
 
 who in his Exercirations on thisPafiage obferves,* That 
 " the Apoftle's Difcourfe turns not upon this Hinge, 
 " nannely, whether a Son iprung from Parents, whereof 
 " one was a Chriftian, the other a Heathen, be a Legiti- 
 " mate Iffue, but whether it be a Chriftian Iflue. For it 
 *' is fufticiently known, that x.\\t^Q\'6(KedcJj3im) (Hngioi) 
 *' holy^ is frequently taken for thofe that profefsChiiilia- 
 " nicy : and fo the Word {Kedujhah) Holinefs in the 
 "Talmudifts^ is taking in a largcSenfe." And he quotes fe- 
 veral Pafiages from the l^almud ^wh'ich agree to thisScnfe : 
 it fhali fuffice to mention but one. 
 
 [Jevamotb^Fol. 42. i.] " yf « Hup and and Wife being 
 *' made Profelytes^are feparated from each other ninety DaySy 
 ^-^ that Dijiin^fion might be made between an Iffue born in 
 «■' HoUnefsy and an Ijfue born out of Holinefs" From this 
 and divers other hker orms of Speech inUfe among them, 
 he fhews it is very plain, that ^' an Offspring born out of 
 ^^ Holinefs ^^N2i% an (Ditspringborn while the Parents were 
 *' yet Heathens : within Holinefs^ when they were now 
 " made Frofelytes. In the fameSenfe theApoftle,Your 
 " Children are born in Holinefs^ that is, within Chriltia- 
 *' nity, if either Father or Mother be Chrillian ♦, and the 
 *^,Children themfelves are holy, that is, Chrillians." 
 And he obferves iurther,that " ihcFIealhen were reckon'd 
 *' by the Jews for unclean, and fo unclean indeed, that 
 *' they could not contract Uncleannefs, no, not Irom the 
 " moft unclean Thing, a Sepulchre. Hence Heathen 
 *' Children were to them [akatharta'] Unclean *, and the 
 ** Children of ]Qv^s,,[_Hagm^^Holy, To which Senfe very 
 *' well kn' >wn in the Nation, theApoille alludes in thefe 
 *<- Words." Thus he. Whence it appears,thatwhatever 
 Application or Ufe the Jewidi Doctors made of the fore- 
 going Ttrmyfanc/ifedy yet the known Ufe of the Word 
 holy among them, as opposed to unclean, was to fignify a 
 Sratc of Profciytifm to the true Pvcligion ; perfedly a- 
 greable to the Senfe alrcddy given inOppofuion to a ma- 
 trimonial Holinefs. 
 
 VrThc 
 » Hot. Kebr. & Talmud, m Loc. 
 
Chap. V. of Infant-Baptifm. 373 
 
 V. The next PalTage produc'd in the Dialogue in fa- 
 vour of Infant-Baptifm, which is controverted by Dr. 
 C///, are the Words of Inftitution,Gr the Commiffion our 
 Lord gave his Apoilles, Mat. 28.19,20. Go ye^anui teach 
 all Nations^ baptizing them &c. teaching them to obferve 
 allThings whatsoever I have commanded you. Now fup- 
 pofing Infants Subjeds capable and qualified for this Or- 
 dinance of Baptifm, according to the Rule of the Cove- 
 nant, which has been abundantly prov'd, thefe Words of 
 the Commifiion afford as clear a Warrant for their Bap- 
 tifm, as for that of the Adult. To this Purpofe let me 
 obferve, 
 
 Firft. That theObje6t to v/hom thisCommifTion given 
 by our Saviour to his Apoilles is extended, is indefinitely, 
 or rather univerfally exprefs'd •, all Nations^ i. e. all the 
 Gentile Nations,who were diftinguifhed from, & oppos'd 
 to the one Nation of the Jews, to which the Church of 
 God had been for a long Time confined ; and the Com- 
 mifiion firit given to the Apoftles, during Chriil's perfo- 
 nal Miniftry, was limitted to that Nation, Mat. 10. 5. 
 Go not inio the IVay of the Gentiles. But nov/ their Com- 
 mifTion after his Refurredlon is enlarg'd, and not only 
 takes off the Prohibition and Reftraint they were under 
 from preaching theGofpel to the Gentiles, but authorizes 
 and impowers them to perform the miniflerial A6ls af 
 it to all Nations^ to bring them into the Church of God. 
 And if but one Nation were entirely difcipled or profe- 
 lyted to Chrift, as the CommifTion fuppofes itmight be, 
 that one Nation would have been (what the one Nation of 
 the Jews had ever beenj a vifible Church of God, includ- 
 ing: liieir Infant-Children, which were ever included in 
 the Jewilh Church. And the aggregate 'Ytx\x\^Nations^ 
 comprehends every Age and Sex, Men Women & Chil- 
 dreii. The Apoflles by their Miniflry laid a Foundation 
 foi bringing all Nations into the Church & Kingdom of 
 Chrift. But this was defigned to be theWork of Time, 
 and not fully to be accompiillied 'till the Times of the 
 fcventh Trumpetjwhen the Nations ^ad Kingdoms of this 
 
 B b J mrld. 
 
374 A "Defence of the Divbie Right Chap. V, 
 
 Worlds ihall become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his 
 Chrijf, Rev. 1 1. 15. And when this Time (lull come, 
 when whole Nations and Kingdoms ihall become fubject 
 to Chrill, is there the lead Ground for the Exception of 
 Infant Children ? If nor, who iliall deny them the ap- 
 pointed Livery of his Subjec5ls ? The Principles of our 
 Adverfariesjin fhuttingChildren out of the vifibleChiircU 
 cf Chrift, render it impofiible that the Kingdoms of this 
 World Ihould become intirely the vifibleKingdomoi- our 
 Lord Jefus. For do not Children, or fuch as are in the 
 State and Capacity of Infants, make up a great Part of 
 the Kingdoms of this World ? And if thefe be left 
 out of the Kingdom of Chrift, they mud tall to the 
 ICingdom of the Devil ; and fo the Devil will ftill have 
 a great Share, near Half of theKingdoms of this World, 
 when Chrill's Kingdom fhali be moit glorioufly enlarged 
 and advanced. And fo Nations and Kingdoms,asfuch, 
 can never become fubjed toChrift •, contrary to theTenor 
 of Scripture PropheGies,and to theln-ention of thisCom- 
 niiOlon lirlt given to the Apoftles, to difciple & baptize 
 all Nations -, which by the Pre fence of Chrifl in the Ex- 
 ecution of it, and the Power of his Spirit, Pnall be made 
 effedual for the bringing in all Nations to him at lad. 
 
 Secondly, Let us obferve the miniileri-il Ads diredteJ 
 to and enjoined in thisCommifllon, which are thefe three, 
 (i) T'^^^/w' or difciple all Nations % (2) Baptize them-, 
 (2) 'Teach them to obferve ike I'he Word rendred to 
 teach before Baptifm (it is commonly obferved) figniiies 
 in the Original to difciple, or to makeDilciples or Profe 
 lytes of all NatioiiS : This is acknowledged by the moil 
 learned of our Adverfaries, and by Dr. Gill particularly, 
 who builds a Ciiricifm upon it. P. 79. and is very diffe- 
 j-ent irom theWord XQn(\\'ti teaching afterBaptiihi, which 
 intends a fuller Inilrudion in the Dodrines and Laws of 
 Chrid, to be obferved by the baptized. So that here is 
 nothing in tliis Commiilion that virtually or implicitly 
 debars the Infants ol Believers from Baptifm •, but it 
 gught jud iy to be confcrucd as an Injundicn to baptize 
 
 thcnij 
 
Chap. V. cf Infant- Baptifm. 375 
 
 them, as Part of the Nations that fliould be difcipled to 
 Chrill For the common Objedtion (1^/2;, Infants cannot 
 be taught, and therefore ought. not to be baptized , for 
 Chrift'sCommand \%^ teach and baptize.) ThisObjedion, 
 I fay,is remov'd by admitting the Word teach to lignify, 
 make Difciples^ for Infants can & may be made Difciples. 
 Hence I argue, that the Infants of Parents profelyced to 
 Chriftianity are made Difciples of Chrift, together with 
 their Parents, and therefore ought to be baptized ; for all 
 Difcples ought to be baptized. 'Tis granted, that adult 
 Perfons among Jews or Heathens could be no Qtherwife 
 made Difciples of Chriil, than by teaching ; therefore 
 Cbrift fent out his Apoftles to preach the Gofpel to them i 
 But upon the ParentsConverfion & Difciplefhip toChrifl, 
 their Children, asParts of themfelves,were madeDilciples 
 with them, and as fuch, admitted into Chrifl's School, 
 and taken under his Difcipline, with their Parents. It 
 can't be denied, that the little Children of Profelytes to 
 the Jewifh Religion, were efteemed Profelytes, or which 
 is the fame Thing, Difciples of Mofes^ and obliged to 
 learn and obferve the Law of Mofes \ and the fame Rea - 
 ion holds under the Chriftian Difpenfation, why the little 
 Chiiciren of Chriftian Parents fliould be received as Pro- 
 felytes or Difciples of Chrift, becaufe,as has been prov'd, 
 the Covenant takes in the Children of profelTingBelievers 
 under the Gofpel. Such Infants being the Difciples of 
 Chriil, are to be baptized ; for the minifterial A6ls of 
 difcipling and baptizing,are of equal Extent : In fo much 
 that there needed no exprefs Dire6lion for the baptizing 
 of the Infants of Chriftians, any more than fuppofingour 
 Saviour had continued theUfe of Circumcifion under the 
 New Teilament, and had faid in the CommilTion to his 
 Difciples^Gi?, dijciple the Nations., circumcifing them \ there 
 had needed any exprefs Direction for circumcifing their 
 Infant-Children -, for who can make anyDoubt, but that 
 would have been his Meaning ? fince it was thecommoa 
 and known Cuilom of thejewifli Church tocircumcife all 
 theMalc Infants of Profelytes. And fince it was aCuftom 
 
 B b 4. as 
 
$y6 J Defence of the Divine Right Chap. V. 
 
 as well known to the Jewifh Nation, to baptize alfo all 
 the Infant- Children of Profelytes, the Apoftles could be 
 as little at a Lofs, whether the Children of Chriflian Pro- 
 felytes were to be baptiz'd, as on Suppofition Chrift had 
 order'd Circumcifion in his Commiflion, they would be, 
 whether they fliould circunicife them. That the bap- 
 tifing of Profelytes, and their young Children, was a 
 known and ufual Pradlice among the Jews, long before 
 the Days of our Saviour, I have lliewed from the Tefti- 
 niony of divers learned Men, well fKill'd in the Jewifh 
 Cuftoms. There are fuch Sayings as thefe (quoted from 
 their ancient Writings by Dr. Lightfoot f and others) 
 ^' Hhey baptize a little Profelyte according to the Judgment 
 of the Sanhedrim, 'That is — 4f he be deprived of his Father^ 
 and his Mother brings him to be made a Profelyte. — Ano- 
 ther, If with a Profelyte.^ his Sons and his Daughters are 
 made Profelytes alfo^ that which is done hy their Father^ re- 
 dounds to their Good,"*^ Again, '-'- If an Ifraelite tdike a 
 Gentile Child^ or find a Gentile Infant^ and baptize him in 
 the Name of a Profelyte^ behold he is a Profelyte,^'' And 
 divers otheis the like. Since therefore it was a cuftomary 
 and known Thing among the Jews to admit little Chil- 
 dren Profelytes by Baptifm, even all the Infants of pro- 
 felyted Parents, as well as to circumcife all their Males ; 
 it is no wonder at all, that our Lord, when he v/as pleas'd 
 to take this Rue of Baptifm for his New-Te(tament-Sa- 
 crament of Initiation, makes no exprefs mention of In- 
 fants in his CommiiTion to baptize •, feeing it might be 
 well taken for granted, that the known Cuftom of the 
 Jewilh Church in admitting Profelytes, might ferve for a 
 plain and fufncient Diredion to them as to the Subjeds- 
 of Baptifm. It might rather have been expedled, that 
 there fhould have been an exprefsException of Infants in 
 the CommilTion, if it had been our Saviour's Mind, that 
 they Ihould not be baptized : But there being no fuch 
 Exception exprefs'd or implied, the Commiirion fully 
 empowers and warrants the baptizing them, no iefs than 
 
 aduU 
 f Dr. Ughffcjot, Hor, Hebr, & T&lmnd, in Matth 5 6. 
 
Chap. V. ef Infant-Baptlfm. 377 
 
 adult Profelytes. Now Jet ine proceed to a fewRemarks 
 on Dr. G7//'s Exception to this Pailage. 
 
 (i.)He fays, P. 79. " TheComminion does not enjoin 
 ^' the baptizing of all Nations,but the baptizing of fiich as 
 " are taught." And heendeavourstomake this appearl)y 
 a criticalObfervation on the Words, "chat thcMafculine, 
 Autous^them{\n the\Vords/^^/>//2;/;7^//>^m)cannotbetheRe- 
 Jative to£//?;2^<?, A^^//^;7J-, which is oftheNeuterGender,butto 
 7kf<rz//:?^^/^j,Z)//a/>/^j, which is fupposM (he fays)& contained 
 in \.\\Q^ oxdMatheeteufate^'TeaLb ox?nakeDifciples.''' There- 
 fore inConf'equence of thisCriticifm, he fhould have faid, 
 the Commiffion does not enjoin the baptizing of all Na- 
 tions, but of fuch as are made Difciples. Bur I Reply, 
 (I.) The making Difciples^ and baptizing^ are Miniller^al 
 Ads of equal Extent, and plainly relate to all Nations : 
 the Commiffion impowers and enjoins the iVlinifters of 
 Chrift to Difciple all Nations^ and to admit them into the 
 Chriftian Church by Baptifm. (2.) His Criticifm is 
 chargeable with two Fauks. It is groundlefs and ufelefs. 
 {i.) It is groundlefs ; for a Word of the Neuter Gender 
 figri ying a Perfon, or Perfons, hath often in the Greek 
 Lano-uaofe a Relative of the Mafculine Gender, to agree 
 with ir. I'his might be prov'd by a Variety of Indances -, 
 I fhall produce but one, which is pertinent and unexcep- 
 tionable, it is, Rom. 2. 14. For -when the Gentiles ^Ethnet\ 
 (the very Word here in Matthew rend red Nations) which 
 have not the Laz<D^ do by Nature the "Things contain d in the 
 Law\ Thefe, Outoi (a Word of the Mafculine Gender, 
 which can refer to Nothing elfe than the Word, rcndred 
 Gentiles^ which is oF the ^t\iitx)ka'ving not theLa-w^ arc a 
 Law to themfelves^ &c. Therefore we fee the Propi iecy 
 of the Greek Tongue may well admit the Word Them in 
 Matthew, to argree with all Nations, though an antece- 
 dent of the Neuter Gender : And our Saviour's Words 
 may be properly rendred, Go^ Dijciple^ and baptize all 
 Nations. So that this Criticifm is not well founded. 
 (2.) It is ufelefs and impertinent to his Purpofe. For al- 
 lowing the Word Matbceteufate^io iignify, r/iahBifciplcSy 
 
37 § A Defence cf the Divine Right Chap. V. 
 
 it will be granted, that the Nations were to be difciprd, 
 or made Difciplesjin Order ro their being baptized. But 
 this can avail nothing as anObjedion againfi: the Baptifm 
 of Chriftian- Infants, unlcfs it cou'd be made to appear, 
 that there is no other Way in which they can be made 
 Difciples^ or Profelytes to ChriTi (which is a Word much 
 of the famelmport) but by perfonal Inftrudion under the 
 MiniHiry of the Word ; the contrary to which has been 
 proved. Such Indruclion more properly belongs to thofe 
 that are already diicipl'd a-nd bapriz'd, and is diredled to 
 in the CommilFion, alter Baptifm, in thefe W^ords, Teach- 
 ing them to cbferve, &c. Hence, 
 
 (2.) His next Objeclion falls of Courfe, which is, *' If 
 *' Infants as a Part of ail Nations, were to be baptiz'd, 
 " then the Infants ot Uealhens^ Turks^ and Jews ought 
 ** to be baptized." I Reply, that it is certain that the 
 CommifTion of our Saviour to difciple and baptize, ex- 
 tends to all thefe : But if he means, that then while they 
 remain Heathens^ Ttn'ks^ and Je-ws^ their Infants ought to 
 he baptized^ the Confequence is to be denied \ tor he can- 
 not but know, that the Meaning ot the Psdobaptifts is, 
 that Infants, as Part of the Nations difcipPd unto Chrifi^ 
 are to be baptiz'd, and no: Infants of unchriftaniz'd Pa- 
 gan Nations. 
 
 (3O Allowing the W^ords fhou'd be rendred Bifcipk 
 all Nations^ or make all Nations Bifciples^ he proceeds to 
 tell ws, who they are, that are '^ the true Difciples of 
 " Chriil, they that have learned the W^ay of Lile and 
 *' Salvation by him, that deny themfelves, — Forfake all, 
 " take up the Crols & follow him, — bring forth much 
 •" Fruit, love one another, and continue in the Doctrine 
 *' of Chrift." Now thefe aie not the Chara6ters of all 
 who are vihbly and by Profefiion the Difciples of Chriil, 
 but of thofe only who are really fuch in Ileart & Prac- 
 tice. But when our Author adds,'' fuch & only fuch are 
 *' the properSubjeds of Baptifm." P. 80, He runs inio 
 a manireft Error, and may be convinced of it by Rcafoa 
 and Scripture : tor if diis be W\ if none but die true Dif- 
 ciples 
 
Chap. V. of Infant-Baptifm. il9 
 
 cipies of Chrift, if none but thofe who have thoroughly- 
 learnt & pradis'd the Dodcrines & Duties of Chriftianity, 
 rvre to be admitted as the proper Subjeds ot Baptifm : 
 Tn-en, fi.) ^ folemn publick rrofeffion of the Chriftian 
 ]<cligion, how credible foever, muft be fee a Side as in- 
 f hficicnt to give a Right to Baptifm. 'I^is acknowleg'd 
 that a profefied Confent to thefeCharaders tc Fradifes of 
 ChrilVs true Difciples is required in Order to Bapciim. 
 But this is notenough,according to our Author, no, they 
 rnull be fuch as have adiually denied themfe]ves,and have 
 fv-riaken all forChriil'sSake,and have brought forth much 
 iM'uic, &c. betore they canbcbaptizViasDifciples ofChrill. 
 As much as to fay, Chriil can have no vifible Difciples, 
 bill thofe only who are really liich ; which deilroys the 
 Diifinction between the vifibie and invifible Church. 
 (2 J Upon this Principle, no meer Man could ever be 
 empower'd to adminifter this Ordinance ; for no Man 
 can poffibly infped the Heart, or make a difcriminating 
 Judgment of the Sincerity of Men's Profefilon, fo as to 
 determine v/ho are Difciples indeed, and who are not. 
 Nay,f 3.) If we regard only thePradice of ProFelTors, this 
 Commiffion to the Apoftles to baptize, had been utterly 
 impradicable, if fuch and only fuch as have learnt and 
 obferv'd the Dodrines andLaws of Chrlfr, and continued 
 therein, are the proper Subjects of Baptijm. For how 
 could the Apufties go about the World makingDifciples, 
 and baptizing them, if they could admit none as the ])ro- 
 per Subjeds o[ Baptifm, but fuch as gave manifcfb Evi- 
 dence of their being the true Difciples of Chrid, by the 
 genuine Fruits proper to luch Difciples, and by contimiing 
 in the Dooinne of Chrift^ to their Lives End ? For, if at 
 anyTime of their Lives, they fhould fall from th- Doc- 
 trine of Chrili, they could not be faid to continue in it. 
 '' Was it dgreable 10 tiiis Conimiliion, and \\\^ "^xwi^ of 
 " it" fas he fays, /7/W.) "That Chnll made Difciples, 
 ** and then baptized them. Job. j^.. i." i.e. pievaii'd 
 wi:h many by hisPreacliing to become his Difciples, who 
 were by Baptifnj initiated inio hi:iSclyjol, as Learnersj)f 
 
 hi^ 
 
S^o A Defence of the Divine Right Ch ap. V ' 
 
 his Dodtrine. But had they learnt his perfedl Dodrinc 
 of Life and Salvation ? How then came they afterwards 
 to be offended at ic? Jeh. 6. 60, 61. Did they continue 
 in hisDodrine ? Wherefore then does the EvanQclift tell 
 us, {:f.66, of the fame Chap.) thar,Fr<?m that lime many 
 of his Bifciples went back^ and walked no more with him ? 
 {^.) How unreafonable and abfurd is it to fuppofe Men 
 mud have learnt & made Proficiency in the Knowledge 
 and Pradice of Chriftianity, before they are by the Rules 
 di theirCommifrion,to be conftitutedLearners,orDifc]ples 
 ofChrift? But ("5.) ThePradice of theApoftieSjas records 
 ed in facredHiR:ory,was contrary to thisOpinion. For the 
 Apoltles and firft Minifters oi Chrift { who it feems un^ 
 derllood their CommiiTion better than Dr. Gill) im.medi 
 ately baptized thofe v/hom they taught, as foon as the] 
 profefs'd their Belief in Jefus, as the Son of God, an( 
 their Readinefs to embrace hisDo6trine, and addifl them 
 felves to his Religion, without waiting to fee the Fruiti 
 and Evidences ot their being true Difciples of Chrifl. '. 
 might indance in the Converts at Pf/?/^r^, who v/en 
 baptized the fiime Day in which the Apoflle preach'c 
 that Sermon ; by which they were converted. Aul. 2.41; 
 And the Ethiopian Coa vert, who upon Philip's preaching 
 to him Jefus, as he rode in his Chariot -, and coming tc 
 Water was immediately baptized, upon his profelFmg nc 
 more than his Belief, that Jefus is the Son of God^ Act. 8: 
 37, 38. In likeManner, tht Jailor at Phiiippi^inihefami 
 Hour in which he was bro't over to the Faith of Jefus, 
 by the preaching of Pauld^wl Silas, was baptized Jle anA 
 all His Jiraightway^ A6t. 16. ^^. And divers other In 
 fiances there are,in which fo little Space of Time pafs'c 
 between their Preaching and Baptizing, that it was no 
 poffible to explain particularly the DoL:trines of Salvati 
 on -, but only to demonftrate to their Hearers, thatjefu! 
 is the Son of God, fentfrom Heaven to be the Teachei 
 andSaviour of Men-, and the like generalDodrines : Anc 
 thofe v/ho were willing to yield themfelves to his In^ 
 ftrudion, were admitted as Difciples iiuo his School bj 
 
 ■ Baptifn) 
 
CaAP. V. ^/ Infant-Baptlfm. 381 
 
 Biptifm, before they had learnr, but in Order to their 
 Learning the Way of Life and Salvation by him ; much 
 more before they had brought forth the genuine Fruits 
 of their ProfefTion. Yea/ome were baptized by theApo- 
 ftles and firft Preachers, upon fuch a general Profeflion, 
 who were fo far from being the true Difciples of Chrift, 
 that they afterwards turn'd outHypocrites andApoftates, 
 fuch as Annanias andSapbira, and Simm Magiis^^ others. 
 So little Weight is to be laid on our Author's ftrong 
 AiTertion, i\\2ii fuch^and only fuch ("as are true Difciples of 
 Chrift) are the pioper Subjeds of Baptifm, i. e. accord- 
 ing to the Orders given in the CommifTion. 
 
 (4.) He faults the ExprefTion us'd by the Writer of 
 the Dialogue, of making Men Difciples by baptizing them ; 
 and fays ( it?id. ) " They are two diftindl Adts — They 
 '' muftbe firft Difciples, and then baptized." But can't 
 thefe two Ways of Expreffion be eafily reconcil'd ? In- 
 fants are virtually or fundamentally madeDifciples,when 
 their Parents are profelyted to the Religion of Chrift ; 
 
 I and as fuch are to be baptized : And Baptifm is their 
 
 jfolemn Initiation into Chrift's School ; and in that Ref- 
 peel too, they may be faid properly enough to be made 
 
 j Difciples, being by that folemn inftituted Rite enrolled 
 among the Difciples of Chrift, and engag'd to learn and 
 
 I praclife the Do6trines and Duties of his Religion. The 
 Words of Jerom (who was known to be a Psdobaptift) 
 
 I in his Comment on the Place, and of Athanaftns too (who 
 does little more than repeat the Words of the Commifli- 
 on) cited by Dr. G?//, are no more than any Proteftant 
 Pasdobaptift would fay, in giving Inftru6lion to fome 
 Mifiionaries to the Indians •, '1 hat they fliould take Care 
 that their Minds be truly informed of the general Doct- 
 rines of Faith, before their Bodies receive the Sacrament of 
 Baptifm : Which would be underftood to be fo far from 
 excluding Infants from the Participation of this Sacra- 
 ment, that fuppofing them to be faithful in declaring the 
 true Doclrine of the Gofpel ; they muft tell them,upon 
 the ProfefTion of their Faith, ( as the Apoftle F^ier did 
 
 hi« 
 
if. 
 
 382 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. V. 
 
 his Hearers j ThePromife is unto you and to yourChildren • 
 And that as to their Warrant andEncouragement tootfer 
 their Children alio to Baptilim, and being thus oirered, 
 they ought to baptize them. 
 
 (5.) Our Author boggles at the Word, Difdple, or a 
 Learner,2is applied tolniants •, and fays " It cannot agree 
 with an Intant," and again,"They cannot beLearners 
 of ChriiljUnlefs they have learned ibmethingof him — 
 *' They ought to learn fomeihing of hmiJcefore they are 
 " baptized in his Name. But what can an Infant learn 
 " of Chrift ? P. 81." Here I cannot but obferve how 
 inaccurately, and improperly it is faid, They cannot be 
 Learners of Chrift^ unlefs they have learned fomeihing of 
 him: V^htrtdiS. fofar as they have learned of Chrift, and 
 in that Kefped:, they cannot be faid to be Learners of 
 him. For can a Man with any Propriety be faid to be a 
 Learner of what he has already learnt ? But on the o- 
 ther Hand, Thofe may be called Difciples or Learners, 
 who have learnt Nothing as yet -, provided they give up 
 themfelves to a certain Peacher to be in{lru.':!ed. And 
 Dr. Lighijoot obferves * " 'Phat among the Jews, and 
 *' alfo with us, in all Nations thofe are made Difciples, 
 *' that they may be taught •," and ht quotcs^Rak Shah, 
 Fol. 31. concerning an Pleathen, that came to Hillel^^rA 
 faid, Make me a Prcfelyie ( or Difciple ) that thou maypfi 
 teach me. So our Saviour in the CommilTion enjoins 
 Teaching ("in the properSenfe of the Word) of thofe that 
 were already made Difciples and baptized, i'. 20. And 
 a Child put to fuch a Mader to be taught, is enrol'd a- 
 mong his Difciples or Scholars, before he has learned 
 one LelTon. And why may not an Infant-Child be en- . 
 rol'd in the Number of Chrid's Difciples, t'lo' atprefenC 
 uncapable of outward teaching, efpecially fince he has 
 another Way 01 teaching, which none can reafonably,and 
 upon juft Grounds deny Infants to be capable of. 'Tis 
 promifcd, Ifai. 54. 13. All thy Children f}:)all be taught of 
 the Lord, If the Infants of jewiili Profelytes were ad- 
 mitted 
 
 * Hor, Hebr, and Talm, In lUtth. z%* 19* I 
 
C ^AP, V. ^/ Infant -Baptifm. 2^3 
 
 nritred Difciplcs by CirCumcifion, and oblig'd to leara 
 and keep the Law of Mofes -^ what hinders but that the 
 Intantsof Chriftian Frofelyres m-^y be initiated into the 
 Chriilian School by Bapnfm, and obhg'd to learn and 
 cbferve theLaw of Chrill, as they grow up to aCapacity 
 |for it ; all Arguments from Incapacity are hence refut- 
 ed trom the Cudom of the Jewiih Church, founded on 
 divine Iriflit Jtion. And to fay, that Infants are noWays 
 able to learn, is contrary to Experience, for from the 
 Time of theirBirth,they are always learrjing,as theirCapa- 
 cities ripen, and they very early leara to diltinguifh be- 
 tween Sights and Sounds, and to know their Parents, and 
 to give Attention at Worfliip, and then to read, and to 
 diftinguifli between Good andEvil, Truth andFalfhood ; 
 and many Children very early fuck in Principles of Re- 
 ligion : And the Scripture obligeth Chriftian Parents to 
 deal with Children, as with Diicipies and Learners. 
 Prov. 2 2. 6. Train up a Child, &c. And to bring them 
 lip under the Difcipline and Nurture of the Lord Jefus. 
 Eph. 6. 4. And if the Thing intended by the Word,Dif- 
 cipier ( which is the fame in the Ufe of the New-Tefta- 
 ment with the other Terms o\ Chri^ians^Saints, Believers^ 
 Church-Members, fuch as belong to Chrift, which have 
 have been verified of Infants ) agrees to them •, it is not 
 very material whether the Name be exprefly given them 
 in Scripture. Yet we find the exprefs Term, Difciples^ 
 ufed in Relation to fuch as were Infants, in Ads 15. 10. 
 Why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Neck of the Dif- 
 dpies, which neither our Fathers nor zve zvere able to bear ? 
 Thofe on whofe Neck the judaizing Teachers would 
 have had the Yoke of Circumcifion put, are exprefly 
 term'd Difciples, but they were Infant-Children chiefly, 
 on whofe Neck the Yoke of Circumcifion was put,by the 
 priniitive Inftitution of that Rite, and by the Lav/ of 
 Iviofes^ and by the conllant Ufage of the Jewiih Church. 
 ^ nd if this Rite had been continued under the Gofpel, 
 .^.ich fomeJewifliChriftians contended for ; theYoke had 
 •ll been impofed chiefiy on the Neck of fuch Infants : 
 
 and. 
 
384 ^ "Defence ef the Divine Right Chap.V. 
 
 and thefe in the Apoftle's Language and Senfe were 
 Difciples, Our Author's laft Exception lies againft this 
 Text. 
 
 (6.) " The Text in /l5fs 15. (he fays) is not to be un- 
 *' derftood of Infants, but adultPerfons -, even converted 
 *' Gentiles, who beHeved in Chrift,& were hisDifciples." 
 Of which no other Reafon is given, but the Authority of 
 bis bare Word ; which, from what has been already ob- 
 ferved, is not likely to go iar without other Proof. As 
 much is granted in the Dialogue, 2iS can fairly be demand- 
 edjwz. '^That there were fome adult Perfons in the then 
 " prefent State of Things, upon whofe Neck the Jewilh 
 *' Teachers would have laid the YokeofCircumcifion." 
 Dial, P. 25. yet 'tis added, " That at lead the greateft 
 " Part of thofe Difciples upon whom they would have 
 *' impofed this Yoke, were young Children :" Which 
 can't reafonably be denied •, for tho' in the Cafe fuppofed, 
 the firft adult Profelytes from Gentilifm mufl have born 
 thisYoke,yet their Infant Children muft have been then, 
 and thenceforward, from Age to Age,the Subjedls of it. 
 The Apoflle argues againfl laying this Yoke upon fuch 
 Difciples as were Infants ; when he fays of it, it is aToke 
 which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear. And 
 it is evident, that the Difciples at Jerufakm, and their 
 Fathers up to theDays of Abraham had it laid upon them 
 only,or chiefly in theirlnfant- Age. But thac which puts 
 the Matter out of all Doubt,is theReport which thejews 
 zxjerujalem had heard concerning Paul, that he taught all 
 the Jews that were among theG entiles — that they ought not 
 to circurncife their Childreny Adi. 21.21. Which Report, 
 there can be no doubt, had its Rife from the Do6lrine of 
 that Apoflle, purfuant to the Decree at Jerufalem^ that 
 this Burden fhould not be laid on the Gentile Converts, 
 and confequently they ought not to circumcife their Chil- 
 dren^ which otherwife they had been obliged to do. 
 Whence it appears, that the young Children, whether of 
 Jewifli Chriftians, or of Gentile Converts were elleemed 
 and admitted in the Chriftian Church, asDifciples or Pro- 
 felytes 5 
 
Chap. V. of Infant-Baptifm. ^S^ 
 
 felytes ; and the latter efpecially, fuch DifGiples as were 
 exempted from theYoke of Circurncifion. For the fame 
 Perfoiis who were exempte'd from this Yoke, were thofe 
 .on whom {hsjudaizers would have impos'd ic,underthe 
 Denomination of Difciples ; but that thefe were youno- 
 Children, we plainly learn from the Paff-.ge lafi cited. 
 
 VI. Our Author goes on to make fome Exceptions to 
 thofe Paffages in the New-Tellament, wherein it is re- 
 corded, that whole Houiliolds were baptized upon the 
 Convcrfion of theParents,orHeads ofthen],to heChriftiaa 
 Faith i aliedg'd in theZ)i^%«^,tofh€w how theApollles 
 underftood their CommiiTion by their Pradice ; fuch as 
 Lydia^ and her Houlliold, yft"/. 16.15. ^^^ J^iloJ*? ^^^ all 
 that were his, /» 33. and the Houihold of Stephamis. 
 I Cor I. i6, 'Tis but little he has reply to them, and that 
 little is impertinent, (i.) He rays,P.8 2. '' Seeing the un- 
 *' derftandlngof ourSaviour'sMeaning in theCommiffion 
 *' depends on thefe In (lances of Baptifm, and fo the War- 
 *' rant for b^.ptizingInfants,theP3sdobaptifts ought tobe 
 '* furethere v/erclnfants in thefeFamilies,&t'hat they were 
 ^* baptized, or otherwife they mufb baptize them^at moil;, 
 *' upon a very precarious Foundation, &c/* But all this 
 Reafoning proceeds on a very precarioits Found at ion. For 
 he is miftaken in his Suppofition, that the underfianding 
 of our Saviour's Meanin^^ in the Commiffion depends on thefe 
 Inflances of Baptifm. The CommJfTion is clear enough of 
 it {€ii^ and though the. Subjects of Baptifm be not ex- 
 prefs'd in it, yet there appears full and plain Warrant for 
 baptizing the Infants of Believers, both from the Com- 
 miiFion it felf, and from other Teftinlonies and Declara- 
 tions of facred Writ : And the Paedobaptifts had gone 
 upon fure Grounds in baptizing them, even thotheieln- 
 ftances had not been extant irt Scripture. Therefore he 
 might have fpared his invidious Refiedion, that Paedo- 
 baptifm, '* mull ftand upon a very bad Bottom, having 
 " neither Precept nor Precedent for it :'* As being the 
 Confequence ol the erroneous Conceits of his ov/n Head» 
 Only we learn by thefe Infl:anceS;how the ApoUks them- 
 
 C c fcivcs 
 
386 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. Y. 
 
 felves underftood their CommifTion, (as is aflerted in the 
 :DialcguCy and not that the Meaning of it depends on thefe 
 InJlanc'es)icQing in theExecution otit they baptiz'd whole 
 Houiholds upon theFaith of the Parent, or Miiiltr of the 
 Family. And this is fufficient Security to the Pradice of 
 the PasdobaptiftSjwhether they be fure there were Infants 
 in thefe Families, or no. For from hence it is evident, 
 that as Abraham was at firft admitted with his whole 
 Houdiold into theCovenant byCircumcifion, and thence- 
 forward profelyted Parents from Gentilifm were in like 
 -Manner admitted with their whole Houfhold, tho' con- 
 rfifting of Children ever fo young -, fo it is the Mind of 
 •of God (plainly intimated in thefe Examples^ that the 
 fame Method of making Profelytcs by Baptifm to the 
 ChriftianChurch fhould continue withoutVariarion under 
 the Gofpel. That Parents believing in Chrift, and being 
 ihemfelves baptized, fhould bring all their Houfhold 
 with them into the Covenant with God, and take Care 
 to initiate all under their Charge, how young foever,into 
 the fame Faith, and religious ProfelTion & Obligation to 
 be the Lord's by Baptifm. And therefore our Author is 
 miftaken when he adds, (2.) '' It lies upon them (the 
 ," P^dobaptijh) to prove that there were Infants in thefe 
 -** Families, and that thefe Infants were baptized.'* And 
 fays it is " unfair to put it upon .,us to prove a Negative^ 
 " to prove there were none." Anfw, It does not fo much 
 cpncern the Pasdobaptifts tor juftifying their Pradice, to 
 be fure there were Infants in thefe Families, as it does 
 their Adverfaries to be fure there were none. For the 
 P^dubaptifls do not refi their Pradlice on {o poor a Shifty 
 as Dr. Gill has reprefented it,that is,their being fure there 
 were Infants m thefe Families, and leaving it to theirAd^ 
 verfaries to prove there were none : For how uncertain 
 foever this may be, yet the Allegation of thefe Inflances 
 is very much to their Purpofe, as it fhews what the Rule 
 was which theApolfles went by in adminiifring Baptifm 
 purfuant to their Commi(rion,that when anyHoufholder, 
 ur Parent believed, and was baptized, they were wont to 
 
 baptize 
 
Chap. V. ef Infant-Baptifm. 387 
 
 baptize the wholeHoufe or Family. TheQueftion is not. 
 Whether there were any Infants in thefe ieveral Hou- 
 fholds, nor does the Caufe of the Psedobaptifts depend on 
 theRefolution of thisQuellion: But it being certain thac 
 the whole Houfhold was baptiz'd with the believing Pa- 
 rent or Head of it, fand that's all we need to be fure di) 
 it necelTarily follows,that were there ever fo manylnfants 
 in them, they were all baptized upon the ProfelTion and 
 Baptifm of their Parents. And this Rule which the A- 
 pottles went by in difcipling and baptizing the Nations, 
 lb agreable to the Rule 5c iMethod of Profelytifm, which 
 all along obcain'd in the Jewifli Church, affords fuHicienc 
 Diredion & Warrant toMinillers to baptize wholeHoufes 
 and Families, upon the Parents ProtelTion andAdmiilioa 
 into theSchoolof Chrift-, to initiate all that are theirs,evea 
 the youngeft Children into the fame ProfeiTion and Dif- 
 cipline by Baptifm But our Adverfaries denying the 
 Warrantablenefs of Infant- Baptifm, confidently pretend 
 there are no Inftanccs or Intimations of Infants baptiz'd 
 in theNew-Teftament f but before they fliould be fo pre- 
 remtory, they are oblig'd inDefence of their ownOpinion 
 to prove there were no Infants in thefe feveral Families, 
 efpecially fince theProbability lies fo ftrong againft them, 
 fgr though there are fome Families in mofl Places here 
 and there one, that have no young Children : and it was 
 an extraordinary Thing, that when God fmote the firil- 
 bora of Egypt ^ there was not an Houfe in which there was 
 not one dead. Exod. 12. 30. Remarkable ! That in fo 
 large a Country there was not a Family wichoutChildren, 
 a Child at lead -, yet that three fuch Families, as thoic 
 mention'd, Ihould have no Infants in them, or Children 
 in the State and Condition of Infants, in Refped of their 
 Capacity for Baptifm, is utterly improbable and incredi- 
 ble. However,our Author attempts to fhew it probable 
 that there were no Infants in thefeFamilies : & pretends 
 to make it appear, (3.) "That there are many Things in 
 ••' the Account of the Baptifm of thefe Families that arc 
 •' inconfillent with Infants, and which make it at l^aft 
 C c 2 ^'probablfj 
 
^88 A Defence ' of the Divine Ri^ht Chap. V. 
 
 " probable, there were none •, and certain (\\t fays) that 
 *' thofe that were baptized were adult Pcrfons, and Be- 
 " liever.s inChrifl:." But I fearDr. Gill is too far engag'd, 
 to be able to pafs an impartial Judgment of what is pro- 
 bable in this Cafe. So much may be granted, (and more 
 Cannot reafonably be dtfmanded) that there might be fome 
 Ferfons of Aduk-Age in thefe (everal HoulLolds, who 
 might upon a per fonal Pfofeflion be baptiz'd with the 
 Heads of them ; but that tliere were no lnfants,or Chil- 
 dren in Minority in any of rhefe Families, he is fo far 
 from making ir appear certain^ih^t \\t. is not abk to make 
 cut the lead Probabihty of it; Let fhe impartial Reader 
 weigh his Arguments, (i.) As to Lydia y he is uncertain 
 whether fhe was " a Maid, Wife, or Widow." But it is 
 not at all probable that flie was a Virgin, being the 
 Keeper of anlloufe, but whether a Wife or Widtw ks not 
 laid : And then he is in a like Doubr, "Whether Ihc had 
 *' any Children, — or if llie had, whether rhey were In- 
 *' fants or Adults.*' So that, here is guel's Work (till, and 
 oiie may eafily conclude what he would guefs. To make 
 it look pr )bable,flie had no Infants,he is torc'd to fuppofe, 
 »" That llie had newly arriv'd ^i Philippic from Thyatiray 
 ^* and had hir'd an Houfe during bcrStay there,and that 
 •" therefore it is not likely that (he brought Inhints with 
 *^ her,but that herlloulhold confilkdol meniaiServan'ts.'^* 
 Ail which is meer Imagination and Surmife, there being 
 not an Hint in the facred Story to found theleConje^tures 
 \ipon. It fe^ms far more likely that Ihe had for fometime 
 a fettled Flabitarion there, though a Native o( ^'hyaiira^ 
 fince fhe was in a Capacity to entertain Strangers, and in- 
 vited the Apoftle and his Companions to take up their 
 Lodgings at her Houfe. And when flie is faid to have 
 her iioulhold or Family baptized, it is much more rea- 
 fonable to underftand^t ot her Children than Servants : 
 Child re!) in Scripture Dialed: being faid more proper- 
 ly and freqi-tentlyto contlitute an Houfe. Noah prepared 
 an Ark to the faving of his Houfe, Ihb. 1 1. 7. I'ke Ser- 
 vant aPideih'not in the Houfe always. Job. 8. o^^. Hence 
 
 the 
 
Chap. V; of Infant- Baptifin. ^89 
 
 the Phrafe of building the Houfe of any one is a figurative 
 Expreflion commonly us'd for raifiiig up a Family of 
 -Children. Ruth.. \.. 11. i Sam 1 o^^.L^c, He attempts 
 to prove it from what is faid, ^. 40.; Thofe whom the 
 Apoflles vifictd after they came out of Prifon '' are called 
 ■*' Brethren, and were capable of being comforted by 
 •** them." Therefore there were no Infants in Lydias 
 Houfe. How far fetch'J is this Reafon ? (i.) He mud 
 prove that they faw the Brethren at the Houfe o'i Lydia ; 
 tut this is not faid j they might vifit them at their leve- 
 ral Habitations for ought .that appears to the contrary 
 from the Text. (2. J He mud prove that thofe Brethren 
 whom they comforted were of the Houfhold oiLydia^ 
 and not rather a meeting of the Brethren at her Houfe. 
 {3.) Suppofing fome of thefe Brethren capable of being 
 comforted, were of theHoufhold of Lydia, he mull prove 
 the Confequence, that therefore there could be no young 
 Children baptiz'd in it. But not one of thefe Things is 
 he able to prove, therefore all his Realbning here {lands 
 on a very precariousFoundation,&is far from evincing -a 
 Probability, much lefs a Certainty, that there were no In- 
 fants. in this Family baptized. 
 
 (2.) As to the Jailor's Houfhold, ail that he alledges 
 from the facred Hiftory, proves no more, than that there 
 were fome adult Perfons in it, who believed theApoitles 
 Dodrine, and were Baptized the fameTime with thejai- 
 lor. Who doubts it ^ But how does this argue that there 
 were no others baptized in it, who were in the infanriie 
 State ? Since it is faid,that all thai %v ere His were baptiz- 
 edy Acts 16. 0^7^, Whence had Dr. Gill his Revelation, 
 that he had no Infants baptized, becaufe fome adukPer- 
 fons belonging to hisFamily believed, & were baptized } 
 Do not moft Families indifrerently numerous copfift of 
 both Sorts ? But that which Dr. Gill dc his Party chiefly 
 harp upon, is what is faid /. 34. — He rejoiced hiieving in 
 God zvhb all bis Houfe, As to this ( omitting tjie diffe- 
 rent Tranflation and Senfe given of thefe Words by fome 
 V.x-?o^\tor'^^BeIicvirg in Gcd^ be rej:iced all bisHcufe over: 
 
 C c '^ ' The 
 
^go J D^fenci of t be Divine Right Chap. V» 
 
 The Words we render with all his Houfe^ are but one in 
 the Original, Panoiki ; or he believing in God, rejoiced 
 for the Salvation that was come to all his Houfe, as it 
 was promifed,>^. 31.) let me obferve. That inScripture- 
 Reckoning, the Children of Believers, even in a State 
 of Infancy or Minority,are accounted Believers,and num- 
 ired with Believers. I fhall cite but one Place to this 
 Purpofe, Ads 2. 44. All that believed were together^ and 
 had all "Things common. This Communion of Goods was 
 defign'd for the Suftenance and Relief of the wholeChri- 
 llian Community at that Time •, and when it is faid. All 
 that believed were together \ it is uncertain, whether they 
 were all together in one Place, or whether they were to- 
 gether in feveral diftin61: Societies ; the latter of thefe 
 jeems moft probable. However, certain it is, that they 
 were all fo together, 'as to be apart by themfelves, and 
 feparate from the unbelieving Party of the Nation. Now 
 thebelievingParents among them either had their Infants 
 and youngChildren with them,or they had not : If theyhad 
 notjthey mud be unnatural to them,& leave them toStarve ; 
 for whence fhould they be providejd for ? Did theirChri- 
 llian Profeflion teach them to be worfe than Infidels ? 
 I Ti^' 5. 8. But if they had their Children with them, 
 as Part of the Chriftian Community, which was diftin- 
 guilhed and feparated from the Unbelievers, then it is e- 
 vident that their Infant-Children have the Title &Deno- 
 niination of Believers given them in Common with their 
 Parents ; for it was a Community of Believers. Why 
 then might not theJailor'sFamily,fuppofing there were in 
 it feveralChildren inMinority,havethe Title of aFamily of 
 Believers,ora believing Family ? And they that conclude, 
 either that there were no Infants in hisFamily,or if there 
 were, that is certain, there were none Baptized, becaufe 
 it is faid, He believed with all his Houfe ; may as well 
 conclude (in the forementioned Inftancej that there were 
 no Infants among the Multitudes that believed, or if 
 «here were, it is certain they had noShare in theCommu- 
 
 nity 
 
Chap. V. of Infant-Baptifm. 391 
 
 nity of Goods, becaufe it is faid, All that believed were to-r 
 getber^ and bad a I Tbings common. And, 
 
 (3.) As to the HouIl:iold of Stephanus, all our 
 Author fays, worth taking Notice of, is that, i Cor. 16, 
 15. — They addiSied tbemfelves to the Miniftry of theSaints. 
 Whence it feems probable, that he had a large and nu- 
 merous Family, ( fome of which were capable of doing 
 Service to the Saints, i. e. the Chriftians of that Place ) 
 which renders it more likely that there were fomelnfants 
 in it. Thefe are all his Proofs. — Yet he concludes as 
 if he had carried his Point, " All which in each of the 
 " In{lances,can never be faid of Infants." HisArgumenc 
 amounts to no more than this : Becaufe fome Things 
 are faid of fome adult Perfons in thefe Families, which 
 are not applicable to Infants ; therefore there could be 
 no Infants in them. And let every one that knows how 
 to ufe his Underftanding free from Biafs, judge whether 
 this Argument makes out the leaft Probability. 
 
 VIL The lad Text our Author has tho't fit to con- 
 trovert, is that, in Rom. 11. 17, — 24. If fome of the 
 Branches he broken off^ &c. ThisPafTagc has been aliedg'd 
 to Ihew that the fame fubftancial Privileges of thejewifli 
 Church, derived from the Covenant with Abraham, are 
 tranfmitted into the Gentile Churches under the Gofpel, 
 which being graffed into the Stock of theJewifhChurch, 
 the good Olive Tree y come to partake with d'iem of the 
 Root and Fatnefs of the Olive Tree^ i. e. of the fame Co- 
 venant-Privileges for Subftance, and confequently the 
 Privilege of having the Covenant extended and fealed to 
 their Infant-Offspring -, which was of eminent Confide- 
 ration in the Old-Teftament Church : This is the very 
 Thing intended by theApoflle, in thisAilegory oUngraf- 
 fing \ and it is a very beautiful one, and ferv-es to teach 
 us, among other Things, that the Church of God under 
 every Adminiftration, was defign'd to be propagated, by 
 its natural Branches, till a new ingrafhng j & when that 
 is made, the fame Method [of Propagation is appointed 
 to continue > for who is io un(kilful,as not to know that 
 
 C c 4 tbt 
 
392 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. V. 
 
 the. Buds are ufually ingraffed together with the Cyon 
 into the Stock, tor Increale and Mukiphcation ? And 
 as in this Allegory, the unbelieving Jevvs were broken 
 ciF, as Branches with their Buds, that is, they and their 
 Children were dilcovenanted ; fo the believing Gentiles 
 were grafFed in as Branches with their Bud.% among thole 
 that remained unbroken off ; that is, they and theirChil- 
 dren were taken into vifible Covenant with God, as the 
 Jevvs of old were. Dr. Gill oppofes this Interpretation 
 with a great Deal of Confidence, as ufual, but at the 
 iameTime with a greatDeal ofWeakneis in hisReafoning 
 2gai lit it, which a few Words may fsrve to cxpofe. 
 
 (i.) He allows ^' that believing Gentiles Ihare in all 
 *^ the fpirituai BlefTings of the Jewifh Church, or of Be- 
 *' lievers under the former Difpenfation." But I anfwer. 
 Though fpirituai BlelTings are not excluded,(yea I grant 
 they are included )yet vifible Church-Piivileges are prin^ 
 cipally intended by partaking of the Root and Fatnefs of 
 the Olive-Tree; the Privileges which the Jewilh Church 
 had, being founded on the Covenant folemnly tranfaded 
 between God and them, whereby *he took them into Re- 
 lation to himfelf, as his vifible Church, entitled to fpeci- 
 al Privileges, and Means of Grace, to fpecial Ordinances 
 and Providences, and that purfuant to theCovenant with 
 Abraham^ Ifaac and Jacobs and their St^^^ which was 
 the Root of Church-Memberihip to the Jews. But 
 Chrifl is the Root of all fpirituai BlefTings and Privileges 
 to Believers : And if thcie only were meant in the Apo- 
 ple'sAllegory, how could the unbelievingjews be broken 
 offlromthsfe fpirituai Privileges, which they never enjoyed, 
 and never had any real or vifible Communion with the 
 Rootjefus Chrifl ? What an Impertinence then is it ('to 
 life his own Lariguage ) to talk of cutting off from that 
 which was never had^ and never was ? But even the un- 
 believing Jews had a Standing in the vifibleChurch, till 
 they were broken off through Unbelief. 
 
 (2.) He argues from his former bafficd Tenets, That 
 ^5 the Covenant of Grace was nsver feaied to Abraham % 
 
 " naturd 
 
Chap. V. of Infant-Baptifm. 593 
 
 ** natural Seed, — Did not belong to them as fuch, nor 
 *' was Circumcinon a Seal of it to them, &c " And if 
 he could make good thefe Things, I ihouid readily agree 
 with him, that " it is a great Impropriety and Imperti- 
 ." nence to talk of cutting oif trom that wiiich was never 
 *' had, and never was." But thefe odd Conceits have 
 been abundantly confuted already, and rejected as un- 
 icriptural, unfound, and erroneous. 
 
 (3.) He g^)es on to fay, '^ The beiievingGennles were 
 y- never grafFed into thatChurchj thatChuich-Scare,with 
 *' all the peculiarOrdinances of it, was utterly aboii(hed 
 '^ by Chrift — *' And again, *'The Jev;ifli Church is not 
 ." the Olive Tree, of whofe Root and Facnefs the Gen- 
 *' tiles partake ; they are not graffed in to the oldjewifh 
 ," Stock ; the Ax has been laid to theRoot of that Tree, 
 *' and it is intirely cut down, &:c.'' Meer Confufion ! 
 Truth and Fallliood blended together ! For want of 
 diflinguifliing as he ought concerning the Jewifli State» 
 which may be confidered either as Ecclefiaftical or Poli- 
 tical ; or in other Words, as a Church, or a Common- 
 Wealth. As a Church, they were founded on theCove- 
 nant made with Abraham and his Seed, whereby they 
 were obliged to acknowledge and believe in the trueGod, 
 the God o[ Abraham^ Ifaac and Jacob, as their God, and 
 to worfliip and obey him only, and inritled to peculiar 
 Favours from him. But when they became a Nation, 
 and upon their Deliverance out of Egypt ^ they were alfo 
 form'd into a Common-W^ealth, by fwndry Laws and 
 Ordinances given them by Mofes, which continued till 
 theComing of Chrili ; after which it was dilfolved. And 
 he may fay, if he pieafes, T'be Ax was laid to the Root of 
 this Tree^ and // was entirely cut down. For the Jewiih 
 Nation as a Body Pohtick, was wholly exterminated by 
 the Romans. Again, as to the Jewidi Church- State, we 
 muft diftinguifh between its clTential Conllitution, and 
 its outward Form of Adminiltration, by peculiar Ordi- 
 nances and Rites of Worfliip. 'Tis granted, tliis latter 
 was abcliihed a: the Death of Chrid. But the Jewi(h 
 
 Church, 
 
394 ADefenct of the Divine Right Chap. V. 
 
 Church, with Regard to its eflential Conditution as a 
 religiousSociety join'd together in the Bonds of theCove- 
 nant, for the Worfliip andService of God, to whom per- 
 tained thePromifes ; was never abohfhed5(th6 the outward 
 Form of Adminiftration was chang'd, and the pecuHar 
 Ordinances of it abrogated) but fubfifted after the Com- 
 mencement of the Gofpel-Adminiftration, under which 
 the Members of that Church were the only Church of 
 Chrid, for divers Years after his Death & Refurredion, 
 before cheCalUng of theOentiles. It is theJewifhChurch 
 that is compar'd to an OHve-Tree in Scripture,//^/. 14.6. 
 Jer. 1 1 . 1 6. But never the Chriftian. TheUnbelievers of 
 that Nation fince Chrift's Coming, were the Branches 
 broken off -, but thofe that believed inChri{l,are theBran- 
 ches left Handing in the Olive-Tree, and continued in 
 the PoiTefTion of their ancient CovenantPrivileges, as the 
 Chriftian Seed of Abraham^ under a far better Difpenfa- 
 tion. And among thefe'the converted Gentiles were the 
 Branches graffed in. NoMan pretends they were grafFed 
 into the Ordinances of the JewifhChurch, but among the 
 Members of the Jewifli Church into the fameStock,unto 
 a Participation with them of the Root and Fatnefs of the 
 Olive-Tree,\.e. the Root of the Abrahamitical Covenant, 
 with all the main Privileges de/ived thence to the Jewilli 
 Church, which that Church was never cut 'off from by 
 the Gofpel-Difpenfation fucceeding, but which were im- 
 proved to greater Perfection. And to fay,thac the Stock 
 of the Jewifh Church is intirely cut down by the Ax being 
 laid at the Root^ is to fay, that God harh excommunica- 
 ted and caft off his ancient People \ which is the very 
 Objedion that the Apoftle fets himfelt to confute in this 
 Chapter^ and rejedts it with great Vehemence andAbhor- 
 rence. f. i. Hath God cafi away his People ? God for- 
 bid. (He means his Jewifh People taken into that Rela- 
 tion to him as the Seed of Abraham) and therefore the 
 Apoftle inftancing in his own Perfon as one of the Rem- 
 nant which God had refervcd to himfelf, {for lalfo am 
 4in Ifraelite) is careful to add, of the Seed of Abraham &c. 
 
 This 
 
Chap. V. cf Infant-Baptifm. 395 
 
 This Remnant were the Branches of the Olive-Tree that 
 fprang from the Root of Abraham^ Covenant, while the 
 unbelieving Party were disfranchis'd. 
 ; (4.) He pretends, that ''the Olive-Trec of whofe Root 
 •*• and Fatnefs believing Gentiles partake, is the Gofpel 
 *' Church-State,out of which thejews thatreje(5ledChrift 
 " were left." But this Senfe is againft the current of 
 Interpreters, and which is more, it is offering Violence 
 to the Text, being contrary to the plain Characters laid 
 down in this Allegory : which direcfls us to a different 
 Interpretation, and can with no Propriety ot Speech or 
 '^i^xxi^^ be accommodated to the JewifliUnbelievers, if the 
 Gofpel Church-State be meant by the Olive-Tree. For 
 to indance in one or two Particulars. 
 
 (i.) How could the unbelieving Jev/s be broken off 
 from theGofpel-Church, who were never in it ? For that 
 is theWord here ufed, Execlaftheefan^ broken off ; not left 
 out^ as he would infinuate to his Reader : which carries a 
 very different Senfe : To be left out is one Thing, and to 
 be broken off is quite different. The Heathen that never 
 had the Gofpel preached, as well as the Unbelievers who 
 had, are left out of the Gofpel-Church ; but none can be 
 faid to be broken otffromlt,but who were once in it : 'tis 
 as good Senfe to fay,a Branch may be broken off from a 
 Tree that was never in it, nor grew from it. But our 
 Author, I prefume, will not admit the unbelieving Jews 
 ever to have been in the Gofpel-Church, as it is certain 
 they never were fo much as vifibleMembers of it.There- 
 fore this only might convince him, that he is wrong in 
 his Suppofition,that theOlive Tree is theGofpel Church- 
 State. His own Mixim might confute him, for has he 
 already forgotten what he had faid but the Page before, 
 '' It is a great Impropriety and Impertinence, to talk of 
 *' cutting off trom that which was never had, and never 
 *' was." And is it not as great Impropriety and Im- 
 pertinence to talk of the unbelieving Jews being broken 
 off from the Olive Tree, that is ( in his Opinion ) from 
 the Gofjjci Church-Statejwho were neverMembers of it } 
 
 (2.; If 
 
296 ^ Defence of the Bivine Right Chap. Vv 
 
 (2 J If this Opinion were true, that the Olive-Trcc 
 here, is the Gofpel Church-State, and if the unbelieving 
 Jews never had any Intereft in that Church State ; with 
 what Reafon or Truth could the Apoftle call it their own 
 Olive-Tree^ f. 24 ? How could it be their own^ if they 
 never had any Propriety in orRelation to it ? As it is nla- 
 nifeft they never had to the Gofpel-Church. It could 
 therefore in no other S^i^St be called their ownOlive-'Tree^- 
 than as they formerly pertained to it as Branches, whillt 
 they were vifible Members of the Jewifh Church. 
 
 (3.) Why are they called the natural Branches of this 
 Olive-Tree ? The Apoftle fpeaking of a future Conver- 
 fion of the Jews, faith, /. 24. — How much more fhall thefe 
 %vhich be the natural Branches^ he graffed into their own 
 Olive-Tree ? Were the unbelievingjews the naturalBran- 
 ches of the GofpelChurch-State ? Or doth nor thisPhrafe 
 moft plainly point out this Senfeto us, viz. That by vir- 
 tue of (heir natural defcent from Mrahani, according to 
 theConftitution ofGod'sCovenant with him, they had the 
 Privileo-eofvifibleChurch-Memberfhipbelongingtotheni 
 and theirSeed,from which they were broken ofFfhro'Un« 
 belief -, but upon theirConverfion andFaith in Chriftjthey 
 fhall be reinftated in their formerCovenantPrivileges,and 
 partake again of the Root & Fatnefs of their ovvnOlive- 
 Tree ; and this Privilege among others, of having the 
 Covenant continued to their natural Seed, as it had been 
 from the Beginning,and that without Variation fromAge 
 to Age, to the World's End -, as plainly appears fiom 
 f. 26,27. of this Chapter, compared with Ifai.^c). 20,21. 
 Thefe Remarks entirely overthrowDr.Gi//'s Hypothefis, 
 that the Gofpel-Church-Scate is meant here by theO//i'^- 
 Tree, Which being refuted, his towering Boaft in what 
 follows under this Head, midl fall of Courfe. He fays, 
 P. 86. " That this Text isfo far from being decifive in 
 " the prefent Cafe, that there is not one Word, one Syl- 
 " lable about Baptifm in ic, and ftill Icfs in Favour oi In- 
 <^ fant- Baptifm." Not one Word, one Syllable ! Is no- 
 thing then to be prov'd from Scripture, but what is coiv 
 
 tain'd 
 
Chap. V. of Infant- Baptifm. o,(^'j 
 
 tain*d in it, in fo many Words and Syllables ? How will 
 he, or any Man prove the Trinity, the Incarnation and 
 Sacisfaftion of Ch rill, and other ChriftianDodrine?, which 
 are not in the very Words and Syllables contained \i\ 
 Scripture ? Such a W\iyof arguing, one \yould think, 
 unworthy of a Man tha: pretends to a reafoningFaculty. 
 But what does a Writer ithat ftudies to gratify a Party, 
 care for that ?Jf it may pafs forArgumenr,withthofe that 
 are not much us'd to the Exercife of that Faculty, he 
 gains bis Point. But to all others, it will appear a clear 
 Cafe, that if theOiive Tree with the Root andFatnefs of 
 it, mean the Church of Ifrael^ with all the fubftantial Pri- 
 vileges of that Church, derived from the Covenant with 
 Abraham and his Seed, and continued undiminifh'd under 
 the Gofpel-Adminiftration,into theCommunion whereof 
 the believing Gentiles are received^ as his ingrafFed Seed, 
 as has been luliy prov'd ♦, it undeniably follows, thefe 
 Privileges mult be retained in their fullellExtent byGof- 
 pel-Believers, and in Particular, that of the Covenant In- 
 tereft of their natural Seed, with their Right to the ini- 
 tiating Token of it, in its vifible Adminiltration : And 
 this, if granted, will decide the Controverfy, tho* their 
 be not a Word or Syllable of Baptifm, or of Infant-Bap- 
 tifm in the Argument. 
 
 The Chapter is concluded with our Author's Attempt 
 to anfwer the Charge of Partiality, which the Antipas- 
 dobaptifts are juftly liable to, in requiring exprefs New- 
 Teft anient Proofs for Infant- Baptifm, while they do, with- 
 out any Scruple, admit Women to the Lord'sTable, and 
 yet are not able to produce any fuch exprefs New-Tefla- 
 ment Proof, that they ought to be admitted, there being 
 no exprefs Precept or Example in the New-Teitament, 
 of Women's partaking of that Sacrament : But he fails 
 in his Attempt, not being able to bring any other than 
 ConfequcnrialProofs. PiisArguments,I grant, to prove 
 Womens Right and Obligation to partake of the Lord's- 
 Supper, are in the Main conclufive; and he muft be a 
 Wrangler that will difpute them. But I affirm, that 
 
 there 
 
59? A Defence ef the Divine Rxght Chap. V. 
 
 there are the fame, or as good Proofs of the Baptifm of 
 Infants. 
 
 (i,) He pretends to fet afide the Arguments in the 
 Dialogue, to prove Womens Right to partake of the 
 Lord's Supper, and yet makes ufe of the fame in EfFed, 
 or fuch as coincide with them. It is not " their Cove- 
 *' nant-lntereft, or their Claim to have the Covenant- 
 ^' Seal to them, &c." but " their being Believers and 
 " Difciples of Chriit," he grants is the Ground of their 
 Admiffion, { fo he denies and affirms the fame Thing in 
 Terms equipollent) Whereas the only Ground of Belie- 
 vers having a Right to the Sacraments, is their being in 
 vifible Covenant with God ; The Sacraments being evi- 
 dently founded on a Covenant. And we bring the fame 
 Proof for the Infants of Believers, theirTitle to Baptifm, 
 from their being accounted Believers and Difciples, 
 Mattb. 8. 6. Aot. 2. 44. Chap. 15. 10. 
 
 (1.) He proves it by "their Right to theOrdinance of 
 Baptifm." 1 hat Women have a Right to thisOrdinance, 
 and that there is exprefs Proof of this Right, is granted, 
 but I deny there is fuch exprefs Proof of their Right to 
 the other Sacrament. Nor is it fo clear aCafe,that "they 
 '' that have Right to one Ordinance, have to another," 
 as not to need Proof For it may be objedted, that at 
 the hrft Inftitution and Celebration of the Lord's Supper, 
 there were only Chrift's own Difciples prefent as Com- 
 municants, but not one Woman •, nor is there any par- 
 ticular pofitive Dirediion given in the New-Teftamcnt 
 for Womens partaking. So that this Proof is but Con- 
 fequential. 
 
 (3.) He proves it from " their being Church Mem- 
 bers.'* But if this be good Proof, we bring the fame for 
 the Baptifm of Chriftian Infants. Luk, i8. j6. 1 Cor, 7. 
 14. EpL 5. 25, 26. 
 
 (4.J He pretends to prove it by Example. But herein 
 he fails ; hisExamples ^it^Mary^ theMother of ourLord, 
 and other W^omen, who are faid to be with theDifciplet 
 at Jzrufakm^ who went into an upper Room, and conti- 
 nued 
 
Chap. V. of Infant-Baptiim. J99 
 
 nued with one Accord in Prayer & Supplication, AEl, i. 
 13^ 14. And in the following Chapter we read of the 
 Difciples being together, and breaking of Bread. Adl. 2. 
 42, 44, 46. — Whence he would gather an Example of 
 Womens partaking of the Lord's- Supper. But here is 
 nothing exprefs to this Purpofe. For ('i.) We are not 
 certain, whether the Women mentioned in the firftChap- 
 ter, were with theApoftles at the Feaft of P^»/fr<7/;f,which 
 was one of the three Feflivals, to which the Males only 
 were exprefly required to repair. Excd. 34. 23. Nor whe- 
 ther the Place where they were aflembled when the holy 
 Ghoft was given them, was the fame with that upper 
 Room into which they entred, when they returned to J^- 
 rufalem. (2.) Nor are Interpreters agreed about the 
 breaking of Bread mentioned, /f/^.2. 42. 46. — W^hether itis 
 to be underftood of commpnBread,or otSacramentalBread. 
 But granting the latter, (3.) What is faid of their con- 
 tinuing in the breaking of Breads is fpoken of thofe that 
 were converted & baptiz'd on theDay oi Pentecofl^ >^. 41. 
 of thefe only it is faid, f, 42. And they continued in the 
 Jpoflles Dotlrine and Fellowlhip^ and in breaking of Breads 
 &c. So here is no exprefs Precedent, or Example of Fe- 
 males partaking of the Lord's-Supper. The utmoft that 
 can be concluded hence is, that it is probable, fome Wo- 
 men were admitted as Communicants : And we affert 
 there is at lead the fame Probability, that fome Infants 
 were baptiz'd in the whole Houfliolds mentioned. 
 
 f 5. j He pretends to prove it '• by a divine Diredlion^ 
 *' Exhortation &Command." He muft mean an exprefs 
 divineDire<5lion -, otherwife he fays no more than what may 
 be faid for Infant-Baptifm, we have an implicitDiredion, 
 Exhortation and Command of God for the baptizing of 
 Infants ; as has been fhewn. The onlyText he brings to 
 prove, there is a divine Dire6lion& Command for Womens 
 partaking of theLord's-Supper,is I Cor. 11. 2S.Let aMan 
 examine himfelf&fo let him eat. Therefore (fo his Argument 
 muft run,)here is an exprefsDiredion and Command,that 
 a Woman ought to examine her felf, and fo to eat. 
 
 And 
 
40O A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. V, 
 
 And to make this our, he obferves that the Word 
 Anthropos^ a Many " is of the common Gender, and fig- 
 *' nifies both Men and Women *' 1 Anfiver^ though the 
 Word be of the common Gender, and theretore applica- 
 ble to both Sexes, when there is nothing in the Subject- 
 Matter Ipoken of to determine it to one Kind rather than 
 another *, yet if we infift on the latter, re is here evidently 
 limited to the Male Kind by the Pronoun Ihauton^ him^ 
 flfy which is of theMalculine, Let a Man examine himjelf. 
 So that this appears the weakeft of all his Proofs; for \i 
 there be no other Argument from Scripture to prove 
 Womens Right, and Obligation to partake of the lacred 
 Supper,this is noArgument at all thatthey ought to dofo. 
 
 And tho our Author afFeds a different Method of 
 proving this, and pretends to bring differentReafons from 
 thofe mentioned in the Dialogue ^ yet inEffedjhe produces 
 nothing of any Weight,but what is coincident with them j 
 except that ot Vv^omens Right toBaptifm •, and excepting 
 this only, which is the Thing difputed in the Cafe of In- 
 fants ; we bring the very fame Proof for their Baptifm, 
 and altogether as good as any he is able to alledge for the 
 Admifiion of Women to the facred Communion. And 
 fo,I hope,if Dr. Gill will (land to hisPromife,that he will 
 have done difputing againft the Baptifm of Infants, yea^ 
 •' that he will readily admit them toBaptifm,'*P.87,89. 
 for the Conditions he requires are performed. It has beeri 
 (hewed of the Infants of Beilevers, that "they areMembers 
 " of theGofpel-Churchj'Vandhave aRight toalltheOrdi- 
 nances adminiftred therein, and ought to be admitted to 
 them as far as 'they appear Subjeds capable -, and thae 
 there is as plain '' Precept & Precedent for the baptizing, 
 of them," as there is for Womens Communion. fThere- 
 fore to deal impartially, he ought not t) exclude the for- 
 mer from one Ordinance, if he can without Scruple, ad- 
 mit the latter upon no better Grounds to the other. 
 
 Thus I have finifhed my Remarks upon the main Sub* 
 je6l ot Dr. Gill's Book, which he has iniitled. The divine 
 Right of Injant Baptifm exa^nin'd ^ difproved. And how 
 
 fairl^j 
 
Chap. VL of Infant-Baptifm. 401 
 
 fairly he has examined, and how well he has fucceedcd in 
 his Attempt to difprove this Right ; as alfo, whether 
 there be nothing y^;V/ or done in the Word of God that gives 
 any Reafon to believe it is his IVill that it /hould be cbferv^d^ 
 (as this Gentleman fo confidently affirms in his Intro- 
 dudion,) I hope I may withSalety leave to every impar- 
 tial, intelligent Reader to judge, after the Perufal of the 
 foregoing Remarks. I have been put upon faying many 
 Things, and making ufe of many Arguments that have 
 been often faid and ufed in theDefence of Infant-Baptifm ; 
 Which could not well be avoided, when the fame Ob- 
 je(ftions and Cavils are raifed by its Adverfaries : But if 
 I miftake not, I have added fome new IlluHration and 
 Enforcement to thofe feveral Arguments, according to 
 the Analogy of holy Scripture ; at kaft, fuch as have 
 not occur'd to me in anyAuthor I have feen. And upon 
 the whole, I may venture to fay, that of all the Truths 
 and Duties that are not deliver'd in exprefs Terms in 
 Scripture, but are by juft and neceifary Confequences to 
 be deduced thence, this of Infant-Baptifm appears to me 
 with the moft clear and fatisfying Evidence, and the 
 Grounds of it therein, as legible as if written withtheBeams 
 of theSun. And fince it isaDo6lrine apparently conducive 
 to theHonour & Glory of God's richGrace towardsMan, 
 and to the Intereft ^Propagation of thcKingdom of Jefus 
 Chrift in the World, as the fandified Means of tranf- 
 mitting it to future Ages among the natural Seed of the 
 Church, and to the Eftablifhment of die Duty, Comfort, 
 and Benefit of Men ; were it doubtful, yet methinks ic 
 fhould be very defirable to every good Man to fee it con- 
 firmed by good Scripture-Evidence ; and efpecially to 
 every one that has the Bowels of a Parent, who is con^ 
 eern'd to find fome Intimations in the Word of God, as 
 theGround of his Faith and Prayer, Comtort and Hope, 
 concerning his Children (and fuch Intimations abundant- 
 ly fufficient for that Purpofe have,in this & the foregoing 
 Chapter, been ofi:er'd to the Reader) infomuch that Pre- 
 judices cheriih'd in Men's Minds againfl this wholefome 
 
 D d Doariiie, 
 
402 A Defence ef the Divine Right Chap. VI. 
 
 Dpftrine, on Grounds ib weak and frivolous, as we have 
 feen, appear at once both unreafonable, uncharitable and 
 uncomtortable. 
 
 Aii that remains is to make feme brief Remarks on 
 bis laiL Chapter, which relates to the Mode of Admini • 
 ft ration. 
 
 Chap. VI. 
 
 The Lawfulnefs of the Mode of admlni- 
 ftring Baptifm by Afftifion^ or Sprinklings 
 defended. 
 
 ||m|HE other Part of the Controverfy rais'd by our 
 ^|T^p • Antipasdobaptiib, which this Chapter relates to, 
 ^g^:^| being about the external Modeot adminiftring 
 the Ordinance of Baptifm, whether by pouring 
 on Water,or putting intoWater, the Party to be baptized, 
 fcems one of the moil trifling Controversies that ever was 
 manag'd. It is a Controverfy, I fay, rais'd by our Ad- 
 verfaries, (whether from an humorous Singularity, or 
 Spirit of Conrradidion to their Fellow-Chrillians, or (as 
 it generaljy happens to mod Sedaries) from an intempe-. 
 rate and unquiet Zeal tor their own Opinion) and that 
 for little or no Caufe given them. For \\ they prefer the a 
 Mode of Dipping as more agreabie to their Notion of | 
 Baptifm, or if they be not fatislied in their Confciences 
 with receiving it in any otherWay,they m.ight freely, and 
 without Offence enjoy their own Opinion, and make ufe 
 of the Mode they are fo fond of : We Ihould have no 
 Controverfy with them •, provided, they would extend 
 the like Candour to thoicChnifian Brethren trom whom 
 they differ, and allow them the Liberty of their own 
 judgment, believing they alfo are perfuaded in their own 
 Cor^fciences of the Lawtulncfs and Validity of the other 
 Mode of Afperfion, or pouring of Water in Baptifm. 
 
 For 
 
Chap. VI. of Infant-Baptifm. 4o_^ 
 
 For all or mod P^dobaptids do allow the wafhing the 
 Body by dipping it in Watter to be a lawful and vahd 
 Adminiilration of the Ordinance, though not that only. 
 But for that People to fet up their own Perfuafion as a - 
 Standard, and to cenfure and condemn the Baprifm of' 
 others as a Nullity,becaufe they don't come up to it i.i 
 that Particular, or meerly becaufe they are not wafhed by- 
 Dipping, but only by the Affufion of Water ; what is ic 
 elfe but to make the whole Ordinance of Baptifm,and all 
 vifibleChriftianity, to depend on a Nicety, a Formality, 
 and even a Formality notexprefly infritutedjor required 
 b/ Jefus Chrift ? This is purely a Piece of Pharifaifm, 
 and favours nothing of the Spirit of the Gofpel, which is 
 not nice and punctual about the little Modes &Circum- 
 (lances of religious Adions ; and can have Place only in 
 Minds too far addicled to Superftition. Such being the 
 Nature of the Subjed of this Chapter, I Ihall not dwell 
 long upon it, but fhall firft propound a fewThings tend- 
 ing to clear and fettle the Point : And then make fome 
 brief Animadverfions on Dr. GiU\ Exceptions to the fe- 
 veral PajGTages in the Dialogue. 
 
 I. I fay then. Though the wafhing of Water, or the 
 Application of Water to the Body or Flefh, in a Way 
 proper for walhing,is of the EfTence of Baptifm ; yet the 
 Mode of this Application, whether by Sprinkling, pour- 
 ing on, or dipping intoWater, is not eilential ; nor is ic 
 determined by any Inftitution of the New-Teftamenr. 
 That ic is a true and proper Baptifm which is inftituted 
 by Chrift, in which the Element of Water is to be ufed, 
 we maintain againft the Qtiakers, from clear and unde- 
 niable Teftimonies ot Scripture : fuch as (for Inftance) 
 A(5l.io. 47. Can any Man forbid Water ^ that thefe flooidd 
 not he baptifed ? But all that is made efTential by the In- 
 ftitution to the outward Mode of Adminiftration, is the 
 Application of Warer to the Body,or waftiing the Body, 
 or Part of it,withWater. So much is manifeftly required 
 in all fuch Paflages in facred Writ, as fpeak of Baptifra 
 as aa outward Walhi ^g. It is ftiled, the 'wajhing oj IVa^ 
 
 D d 2 t&Ty 
 
404 A Defence of the Divine Right Cha p. VI 
 
 ter^ Eph.5.26. And the baptized are faid to have their 
 Sodies wajhed with fure Water^ Heb. 10. 22. And the 
 Apoftle Peter diftinguifhing between the outward & fpi- 
 ritual Part of Baptirm,or between the outward Sign and 
 the Thing fignified, exprefles the outward P sly t,l^y putting 
 away of the Filth of theFlefh^ i Pet. :j. 2 1 .And as there are 
 feveral Ways of doing this, either by pouring of Water, 
 or dipping into Water, fo there is nothing exprefs in the 
 New-Tellament to determine the Mode this Way or the 
 other : but for ought that appears to the contrary, it is 
 left to the Difcretion of Chnfl:ians,as a Matter of Liberty 
 and Indifferency. To this Purpofe let me obferve, 
 
 II. That the Greek W^ord (which is retain'd in our 
 Tranflation and moft others) Baptizo, to baptize^ (about 
 which our Adverfaries make fuch a Noife and BuftJe) is 
 never ufed in Scripture in fuch a Senfe as obliges us to 
 underftand dipping to be thereby meant, but only a walh- 
 ing in general, without determining the Stnit to this or 
 that Mode of WaQiing •, tho' it be fometimes found in 
 Greek Authors to fignify to immerge or dip^ as the Sub- 
 jed-Matter that happens to be fpoken of requires,as well 
 as to wafh by pouring, or Sprinkhng. And hence Cri- 
 ticks, and Lexiographers,do commonly render it indiffe- 
 rently by the Words, Immer^o^ Lavo^ to dipy to wafh ; 
 yet when the Difpute is about the Ufe of a Word in a 
 Scripture-Inftitution, all Reafon requires that we ihould 
 underftand it in theSenfe in which theScripture conflantly 
 ufes it. Now where ever the Word occurs in the New- 
 Teilamentjit does not neceffarily require the Idea of Dip- 
 ping to be affixed to it, any more than Affurion,butonly 
 that of wafhing in general. Hence it is that ourTranfla- 
 tors, have rightly rendred the Word wafloing^ in many 
 Places of the New^-Teftament ; the fame Word in the 
 Original, which they eifewhere render Baptifm^ or baptize. 
 It is obferv'd of the Pharifees and all the Jews^except they 
 w^fj their Hands oft^ they eat noty Mar. 7. 3. The Word 
 there ufed is the common Word for wajhing. Now this 
 wafliing of the Hands before Dinner, is eliewhere called 
 
 the 
 
Chap. VI. of Infant Baptifm. 405 
 
 the baptizing of the Man, in the Greek. Luk. 11.38. The 
 Pharifee that invited our Saviour to dine with him, mar- 
 velled that he had not fir ft wajhed {ebaptifthee \ that he was 
 not baptized) before Dinner, Which plainly jQiews, that 
 the Words wafljing and baptizing^ are indifferently ufed 
 for one and the fame Thing ; and that fo as to leave the 
 Mode of wafliing, whether by AfFufion or Dipping, un- 
 determined ; for the Hands are as commonly wafh'd, by 
 pouring Water on them, as by dipping them into 
 Water. And thofe that are flcill'd in this Sort of Criti- 
 cifm, do alTure us, that theJewsCuftom was to wafh their 
 Hands by AfFufion.* Again, it is faid of the Jews, that 
 when they come from the Market except they wajh ^ can mee 
 baptifontaiy except they are baptized) they eat not : And 
 many other Things there be which they have received to holdy 
 as the wajhing of the Cups & Pots, and brafcn Veffels^and of 
 Tables (or rather of Beds, as the Word more properly ^\g- 
 nifies) the Word in the Greek is, baptifnicus, the Baptifms 
 of Cups &c. Mar. 7. 4. Now there is not one of thefe 
 Things that neceflarily requires dipping, in order to its 
 being wafhed,which may as well be done by pouring out 
 Water. But feme of thefe Things feem neceflarily to 
 require wafhing by AfFufion : for who ever vvafhes Ta- 
 bles or Beds, by dipping or plunging them into Water ? 
 Therefore it is evidently a Miftake to fay, that Baptifm 
 requires Dipping, in its Signification, when us'd of any 
 other Wafhing, befides the Sacramental. And to make 
 this more evident, I fhall add one Inftance more : The 
 Writer to the Hebrews fpeaking of the legal Purificati- 
 ons which were typical of the faving Virtue of the Blood 
 of Chrifl in purging the Confcience from dead PForks, men- 
 tions divers fVa/hings, Heb. 9. 10. In the Greek it is, 
 Diaphorois baptifmois ; divers Eaptifnis, or ("as the Vv^ord^ 
 fignify) different Sorts of Baptifms : Now there were 
 two Sorts of Wafhings under the Law, Bathing, and 
 Sprinkling ^O'C AfFufion -, and both are included under the 
 Term Baptifms here ufed : Wn:iich is a plainDemonftra- 
 D d 3 tio.i 
 
 ♦ Vid. Pel. Synopf. in Mark 7. 4, 
 
4c6 A Bejence of the Divine Right Chap. VL 
 
 tion that the facred Writers ufe the Word Baptifm for 
 JVajhin^_^\x\ its large and general Signification, as inclufive 
 of the feveral Ways of performing it, or in fuch a Senfe 
 as does not determine it to this or the other Mode. Or, 
 if we fuppofe the Baptifms in the Text lalf men ci one J, to 
 have Reference to one Mode rather than another, the 
 Context clearly carries it forSprinkling. For the facred 
 Writer* in the ioUowing Words giving an Example of 
 thefe PVafmngs^ or Baptifms^ inlfances only in thofe 
 legal Purifications that were performed by Sprinkling. 
 >^. 13. For if the Blood of Bulls and of Goats^and the Jfhes 
 of an Heifer^ fpri72kling the Unclean^ fantlifieth to the puri- 
 fying of the Flefb^ &c. Which Words have a plain Refe- 
 rence to the Waters of Separation ; in which the A flies of 
 a red Heifer were mingled ; which were appointed to be 
 fprinkled on One that was ceremonially Unclean •, of 
 which we read at large, Numb. 19. per tot. Whence it is 
 manifeft, that a Walhing or Purification, perlorm'd by 
 Sprinkling, is in the Senfe and Language of holy Scrip- 
 ture,a true and properBaptifm. So far is the Word bap- 
 tize^ or Baptifm^ from determining theSenfe toDipping, 
 that in the Scripture Ufe and Signification of it, it is ne- 
 ver hmited to that Mode ; but the Term, we fee, is ufed 
 therein of fuch Purifications as are exprefs'd by the other 
 Mode of Sprinkling. Nothing therefore can be conclud- 
 ed in favour of Dipping, from the conftanc Ufe of the 
 Word baptife in the New-Teftament. 
 
 III. ChriftianBaptifm is very frequently exprefs'd in the 
 New-Teflament, by the general Term ot lVafhmg\ which 
 may be applied to anyKindof Wafhlng •, as appears from 
 the Places I have cited, wherein Baptifm is called the 
 wafhing of IVater^ and having the Body wafhed with pure 
 Water •, and it is called the wafhing of Regeneration^ Tm. 
 3. 5. And the Thing fignified is often denominated from 
 the outward S\gx\,zPFalhing^Cleanftng,Purging.A6i. 22. 16. 
 Arife and be baptized^and wafh away thy Sins, i Cor. 6. 1 1. 
 J'e are wafhed^ ye are fan5iified^ &c. Eph. 5. 26. That he 
 might fant'iify Q clecnje it with the wafhing of Water. 2 Per. 
 "- • - 1.9. 
 
Chap. VI. of Infant-Baptiim. 407 
 
 I. 9. — Hath forgotten that he v:as purged from his old Sins, 
 i. e. in Baprifm. So, by what appears trom the Wrirei^s 
 of the Nevv-Teftament, Baptizing & fVafljtng are ufed by 
 them as fynonymous Terms. Though therefore the 
 Chriilian Church has appropriated the tormer to fignifV 
 the firft Sacrament of the New-Tellament, Vi^hich mi«^hc 
 have been as well exprefs'd by Ablution^ or IVafhing^ yec 
 the former is of no greater Force to infer the Neceffity of 
 Dipping, than the latter. 
 
 IV. The Analogy to the Thing fignify'd, is preferv'd 
 in both Modes of Bapcifm, which is Remifnon of Sins iii 
 the Blood of Chriil, and Re: ■ eneration and Sandification 
 by the Spirit. And if our Obligation to a fpirirual Con- 
 formity to the Death & Refurredion of Chrift, in which 
 our Sandlification confitls, (which is fpoken of in one or 
 two Places of the New-Teflament, as one Intent of Bap- 
 tifm : Rom. 6. 4. Col. 2. 12.) be fitly reprefented by the 
 Mode of Plunging, yec the Application of the Blood of 
 Chrift for the RemifTion of Sins, and the divinelnfluences 
 of the Spirit for ourRegeneration & Sandification, which 
 are the great Bleflings of divineGrace fignlfied inBaptifm, 
 are much more frequently reprefented and exprefled by 
 Sprinkling & Effufion. Heb.10.22. — Ha-ving our Hearts 
 fprinkled from an evil Confcience^ (which is the internal and 
 fpiritual Part of Baptifm,anfwering the outward Sign, in 
 the following Words) and our Bodies wafljed with pure 
 Water, i Pet. i. 2. — Through the Sdndfification of the Spi- 
 rit unto Obedience., and the Sprinkling of the Blood of Jefus* 
 And divers other Pailages cited in the Dialogue to this 
 Purpofe. And the Communications of the Spirit forRe- 
 generation, <^c. are in the common Phrafe of Scripture 
 called tht pouring out of the Spirit^ that I need not cite 
 Texts. So that if any Thing be argued from the Ana- 
 logy of the Sign to the Thing fignified, for the Determi- 
 nation of the outward Mode of Adminiftration, the Ar- 
 gument, we fee, mud preponderate in Favour of Spi ink- 
 ling, or pouring of Water ♦, though it be granted that 
 lome Part of this Analogy is well exprefs'd by the Mode 
 of Dipping. y. Tbere 
 
40 8 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. VI. 
 
 V. There is no Example extant in theNew-Teftamenc 
 of fo much as one Perfon, of whom there is any certain 
 Evidence that he was baptized by being plung'd intoWa- 
 ter. All that is pleaded in Favour ot it, is trom Proba- 
 bility only •, as theAccount given us by the facred Hiflo- 
 rian, of many repairing to fome River or Conflux of Wa- 
 ter, where they were baptized \ and their going down to, 
 and coming up from, or out of the Water. But, 
 
 (i.) We don't read of one Inftance of any Perfon who 
 repair'd to a River or Conflux of Water, purely on the 
 Defign pf being baptiz'd therein. All the Inflances of 
 thofe who are baptiz'd in Rivers or Brooks belong'd to 
 the Baptifm o^ John -, there is but one Inftance recorded 
 in the Book of the Aofs^ which is that of theEunuch bap- 
 tiz'd hy Philip. They met with Water occafionally as they 
 travelled,at the Infl:ant the Eunuch was converted to the 
 Faith of Chrifl by the Preaching of Pbiltp. Ad. 8.36. 
 Here was no going to Water, with a Defign of being bap- 
 tiz'd. And as for John^his baptizing in Rivers, this may 
 be accounted for from theManner of his Education in the 
 Deferts of Judea •, where he very much confin'd his Mi- 
 niftry, in Fulfilment of the Prophecy of Ifaiah concern- 
 ing him. The Voice of one crying in thelFtldernefSy Mat. 3, 
 1,3. There is no Intimation in facred Writ, that thePeo- 
 ple repair'd to Jordan^ or any other Places of Water for 
 the Sake of being baptized in them : But they repaired 
 to John^ to attend his Minifl:ry, and many were brought 
 thither out of Curiofity, as our Saviour intimates. Mat, 
 II. y. And having chofen his Refidence in fuch Places 
 where he might be near Water for the Convenience of 
 baptizing the Multitudes thatreforted to hisMiniftry, not 
 liaving ('tis to be fuppos'dj any other Convenience of 
 Veilels for bringing VVater, in fuch a Plare as the Wil- 
 dernefs, thofe that embrac'd hisDodrine were baptiz'd of 
 him in Jordan and other Places of Water : but the facred 
 Writersareentirelyfilent as to theManner of his baptizing 
 them, whether by plunging their Bodies in whole or in 
 part under Waiter, or by pouring Water on their Faces, 
 
 In 
 
Chap. VI. of Infant-Baptifm. 409 
 
 In the Account the Evangelifts give us, there is nothing 
 that makes for or againil one Side or the other, in the 
 Controverfy. 
 
 (2.) What is related of fome, their going down into 
 the Water, and coming out of it, I Ihaii afterwards have 
 Occafion to fpeak to chat : In the mean Tim.e, norhing 
 can be concluded thence,as to theMode of their Baptifm. 
 There going down into the Water, and coming up frora 
 it was one Ihmg, and their Baptifm ar.other. There are 
 many learned Psdobaptiils ( 'tis to be confefs'd) who do 
 think it highly probable,that they were dipp'd. But none 
 that I ever knew or heard o[,but the Antipasdobaptifls, 
 do confidently conclude h'om thefe Infbances, that it is 
 certain they were fo •, whereas nothing is more certain,thai* 
 that tjiofe who draw this Conclufion, go beyond their 
 Evidence. But it it be thought probable that John bap- 
 tiz'd by Dipping, it mull be thought equally probable, 
 if no: much more fo, that others were baptiz'd by AfFu- 
 fion , as thofe three l^houfand at Pentecoft^Paul^Cornelius 
 his Company, the Jailor and his Ho u (hold. It can^t ra- 
 tiorally be thought by any one who confiders theHiftory 
 of taefe Baptifms,that thefe feveral Pcrfons were dipp'd : 
 (Bit thefe Initances willoccur again) therefore it is unac- 
 coL'ntable, that any fhould be fo pertinacious as to think 
 no other Way of Baptifm lawful, but that of Dipping. 
 I fl-ali only add, 
 
 71. Were it certain (as it is not) that Dipping was the 
 mdl common Mode of Baptizing in the Apoftles Times, 
 ye; it will by no Means follow that that is the only law- 
 fuMode,but that the other of Affufion is full as valid an 
 A^miniftration of the Ordinance. For the Inftitution re- 
 quring Baptifm orWafhing with W^ater,has not determi- 
 ned the Adminiflration of it to this or that Mode, but 
 (aswas (hewed) left it as a Matter of Indifferency. There- 
 foe thofe in Judea^ and other warmer Countries, where 
 Bahin,is were io common and cuftomary a Thing,mighc 
 reafonably be fuppos'd tromInclination,Cu{lom&Choice, 
 to leceive their Baptifm by Dipping. But then, what 
 
 I Authority 
 
4IO A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. VI. 
 
 Authority has their Pradice in a Matter of Liberty, to 
 bind others ? WhatReafon can be given why theirChoice 
 and Pradlife fhould debar otherChriftians of theirLiberty 
 to choofe the other Mode ? Thofe P^dobaptifis therefore, 
 who approved dipping in Baptifm, and have been of 
 Opinion that it was the Pradice of the primitiveChurch, 
 do yet (Iron^y alTert the Liberty of the Chriftian-Church 
 to make ufe of eitherMode, as in aMatter of Indifference, 
 according to theVariation of Times, Places, and Circum- 
 flances •, * holding thatChrift has no where diredly com- 
 mandedPlunging orSprinkling,but oniyBaptizirg,which 
 may be performed in either of thefe Modes. And it is in 
 great Wifdom and Kindnefs that our blefiedLorc has ap- 
 pointed the Sacrament of Initiation into his Religion, in 
 fuch general Terms, as baptizing or wafhing v/ith. Water 
 in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghoif, 
 leaving the Mode of Adminiftration free, that it might 
 be the better accommodated to the State &CircumJtances 
 of particular Perfons of all Ages, and of all Nations of 
 the Earth. Since bis Religion was defign'd to be a.i urii- 
 verfal Religion \ it was proper that the initiating Rite 
 lliould be of fuch a Nature as might be adapted t^ the 
 Circumftances ol all Nations, that all Sorts of Pe-fons 
 might have free Accefs to the Means of their Salvaiion, j 
 thofe in Infancy and Childhood, as well as thole of dder i 
 Years j thofe of a weak and ricklyConftitution,as wdl as 
 the healthy and ftrong, and that in the feveral Courtries J 
 and Climates of the Earth, and in the feveral Seafors of 1 
 theYear, the coldeft as well as warmed. Whereas to lave 
 limited the Ordinance to the Mode of Plunging uider 
 Y\/"ater, would have been a reftrainingthat vifible Synbol 
 of the Chriltian Religion, to thofe only who are abe to 
 bear it, without endangering theirHealth : Which ferns 
 not conoTUOUS to a religious Inilitution, v>^hich wai de- 
 fign'd for all Nations ot Men v^^ithout Limitation. 
 
 The foregoing Obfervations, which cannot be liirly 
 contradided, do fufnciendy obviate all, or molt olDr. 
 
 m 
 
 * Vid. Zanch. Opera. Tom. IV. P. 493^' 494* 
 
Chap. VI. ^/ Infant-Baptifm. 411 
 
 aWs Objedions in this Chapter ^ for all that he has ad- 
 vanc'd relating to the Mode of Adminiftration, in Op- 
 pofition to the Dialogue, is either gian'cd, and nothing 
 to the Purpofe, or doubtful and iinprov'd ; or cMz are 
 plain Miilakes, and to be correded. 
 
 Firjl. It is granted that the V/ord Baptizo^ fignifies to 
 Dip or F lunge ^ as well as to 110 ajh ; and this is not con- 
 tradiclory to the Dialogue, which admits that the Word 
 fometimes fignifies to dip^ P-3 1- And I make no Doubr, 
 it is often ufed in thatSignification inClaffic Authors \ but 
 not always : it has alfo with them the more gei;eral Signifi- 
 cation ofAblution,& even of Perkifion orSprinklinp-. And 
 therefore ourAuchor might have fparedhisPains in maki no- 
 Citations from the Lexicons^ and Criticks,for four Pao-es 
 together, to fliew the Meaning of the Word Baptizo^ i^ 
 to dip ; fuch as Scapula^ Stepbanus^Schrevelius.Leigh^ and 
 others,for the Lexicons •, Calvin^ Beza^Sic, for tlKCriiicks ; 
 who having Regard t) the Ufe of the Word in Heathen 
 Writers,give it this Senfe •, yet diere is none of them that 
 exclude the other Senfe,in which it is alfo ufed by Greek 
 Writers, (which is evidently the Scripcure-Senfe of the 
 WordJ even that of Ablution in general, or that deny 
 this alio to be a proper Senfe of the Word. yea,moft of 
 thofe whom he has cited render the W^ord, Mergo^Lavo^ 
 &c. to Dip^ or Plunge^ to make wet^ to wap or cleanfe \ 
 only he fays, the primary Senfe of the Word is toi)//>,and 
 its confequential Senfe is io IVafh ; P. 90. If his Meaning- 
 be, that Things are dip'd in order to their being wafh'd, 
 I grant W^afhing to be the Confequence of Dipping, and 
 in this Refpedt to have a confequential Senfe ; lor, as 
 Voffius obferves, ("cited in LeigFs Crit. Sacr.) that " a 
 " Thing is wont to he dip'd^or ting'' d^t hat it might bewafh^d^ 
 '^ therefore the Word is ufed for fVafoing^^' in the feveral 
 1 exts of Scripture, which he there quotes. But if he 
 means, its proper Senfe is to Plunge ; but to wa/h is an 
 improper, or figurative Senfe of the Word ; he is confuted 
 by the feveral Lexicons he has been at the Pains to cite ; 
 
 which 
 
41 a A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. VI. 
 
 whic^ equally, and indifferently render it,to dip^to wajh j 
 and make wajhing as natural and proper a Senfe of the 
 Word, as dipping. It is ufed in an improper, and meta- 
 phorical Senfe, when applied to fignify great i\ffli^ions, 
 and the pouring out of the Spirit. But I cannot but ob- 
 ferve Dr. GilPs Partiality to his own Side,in quoting Mr. 
 Leigh's^ Critica Sacra, (which is a Colledion of the mod 
 eminentCriticks in the Greek Language) when he fallens 
 upon that PafTage only •, '* The native and proper Signi- 
 «* fication of it is to dip into Water, or to plunge under 
 Water ;" And Cafaubon, Bucanus\ Bullinger, and Zanchy, 
 are cited as agreeing to this Senfe, who were all Paedo- 
 baptifts, and never meant to deny the other Senfe of the 
 Word : But he conceals, or paffes over in Silence, what 
 went before in that Author : viz. " The Word Baptize, 
 *' tho' it be deriv'd from {Bapto,) iingo, to dip, or plunge 
 <* into the Water, and fignifieth primarily fuch a^Kind 
 •' of wafhing as is ufed inBucks,whereLinnen is plunged 
 »« and dipt -, yet it is taken more largely for any Kind of 
 *' wafhingjrinfing or cleanfing,even where there is no dip- 
 " ping at all." For which he citesDr.F(f^//y,who confirms 
 it by a Number of Texts out of the New-Teftament ; 
 and adds, " Chrift no where requireth Dipping,but only 
 *' Baptizing', wh\chWord(asHeJychius,Stepbanus,Scapula, 
 *' and Budceus, the great Mailers of the Greek Tongue, 
 *' make good, by very many Inftances and Allegations, 
 *' out of Claflic Wrirersj impurteth no more thanAbki- 
 *' tion, or Wafhing.** 
 
 Our Author fays, Scapula '' makes dipping ox plunging 
 " to be the firll & preferable Senfe of the Words.'* P. 9 1 . 
 Tho' he as plainly gives it the other Senfe pleaded for. 
 But be fure, dipping mud be the preferableSenfe withDr. 
 Gill, and his Party j otherwife that Mode of Baptizing 
 will lofe much of its Reputation. But why fhould not 
 the Scripture-Senfe of the Word, be the preferable one, 
 efpecially in theUfeof a facredlnftitution .^ Which Senfe, 
 as it refufes not Dipping, fo it will admit Sprinkling or 
 AfFufion, and either Way the baptifmal Waihing may be 
 
 perforaicd. 
 
Chap, VL of Infant- Baptlfm. 41^ 
 
 performed. But when he tells us, there is ** no proper 
 " Wafhing but what is by Dipping •," one would hardly 
 think him in earneft, being fo liable to be confuted by 
 the common Senfe & Cuftom of Mankind, that to fpend 
 Words for the Proof of the contrary, would appear fu- 
 perfluous, and trifling, as it is even ridiculous for a Man 
 ferioufly to aflert, there can be no properWafhing but by 
 Dipping. P-93. He refers his Readers toOthers,for the 
 Ufe of the Word in Greek Authors •, by the Inilances of 
 which he fays," It appears to have the Senfe of Dipping, 
 and Plunging, and not of Pouring or Sprinkling ;" and 
 particularly to Dr. Gale, I might alfo refer the Reader 
 to other Writers in this Controverfy, who produce plain 
 and numerous Inftances from thofe Greek Authors of the 
 other Senfe of the Word, which he oppofes, and even to 
 Dr. Gale himfelf j for feveral ot his own Inftances have 
 been made to appear to make againft him, and to iignify 
 even Perfufion, or Sprinkling. But that Gentleman has 
 found out aWay to fecure himfelf from being ever worft- 
 ed in any Conteft of this Nature, which is,when he meets 
 with the Word which in the genuine Meaning of the Au- 
 thor is ukdiov pouring, fprinkling^QX ftaining with Afper- 
 /ton, to fly to a figurative, or metaphorical Senfe of the 
 Word, and to ftand to it with Confidence, that the Word 
 in its native Signification intends Dipping only. * At this 
 Rate a Man may be invincible in maintaining the groflTeft 
 Abfurdities. 
 
 But to what Purpofe is it to puzzle the illiterateVulgar 
 /about the Ule of the Word in profane Authors, when we 
 are difcourfingof theSacramentalUfe of it,about which wc 
 have fufBcientLight&Diredion given us in the holyScrip- 
 tures themfelves ? I ihall therefore go on with our Author. 
 
 Secondly^ To confider the Ufe of the Words Baptize^ 
 and Baptifm in the New-Teftament,and what he excepts 
 againft theExplication given of them in the Bialo^ue. 
 
 The Firji Example mentioned, is the Application of 
 the Word Baptize^ to the Defcent of the Holy Ghoft, on 
 
 the 
 
 * GaU\ Keil on ^V/'s Hid. Letter 3. 
 
41^- A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. VL 
 
 the Apoftles, and on Cornelius and his Company. Our 
 Saviour promifing to fend the Spirit to his Dircipies,faid, 
 John truly baptized with Water^ but ye fhall he baptized 
 with the Holy Ghojt. Adl. 1.5. comp. A6t. 11. 15, 16. 
 The Author of the D;W^^f<^ juftly obferves, That " it 
 *' can't be pretended, that here was the leaft AJlufion to, 
 *' or Refemblance of Dipping or Plunging^ in this Ufe 
 *' of the Word." {Dial. F. 32.) i.e. It can't with any 
 Shew of Reafon be pretended. In Oppofnion hereunto. 
 Dr. Gill fets up the Sentiment of the learned Cafaubon^ sl 
 very great Critick (ht fays j in the Greek Tongue, who, 
 it fcems, was of Opinion, ( as quoted by our Author ) 
 that Regard "is had in this Place ( viz. A(St i. 5- y to 
 ** the proper Signification of the Word -, for ( he adds ) 
 ** Baptizein^ is to immerge, fo as to tinge, or dip,and in 
 *' this Senfe the Apoftles are truly faid to be baptized ; 
 *' for the Houfe in which this was done, was filled with 
 ** the Holy Ghoft, &c." This indeed is an Inftance 
 that (hews how fomelearnedCriticks, arefometimes forc'd 
 to ftrain their Fancies to make Words chinck to their 
 pre- conceived Opinions. But by the Leave of this very 
 learned Critick, let me obferve. That before he or any 
 other Man can pretend, there was the lead Regard orRe- 
 femblance (in this Difpenfation of the Spirit ) to Dipping 
 or Plunging f which he calls the proper Signification of 
 the Word) it fhould be made to appear, that the Houfe 
 was firft filled with the Holy Ghoil, before the Apoftles 
 enter'd into it : Whereas,that extraordinary Prefence and 
 Mapifeftation of the Holy Spirit, was vouchfaPd sitPen- 
 Ucojl^ only in Relation to the Difciples of Chrift ; and 
 thofe miraculous Symbols of the Prefence and Power of 
 the divine Spirit, are faid to come from Heaven^ and to 
 /// all the Houfe^ where they were Sitting. A^. 1. 2. And 
 the Holy Ghojl is faid 10 fall upon Cornelius hisCompany. 
 Chap. 10. 44. Now that which comes from Heaven, and 
 that which falls upon Men, may be properly faid to carry 
 in it a Refemblance of pouring Out or Sprinkling ; buc 
 with no Shew of Reafon or Propriety can they be faid to 
 
 be 
 
Chap. VI. of Infant- Baptifm. 415 
 
 be dipp'd or plung'd into it. Can a Man without a ma- 
 nifefl: Ablurdity be faid to be dipp'd in aShower of Rain 
 falling ever fo copioully upon him ? If he may, then the 
 Paedobaptifts dip, when they make Ufe of the Mode of 
 Afperfion, or AtfLifion : And then what do our Adver- 
 faries contend for, about the Mode of Baptifm ? The 
 /giving of the Holy Ghoft, is compared to the pouring 
 ; down Water from above, and exprefs'd in fuch Language 
 I in Scripture, lia. 44. 3. I will four Water upon hmthat 
 [is Tbirfty^ — I will pour my Spirit upon thy Seed, (ffc. And 
 I this is what our Saviour calls a Baptizing^ or I?eing bap- 
 ; tized with the Holy Ghoji, No Man therefore, that is 
 I not wedded to an Hypothefis^ nor fuffers his Imagination 
 ito get the Start of his Reafon, can pretend there is the 
 ■leait Similitude or Refemblance between the pouring out 
 of theSpirit,and Dipping or Plunging. Nor confequent- 
 j ly that the Phrafe of baptizing with the Holy Ghoft ^ car- 
 j rics any Allufion to it. Nay, this very Phrafe fo often 
 ufed by the evangelical Writers, makes it evident that 
 they had never the Idea of Plunging, as neceiTarily con- 
 nected with the Word Baptize^ or Baptifm ; but rather 
 that of Sprinkling,or pouring of Water : For let us fup- 
 pofe Plunging ro be meant by Baptizing, how ftrained ? 
 How harih and unnatural mud the Expreffion be ? How 
 dilTonant from common Senfe, to fay, Te fhall be plunged 
 i with the Holy Ghoft ^ or ye fhall be dipp'd or plunged into 
 the Holy Ghofi ? But fuppofing they meant no more by 
 the Expreffion, than fimply an Ablution, or Afperfion, 
 there is the greatefl: Fitnefs,. and Propriety in it, and it 
 is agreable to Senfe, and the Rules ol Grammar, to fay, 
 l^e ftoall be fprinkled^ purged^ov wajhed with the HolyGho^^ 
 plentifully poured out upon you. And this Manner of 
 Speech being conftantly parrellel'd with that other of 
 baptizing with Water ^ and govern'd by it ("Mar. i. 8. / 
 indeed {{diysjohn) have baptized with Water ; but he ftoall 
 baptize you with the Holy Ghoft. So Matt, 3. n. Luk. 3. 
 ib.A^f. ir. 16. ) It is natural hence to conclude, the 
 facred V/riters by this Phrafe,meant only aWaihing with 
 
 Watef. 
 
4l6 A Defence of the Divine R'tght Chap. V/ 
 
 Water. And it is fo far from favouring the Notion of 
 Dipping being necelTarily implied in Baptizing^ that if it 
 mull be underftood to connote the Mode of performing 
 it, that ot fprinkUng with Water (lands fairer for Admif- 
 fion, than that of Plunging, which the Propriety of the 
 ExprefTion will fcarce admit. 
 
 Secondly^ Another Inllanceof the Word, relates to the 
 Sufferings, Crucifixion, and Death of Chrifl, which is 
 called a Baptifniy Mar. lo. 38. Luk. 12. 50. Now if it 
 be afk'd, What Refemblance or Allufion can there be to 
 Dipping, or Plunging, in Chrifl's Crucifixion, in " his 
 ** being buffeted, fpit upon, and lifted up on theCrofs." 
 In Anfwer hereto. Dr. Gill obferves, P. 95. '' That the 
 ** Sufferings of ourLord,arefometimes exprefs'd by deep 
 ** Waters, and Floods •, and he is reprefented as plung'd 
 •' into them and covered, and overwhelm'd with them." 
 And to this Purpofe applies, Pfal. 6g. i, 2. ne Wafers 
 are come into my Soul, Iftnk in deep Aiire — / am come inta 
 deep IVaters, &c. 'Tis acknowledged, that great Afflic- 
 tions, and Calamities, are often fignified in Scripture by 
 Waters and Floods, Waves and Billows, whether they 
 come over a Man, or he finks into them •, and fo thofe 
 figurative ExprefTions may be underflood to fignify the 
 Sufferings of the Meffias in general, as ihtPfalmifi (doubt- 
 lefs) in the Ufe of them primarily intended his own. But 
 the Queflion flill remains. What Refemblance do the 
 true and proper Sufferings and Crucifixion of Chrifl, 
 bear to Plungrins: ? Or what meater Refemblance doSuf- 
 ferings in general bear, to a Man's finking in deep Wa- 
 ters, than to Waves and Billows going over him ? As the 
 Expreflion is Pfal. 42. 7. And to take down his Boafl, 
 that " Immerfion mufl more fidy exprefs the Sufferings 
 •* of Chrill, than a Word which only fignifies Pouring, 
 *' &c." I might eafily produce ^numerous Inllances, 
 wherein great Sufferings are fignified by the Metaphor of 
 Effufion : And e^n the Sufferings of Chrift are thus ex^ 
 prefs'd, in Pfal. 22. which contains a prophetical Com- 
 plaint of the Sufferings of the Meffias. This Metaphor 
 
 occurs, 
 
Chap. VI. of Infant-Baptifm, 417 
 
 occurs, i\ 14. I am poured out like V/ater. And the In- 
 fliction of the Curfe, which our Lord underwent for us, 
 {Gal. 3. 13-) ^s exprefTed by the fame Metaphor of Effu- 
 fion, Dan. 9. 11. 'ihe Curfe is poured upcn us. And we 
 read in the fame Chapter, oi thtConfumntaticn poured upon 
 the Defolate. And how often are the fore Judgments of 
 God upon Man reprefented under the figurative Expref- 
 fions of his Anierov IVrath poured out upon them ? And 
 the pouring out ot the Vials, \x\Rev. 16. iignify the greac 
 Calamities brought upon the World ; and that, by the 
 Ordination of Eieaven. So that this Metaphor of Effu- 
 fion^z-xxnt% in it aReprefentation of theSufferings of Chrifc 
 as ordained of God^ rather more full and fignincant, than 
 that dilmmerftcn^ ox finkini into deep H'aters. But I lay 
 no Strefs on thele figurative Expreifions ; but fhall only 
 obferve, that Dr. Gill comparing thefe tv/o Modes, with 
 Regard to ChritVs Sufferings, very unfairly, and untruly 
 infiauates, as if we held, that " the Word only fignifies 
 " Pouring, or" (as he is pleas'd to term it ) "Sprinkling 
 *' a few Drops of Water." Whereas we affirm, not thac 
 it fignifies only Pouring, or Sprinkling ; as on the other 
 Hand, we deny that it fignifies ^w/y Dipping. What we 
 maintain, is. That it imports ^nAblutlon in general, which 
 may be performed either Way -, and nothing can be ga- 
 thered for determining the Senfe to Dipping, from any 
 Allufion thereto in the Sufferings of Chrifi:, rather thaa 
 to Affufion. 
 
 A third Infiance refers to Baptifn^ or Wafoing in a 
 proper Senfe, which is that Text betore quoted, M^r.7.4, 
 Where the Evangi^liil: obferves of the Pharifees^ and all 
 the Jews^ thac when they come from the Market^ except 
 they Wafh^ {Gr. are Baptized) they eat not. And that a* 
 mong other Traditions, they hold //:'^ IVafJmtg., ( Gr, the 
 Baptifms) ofCups^ and Pots^ Brazen Fejfels^ and of "Tables 
 or Beds. Dr. Gill hySy in Aniwer to this. That "when 
 *' the Pharifees came from Market, or any Court of Ju- 
 '• dicature, if they touch'd any common Perfons,or their 
 " Cloaths, reckoned ihemfeivcs unclean j and according 
 
 E e "to 
 
4 1 8. A Defeyice of the Divine Right C h a p . V I. 
 
 " to the Tradition of the Elders, were to immerfe them- 
 " felves in Water, and did," But (i.)l^ is not laid in 
 the Text, thzt if i bey touch' d any common Perfons^^cr their 
 Cioaths^ they were Baptized or Wafhed : But only that 
 the Pharifees, and all the Jews^\.e, the generahty of them, 
 when they come from the Market^ wafli themfelves before 
 they eat : Which they might do upon a Suppofition of 
 fome Pollution contra6led, whether knowingly or igno- 
 rantly, or as Dr. Lightfoot obferves, "Being ignorant and 
 " uncertain what Unclcaniiefs they came near unto in 
 '' the Market", -f This was tho't a fufficient Reafon, 
 by that fuperflitious People, for wafhing their Hands, 
 when they came from it,beiore they eat. ButC2.) When, 
 he fays, that by the Tradition oj the Elders^ they were (on 
 this Occafion ) to immerfe themfdves in fVater, and did : 
 He is contradided by thebeiliVlaftersof theJewilliLearn- 
 ing. Dr. Lightfoot denies that the plunging of the whole 
 Body is here underftood ^ and makes it appear from the 
 Rabbies^ That " fuch Plunging is not uied, but when 
 " Pollution is contradled from the more principalCaufes 
 " of Uncleannefs." Among thelnilances whereof,which 
 he recites from Rab, Sol, 1 here is none that reaches the 
 prefentCafe. " But for (mailer UncleannelTes it was 
 '' enough to c!ea;nfe the Hands." * And Dr. Pocock af- 
 firms, That in Cafe of the greater Pollutions, the Im- 
 merfionor Plunging of the whole Body v/as oi no Ad- 
 vantage, with Rcfped to their com,mon Meals, v/hich are 
 no where forbidden to the Unclean ; and in order to 
 which, the Waf^.ingof the whole Body is no where re. 
 quir'd by the Jewifh Mailers, bur of the Hands only, ^j; 
 But the Text fpeaks only of fuch Wafliings as were ob- 
 hvv''d by the jews before Meats. • And be fure, theLaw 
 of God never debarr'd thofe that were ceren-ionially Un- 
 clean, from their necefTaryF'ood, till they were cleanfed : 
 Which in fome Cafes, was not till fevcn Days. And 
 whatever our Author pretends in his Expofition of this 
 Place, the Writer lait mentioned, wiiom ail learned Men 
 
 have 
 
 f Hor. Heh. t^Talmul ia/l/.j/r.;^. * Void. % Koi.Mi/uLC^^.q. : 
 
Chap. VI. cf Infant-Baptifm. 419 
 
 have in high Ffteem, for his Skill in the oriental Lan- 
 guages, and in the ancient Cuftoms of the Jews, (having 
 applied his Studies chiefly that Way) and who was under 
 no fuch Biafs as our Author, by being engag'd in aCon- 
 troverfy of this Nature, has aflured us,and largely prov'd 
 from the Rahbies^ that the Jews Cuftom in -vvafhing their 
 Hands, was by pouring ot Water, or by Water running 
 out of a Veflel orCiftern, through Cocks, or Pipes, rnade 
 for that Purpofe \ and that the Jews might wafli their 
 Hands both Ways, either by pouring Water on them, or 
 by dipping them -, and for this Reafon the Word here 
 ufed by Mark comprehends both : Fc r though (he ob- 
 ferves) ihtY^J ox^^baptizes (bai^does indeed efpecially agree 
 tolmmerfion, yet that it does not fignify tbaf only, or 
 neceflfarily, plainly appears from that Vv^hich occurs, 
 Luk. II. 38. The Pharifee marvel' d that he had not fir fi 
 wajhed (or as we have obferved, it is in the Original) was 
 not firft baptiz'd5&c. f Where nothing elfe can be meant 
 but the wailiing of his Hands ; v/hichZ.^/y^^ exprcfles by a 
 Word which fignihes his being baptizd. And the fame 
 Word here, in Mark^ can have no other Reference, as is 
 plain from the Context, v/hich mentions the Pharifecs 
 faulting the Difciples of Chrift/t/r eating with nnwafien 
 Hands ♦, which gave Occafion for thi^ Remark of the 
 Evangelift. And it is a Thing not to be conceiv'd, or 
 imagin'd, and fcarce pofiible, that thofe who lived near 
 the Market, who have oftenOccafion to go into it,fhould 
 as often as they return, uncloath, and immerfe themfelvcs 
 in Water before they eat. So that this Notion of Dr. 
 .Cill^ appears in itfelt incredible, as it is difprov'd by good 
 Authority. 
 
 He afks, P. 96. " As forCups,Pots,& brazenVefTels, 
 *^ what other Way of wafhing of them is there, than by 
 •' dipping, or putting them intoWater ?" AnyoldWo- 
 man might have told him, they may as conveniently be 
 wafh'd by pouring Water on them, or into them, and 
 rinfing and rubbing them •, and fome Sorts ot Pots and 
 Vefiels can*c coriVeniendy be wafli'd any otherWay. He 
 
 E e 2 adds 
 
 t Pocock, Ibid, 
 
420 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. VI. 
 
 adds " in this Way (ivz.by dipping) uncleanVelTels were 
 *• to be wadied according to the Law." And he refei^s 
 to Lev. II. 0^2. where we find, that Rules are given for 
 the cleanfmg of whatfoever Veliel or Thing was under a 
 Ceremonial Pollution, by the falling ol the Carcafe of an 
 unclean Animal into it, that any Veffel of l^Vood^ov Rai- 
 ment^ or Skin^ or Sack., was by divine Appointment to be 
 put inro Water ; every Earthen Veffel was to be broken •, 
 hutFeffeis of Brafs^ov of any other LV]ettal,that might en- 
 dure the Fire, were according to that Law, (Num. ^1.2^.) 
 to pafs thro' the Fire •, and to be purified with the Waters 
 of Separation •, which was done by Sprinkling^'Hum. 19.18. 
 So that if the brafen Fejfeis here mentioned by Mark., had 
 a Baptilm according to the. Law •, that could be only by 
 Sprinkling : for other wife they v>^ere not to pafs thro' the 
 Y/aterat all, or to have Water applied to them •, but to 
 go thro' the Fire, and to have the Waters of Separation 
 jprinkled upon them. But this was a Method of clean- 
 fing comnianded by God for Things Ceremonially Un- 
 clean : and what Relation has this to the Baptifms in the 
 Text,which were the fjperftitious Inventions & Traditi- 
 ons of theElders,by theObiervance whereof Chrift cha^g'd 
 the Pharifees,with /^^/^/??^ void^ or rejetlingtbe Command- 
 msntsofGcd., i'. 8,9. Therefore Dr. GV// is Ilrangely be- 
 fide his l>xt, when he adds, that " even Beds, Pillows, 
 " and Bolfters, vv'hen they were unclean in a Ceremonial 
 " Senfe \ ani not as thisAuthor puts it,evcry Fim.e they 
 *' lay or fat upon them, were to be v/afh'd bylmmerfion, 
 " or dipping them into Water." Be it fo ; but can he 
 think that ourSaviour rebukes thePharifees for obferving 
 v,'harGod had comjmanded inCafe of CerenionialUnclean- 
 nefs ? If not, why might not the Cafe which theEvange- 
 lill refers to, be as thisAuthor puts it .^ The facred'Fext 
 fecms plainly to infinuate, that i\\^\x 'Tables., or 6f J/, had 
 thefeVv^ailiings from the Superftition of thejevvs, as often 
 as they had Occafion to ufe them, efpecialiy at Meals : 
 and thefe are termed Baptifens'. And I fee noReafon why 
 thcfe vValhings, tho' pcfiormcd by Sprinkling, being fo 
 
 otyen 
 
Chap. VI. of Infant-Baptifm. • 42,1 
 
 ofcen repeated, might not as truly reprefent their Super- 
 ftition, as dipping them all over in Water. In fine, as 
 I willingly grant, that Ibmeof the Things mentioned in 
 the Texr, might probably be wafn'd by dipping, fo our 
 Adverfaries, to deal candidly, m.ull acknowlege, that as 
 to others, there is no Probability at all that they were fo 
 wafhed. And I readily fubfcribe to Dr. Ltghtfooi\ Opi- 
 nion, which he gives as theRefult of hisObfervations from 
 theRabi^ies : "TheWord therefore Baptifmous^ Wafbuigs^ 
 ffaith he) applied to all there,propcrly and fcridly, is not 
 to be taken of Dipping or Plunging, but in Refpedi: of 
 fome Things of Walhing only, and in Refpe6t of others, 
 of Sprinkling only.* 
 
 K fourth Text relates to the PafTage of the Ifraelites 
 through the Red-Sea, under the Cloud, which is called 
 a Baptifm \ of which the Apoftle difcourfes, i Cor. 10. 
 1,2. / would not that yejh-ould be ignorant ^how that all cur 
 Fathers were under the Cloudy and all paJJ}d thro* the Sea, 
 And were all baptifed unto Mofes in theCloud and in theSea. 
 It is not denied, that there was in this Cafe, a true and 
 proper Ablution with Water from the Cloud, in which 
 they were baptiz'd ; which wa3 therefore a true & proper 
 Baptifm -, tho' alfo a typical one, and holy,cxtraordinary* 
 and miraculous. And divers good Interpreters are of 
 Opinion, that the Cloud which pafs'd from the Front to 
 the Rear of the Ifraelitifh-Hoft, {Exod. 14. ig.) when ic 
 pafled over them, let fall fomeDrops of Water upon them, 
 in a greater or lefs Qiiantity •, and our Author quotes 
 Mr.Gataker, giving his Sentiments to that Purpofe. To 
 which that PaHage of the Pfalmift is underftood to refer, 
 Pfal. 68.7,8,9. O God^ zvhen thou went eft forth before thy 
 People^ when thou didft march thro'' the IFildernefs, Selah. 
 The Earth [hook^ the Heavens alfo dropped at the Frefeme 
 of God. — Thou^ God^didft fend a plentiful Rain, whereby 
 thou didft confirm thine Inheritance when it was weary. 
 Now, if when the People were under the Cloud, in their 
 paiTmg thro', the Sc2i,theHeavens dropped^ and the Clouds 
 
 E e 3 /f?;/ 
 
 * Hor. Hebr. & Talmud, in Lpc. 
 
422 A Bd^ence of the Divine Right Chap. VI. 
 
 fent down a 'plentiful Rain^ then the Baptifm they are faid 
 to receive in the Cloudy and in theSea^muH beunderftood 
 in a proper & literal Senfe : Who then can even imagine, 
 that they received it in any otherWay than bySprinkiing 
 orAffufion ? Could they be dip'dinto theCloud,orplung'd 
 into the Rain ? Yet ourAuthor contends, that it carried 
 *' a much greater Refemblance tolmmerfion." But heie 
 he is forc'd to fet his imaginative Faculty to work ; and 
 he had Need of it -, his Reafon rightly ufed, could never 
 help him to this Conclufion. Let us fee how he goes to 
 work. Ftrft he will confider " the Sea & the Cloud toge- 
 " ther ;" and the Ifraeli(:es,he fays, " had the Waters on 
 each Side of them, and the Cloud over them ; fo that 
 they were as Perjons immers'd in,& covered withWater." 
 They were as Perfons immers'^d % But were they really im- 
 rners'd, as they were really Sprinkled ? The Egyptians 
 we know, Pharaoh and his Hofl, were plunged indeed. 
 Exod. 15. 1 o. — The Sea covered them^they fank as Lead in 
 the mighty Waters. This v/as a proper and literal Plung- 
 ing : But was there any Refemblance in the Baptifm of 
 the Ifraelites to this Plunging .^ So far from this, that in 
 Oppofition to the plunging of the E yptians^ the facred 
 ♦Hiltorian obferves,that theChildren of Ifrael walked upon 
 dry Ground in the midji of the Sea. Exod. 14. iS^ig.Chap. 
 15. 19. So the Ifraelites Baptifm was neither a real 
 Plunging, nor a Refemblance of Plunging. Or^Secondfyy 
 He will confider them apart, and fo they were baptized, 
 he fays, " in the Cloud, which when it palled over 
 them, let dov/n a plentiful Rain upon them;" (it is agreed 
 then, that there was a real Afvufion of Water from the 
 Cloud ; he adds) " whereby they v/ere in fuch a Conditi- 
 '' on, as if they had been dipp'd all over in Water, &c." 
 Bur their being wet, or waihed with Wearer, determines 
 fioihing of the Mode. Our Inquiry is. In what Way 
 were they made vv^ec all over, though as wee as if they 
 had been dipped ? A real Sprinkling, or pouring down 
 Rainfrom thcCloud that covered them,is acknowiedg'd ^ 
 snd becaufe (he fuppofes) they were hereby made thoro'ly 
 
 wet. 
 
Chap. VI. c/ Infant-Baptifm. 423 
 
 wet, and were in fuch a Condition as if they v/ere 
 Dipped i there! ore he would inler, that their Baptifm 
 bare a greater Refemblance of Immerfion, or Plunging 
 into Water. So a fanciful Man may imagine the Anti- 
 podes to walk Topfey-Turvy^v^hh theirHeads downwards ; 
 and may argue tor it with as good an Appearance of 
 Reafon, as Dr. Gill does for the Mode of Baptifm by 
 Plunging, from the Ifraelites being wafhed with Water 
 from the Cloud. Again, he fays, *' they might be faid 
 " to be Baptized in the Sea, when as they pafTing thro* 
 *' it, the Waters {landing up above their Heads, they 
 " feem'd as if they were immers'd." But how does he 
 know, the Waters flood up above their Heads ? Mofes only 
 tells us, the Water i were a Wall unto them on the Right 
 Hand^ and on the Left^ Exod. 14. 22. to defend them a- 
 gainft their Enemies attacking them in the Flank. But 
 fuppofing they were congeard,(as the Exprefilon isExod, 
 15. 8. J on each Side to a great Fleight : Does a Man 
 pafTing between tv/o Mountains of Snow and Ice, feem as 
 as if he were plunged inSnow ? But be this as it v/ill,here 
 is but a feeming Immerfion at bed, but a real Sprinkling 
 or Affufion. He adds yet, " the Defcent of the I/rae- 
 " lites into the Sea, where they feem'd^ as though they 
 " were buried in theWaters of it, and their afcent agairi 
 *' out of it on the Shore, have a very great Agreement 
 " with Baptifm by Immerfion." But that which fpoils 
 all thefe hne Fancies, is, that one Obfervation often re- 
 peated in theHiftory of Mo/es j That theChildren of Ifrael 
 went on dry Ground^ through the midft of the 5^^,Exod. 14. 
 165 22, 29. & 15 19. Nor is it faid, that they defcend- 
 ed into the Sea, or alcended out of .it, but that the Sea 
 was divided into Parts, and the Children of Jfrael walk'd 
 in the raidft of it on dry Land, In which there was not 
 the leafl Refemblance of Baptifm by Immerfion, what- 
 ever there might be in fome Men's Imagination of a Bu- 
 rial and Refurre-flion. 
 
 The Fijth and lafl Text, is that which I cited before, 
 to Ihcw that the f?xred Writers could not uuderftand Im- 
 
 E e 4 Kierfion 
 
424 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. VI. 
 
 merfion or Plunging, as necefifarily included in theSigni- 
 iication of the Words 5^///2;^, and Baptifm^ which is, 
 Jieb. 9. lo. where the inipired Writer reterring to the 
 typical Rites oi Alofes his Law, inilances in divers Wafh- 
 ings : The Words in the Greek ( 'twas obferved ) fignify 
 different Baptifns. I obferve, when our Author has lealt 
 to fay inWay of Argument, he is moft confident and pre- 
 rernptory in his Affertions. So here, to this Inftance he 
 j-eplies, " that the Afnes of anHeifer fprinkling theUn- 
 *' clean" (referring to ;)^. 13. in which the infpir'd Writer 
 inftances in one Kind of the legal Baptifms ) *' were fo 
 *" far from being the principal Fart ot the Jewifh Waih- 
 " ings or Baptilrns,that it was noPart at all : nor is this 
 ^' mentioned by the Apoftle, as any Exemplification of 
 " them,who underilood thefeXhing better." But I An- 
 fwer, If the Apoftle may be allow'd to explain his own 
 Meaning, it feems he underftood thefeThings better than 
 Dr. Gill. That the Reader may judge, let him but ob- 
 ferve the Connedlion ot theApoftle's Difcourfe, in Hcb.g. 
 where he undertakes to explain the typical Difpenfa- 
 tion of theOld-Teftament, fhewing, that the ancient Jew- 
 ifh Sacrifices and Rites, were Figurative and Symbolical ; 
 among which he mentions their various Wafloings^ox Bap- 
 iifms^ and fhews they were all infufEcient, of themfelves, 
 to purify the Souls and Confciences of Men, from the 
 Guilt and Defilement of Sin, or to make thofe that per- 
 formed thofe corporal Services perfe5f^as pertaining to the 
 ConfciencCy f, 9, 10. but were defign'd as Types andPre- 
 Jigurations of the Application of the Blood of Chrill, 
 which hath a real and abundantEfficacy for thatPurpofe. 
 And to fiiew how far the Antitype excelled theXype, 
 he inftitures a Comparifon between thofe legal Sacrifices 
 and Wafiiings, and the Blood of Chrift, as to the Vertue 
 and EfHcacy proper to each, /. 13, 14. All the Ver- 
 tue of the legal Sacrifices and Walhings, he makes to 
 extend no farther than an external Sandification. f, 13. 
 Jfthe Blood of Bulls and of Goats, and ibe AfJiCs of an Hci- 
 J er^ fprinkling the y^^i'/f^/zjanc^ifieth to the puriiying of 
 
 the 
 
Chap. VI. of Infant-Baptifm. 425 
 
 the Flefh : &c. where it is evident, he refers to the 6"^- 
 crifices and IVafJoings he had mentioned but two Verfes 
 before, giving a particular Example of eachKind. Their 
 Gifts and Sacrifices^ f. 9. are referki to, and expref- 
 fcd by the particular Inftance of the Blood of Bulls and of 
 Goats \ their divhs fVafJoings^ or different Sorts of Bap^ 
 tifms^ or Purifications,are as plainly refer'd to in the par- 
 ticular Inftance of oneSort, viz. TheSprinkling the Unclean 
 with the Afbes of an Heifer^ or the Water of Separation, 
 (as it is called, Numb. 19. 13 J in which the Aflies of a 
 red Heifer were mingled. Whence he argues, the fu- 
 per-eminentVertue and Efficacy of the Blood ofChrifi^ to 
 purge the Confcience from dead Works ^ ver. 14. i. e. from 
 the Defilements of Sin, which bring Pollution andDeath 
 on the Soul •, called dead W^orks, inAllufion to the par- 
 ticular Uncieannefs, (for the purging whereof, theAfhes 
 of an Heifer were appointed ) which was contraded by 
 the Touch of a dead Body. Hence it is evident, 
 
 (i.) That the Sprinkling of the Water of Separation 
 was one Kind of the Jewifh Wafhings orPurifications by 
 Water •, and to deny this, is to make the Apofrle's Dif - 
 courfe impcrfecl and incoherent,and to enerva e theForce 
 of hisArgument, which was defigned to prove the Infuffi- 
 ciency of all the legal Sacrifices ^3.nd all the legal PFafhings^ 
 to cleanle the Confcience from the Defilements of Sin, 
 which is done by the Blood of Chriil only, in which all 
 thofe Types had their perfed Accomplifhment, and the 
 typical Defign of each was fully anfwered. And as the 
 Blood of Bulls and of Goats are put by a Synecdoche., as an 
 Exemplication of all their Sacrifices •, fo the fprinklivg 
 of the Unclean with the AfJpes of an Hefer^ in the Water 
 of Purification, is by a like Figure put for all the leo-al 
 Wafhings. If by this Sprinkling,theApoftle meant not 
 an ExempHfication of their divers Wafliings, he had fail- 
 ed in one Part of his Argument -, v/hich was to fhew the 
 Imperfection and Infufficiency of all the legal Purificati- 
 on^ or Baptifin5,eirher to purify or pacify the Confcience, 
 which only the Blood of Chrilt could do, which was pre- 
 figured 
 
426 A "Defence of the Divine Right Chap. VL 
 
 figured by them. If thefe be not underdood by the 
 Sprinkling of the Unclean^ as a Specimen^ the Apoflle does 
 not (hew the fuper-eminentVirtue of theBlood of Chrift 
 above the XtgdMVafhin^j : when at the fameTime, he al- 
 ludes to them in defciibing the Efficagy of Chrift'sBlood 
 in purging the Confclence frora dead Works, So that what 
 is faid of theAntitype,n-!ay ferve to fettle the true Mean- 
 ing of the Type •, and it follows, 
 
 (2.) That this fprinkllng of theUnclean, mentioned by 
 the Apoftle, was one of the moft eminent of the Jewifh 
 Wafhings or Purifications *, as appears from his making 
 Choice of this Inilance, to prove the Preheminence of the 
 Chriftian Purification by the Blood ol Chrift, above all 
 the legal Wafhings. Otherwife, a cavilling Jew might 
 objeft with as much Reafon as Dr. G/7/, that tho' the 
 Sprinkling of theAlhes of an Heifer extended no further 
 than the purifying of the Flejh^ yet they had greaterWafh- 
 ings appointed by the Law of Mofes^ as when they bath- 
 ed themfelves, and dipped their whole Body over Head 
 and Ears in Water,not leaving fo m.uch as the 'Tip of their 
 Utile Finger unwailied j and by thefe^ajew might fay,they 
 were thoroughly cleanfed from Sin, and rendred accepta- 
 ble to God. Now what had the Apoflle to Anfwer, but 
 that he knew better, and had inftanc'd in the principal 
 of their Purifications ^ And he might eaiily have 
 prov'd it. For (i.) TheAfhes of an Heifer in the Water 
 of Separation is called byGod^aPurif cation forSinyNumb. 
 19.9. Which is never iaid of any other of the Wafliings 
 or Bathings of thejews. (2.) The Uncleannefs for which 
 this Sprinkling vv'as appointed, was contracted by fomc 
 of the principal Cauies of Uncleannefs •, as by the Touch 
 of a dead Body, or of a Bone, or of the Grave of a dead 
 Man : Whereas Bathing in Water was requir'd inCafe of 
 leflfer ceremonialPollutions -, even thcPrieils that had the 
 Over-fight of the Ceremony of burning the Heiter, }l\y. 
 He that burned her, :f\ 8. H>z that gathered up theJjhes, 
 ^.10. as alio he that fprinkled theWaterof Purificnrion, 
 }^. 19. 21. were all to bath themfelves in Water, being 
 
 under 
 
Chap. VI. cf Iiifant-Baptifna. 427 
 
 under aSort of typicalUncleannefs •, tho' it is hard tocon- 
 ceive, what Pollution they could contracl:,by doing what 
 God had commanded to be done, in order to the clean- 
 fing of others. (3.) In other legal Pollutions, the puri- 
 fying themfeives with common Water, was fufiicient,buc 
 in this Sprinkling for the purifying of theUnclean, there 
 was requir'd the Solemnity and Ceremony of burning a 
 red Heifer, preparing the Allies, and putting running 
 Water into them : Ail which fpeak it to be the greater 
 Purification. (4..^ The Unclean, for whofe purifying 
 this Preparation was made, were a longer Time in clean- 
 fing, than thofe who bath'd themfeives in Water, who 
 were unclean but "till the Evening,/. 19. He foall be clean 
 at Even : But he that was to be cleanfed by fprinklino- 
 of the Water of Separation, was in hisUncleannefs fevea 
 Days, and not to be thoro'ly purified before the fe^^enth 
 Day, /. 11,12. He that tcucheth the dead body of any Man 
 Jhiill be unclean f even Days ; he jh all purify himfelf with /V 
 on the third Day^ and on thejeventh Day he fhall be clean, 
 P^rom all which it appears, that this was the moft folemn 
 Purification of the Jews : and therefore the fitrcfi: Inffance 
 to be cholen for the Apoftle's Purpofe, which was to fee 
 forth the excelling Virtue and Efficacy of the Blood of 
 Chrift for the purging away Sin, above all the legal 
 Wafhings. And therefore Dr. Gill is greatly miflaken, 
 when he fays, P. 1 14. '" That the principalPurifications 
 *' of the Jews were perform'd by Immerfion.*^ But he 
 can inftance in none greater than this of Sprinkling the 
 Water of Separation : and thatBathing was ufed as a ieiTer 
 Kind of Purification, appears from what I have obferved. 
 He adds, ijbid.) "Even the Purification by theAfnesof 
 " a red Heifer was not perform'd without Bathing the 
 " Perfon all over in Water." For v/hich he cites, M/f/;^. 
 19. 19. And this (he fays) " v/as the clofing& finiihing 
 *' Part of it." But this alfo I conceive to be a plain 
 Miftake ', which will appear if the Reader will turn to 
 thePlace, Numb.i^, 18,19. The Words at large are thefe, 
 Mnd a clean Perfon jloall take Hyjfop and dip it inJVat errand 
 
 ffrinkle 
 
42 8 A Defence ef the hivim Right Chap. VI. 
 
 fprinkle it upon the Tent^ (I'zz.ln which a Man dlech,>?-.i4.) 
 And upon all the Veffels^ and upon all the Perfons that were 
 there^ and upon him that toucheth a Bojie^ or onejlain^ or one 
 dead^ or a Grave. And the clean Per/on fljalljprinkle upon 
 the unclean on the third Day, and on the feventh Day ; and 
 en the feventh Day ^ he fioall purify himfelf& wafh hisCloths^ 
 and bath himfelf in JVater^ and /hall be clean at Even. It is 
 evident, than Diredions are here all along given to the 
 clean Ferfon, who was appointed to fprinkle the unclean ; 
 and who is fuppos'd to have contraded fome Degree of 
 ceremonial Pollution, by being employ'd in that Sprink- 
 ling, which requir'd a Purification by Bathing; in like 
 Manner as he that burned the red Heifer, and thePriefts 
 that fprinkled her Blood, were to bath their Flelli in Wa- 
 ter. And therefore that Claufe, in F>r. 19. On the feventh 
 Day he fhall purify himfelf, and wa/Jo his Cloths, &:c. refers 
 not to the unclean Perfon fprinkled upon, but to him that 
 perfoi-m'd the Sprinkling, (i.) I ^ay,it refers not to the 
 unclean Perfon, to whom no fuch Rite was prefcrib'd for 
 his Cleanfing, as that of Bathing,but only Sprinkling on 
 the third and on the feventh Day •, nor is. the Blame of 
 his not being purifyed imputed to any Want of Bathing, 
 but to the Want of Sprinkling. Ver. 13. Becaufe the Wa- 
 ter of Separation was not Jprinkled upon him. Again, the 
 fame Thing is repeated, Ver. 20. But the Man that fJo all 
 he unclean, andfl.all not purify himfelf, that Soul fhall be cut 
 off from among the Congregation. — T^he Water of Separation 
 hath not been fprinkled upon him, he is unclean. Vv'hich in- 
 timates,that the whole of his Purification was to be per- 
 form'd by fprinkling the Water of Separation : No other 
 Rite being prefoibed, and the Negled of no other Rite 
 blamed. And (z.jThat it is to be underftood of the clean 
 Perfon that performed the Sprinkling, is evident beyond 
 allDoubt,from /. 2 1. And itpoall be a perpetual Statute unto 
 ihem,that be that fpr inkle th theWater cf Separation fhall wafh 
 hisCloihs,<kc. And therefore as to what ourAuthor here fays, 
 P.99. *' Sprinkling the AQiesof theHeifer, & the wafhing 
 '' or bathing tlie Pvifon in Water, which wasbylnmier- 
 
 " fion. 
 
Chap. VI. cf Infant- Baptifm. 429 
 
 *' rion,arc fpoken of as diftinfl & feparateThlngs, Numb. 
 " 19. 19." I grant it, becaufe (as 1 have made to ap- 
 pear) they were diftin6l and fcparate Perfons, who were 
 the Subjeds of each of thefe Modes of Purification. But 
 fuppofing the Unclean, who was fprinkled with theWater 
 \ of Separation, was alfo to ufe Bathing, or Immerfion, as 
 I the finifhing Part of his Cleanfing, fwhich I think can- 
 I not be prov'd j and there is this further to be faid inProof 
 I of the contrary, that the Perfon fprinkled upon was to be 
 I clean on the feventh Day, i'. 12. But he that barh'd his 
 j Flefh, was not clean until the Even, jr. 19. confequently 
 i not 'till the feventh Day was ended and pafTedjand there- 
 j fore could not be clean on the feventh Day •, whence it 
 feems evident,that his being fprinkled on the feventhDay 
 i was the finifhing Part of his cleanfing. J But fuppofing, 
 I fay,that the uncleanPerfon was to make ufe 01 Bathing 
 as well as Sprinkling, yet both thefe are comprehended 
 in the Apoitle's divers Wafliings : or as I have obferv'd, 
 the Words are in the Greek, Diaphorcis Baptifmois^ difi^e- 
 rent Baptifms, ov different Kinds of Baptifms ; which the 
 Words divers IVajhmgs in one Language, do not fully 
 Anfwer,if they be interpreted (as they are fometimesufed) 
 to fignify man)\ or repeated Wafnings. Now thefe diffe- 
 rent Sorts of VVafhings or Baptifms, which the lacred 
 Writers fpeak of, were perform'd by Sprinkling or AfTu- 
 ! fion, and by Dipping or Bathing. The WordD/^^^<?m.f, 
 evidently refers to, and muli be underftood to include 
 I thefe feveralSorts. But if thcWord Baptifms,mean only 
 I Dippings, rho' fuch Dippings & Bathings inWarer,were 
 I oiten repeated and enjoined on feveral Sorts of Perfons, 
 I and wich Refpedl to feveral Sorts of Things,^yet who will 
 I undertake to fhew what different Sorts of Dippings were 
 I us'd .'' ThisSenfe therefore can't beattributed to the lacred 
 \ Writer, without making him guilty of a manifefl Impro- 
 I priety,ia fpeakingofrf'/^c'r^;;/D//)/>/;/^j. And as to thePro- 
 j prietyofthePhrafeofw^^/;;^^j5/>r/;7i://>^(rakingWafhing, 
 I Purifying, and Cleanfing,as fynonimousTermsj if it be 
 j no: recv ncileable to Dr. GV/'s Senfe,yet agrees very well 
 
 with 
 
43 o A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. Vl 
 
 with the Senfe of Scripture, which often fpeaks of puri- 
 fying by Sprinkling. 
 
 *« However, certain it is, faith he, that the wafhing 
 ^ of the Friefts, Levites, Ifraelites,yeJ[els^Scc.'wh\ch were 
 *' enjoin'd by the Ceremonial Law — were done by put- 
 " ting them into Water, and not by pouring or fprink- 
 *' lingWater upon them."P.99. But let us examine this 
 Matter a little more exadlly : That thcPriefts were to be 
 waftied at their firflConfecration,is undoubted. Thou fl^alt 
 waJJo th^m zvith IVaier •, faith God to Mofes^ Exod, 29.4. 
 But whether this was to be done by the Immerfion ot the 
 wholeBody,or by the AfFufion of Water, is not faid. But 
 granting the iormer, yet it is evident, that the ordinary 
 wafiiing of the Prieils, when they went into the Taber- 
 nacle, or approached the Akar to perform theirMiniftra- 
 tions, was not of the whole Body,but only of theirHands 
 and Feet •, and that by pouring on Water. Exod. 30. 19. 
 For Am'cn and his Sons jh all wafh their Hands i^ iheirFeet 
 thereat, (i. e, at theBrazen Laver) not therein. In the pro- 
 ceeding T^i^r. 18.' this Direction is ^wtn^'Thoufbalt make a 
 Lai'er of Brafs^and his Foot alfo of Brnfs to wafh ivithal^Scc. 
 " By this Difcription" (faith Dr. M^illei, in his Comment 
 on the Placed "It may be gathered that theLaver did not 
 " (land flat upon the Ground, but was reared upon his 
 " Foot ; and confequently it bei g, fo reared up, upon 
 <• his Foot or Bafe, the Priefts could not put their Feet 
 " therein to wafli them." But they wallied at thcBrazen 
 Laver by letting out the Water by certain Spouts upon 
 their Hands andFeet, not by dipping them into it. Thus 
 the Manner of their wafhing at the Laver is defcribed by 
 Dr. Lightfoot^ from the Rahhins. * " He laid his right 
 " Hand upon his right Foot,and his left Hand upon his 
 " leltFoot,and iheCock or Spout running upon them, he 
 *' thus flood flooping & wafiied'hisHands and Feet toge- 
 *' ther."AndtheOriginal isftillmoreexprefsforthisSenfe, 
 V.T9. They foall wafh — Mimmennu^ from t hence ^ox cut of it. 
 And what is faid of the molten Sea, in Solomon's Temple, 
 
 which 
 
 * In hisTreatlfe oUheTmph, See his Works. Vol. I, P. 204 V 
 
 
IChap. VI. cf Infant-Baptifm. 431 
 
 which ferved for the fame Uie, 2 Chron. 4. 6. The Sea 
 was for the Priefi to wajlo in \ Junius & Tremellius^ and 
 divers other render, to wa/h them/elves^ ex eo, out of it. 
 And the learned Vatahlus oblerves, * " That the Priefts 
 " did not walh themfeives in the Sea ;, but with Water 
 " which they drew out of theSea by Pipes or Cocks, they 
 ** wadied their Hands and their Feet." Which mult 
 therefore be done by pouring Water upon them. And as 
 for the Levites, their Cleanfing was to be performed 
 chiefly by Sprinkhng, as is apparent, from Numb.8.6,7. 
 •fTake the Leijites from amoug theChtldren of Ifrael^i^ cleanfe 
 them : and thus /halt thou do unto them to cleanfe them ; 
 \fpinkle Water cf Purifying upon them &c. And the other 
 Ifraehtes were puriiied from ceremonial Uncleannefs, in 
 fome Cafes by Bathing, or Immerfion, in others by 
 Sprinkling, as has been fully fliewed of thofe thac 
 were unclean by the Dead. And the fame may be 
 faid of unclean VelTels, fome were to be put into Water, 
 others had nootherApphcaaon of W^ater,thanby Sprink- 
 ling, Numb. 31.23. So that what Dr. Gill here afTerts, 
 we fee, is far from being true, that the wafliing,or clean- 
 fing, enjoined on thefe feveral Perfons & Things by the 
 Ceremonial Law, was done only by putting them into 
 Water. He tells us of aRule the Jews went by in Wafli- 
 ing or Bathing, particularly,that " If any Man dips him- 
 " felf all over, except the Tip of his little Finger, he is 
 " Hill in his Uncleannefs :" Then I hope, our AntipcE- 
 dobaptiils will either leave oft that Piece of Mockery, in 
 pretending a NecefTity of the total Cleanfing of theBody 
 by Plunging, while yet they plunge theirProfelytes with 
 aGarment about them ; and that they will conform more 
 pundually to theRule of thejews in dipping Hark naked, 
 as they did ; who held, "that it was noWailiing for that 
 the Wafhing was Null, or of no Account, |I ; if any 
 *' Part of the Body remain'd cover'd,fo as that the Wa- 
 ter could not come to it." Or eife think it fufHcient 
 
 thac 
 
 * In ?oL Synop.in i Reg. 7. 39. \ Nullam futant Lctionem, ft cor- 
 poris pars ciiqua teSia znaneatf quo r.^ua pervcnirf m^usat, Buxt. 
 ^^ynag. Jud. Cap. II, • 
 
432 A Defence of the Divine Rigfjt Chap. VI. 
 
 thatWater be applied to theFacc only, either by Dipping 
 or AfFufion. But our Qj-ieftion is no; here, how thejews 
 bath'd themfelvcs % but whether the Baptifms theApoftie 
 refers to, were not perform'd by SprinklJng,andAffurion, 
 as well as Bathing. 1 he Affirmative 1 have fully mani- 
 feited,andfhewedDr.G///'sExceptions have noFoundation 
 of Truth. Yet he concludes in his ufual Strain, ''From 
 the whole (he fays) it appears that the Words Baptize^ 
 *' and Baptifms^xn all theplaces n^ention'd, do from their 
 *' Signification, make Dipping, or Plunging, the necef- 
 ' fary Mode of adminiftring the Ordinance of Baptifm.'* 
 Whereas I am perfuaded,from the whole,nothing appears 
 more plainly to every intelligent Reader, than that the 
 Faculty of Reafoning fairly and clofely, does not always 
 go along with that o\ talking confidently. There is not 
 fo much as one of the Places meation'd,v/hence he is able 
 to infer, with the leafl Shew of Reafon, that the Words 
 Baptize^ and i^^/zZ/^/^^necefTarily include Dipping in their 
 Signification, but only an Ablution, which in fomeCafe?, 
 I have demondrated muft be perform'd by Sprinkling 
 or Affufion So far is he from the leaft Proof that thofe 
 ^ Words do,from theirSignification makeDippingorPlung- 
 ing the neceilary Mode of adminillring the Ordinance. 
 
 Thirdly^ Our Author pretends to vinJicate thofeTexts 
 of Scripture,that he thinks favours theModc of Baptifm, 
 by Immerfion. Pie calls them Inftances of it ♦, but a- 
 mong all the Texts alledg'd, there is not one fmgle In- 
 llance of Immerfion : Nor any certainir'roofof thatMode 
 ol adminiftring the Ordinance. I am fufficiently weary 
 with arguing upon fuch Niceties, and trifling Matters, 
 as thisDifpute leads One to; which are fcarce worthy of 
 a ferious Debate. All that deferves Notice under this, 
 and the follovvingHead,has been fully anticipated by the 
 Obfervations I laid down in theBeginningol i\\tChapter. 
 Ifliall only make feme curforyRemarks on the remaining 
 Part : And under this Head on the Pallagcs in theNew- 
 Teftamcnr, whence he pretends to argue tor theMode of 
 ImmerfiQii. But indeed all of them fignify nothing to 
 
 his 
 
Chap. VI. of Infant-Baptifm. 43^ 
 
 his Purpofe, unlefs he cou'd make it appear, that any of 
 thefe Texts, do " neceflarily prove that any one Perlori 
 **" was baptized by dipping, either by J^.^?^ the Baptid, 
 *' our bieiled Saviour^ or his ApoilJes." And this mu(l 
 be his Aim in Oppofition to the Writer of the Dialogue, 
 who had denied it. Dial. P. 34 But his Attempt does 
 \ butdifcover his Weaknefs and Impertinence. 
 I The firil Text which he produces, as an Inftance of - 
 iBaptifm by Immerfion, is, Matth. -i^.^. And 'u: ere baptized 
 . of him in Jordan, confejjing their Sins, Here let me ob- 
 I ferve, that it is not true, that the Writer of the Dialogue 
 " makes hisNeighbour to argue on this Place, from thefe 
 " Perfons being baptized, to their being dip'd •," as Dr. 
 G/7/ has reprefented him, P. 100. But he makes his 
 Neighbour to put the Objedion as ftrongly as Dr. Gi/l 
 \ himfelf doth in thefe Words : Dial. ibid. " How could 
 '' they be baptized in Jordan A^ they were not dipped in 
 " thacRiver ?" He had complain'd of the aforefaid Wri- 
 ter, that he made his Neighbour to defend the Caufe of 
 Antipasd©baptifm,"in a very mean and triflingManner." 
 Now I refer it to any intelligent & candid Reader, even 
 of his own Party, to judge, whether in the Argument 
 from this Text, Dr. John GilU has faid anyThing of more 
 Strength or Weight, than this weak Neighbour -, when 
 all he fays, is to the fame EfFed, in a tew more Words : 
 We argue he fays, '' from their being baptized in the 
 " River Jordan ; for why ihould John choofe the River 
 *' Jordan to baptize in, and baptize in that River, if he 
 " did not adminiiler the Ordinance by Immerfion ?" 
 TheObjedion I think, is very mean & trifling, by whom- 
 foever made. John's making Choice of J^r^^«,and other 
 PlacesofWater,fortheConvenienceof Baptizing,hasbeea 
 already accounted for,from the auftere Manner ot his Life, 
 and his confining himfelf in the Performance of hisMini- 
 ftry to the Wildernefs. And the Minifter's Anfwer in 
 the Dialogue^ is fufficient, and ftands good, from the pa- 
 reilei Expreilions of the Blind Man's Wafiiing in ihePool 
 ofSiloamy ]oh. 9. 7* And of theLavers that»S^tei?/7 made 
 
 F f to 
 
434 -^ Defence of the Divine Right C h a p . VI. 
 
 to wafh in iheniy 2 Chron 4. 6 Dr. Gill turns ofFthefe 
 Inftances by faying only, '' they are very impertinent." 
 A fhort Way of anfwering without giving a Reafon. 
 But by Dr. G///'sLeave, I think them very appofite. For 
 as it cannot be argued from the Blind Man's Walhing 
 in the Fool o{ Siloam^ that he immers'd his wholeBody in 
 it ', but only that he wafhed his Eyer, by our Saviour's 
 Diredion, for the Recovery of his Sight \ nor from the 
 Laver's made to waflo in them^ that the Prieiis plung'd 
 their whole Bodies in them -, but only that they wafhed 
 their Hands and their Feet, v/ith the Water therein con- 
 tained, let out upon them as aforeiaid : So neither can 
 it be argued, from their being baptized in theRiver Jor- 
 dan^ that their whole Bodies were plunged under Water ; 
 but only that the Water of that River was applied to 
 their Bodies in a Way proper for Wafhing. And they 
 might truly be faid to be baptized in Jordan^ if but an 
 Handful of Water were taken up from that River, and 
 poured on their Faces, by the Adminiilracor, But when 
 he aHis, " Whoever wafhes his Hands without dipping 
 '' them in the Water he waflies in ?" It is furprizing he 
 fhould be Ignorant. AnotherMan might aflc, Whoever 
 wafhes his Hands, without having Vv'ater poured upon 
 them ? And there would be equal Propriety and Senfc in 
 each Queilion. For what End did Eliilia pour IVater on 
 the Hands of Elijah, but that he might wafh them ? 2 Kin, 
 3. I r. And his being defcribed as the Servant of Elijah 
 from this'Charader,— Elifha the Son ^/"Shaphat, which 
 pcured JVater on the Rands c/ Elijah -, gives us to under- 
 lland, that it v/as a common and known Cuftom forSer- 
 vants to pour Water en their M afters Hands, when they 
 wafhed them. 
 
 Dr. Hammond's Paraphrafe on thefe Words, and our 
 Author's Quofations from other Psedobapt iff Writers, in 
 Favour of Immerfion, P. 104, 105. are ail but an im- 
 pertinent Flouriih. All that can be argued from them^ 
 has been granted already -, that there have been fom.e 
 learned /^^^i?/?^////?iwhohave been of theQpinion,as high- 
 ly 
 
Chap. VL cf Infant-Baptifm, 4?5 
 
 iy probable, that in the feveral PafTages refer'd to, Bap- 
 tifm was perform'd by Immerfion, according to which 
 Opinion, they fram'd their Paraphrafes and Expofitions. 
 And this Probability is the utmoil that can be gathered 
 from thofe Texts, but no certain Proof ; but the contra- 
 ry Opinion may be fairly maintained in Confiflenry with 
 faid Texts. The Mode of baptizing being Matter of 
 Fad, can be no otherwife proved, than by Teftimony of 
 thofe who had the certain Knowlege of it. But the fa- 
 cred Writers are entirely filent as to the controverted 
 Mode, whether by Immerfion or Affufion. What they 
 declare of Perfons being baptized in Jordan^ or in Places 
 where there is much Water, or their going down to, or 
 coming up out oi the Water, in fome tew Infbances, has 
 been accounted for,without anyNeceffity of fuppofmg the 
 plunging rheir wholeBodies. A nd thofePidobaptillWriters 
 aforefaid, were far from (he rigid Notion of our Antipae- 
 dobaptifts, that Immerfion or plunging the whole Body, 
 is the only valid Adminillration of the Ordinance, They 
 generally held the Mode, a Circumftance that was left 
 free : And that which Way foever it was perform'd,the 
 Adminiftration was valid, fo long as the Subftance of the 
 Ordinance was duly obferv'd. And no more need be 
 faid on this Argument, from human Authority. 
 
 The fecond Text produc'd is no more to the Purpofe, 
 which is John 3. 23. John was bapizing hi Enon near to 
 Salim, becaufe there was much JVater there. Though our 
 Author fpends three or four Pages to prove hence, that 
 John baptiz'd byDipping, yet he fcarce makes out a Pro- 
 bability of it. And the fame Reply may ferve to all his 
 Arguings from this Text, as to thofe from the former. 
 That the Words in the Original fignify many Waters^ i.e. 
 many Springs or Rivulets, is not denied ; whence it does 
 not follow ; that the Place afforded a fufficient Depth of 
 Water fur plunging Men's Bodies : Though he fays, 
 *' They could eafily fill largePools fufficient for Immei- 
 " fion." Yet there is nothing of this faid in the facte d 
 Hiftory. Nor is it denied that the Place might be chofe^i 
 
 F f 2 for 
 
43^ ^ Befence of the Divine Right Chap. VL 
 
 for other Ends, as for the Supply of the Multitudes that 
 came to Jobn^s Baptifm, with Drink for themfelves, and 
 their Horfes, and Camels, as well as for theConveniency 
 of baptizing them. But letting afide thefeConfiderations, 
 and granting what cannot be prov'd : let the Words fig- 
 nify much Water, implying a large Quantity,or deepWa- 
 ters, as well as many Steams •, let the Place be chofen 
 for Baptifm only : yet nothing can be concluded hence, 
 but that John baptiz'd with Water •, which no Man ever 
 denied, not even the Quakers themfelves. But the Mode 
 in which he baptized, there is nothing faid to determine. 
 The Writer of the Dialogue to fhew it improbable, that 
 John fnouid baptize all thofe Multitudes by Dipping, ob- 
 ferves,that had he done fo, " he muft have flood almoft 
 " continually up to his Waift in Water, and could not 
 " have furviv'd the Employment but by Miracle." Dial, 
 P. ^^. And Dr. Gill fuppofes, that he had extraordinary 
 divineSupports. For fays he, P. 103. " Admit the Work 
 " to be hard & laborious, yet as hisDay was, his Strength 
 '^ was, according to the divinePromife." But it does not 
 feem likely that a ftandingOrdinance fhould be appointed 
 in the Church, that fhould at any Time exceed a Man's 
 ordinary Strength to perform. However, to make it look 
 credible, it might be done without a Miracle, he tells us 
 a Story from Fox theMartyrologift, which he relates from 
 Fabian^zn Author of no greatReputation, " T\\2XAuftin^ 
 " Archbilhop o^Canterbujj^hz^pXAx^d tenThoufand in one 
 *' Day, in the River Swa'le ;'* and adds, " Ranulph the 
 " Monk, fays it was on a Day in the middle of Winter." 
 Though this Story carries in it much of the Air of a Po- 
 pifli Legend, yet becaufe there is Dipping in the Cafe,our 
 Author can fwallow it v/ithout Piefitation, and feems 
 highly pleas'd v/ith it, by his repeating it, Pag. no. But 
 v/hat great Service it will do him or his Caufe, let him 
 learn trom Fuller^ who gives this Account of it from 
 Cambden •, thac " Th^ Archbiihop commanded by the 
 '' Voice of Cryers,ihat thePeople fhould enter theRiver 
 " confidently, two by two, and in the Name of the 1 Vi- 
 
 !' nity 
 
Chap. VI. of Infant Baptlfm. 4^7 
 
 *' nity baptize one another byTurns. This indeed," fays 
 Fuller^ " was the mod compendious Way,otherwire Jo- 
 *' jhua^s Day, wherein the Sun Hood ilill, had been too 
 *' fhort for one Man's perfonal Performance of fuch an 
 " Employment." And though he does not difcredit the 
 whole Fa6l, yet he queilions the Author of this numerous 
 Baptizing, & afcribes it rather mthBede,t:oPaulmuSyArch' 
 bilhop of Tork, feveralYears after.* And who, as ourAu- 
 thor reports,froni Bede^ "Did nothing elfe for fix & thirty 
 *' Days fucce{rively,than inftrud the Peop]e,and baptize 
 " them in the River Glen," And this he refers to as a 
 diftind Piece of Hiftory from the former. P. 104. And 
 fo, it feems, he has made two Stories out of one. What 
 Credit ibever the Reader will give to this latter Story, it 
 can be but of little Service to his Purpofe. 
 
 The third Text pretended in Favour of Dipping, is 
 Matth. 3. 16. Andjefus when he was baptized ^ went up 
 ftraightway out cf theWater, All that I Ihall remark upon 
 his arguing from thefe Words, is, that however \}^tGreek 
 Prepofition ^^(?,may fometimes admit to be render'd as it is 
 by our Translators in this Text, out of^ (tho' none of the 
 Texts he has cited do necelTarily infer this Senfe, but in 
 every one of them the Particle may as properly be ren- 
 dered from^ as out of) yet it is undeniable, that its com- 
 mon, moft genuine and properSignification is^from ; ac- 
 cording to which the EvangeUft only declares, thatjefus 
 "when he was baptized, went up from the PVater. And fo 
 it is far from being " a clearCafe,that he v/ent down into 
 " it, in Order to his being baptized." Much lefs can it 
 certainly be concluded from the Words (even as they 
 ftand in our Tranflation) that he was baptiz'd in the Way 
 of Immerfion. The fameObfervation may be made upon. 
 
 The fourth Text, and is that which relates to Philips 
 baptizing the Eunuch. y/^7. 8. 3 8,39. They went down both 
 into the Water ^ — and when they were come up out of the 
 Water ^ &c. The Writer of the Dialogue had obferv'd and 
 prov'd, that the Prepofition ^/j,there rendered into^ natu- 
 
 F f 3 , " railjr 
 
 * fuller' Churcji-Hift. of Britain, Cent. 7. §. 19, 2G^ 
 
43 S -^ Defence of the Divine Right Chap. VI. 
 
 *•' rally fignifies unto." And that therefore " there can 
 ^' be no more proved from this Text than that Philip and 
 *' and the Eunuch vi^nt down to the Water and came up 
 *' from it," Dial. P. 35. Dr.G///fays,this is " a very falie 
 Piece of Criticifm." But how does he make this appear ? 
 He gives no other Reafon,but what is founded on a real 
 Miftake in Criticifm. He fays, P. 106, " TheHiftorian 
 **^ relates in vsr, ^6, that before this they were come to 
 a certain Water^'' not " to the Water Side," as he by 
 IVliftake interprets it ; but to the Sight of Water, or to 
 a Place where there was Water in View, and at Hand : 
 for after it is faid, they came to a certain Water^ and while 
 the Chariot was going on, feveral Queftions and Anfwers 
 pafs'd between Fhilip and the Eunuch, ver. 36, o^j. And 
 then it follows, ver. 38. and //i? commanded the Chariot to 
 fiand ftill. And they both lighted from it, and went down 
 unto the Water : Whence it appears,he had noReafon to 
 tax the Criticifm in the Dialogue with Falihood, from any 
 Inconfiftency with the Context,with which it bears a per- 
 fed Harmony. And his Arguing is very precarious, that 
 becaufe the Prepofition fometimes fignifies /«/d?,therefore 
 ^^ it muft have this Significati^j^ here." For he gives no 
 Reafon for it, but what is built on the foremention'd Mif- 
 take. And as he cannot deny that the other Prepofition 
 fignifies as properly /r<?»/, as out of So here is noEvidence 
 at all that the Eunuch was bapti^'d by Dipping,nor that 
 he did fo piuch as flep into the Water. Thilif might bap- 
 tise him, by taking up Water in the hollow of hisHand, 
 and pouring it on his Face. There is nothing in facred 
 Writ to contradid this. However it is a niceCriticifm, 
 and I think it not worthwhile to contend about it •, there 
 is nothing gain'd or loft on either Side, if it be read, as 
 in our Tranfiation, they both went into the IVater^ and 
 went up out of it. But it no more follows hence,that the 
 Eunuch was baptiz'dbyDipping,than that PM^ him felf 
 was baptiz'd \ for the fame Thing is faid of both, they 
 hlh went down into theJVatcr ; and there is no more Evi- 
 dence 
 
Chap. VL ^/ Infant-Baptlfm. 4j^ 
 
 dence that the Eunuch was dipp'd, than there is, that he 
 went further into the Water than Philip. 
 
 Calvin is here again, quoted tor his Opinion of the 
 Antients,their Baptizing by Plunging. P. 107. Andfince 
 our Author fcems to pay a Regard to Calvin's Authority 
 (and why fliould he not do it in one Thing as well as 
 another,) He would do well to confider the Words of 
 Calvin that follow next to thofe he has quoted ; which 
 he has wifely omitted,becaufe they (hew too plainly to be 
 of any Service to his Caufe, what the Sentiments of thofe 
 Pasdobaptifts were v/ho fuppos'd the Antients. to make 
 ufe of Immerfion in Baptizing. His Words are, (after 
 having obferv'd that the common Cuilom is now for the 
 Minifter to ufe Afperfion) * Caterum^ non tarti ejfe novis 
 debet^ &c, " Neverthelefs, fo fmall a Difference of Cere- 
 " mony ought not to be of fo great Account with us, 
 " that we (hould for that Gaufe rend the Church, or dif- 
 " turb it withourContentionsorControverfies." And fur- 
 ther he declares, " that4W^thing of theSubilance cfBaptifm 
 is wanting, while the Symbol of Water is made ufe of, 
 for the Ends which Chrift has appointed ; and the Sub- 
 fiance being retain'd, theChurch from the Beginning en- 
 joy'd aLiberty of making ufe of fomewhat difFerentRiteSo 
 And therefore we ought not to be unreafonably ftifFin 
 Things unnecelTary or uncommanded," of which Nature 
 it is plain he fuppofes the Mode of Baptizing. Now let 
 our Adverfaries agree to this,and theControverfy is at an 
 End. 
 
 The laftText produced and pleaded in Favour of Dip- 
 ping, is Rom. 6. 4. fVe are buried with him byBaptifm into 
 Death. Whence Dr. Gi// thus argues, P. 107. "Bap- 
 '* tifm is called a Burial ; a Burial with Chrift, a Repre- 
 " fentation or Refemblance of his, which it cannot be, 
 " unlefs, it be adminifl -ed by Dipping." In Reply 
 whereto, after all that has been faid, and piTticularly in 
 Reference to the Sufferings and Death of Chrift figura- 
 tively expreffed by Baptifm, it flic^li fufRce to oblerve 
 thefe few Things. Firjl 
 
 * C&hin in A^, 8. ^?. 
 
440 ^ Defence of the Divine Rlghi Chap. YI. 
 
 Firft. Tho' Baptifm hath Reference to the Death of 
 Chrill, in which the New-Covenant is founded ; and tho' 
 it derives all its Virtue from his Death, yet it is a great 
 Miftake to fay, that Baptifm was inftituted to be a Re- 
 femblance, either of his Death or Burial. Baptifm was 
 defign'd for an higher End, as a Sacrament ot the New- 
 Tellament, namely, to reprefent and fignify theApplica- 
 tion of the Benefits of his Death, for Rcmillion ot Sins, 
 and San61:ification & Cieanfing by his Blood and Spirit,to 
 the Perfon baptized -, and alfo to reprefent and confirm 
 his Obligation to a fpiritual Conformity to the Death and 
 RefurreSion of Chrift in the Mortification of Sin, and 
 ."Walking in Newnefs of Life. And that this,and nothing 
 elfe can be the Meaning of the Apoftle, is evident from 
 theContext, when, our being buried withChrift into Beatb^ 
 and being planted together in theLikenefs of hii Deaths f'S* 
 and being crucified withhim^ f. 6. arePhrafes of the fame 
 Signihcancy. Therefore it can be no moregather'd hence, 
 that Baptifm was defign'd to be a Reprefentation or Re- 
 femblance of his Burial, than of his Crucifixion. The 
 fame Thing, viz. a Conformity to the fpiritual Virtue of 
 his Death, being intended by our being buried with him 
 Jnto Death, and being crucified with hirn. But if Baptifm 
 were a miCer fymbolical Reprefentation of the Fad of 
 Chrift's Death and Burial, it mufl be fo to all that attend 
 the Adminiftration of it, who are all equally & indiffer- 
 ently capable of having it reprefented to them. And fo 
 Baptifm would fignify no more Communion in the Bene- 
 fits of Chrift's Death to the Party baptiz'd, than to many 
 others who have no real, or vilibleTitle to them •, and no 
 more Obligation to a Conformity to the Defign of it. 
 Again, if Baptiiin were defign'd to reprefent the Death 
 and Burial of our Lord, what NecefTity is there that it 
 fhould be a Refemblance of it ? The Lord's-Supper was 
 more plainly appointed to reprefent the Death of Chrill, 
 than Baptifm. i Cor. ii. 26. As often as ye eat of this 
 Bread^hc. ye do floew forth the hordes Death. But whac 
 iiefemblance is there of the Death qf Chrift in Eating aiicjl 
 
 Drinking? 
 
Chap. VI. of Infant-Baptifm. 441 
 
 Drinking ? 'Tis an inftituted Reprefentation that is in- 
 tended, and not a natural Relemblance. Bur, 
 
 Secondly^ There is no more aRefemblance of the Burial 
 of Chriil in the Mode ot Iminerfion in Baptifm, than in 
 that of Sprinkhng or Affufion. No more Refemblance of 
 the Burial proper to Chrift's Perfon, or of common Bu- 
 rials, (i.) There is no Refemblance of the Burial proper 
 to Chrift's Perfon in the Mode of Immerfion. His dead 
 Body was intomb'd in a Sepulchral-Monument, after the 
 Manner of rich and honourable Perlbns, as diftinguifh'd 
 from theGraves of the common People, which were made 
 in theEarth ; fuch as are difcrib'd by our Saviour, Luk. 
 1 1 . 44. Graves which appear not^ and the Men that walk 
 over them are not aware of them. For Jofeph a rich Man 
 laid the Body /;; his own new 'Tomb which he had hewn out 
 in the Rock^ Mar. 27. 60. For it feems the Rich and 
 Great afteded to be diftinguifhed from the Vulgar in the 
 Manner of their Burial, having Caves hev/ed out ot a 
 Rock, or Sepulchres hewed out on high : Such a Sepulchre 
 had Shebna prepared, who being but an ill Man, the Pro- 
 phet is fent to rebuke him for his Pride and Vanity, and 
 Security, in thefeWords, Ifai.22.16. J^Vhat haft thou here ? 
 Or whom haft thou here^ that thou haft hewed thee out a Se- 
 pulchre here^as he that heweih him out aSepulchre on high ? 
 The common People were but laid in the Ground with- 
 out any Tomb ^ but the richer and nobler Sort eredled to 
 themfelves Sepulchres on high : and in fuch a Sepulchre 
 was the facred Body of Chrift depofited. And thus di- 
 vers learned Criticks think the Words of the Prophet 
 iliould been rendred, Ifai. 53. 9. He made his Grave 
 with the Wicked^ and with the Rich his high F laces. Now 
 what Refemblance does the plynging Men under Water 
 bare to our Saviour's Burial, whofeBody was not put un- 
 der Ground, nor cover'd with Earth ? but was laid in a 
 Sepulchre hewn out of aRock on high. Nor (2.) is there 
 any more Refemblance of a commonBurial inBaptifm by 
 lmmerfion,than by fprinkling or pouring on Water. For 
 a dead Body is not buried meerly by being put into a 
 
 Pic 
 
44-2 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. VI. 
 
 Pit made in the Ground,but by caftingEarth upon it, to 
 cover it,which is as fitly lignified bySpnnklingorpouring 
 Water on the baptized,as by dipping the wholeBody un- 
 der Water. And a Corpfe even aboveGround,may be pro- 
 perly faid to be buried, by having a fufficient Quantity 
 of Earth call upon it. And therefore the pouring on Wa- 
 ter anfwers, in Point of Significancy, the chief Intent of 
 burying. Nor is the Quantity of Water prefcribed in the 
 Inftitution, nor any where determin'd, but fo much as 
 may ferve for an outward Sign of the fpiritual Benefits 
 confer'd ; and the fmalleft as well as largeftQuantity may 
 fuffice for thatPurpofe^as in the Lord's-Supper,the eating 
 and drinking a fmall Portion of Bread &Wine, fitly figni- 
 fies the fpiritual Feaft on the Sacrifice of Chrift's Death. 
 And fo we fee what our Author fo roundly affirms, P. io8. 
 " There is no otherMode of adminiftring theOrdinance, 
 *' that can reprefent a Burial, but Immerfion," is quite 
 Groundlefs,and to be imputed to the overflow ofhisZeal 
 for Dipping -, and deferves no furtherReply. And hence 
 I think it evident, that all the Texts here cited from 
 the New-Teftament fail of certain Proof, that Dipping 
 was the conilant Mode of Baptizing. Nor is there one 
 fingle Inftance that he is able to produce, whence it may 
 certainly be infer'd that theOrdinance was adminiftred by 
 Im.merfion. All that can be concluded from the above 
 PaflageSjWith any Appearance ot Reafon, is a bareProba- 
 bility ; and this I am willing to grant,and am inclinable 
 to the Opinion ot thofe who think it probable, that both 
 Modes were ufed in Scripture Times. All that 1 contend 
 for, is, that both Modes of Affufion and Immerfion are 
 equally lawful and valid ; againft the unreafonable Pre- 
 tenfions of our Adverfaries,who limit the Validity of the 
 Ordinance toDipping : Who yet can produce no exprefs 
 New-Teftament Proof of it ; which they demand in the 
 Cafe of Infanrs-Baptifm. AUtheProof they pretend,! have 
 fhewed, to be built upon a precarious Bottom. And as 
 ^ it can never be demonftrated from the Scripture- i^ccount 
 of this Mattel-, ^Y!iether the Ordinance of Baptifm was 
 
 certainly 
 
Chap. VI. of Infant-Baptifm. 44^ 
 
 certainly performed only byDippingjOrbyfprinkling'with 
 Water •, lo theProbability hence,is at leail equal on both 
 Sides : And as I have allow'd it on one Side iorDipping, 
 fo I affirm on the otherHand,thcre are many Inftances of 
 Baptifms recorded in the New-Teftament, in which it is 
 neither probable, nor fcarce poflible, that the Mode of 
 Dipping was ufed. All the Inftances, except thofe bap- . 
 tized by John^ and the Eunuch^ were of Perlbns baptize^ 
 in Ci Jes, or private Houfes, or Synagogues, where, as 
 foon as any were converted to the Chriflian Faith, the 
 facred Story tells us, they were immediately thereupon 
 baptized j without the leaft Hint of their Removal from 
 the Spot, or going to any River, Pool, or Bath, for the 
 Sake of being dipp'd. This is the next Thing contefted 
 by our Author. 
 
 Fourthly^ T he Inftances in Scripture, that Hiow it im- 
 probable that this Ordinance was perform'd by Dipping. 
 Thofe mentioned in thtDialogue, are theThreeThoufand 
 baptized at Pentecoft -, the Baptifm o^ Paul, of Cornelius 
 and hisCompany, of the Jailor and his Houfnold. Now 
 whatever may be argued for the Probability of Dipping, 
 in the Cafe of thofe who came to John\ Baptifm ; yet 1 
 think, no Man without the moft flagrant Partiality can 
 deny the equal Probability of Affufion or Sprinkling in 
 the Inftances refer'd to. To touch briefly on Particulars, 
 
 Firft^ As to thofe Three Thoufand that were con- 
 verted on the Day of Pentecoft, by the Apoftle Peter\ 
 Sermon ; and were baptized the fame Day, probably to- 
 wards the Clofe of it : The Improbability of their being 
 dipt,arifes chiefly from twoConfiderations : TheShortnefs 
 of the Time, and the Want of Convenience, on a \\}^dit\\^ 
 for baptizing fuch aMultitude of People. Dr.GV// allows, 
 they were baptized the fameDay ; which I think is clear 
 from the Context. But I perceive he is for fhortning 
 the Apoftle's Sermon, that he might have a longerSpace 
 for performing the Ceremony of Dipping. He tells us, 
 P. 1 10. that " it was but the thirdHour,or nine o'Clock 
 *^ in the Morning^when Putr began his Sermon \ wliich 
 
 *' dees 
 
444 ^ Defence of the Divine Right Chap. VI. 
 
 *' does not feem to be a long One, &c." But his fixing 
 the Beginning of the Apoftle's Sermon at the thirdHour, 
 or nine o'Clock, proceeds, I apprehend, from a Miflake. 
 The Apoftle does indeed fay, A61. 2. 15 nefe are 
 not drunken as ye fuppofe^ fe^if^g i^ is hut the third Hour 
 of the Day. But the third Hour, in the Account 
 of the Jews, comprehended the whole Space of Time, 
 which run out from the third to the fixth Hour 5 or as 
 we fpeak, from nine o'Clock, till Noon : For as they 
 divided theirDay into Twelve Hours,y^^.i 1.9. So again 
 they divided it into four Quarters, (as their Nights were 
 divided into four Watches) afligning threeHours to each 
 Quarter, which Quarter was denominated from theHour 
 whence it began. And fo the fecond Quarter was de- 
 nominated from the third Hour. This was efpecially 
 obferv'd on their folemn Feflivals, when the third, fixth, 
 and ninth Hour, was notified by theSound of aTVumpet: 
 And this Account of the Divifion of their Day,offers the 
 fairefl Method I have met with, of reconciHng the two 
 EvangeUIts, concerning the Time of Chrifl'sCrucifixion : 
 Which is follow'd h^Calvinfirotius^Aretius^ and others.-f 
 Mark faith, Cha-p, 15-25. And it was the third Hour ^ and 
 they crucified him, John faith it was ahout the fixth Hour ^ 
 when P/7^/^ delivered him to be crucified, J^^. 19. 14. 
 that is, that Quarter of the Day which was denominated 
 from the third Hour,was not compleated when they cru- 
 cified him, though it might be near Noon, or the fixth 
 Hour. And fo Peter faying, // is hut the third Hour of 
 the Day^ does not determine the Time of the Beginning 
 of his Sermon, precifely to nine o'Clock : It might be an 
 Hour or two, or longer after that Time, even 'till the 
 fixth Hour. It is probable, that the Difciples came to- 
 gether in one Place, at the Beginning of the thii*dHour; 
 which was the Time of Morning Prayer with the Jews^^ 
 and when the Morning Sacrifice was offered. And fup- 
 pofing the HolyGhoil to have defcended upon them pre- 
 cifely 
 
 t Vid.'Pol. Synop. Crit. in Matt. 27. 45. C^/a'.Harm. Evang. inMar. 
 15.25. Aret. iiijoh. 19. 14. * Vid Pol. Synop. Crit. in Aft.2.25, 
 
Chap. VI. ef Infant-Baptlfnl. 445 
 
 cifely at nine o'Clock, the feveral Events that followed 
 before Peter began his Sermon, muft take up a confide- 
 rable Space of Time, as, the Apofties fpeaking with 
 Tongues to the Company then prcfent, f, 4. And 
 after that, this was noifed Abroad, as a ftrange and an a- 
 mazing Event, j^.5. Which occafion'd the Multitudes of 
 the feveral Nations mentioned in the following Verfes, to 
 gather together to the Apofties, whom they heard for 
 fome Time fpeaking to them, in their own Tongue, the 
 wonderful Works of God, v. 11. At which they expref- 
 fed their Surprize and Aftonifhment. So that one or 
 two Sermons had been preach'd fince the Defcent of the 
 Holy Ghoft, before Peter ftood up and delivered thatDif- 
 courfe,theSubftance of which is recorded from, f, 14. to 
 f.^6. inclufively. And though this Sermon, as here re- 
 corded, be of no great Length, yet we muft Note^ that 
 the facred Hiftorian pretends not to give us his whole 
 Difcourfe,but exprefly tells us,that with many otherWords 
 he did teftify and exhort them^^c. /.40. Ail whichThings 
 confidered, the Day muft be far fpent,before the Apofties 
 could proceed to their Baptifm. And then let our Au- 
 thor fuppofe, as many as were qualified, to be Admini- 
 ftrators of theOrdinance ; it is hardly poffible fuch a vaft 
 Multitude could be plunged in fo fhort. a Space, as the 
 Remainder of the Day muft be fuppofed to be. He tells 
 us, that " a Perfon being ready, is very near as foon dip- 
 " ped into Water, as Water can be taken and fprinkled 
 *' or poured on hisFace." Thatis,aMan may very nearjas 
 foon ftrip himfeif naked, and go down into a Pool, or 
 Bath, and be plung'd underWater, as have Water fprink- 
 led on his Face. He muft have a very mean Opinion 
 of the Senfe of Mankind, to hope to be believed in this. 
 Or if he means by their being ready^ their ftanding ftark 
 naked, (as the ancient Cuftom was, we are told, when 
 Dipping was ufed,) before fuch a promifcuous Multitude 
 ot Spedators, how can it be reconcil'd to Decency and 
 Modefty ? So that the Shortnefs of the Time for bap- 
 tizing fo many Thoafands, makes out an Argument of 
 
 far 
 
44^ A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. VI. 
 
 far greater Probability of their being baptized by Perfu- 
 fion,than by fo tedious aCeremony,as that oflmmerfion. 
 Efpecially, if we add hereto, the Want of Convenience 
 for dipping fo vail a Number of People. That there 
 were in Jerufalem many Baths, or Conveniencies for Im- 
 merfion, I make no Doubt ; but the Queflion is, How 
 was it poffible, the Apoftles could find fuddenly, 
 proper Conveniencies fufficienc for Plunging fo great a 
 Multitude,fo as to employ all Hands, that may be tho't 
 qualified to adminifter the Ordinance ? Which had been 
 few enough for fuch an Employment, had Sprinkling 
 only been ufed. Oi^r Author pretends to find out Con- 
 veniencies enough for that Purpofe •, the chief he menti- 
 ons 2iVt^The Dipping- Room in the^emple^ The ten Lavers of 
 Brafs^ and the Molten Sea, He is fo weak, as to fuppofe, 
 that the Jewifli Priefts,who had thcCuftody of the Baths 
 in the Temple, and who had been the mortalEnemies of 
 Jefus Chrilt, and his Followers ♦, were become all on a 
 fudden, fo friendly and good natur'd to the Difciples, as 
 to permit them the Ufe of thole Baths, for the baptizing 
 Frofelytes from Judaifm to Chriftianity. But whatever 
 a warm Imagination may fugged, 1 believe moft Men 
 of a cool and unbiafs'd Thought, upon confidering the 
 Fad, in all its Circuraflances, will be apt to conclude it 
 utterly unlikely, that Three Thou-fand People, and per- 
 haps agreaterNumber,Cas I have Ihewed probable, Jfhould 
 be baptized otherwife, than by Sprinkling or Affufion. 
 And then, 
 Secondly. As to PauPs Baptifm ; to (hew the Improba- 
 bility of his being dip'd or plung'd, nothing needs to be 
 added to the plain hiftorical Narrative, given us by the 
 facred Penman ; which reprcfents his Baptifm to be ad- 
 miniftred in the Houfe of Judas, where he lay threeDays 
 blind, without eating or drinking. And when Ananias 
 had fpoken to him,it is faid, He received Sight forthwith^ 
 and arofe, and was baptized, A61. 9. 18. Dv.Gill would 
 make out an Argument for hisMode,from Paul's ariftng 
 to be baptized j and fays, P,H2. ** Had the Ordinance 
 
 *' been 
 
Chap. VI. of lafant-Baptifm. 447 
 
 " been to have been admir.iftred by Sprinkling, or pour- 
 " ing a little Water upon him, he need not have rofc 
 " up from either his Bed, or his Chair." But if he was 
 able to arife, he ought to have done it,in Reverence to the 
 Ordinance. And the Text faith. He arofe" and was bap^ 
 tized'y but that there was "a Bath in 7«^jj'sHoufe,'' or 
 that he went to any "Place without Doors, convenient '* 
 for Dipping, there is not the ieaft Hint ; but is the meer 
 Imagination and Surmife of ourAuthor,without anyRea- 
 fon at all ; but only i: feems to run in his Head, thac 
 where-ever he meets with the Word Baptife^ or an In- 
 ftance of Baptifm, there mud be Plunging in the Cafe. 
 
 thirdly. As to the Baptifm of Cornelius and his Hou- 
 fhold ; The Words of the Apoftle Peter^ Ad. 10. 47. 
 Can anyMan forhidWaterythat thefe foould not he baptized ; 
 in their proper Senfe & Conftrudioo, plainly fuppofe the 
 bringing and pouring of Water in theirBaptifm ; and not 
 their repairing to any Pool or River for that End. Dr. 
 Gill fays, " I'he Senfe is, Can any Man forbid the Ufe of 
 *' his River, or Bath,or whatConveniency he might have, 
 *' for the Baptizing (i. e. Dipping^ of Perfons." But 
 thefe are not the Apoflle's Words, but a flrained Senfe 
 put upon them : Had he faid. Can any Man forbid theUfe 
 of his River or Bath j we had heard of it often enough : 
 'Tis the very Point in Controvcrfy. But hisWords are. 
 Can any Man forbid Water ? Which implies, (i) That if 
 they had butWater,they might be baptized,without fup- 
 pofing the Neceffity of any large Quantity, or Depth of 
 Water for that Purpofe : otherwife, tho'Water were not 
 forbidden, yet they might not be baptized. (2 J The 
 Phrafe oi forbidding IVater^ in order to Baptifm, in ftricl 
 Senfe and Propriety of Speech, imports, the forbidding 
 Water being brought ; otherwife, if thisMeaning be put 
 on the Apoltle's Words, Who can forbid their going to any 
 River or Bath ; it is very harfh and unnatural. He fays 
 further, P.i 13. if the Senfe were not as he gives it, " it 
 " would not have been in thePower of any Man to hin- 
 " dcr their having a littk Water to be fprinkled or pour- 
 
 " ed 
 
448 A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. VL 
 
 " ed on the Face.'' Jnfwer^ Cornelius^ or any one of 
 theCircumcifjon prefent with Peter^xm^t have forbidden 
 them Water for the End ot Baptifnijif they had not evi- 
 dently a divine Right to that Ordinance , concerning 
 which, being 'fo plainly fignified by the Defcent of the 
 Holy Ghoft upon them, he appeals to all prefent,and re- 
 fers it to theirjudgmentjwhether any of them could with 
 Reafon forbid Water to be brought, and applied to them 
 in theOrdinance of Baptifm •, who had received theHoly 
 Ghoft: And this Senfe is proper and intelligible. What 
 the Writer of the Dialogue had faid to expofe theAbfur- 
 dity of the contrary Senfe, that " certainly the Apoftle 
 " did not fpeak of forbidding the Water to run in the 
 " River &c." Dr. Gill fays, " is very impertinent and 
 ridiculous." That is to fay, the Exceptions and Cavils 
 of the Antipsdobaptifts againfl thisText,and their Ways 
 of explaining it, to fuit their Hypothefis (which have no 
 better Senfe) are very impertinent and ridiculous. And 
 herein I fully agree with him. 
 
 The Baptifm of the Jailor and his Houfhold, is the 
 fourth and laft Inftance, which the Relation given by the 
 facred Hiftorian renders exceeding probable, if not cer- 
 tain, was performedonly by Sprinkling,or pouringWater 
 upon them. HisWords are. Ad. 1 6.3 3, And be took them 
 the fame Hour of the Night {viz.'m which he was convert- 
 ed to the Faith of JefusChrifl:, which was about Mid- 
 night, ver. 25,26.) and wafijed their Stripes ^and was bap- 
 tized^ he and all his firaightway. Our Author has no- 
 thing to objed to this, j^but mod extravagant Suppoliti- 
 ons imaginable ; either, that " there was a Pool in the 
 " Prifon j" or "that they went out of the Prifon to the 
 *' River near the City." One may fee here, an Inftance 
 of the pitiful Shifts, a defperate Caufe is forc'd to fly to, 
 when Men are rcfolved to (land it out againft all rational 
 Probability. 'Tis quite unreafdnable and incredible,thac 
 the Jailor, with his whole Family, fhould leave the Pri- 
 fon, and the Prifoners, of whom he had fo ftri6t aCharge, 
 (concerning whom he had but a few Minutes before been 
 
 thrown 
 
Chap. VI. , of Infant- Baptifm. 449 
 
 thrown into an Agony of Fear, lefl any of them had 
 made their Efcape) and go forth out of the City to the 
 River-fide in the dead of the Night, "and return unob- 
 fervedby any before Morning-," when many of the Inha- 
 bitants, were, doubtlcfs, rous'd by the Earthquake that 
 happened. But fuchSuppofitions are found neceffary, to 
 the Defence of the Caufe our Author has undertaken. 
 We have no Reafon to fuppofe any greater Quantity of 
 Water made Ufe of for their Baptifm, than what might 
 be in a Veflel at Hand,out of which thejailor had wafhed 
 their Stripes (^ and no Man furely will think it necefTary 
 that they fhould be plung'd for that Purpofe) for the fa- 
 cred Penman tells us in the fame Breath, He wajhed their 
 Stripes^ and was baptized^ he and all his Jtraightway 
 
 AH that remains, is to take Notice, in a few Words, of 
 his Exceptions to that PafTage in the Dialogue, '^ Since 
 " Sprinkling was the greatell Purification among the 
 " Jews, and our Cleanfing by the Blood of Chrifl, and 
 *' by the Influences of the blefTed Spirit, are frequently 
 " reprefented by Sprinkling, and by Affufion, but never 
 *' by Dipping ; it is a natural and jufh Conclufion, that 
 *' our Mode of adminiftring the Ordinance of Bapiifm 
 " is the mofl proper." Dial. P. 39. Here, Dr. G/7/ denies 
 that Sprinkling was the greateft Purification among the 
 Jews. But his Miltakes in this Matter have been fuf- 
 ficiently detedled, and confuted above. But he adds, P. 
 114. " It is not Fa6l that the Blood of Chrift, and the 
 *' Influences of the Spirit are never reprefented by Dip- 
 j*' ping." His reader muft pity him that he is fo lame in 
 tiis Proofs. "The Bloody Sufferings of Chrifl-," he fays, 
 !•' are called a Baptifm." But what is this to the Pur- 
 Ipofe ? That metaphorical Term is intended to exprcfs 
 )niy the perfonal Sufferings of Chrift,but noApplication 
 )f them, much lefs any Mode of Application. Another 
 Thing he pretends is, " The Blood of Chrifl is rapre- 
 fented as a Fountain opened to wafli in for Sin and for 
 Uncleannefs. Zech, 13. i." But there is nothing men- 
 G g tion'd 
 
4^ A Defence of the Divine Right Chap. VL 
 
 tion'd in that I'ext, either of the Blood of Chrifl^ or of 
 waping in it. The Words are, In that Day there fhall be 
 a Fountain opened— for Sin and forUndeannefs, Which in- 
 tends nothing more than, the Gofpel-Dodrine of God's, 
 free Grace and Mercy Ihall be open'd to Sinners,for par- 
 doning and cleanfing them from their Sins through the 
 Blood of Chrift. However thofe figurative ExprefTions 
 import a Cleanfing, yet there is not the leaft Intimation 
 of the Manner of Cleanfing, m.uch lefs of Dipping,rather 
 than of Sprinkling. Vv^e find in theLaw, runningWater, 
 fuch as illues from a Fountain, was to be m.ade ufe of in 
 Sprinkling the Unclean. And as for the Influences of the 
 Spirit, he fays, P. 115. " The Donation of the Spirit on 
 *' the Day ot Pentecoft, is called a Baptifm," or (as he 
 would have it exprefs'd) " a Dipping." But this is the 
 very Argument that has been improved for his Confuta- 
 tion : And one would think, if any Thing plainly ex- 
 prefs'd in Scripture were fufficient to convince & filence 
 a Wrangler, this might do it. The Meaning of our Sa- 
 viour's Words, 2 1 fhall be baptized with the Holy Ghofi^ 
 is not, ye Ihall be dipp'^d into the PolyGhoft ; but ye 
 fliall have the Holy Ghoft poured out upon you. The 
 Apoftle Feter^ after he had receiv'd this Baptifm of the 
 Spirit, tells us, it was the Fulfilment of that Predidion in 
 'jod. It jhall come to pafs in the laftBays (faith God) I 'will 
 pour out of my Spirit upon all Fie fh. Ad. 2. 17. "But 
 '' (fays ourAuthor) it is not on thofe allufiveExprelTions, 
 " that we lay the Strefs of theMode of Adminifiring this 
 " Ordinance.". And there is very good Reafon tor ir, 
 becaufe they cannot do it, if they would ; there being no 
 allufiveF-xprelfions in Scripture taken from the Mode of 
 Dipping,whertby the Application of the Bio; d of Chrill, 
 and the Gift of the Holy Gholl is reprefented : though 
 dipping the Body under Water may reprefent the Faft of 
 Chrift's Buria' and Refurredion, yet no fpccial Applica- 
 tion of it on God's Part, but only on ourPart, a fpirituaf 
 Confoimiiy totheDefign of both : which, 'tis granted, is 
 one Thing fignilicd in Baptifm. But when he goes on to 
 
 fay, 
 
Chap. VI. of Infant-Baptifm. 451 
 
 fay, P- 115- " They are only fuch" [allufive Expreffions) 
 " this Author attempts to mention in Favour of Sprink- 
 " hng" — This is certainly anUntruth inFad, and fuch 
 as mud be notorious to every attentive Reader, that 'tis 
 amazing he fliould aflert it. Did not that Author argue 
 from the Words of Inflitution,which did not require Dip- 
 ping, but left theMode tree, and required only baptizing 
 withWater ? And from theScripture-lmport of theWord 
 Baptize ^'s^\\\q\\ he fhewedjin the facredPages is applied to 
 Sprinkling ? Did he not argue from the good Appearance 
 there is of Evidence,that in theApoftles Times theMode 
 of Sprinkling was us'd ? What has Dr. Gill been endea- 
 vouring to confute in this whole Chapter, if that Author 
 had attempted to mention nothing in Favour of Sprink- 
 ]ing,but the Significancy of that Mode ? I fhould gladly 
 admit an Apology for him, rather than leave him under- 
 ^o grofs an Imputation : But I am at a lofs for anyThing 
 that can be faid in his Defence j unlefs it be, that he was 
 confcious to himfelf, that this Argument from the ma- 
 nifeft Allufion of the Thing fignified in Baptifm (as ex- ' 
 prefs'd in Scripture) to the Mode of Baptizing, carried in 
 it Weight and Convidion, above all his other Proofs. 
 But then, it is one Thing to fay,he had brought no other 
 valid Proofs for Sprinkling, and another very different, 
 that he had not attempted to mention any other,which, could 
 not be faid with Truth. 
 
 And now, upon the whole, I may venture with equal 
 AfTurance as our Author, and I hope with more fafety, 
 to leave it with the impartial Reader to judge, Which is 
 the mofi proper andfignijicative Rite ufed in the Adminifira- 
 tion cf this Ordinance of Baptifm^ Immerjion^ or Sprirtkling 
 and Affiifion ? Or rather. Whether they be not each an 
 equally proper, and lawful Mode of Adminiflration, and 
 the one, to all Intents and Purpofes as valid and effedual 
 as the other ? Or whetherDr. Gill has alledg'd any Thing 
 o prove that Dipping is of the EfTcnce of theOrdinance, 
 Dr the only Mode of Adminiflration, by the Iriftitution of 
 fefusChriil? Or whether there be any anfwerableStrength 
 G g 2 in 
 
rjp ff'J^ rS» wi> rj^ «2f^ «4» <^ W ^ ^ fi* ^^ w* W rl^ ejn f$t ! 
 
 Literal Miftakcs, 'tis hop'd, the Reader's Candour will cxcufe ; the 
 more material ones that difturbthe Senfe, he is defired to correal 
 with his Pen : Siich as thefe following. 
 
 ERRATA 
 
 pAGE 23 Line 6,after Confequence^ add,/V, that, p 52 1 12, fj'*?, x yet> 
 p 62 1 6,{ theriyX theirX zj,i us,x it.^ 73 l2 7,after £'a;/Vf«c^,add,o/'^ 
 CommiJ/ton. p 77 1 2 1, f w^, r they, p 89 1 penult r all the Souls, p 96 
 1 22, xPaJfage^ of Infants, p 1 03 18, i not Juit able ^ r moji fui table, p 125 
 1 7, r Stubner. p 1 29 1 34, for 5/^/^, r F.a/^. p 1 34 1 2 f //^^, r /^-^r^-. p 
 140I 'if^i e'ven^xever. p 141 1 ijyrZimifces. p 14.2 1 6, r ConfeJJions. p 
 1 46 1 1 4, r in Germany, p 1 5 1 1 3, iconfirm^ r affirm, p 1 6 1 1 1 1 , r Sake, 
 or Plaijler. p 167 1 2, i thefe, r there, p 205 1 23, r in their, p 21 2 1 32, 
 r Infiitution of Sacrifice : And after FirJilingSySidd of his Flock. p 217 1 5, 
 r implicitly ; & 1 33, r drink ihtfame. p 223 1 i 5, r ^ Covenant, p 226 1 
 -Zyfhim, r Heirs y 1 16, v made evident, p 258 1 34, f Reafon, r Anfnxer. 
 p 278 1 10, dele that before they, p 287 1 'i,2,fCo'venant r Account, p 289 
 J I, xha've. p 319 1 's^i.zfiQX t\i&m,2iddyha<ving fo little to fay in their ctvn 
 Defence. 1 36, r /^a^. p 3 55 1 2,de]e By.\ 3, after meant y put a Comma, 
 p 360 1 8, r which is. p 362 1 23,r thattfr(?.p 370 1 8,f L^w<r, r jejune. 
 p 372 1 7, r mofi frequently, & 1 9, f large r Z/^^. p 380 1 10, for their 
 r /^^. p 382 1 2. dele to before /^«>. p 390 1 33, r that //is. p 398 
 1 8, xfealed. p 400 I 7, i lattery r Zf//^r. p 415 1 35, r baptized _>'^«. 
 p 421 1 23 f ^o/y, r %vholly.'p 429 1 21 i onCyXour. p 432 1 25 xfa<vour. 
 p 436 1 7 r Streams, p 439 1 14 r tanti cKq nobis, p 440 1 15 f --whin, 
 I '^jcbere. 441 1 30 r ftiould Z'^r^c^ been. 
 
 ||, ,|» c|:, ojt- «:|» o|» «|(|j «$! i|» J{* «$.«$. .^ ^ if ^ 
 
 The 
 
The CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 Containing Remarks on Br, Gill's Introdu5fion, 
 
 //£Uncharitablenefs of the His Remarks on the Title-Page of 
 
 TAntipzedobaptifts briefy 
 noted. Page 2. 
 
 Mijiakes in FaB, in Dr. Gill's Ac- 
 count of thcOzC2Slon of his Wri- 
 ting cor reded, 3 
 
 Mr. Dickinfon's Dialogucy confi- 
 dered. 6 
 
 The Method and Form of the Dia- 
 logue, vimlicated. % 
 
 CHAP. 11. 
 
 The Confequences of embracing AntipxdohziptKm hy ftich 
 as have been baptized in Infancy examined, P. 13. 
 
 n' Hefe Confequences reduced to five Dr. Gill's Conceit of Mens being 
 Headset Two of ivhich more ' "' ^ " ^ ^ '" 
 
 largely conjidered. 14 
 
 Firft, The ^/w^rac/wg-Antipsedobap- 
 tifm, a 'virtual renouncing of a 
 true Baptifm ofChriji. ibid.. 
 
 The Age, not efjential to the Vali- 
 dity of the Ordinance. 14 
 
 Infants capable of Chrijiian Bap- 
 tifm. 16 
 
 A Miftake (fuppofed in the Cir- 
 cumjiance of Age) does not nullify 
 the Ordinance. 23 
 
 The fuppofed Error of adminiflring 
 Baptifm in an Age too early, capa- 
 ble of being redtified afteravards 
 at adult Aget nxithout the Repe- 
 tition of it. 24 
 
 Parentsi??]^^/,^ Obligation /« dedi- 
 cate their Children to God. 26 
 
 A Dedication, in FaSi^bcing made of 
 Children to God in Baptifm^ the 
 Renunciation of it unlawful 3 1 
 
 Secondly, This, in Effeil,a making 
 void the Qo\e.ndiiitfealed ijiBap- 
 tifm to Infants. 35 
 
 All nnh^pt\zedPerfons,as to their'vi- 
 fbhSiate fOut of Covenant. 38 
 
 in the Conjenant of Grace from 
 everl ailing uvfriptural, irra- 
 tionaly and contrary to Scrip- 
 ture. 3^ 
 
 Anecejfary DifinSlion betiveen being 
 in Covenant,/;/ RefpeSl of it's fpi- 
 ritual Di/penfation, or EJicacy, 
 and in RefpeSi of its vifibie Ad- 
 miniftration. 46 
 
 Entring into Covenant by Baptifm, 
 to be underfood in the latter Re- 
 fpeSl. 50 
 
 In nxjhat Senfe, the Covenant of 
 Grace may, or may not, be vaca- 
 ted. 55 
 
 The Principles of the Author of the 
 Dialogue, not fa<vourable to 
 Arminianifm. ^7 
 
 Some general Conf derations on the 
 other threeConfequences(!3'r. 60 
 
 Particular Remarks under each 
 
 Head, 
 On the third Confequence. 
 On the fourth. 
 On the fifth. 
 
 63 
 
 ibid. 
 
 CHAP 
 
The CONTENTS. 
 
 Chap. III. 
 ne Antiquity of the Pra^ice of Baptizing Infants^ even 
 from] the Days of the Jpojiles^ maintained egainft Br. 
 Gill's Excepioyis. P. 76 
 
 The 7?//^^Anabaptifm, n.vith the 
 
 c-r'HE Importance of an hiqu'iry 
 
 -^ into the PraStice ofthep'i77iitinje 
 Churchy in Relation to Infant- 
 Eaptifm. ibid. 
 
 The baptiz.ing (?/'Infants, a Practice 
 generally ohtainivg in thcChriftian 
 Churchy from the Days of the 
 Apoftles, pro'ved in dijcujjingfe- 
 <veral Queftions. Asy I. What 
 Evidence is therefor thiiPradice 
 from the Writings of the New- 
 Teftament? 78 
 
 The Objedlion of there being no ex- 
 prefsMention of hf ants bapti%dy 
 in the Nttv-TeJIament, confiderdy 
 and anf^verd at large. 79 
 
 II. I r he t her there be not undoubted 
 E^jidence from the Writings of 
 the ancient Fathers, that Infant- 
 Bapiifm confantly obtain d in the 
 truly primitive Church ? 92 
 
 Tellimonies produced from the an- 
 cient Fathers of ihe iourfrf Cen- 
 turies, clearly e'vincing the general 
 Pradice of Infant- Baptifm. 94 
 
 III. Whether there <i<jas' any confi- 
 derable Debate in the Church a- 
 b out Infant -B apt if myOrO'^'^o(\i\On 
 to ity before the Rife of the Ana- 
 baptilh [A}i7io 1522.) in Ger- 
 n^any ? 123 
 
 tragical Affair o/'Munfler, con- 
 fdered-y and Dr-GiLh^sMi/repre- 
 fentations thereof correded. i 2 3 
 
 All Dr. GWV 5 Allegations in Fa'vour 
 of Antipsedobaptifm, before the 
 Times of theK efo rm ^tion,jhe'wed 
 to be either Mifreprefentations or 
 Impertinences. 134 
 
 IV. Whether the <2«aV»/Waldenfes 
 being in the confant Practice of 
 Adult-Baptifm onlyy he a meer 
 Chima;ra, or groundlefs Fig- 
 
 ment F 
 
 So?ne general Account of /^^Wal- 
 denies. 157 
 
 Jfs being agreahle to the Principles 
 £17:4 Pratiice of the ancient Wal- 
 denfes, to baptizelnfmts,pro'ved 
 by unexceptionable Enjidcrice from 
 their o-wn Books {5" ConfefionSy and 
 other good Authorities. I 5 9 
 
 The f-ui tiffs Attetnpt of Dr. Gill 
 to pro've the contrary y confdered 
 in all his hfances. . 1 64 
 
 The Vanity of our Ad'verfa7-ies in 
 their Boafts of Authorities on 
 their Side. 177 
 
 A confirming Evidence of the Right 
 of Chrifian Infants to Baptifm 
 from the Practice ofthemiinjofnl 
 Church: 178 
 
 HAP. 
 
 IV. 
 
 The Title of Chrifian Infants to Baptifm., founded on their 
 Covenanii-Interefl:, proved and vindicated. P. i 8i 
 
 ThcNecfj/ity of Explaining ts'Clec r- 
 ing theDodrine of theCo\zxi2CC\X., 
 fo far as it relates to the prefc72t 
 Argume/it. ' 183 
 
 ^lle Matter of Right difcufs'd ; 
 
 •*■ andi his Jhenvn to hi: founded in 
 //^Jniereil o/"" Believers Children 
 in the Ccvcnantj undLr the Gof- 
 
 Fiift. 
 
The CONTENTS. 
 
 Flrft, Of God'' s Covenant luith the 
 Mediator. 185 
 
 7 his pro'ved to be ejfentially different 
 from theCo'vena7it of Grace, 186 
 
 Secondly, Of God'' s Covenant nvith 
 Man, confderd in its general 
 Nature. 1 96 
 
 The Covenant of Grace in Chriji 
 njcith Believers^ explained and 
 difingiiijhedy under f even Heads. 
 l.Shenving what the Covenant of 
 Grace is in general. 200 
 
 II. T^hat it is Conditional. 204 
 
 III. That it has been alnvays one 
 and the fame, for Subjiance, un- 
 der various outward Forms of 
 Adminifration. 1\Z 
 
 IV. That the. Covenant made nvith 
 Abraham, in particular y voas the 
 Covenant of Grace ; the farne 
 for Suhfance, vjith that nxhich is 
 made ixsith all the Faithful under 
 the Ncvo-Tefiament. 2 1 8 
 
 V. That the Infant- Children of 
 confederate Parents, are ad?nitted 
 by Gody together nvith their Pa- 
 rents, into his Covenant under 
 the Nenv-Tejiament-Adminijlra' 
 tion. 226 
 
 VI. That the Covenant of Grace is 
 to he confidtredin tnvofeveral Ref- 
 peBsy either in Refped of its vi- 
 iible Adminijiration, or of its in- 
 ternal {ipiv\iu?i\ Application. 2^^ 
 
 VII. That the Evidence of a Cove- 
 ran t-Intereft gives a proper and 
 
 full Right to the initiating Token 
 of the Nenv Covenant. 251 
 
 The Argument, for the Title of 
 Chriji i an Infants to Baptifm, 
 dra^>:n ouffrom thePrifnifcs. 255 
 
 Dr. Gill's Exceptions conftdered^ 
 and refutedy in vindicating the' 
 Affirmative of the follonving J^e- 
 rieSyViz.Yir^y Whether the Cove- 
 nant made w//>^Abraham, nvas a, 
 pure Covenant of Grace ? 261 
 
 Secondly, Whether this Covenant 
 nvas made nvith all the Seed of 
 Abraham according to the Flejhy 
 and nvith all the natural Seed of 
 believing Gentiles ? 273 
 
 The cQ}nmonOh]tt\^\on {fromFa.kWs 
 being pre-requifite to Baptifm) 
 funded on Mar. 16. 16. He that 
 believeth, and is baptized, &c. 
 anfnvered. 289 
 
 Thirdly,^^f//&^rCircumcifion nvas 
 isSeal of theCovenant of Grace to 
 A brah am 's natural Seed ? 291 
 
 Foanhly, Whether Ba.^u{m fucceed- 
 ed to Circumcifon,and became the 
 Seal of the Covenant of Grace, 
 to Believers, and their natural 
 Seed? 301 
 
 The Affirmative ofthefrjl Branch 
 of the ^ery, viz. That Baptifm 
 fuccecds to CircumcifoUy pro-vd 
 and vindicated. ibid. 
 
 TheAffirmative ofthefecondBrancb^ 
 That Baptifm is a Seal of theCo- 
 venant of Grace J proved and vin- 
 dicated. 309 
 
 The Antipaedobaptifts Principles 
 chargdvoith diminilhing thePri- 
 vi leges of the Gofpel-Churchy and 
 making the Evangelical a lefs 
 glonon^Difpetfation nvithRefpeci 
 to Infants, than the legal. 319 
 
 Dr. Gill's pretended Vindication 
 of thim Jhevjn to be very itfujfi- 
 iient, 320 
 
 Cha p. 
 
The CONTENTS. 
 
 C H A p. V. 
 
 ^he fever al Texts in the New-Teilament alierJg'd as con- 
 arming Evidences of the Divine Right of Infant- Bap - 
 i\{m^ Illuftr at ed and Vindicated^ viz, P. 328. 
 
 l.j^CTS 2. 38, 39. Repent and teach all Nations, baptizing 
 be baptized every one of 
 
 you in theName of jefus Chrift, 
 
 &c.For the Promife is unto you, 
 
 and to your Children, and to all 
 
 that are a far©if,even as many as 
 
 theLord ourGodlhallcall. 329 
 II. Matth. 19. 14. Suffer little 
 
 Children, and forbid them not 
 
 to come unto me, forof fuch is 
 
 the Kingdom of Heaven. 337 
 III.Matth. 1 8.6. But whofo fhall 
 
 offend oneof thefe littleOnesthat 
 
 believe in me, &c. 352 
 
 IV. I CoR. 7. 14. For the un- 
 believing Hufband is fandliiied 
 by theWife &c. Elfe were your 
 Children unclean, but now are 
 they holy 357 
 
 V. Matth. 28. 19. Go ye and 
 
 teach all Nations, 
 
 them &c. 373 
 
 VI. Th ivbole Houfholds recorded 
 to have been baptiz,ed^ Act. i6. 
 15, 33, fiW I Cor. 1. 16. 385 
 
 VII. Rom. 11.17,-24. Iffome 
 of the Branches be broken off, 
 and thou being a wild Olive- 
 Tree, wert graffed in among 
 them, &c. 391 
 
 Dr. Gill's 'vatn Attempt to clear 
 the Antip^dobaptifts from the 
 Charge of Partiality, in admit- 
 ti/tgW omen to />6fLord'sS upper, 
 luithout exprefs Neirj-Tejiame?!t 
 Proof, ivhich yet they demand in 
 theCafe of Infants Baptifm. 397 
 
 I'he Conclufion,as to the Subjects of 
 Baptifm. 400 
 
 Chap. VI. 
 Of the Mode of adminiftring Baptifm, P. 402 
 
 Qpme general Ohfewations, for 
 *^ clearing and fettling this Part 
 . of the Control erfy. I. Tho the 
 wafhing with Water he of the 
 EJfence of Baptifm, yet the Mode 
 of this Wafhing fivhet her by pour- 
 ing on, or dipping into the Water 
 is not effential, nor determined in 
 the Ne<w-Tefiume7it. 403 
 
 II. The Greek WcrdUocTT^'ila) is ne- 
 euer ufed in fuch a Senfe in Scrip-, 
 ture, as obliges us to under fiand 
 Dipping to be meant, hut only a 
 Waftling in general. 404 
 
 III. Chriftian Baptifm is ^very fre- 
 quently exprefs'd iu the Neiv- 
 "TefiamentWritings, ly the general 
 Term o/'Waflnng, tMch may he 
 applied to either hhde. 406 
 
 IV. The Analogy to the Thing lig- 
 nified ispreft^'d in both Modes 
 of baptifng. 407 
 
 V. There is no Example, extant in 
 the ^bole Is en.'j-T eft anient, of fo 
 much as one Perfon, of ivhom 
 there is any certainE'vidence that 
 he 'v:asbaptiz!dbyY\\iXi^\'i%. 408 
 
 VI. Were it certain [as it is not) that 
 Dipping ^as. the moft common 
 Mode of baptizing in the Apoftles 
 Times, yet it iviil by no Means 
 follo^,that this only is a lawful 
 
 and valid Mode of Adminift ra- 
 tion. 409 
 Dr. Gill's Arguments l^OhjeHions 
 examined and refuted. Firll,Frc;« 
 the uf of the Word B«''T"i<a; in 
 Claffic Authors, "41^ 
 Secondly, 
 
The CONTENTS. 
 
 Secondly, The Scripturc-Ufe of 
 the Word baptize and Baptifm, 
 conjidered. The Texts, n^jhere it 
 occurs ^ Jhenvn to make rather for 
 the Mode c/'Affufion or Sprink- 
 ling, aj^d <^oindicated. 41 3 
 
 Ziich as /peak, 1 11. Of being bap- 
 tized with the Holy Ghofl, as 
 Act. I. 5. ibid. 
 
 zdly. 0/Chrift'sSufFerings calhda 
 Baptifm, Mar. 10.38. 416 
 
 3dly. Of the Cuftorn of the Ji'ivs, 
 when they come from the Mar- 
 ket, to wafh, or be baptized^ be- 
 fore they z2X,and o/'/'-^^Baptifms 
 of Cups,cv'C. Mar. 7.4. ,\\j 
 
 4thly. Of the liraelites being bap- 
 tized in the Cloud, and in the 
 Sea, I CoR. 10, 2. 421 
 
 5 thly . Of the legal Purifications by 
 divers VValliings, or Baptifms^ 
 WEB, 9. 10. 423 
 
 TMxxdAy, Dr. Qw.yI's Arguments from 
 thofeTexts thatfeem to favour the 
 Mode o/" Dipping an/nveredy and 
 fheinjed to be inconclufiue. 432 
 
 (i) Matth. 3, 6. 
 
 433 
 
 (2) JOH. 3. 23. 
 
 435 
 
 (3) Matth. 3. 16. 
 
 437 
 
 (4) Act. 8. 38.39. 
 
 ibid. 
 
 (5) Rom. 6. 4. 
 
 439 
 
 Fourthly. The Inflames of Baptifm 
 in the Ne^iv-iejiamenty <xvhich 
 render it probable y that the Made 
 o/" Affufion or Sprinkling nx;as in 
 Vfe, 'vindicated. 443 
 
 As, the Baptifm of the threeThou- 
 fand, in Act. 2. 41. ibid, 
 
 O/iaul, Chap 9. 18. 446 
 
 0/ Cornelius and his Houfhold, 
 Chap. 10. 47. 447 
 
 Of the Jailor, atid his Houlhold, 
 Chap. 16. 33. 448 
 
 Sprinkling/Z^w^ to r-prefent mofi 
 aptly and properly the T\nng fig- 
 nified in Biptifm, 'vi'Z.Cleanfing 
 by the Blood of Cbrijiy and the 
 Influences of the bleflei Spirit, oft en 
 exprefs'dhy Sprinkling. 449 
 
 The Conclufion. 451 
 
 ^iis^l8lifl§IS^I§l§?l 
 
 Sold oppoftte the Prifon in Qiieenftreet. 
 
 A Brief Illuftration and Confirmation of 
 the Diviiie Right oi Infant-Baptijm ; 
 In a plain and familiar DIALOGUE, be- 
 tween 2iMintJler ^indoncof his PanJJjioners. 
 
 By the late Reverend Mr. Jonathan Dickinson, 
 
 Prefident of the College of NenAj-Jerfy, Sec, 
 

 
 ^" 
 
■• i